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

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to be standing here today. This is my first opportunity to really give my maiden speech in the House, and I am thankful for the opportunity. I am pleased to be part of a government that is taking steps to restore the balance that is so important for positive working relationships between employees and employers. I also want to thank department officials, the hard-working team of public servants, who have supported the quick tabling of this important bill.

The legislation we are discussing today reflects a commitment made several times by the Prime Minister and this government, the commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country.

We believe that both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly in safe, healthy work environments.

Among other things, our labour laws help ensure that there is balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. The government respects unions and understands that they have been a positive force for the workers in Canada through collective bargaining.

Unions have improved the lives of not only their own members but all Canadians. They have negotiated several items that most workers take for granted, such as the five-day work week, and maternity and parental leave.

When the system works, Canadians benefit and great things happen. That is why unions must be on an equal footing in critical negotiations over wages, safety, pensions, and other workplace issues.

Two bills adopted during the last session of Parliament, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, upset that balance. We believe they must be repealed, and we are here today to do just that. We have tabled 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. If passed, this bill will repeal the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. This would be a key first step toward restoring a fair and balanced approach to labour relations, and ultimately build a strong, robust economy, because unfortunately this balance was significantly upset by the political agenda of the previous government.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 have serious ramifications for workers and unions in Canada. Both of these were private members' bills. We do not doubt that the members presenting them intended to improve labour relationships. Unfortunately, the outcomes put unions at a clear disadvantage.

Let me start with Bill C-377. This bill amended the Income Tax Act to require labour organizations and labour trusts, including all unions in provincial and federal jurisdictions, to file detailed financial and other information, including information on non-labour relations activities, with the Canada Revenue Agency. The information contained in these returns would then be made available on CRA's website thereby publicly revealing these organizations' assets, liabilities, income, and expenditures, including the salaries paid to their officers, directors, and other specified employees.

The bill also required labour organizations and labour trusts to provide details on the time spent by certain members of their staff on political lobbying and non-labour relation activities. If organizations do not comply with these measures, they would face possible fines of $1,000 for each day of non-compliance, up to a maximum of $25,000 per year. This information would then be made publicly available on the CRA's website.

If the bill were left in place, employers would have access to the union's financial information, without requiring employers to make the same information available to unions. This would clearly put unions at a disadvantage during the collective bargaining process.

In addition, the financial reporting provisions of Bill C-377 were directed solely at labour organizations and labour trusts, not at other organizations, such as professional organizations that benefit from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act.

This kind of treatment is clearly discriminatory against trade unions. Why would they be subject to the onerous reporting obligations imposed by Bill C-377?

As hon. colleagues may recall, a number of other serious concerns were raised when the bill was brought forward.

The bill creates unnecessary extra red tape for unions. The fact is that there is already legislation in place to ensure that unions are accountable to their members. The Canada Labour Code already requires unions to provide their financial statements to their members on request, and free of charge.

It should be noted that many provinces have similar requirements in their labour statutes.

I would also like to remind the members of the House that Bill C-377 poses a potential breach of individual privacy.

In addition to raising privacy concerns, Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Bill C-377 duplicates the accountability measures put in place by almost every province, which have similar requirements in their labour laws. Section 110 of Canada Labour Code already requires unions, as well as employer organizations, to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge.

The bill also puts unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining by giving employers access to key information about unions, without being required to reciprocate.

Bill C-377 has tilted the playing field in favour of employers. For example, employers would know how much money the union had in its strike fund for a possible work stoppage and how long employees would stay out if it came to a strike. The union's most important negotiating lever is undermined by the bill.

There have also been concerns raised about the constitutionality of Bill C-377. The bill presents a potential constitutional challenge because the objective of the bill could be seen not as taxation but as a regulation of unions, which is, in large part, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

There have been also concerns over the constitutionality of the bill. The provinces of Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island have all stated their opposition to the bill for exactly those reasons.

The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees has launched a constitutional challenge to Bill C-377 before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

The bill is also problematic because it could apply to non-union organizations, such as some of the investment funds and others.

Clearly, some serious legal issues lie within Bill C-377.

Let us not forget the colossal administrative burden the new reporting requirements would have on unions, particularly the smaller ones, and on government itself.

To meet the requirements of Bill C-377, the Canada Revenue Agency would have to develop the necessary IT systems and other administrative systems. This, of course, comes at a hefty price, at least $2 million.

The Minister of National Revenue, knowing that we would be introducing legislation to repeal Bill C-377, has waived its reporting requirements for 2016. This will save labour organizations and trusts the time and money it would have cost to collect and file the information. However, this waiver is only a short-term solution.

Bill C-377 was loudly condemned by many labour organizations across the country. In fact, the president of the Quebec Union of Public Employees, SPGQ, Richard Perron referred to it as a “contemptible attack on our democratic values”.

I believe most employers appreciate that a level playing field in collective bargaining is essential to creating safe and productive workplaces. By the same token, an unbalanced approach such as this one can lead to unnecessary tensions and other problems in the workplace.

In fact, when the standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs held its deliberations on Bill C-377, the Hon. Erna Braun, MLA, who is the minister of labour and immigration of my home province of Manitoba, gave evidence. She expressed what she called serious concerns. She said:

Our view is that this bill is unnecessary and that it infringes on provincial jurisdiction....Under 10 per cent of workers in Canada work in federally regulated workplaces. Otherwise, the provincial governments throughout the country can and do independently set their own legislative priorities in the area of labour.

She went on to say that the provinces had been working with employers and employees for decades, and were already doing a good job of regulating labour relations. Our government agrees with that statement.

Bill C-377 is problematic for many reasons, but it is inconsistent with the constitution. That alone should be reason enough to repeal the legislative changes it made.

This brings me to Bill C-525, which was also a private member's bill. It actually came into force last June. This bill, which modified the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, changed the union certification and de-certification systems. The bill also replaced the existing card check system with a mandatory voting system.

Bill C-525 makes it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents, and makes it easier for a bargaining agent to be de-certified.

When we asked stakeholders what they thought of the new certification rules, many were displeased. Many said that the previous card check system was not only faster and more efficient, but it was also more likely to be free of employer interference. Overall, as many union spokespersons have pointed out, the card check model is faster, more efficient, and more likely to be free of employer interference than the new method.

Furthermore, repealing this bill will also alleviate pressure on the resources of the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board since these boards would need to hold fewer certification votes.

Despite the opposing views on the merits of the new and old systems, both labour and employer representatives were highly critical of how these changes were brought about. Changing our fundamental labour laws with a private member's bill, without conducting consultation through the traditional tripartite process, is not only wrong but potentially very problematic.

As Mr. John Farrell, the executive director of Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, told the parliamentary committee in February 2014:

This critical consultation process is completely bypassed when changes to the labour relations regime are proposed through the mechanism of one-off private members' bills. It provides no meaningful way for pre-legislative consultation to take place in an open and transparent manner, and it seeks changes without the required engagement of practitioners, recognized third-party neutrals, and the resources of government agencies charged with the responsibility to implement, adjudicate, and monitor the industrial relations system in the federal jurisdiction.

In the past, labour reforms of this sort were the subject of lengthy discussions between unions, employers, and the government. It was vital to have everyone at the table. This consultation process is essential to maintaining a fair and workable labour-management balance. It is a process that this government is strongly committed to. Therefore, we are also repealing this bill, because it upsets the balance that is so necessary for successful collective bargaining in this country.

That delicate balance is essential to sound labour relations, and the employer-employee relationship is vital to our economy. Why? Because sound labour relations provide stability and predictability in the labour force. These elements underpin a strong economy.

Unions play a critical role in the employer-employee relationships. Unions advocate for good wages and safe working environments. These are things that we can easily take for granted. Unfortunately, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were designed to “weaken the labour movement, period”. Those words came from Jerry Dias, president of Unifor. He also said that it did not have a stitch of common sense to it.

By repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, our government will restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

I am proud of the work we are doing to help restore this balance to the labour landscape of Canada. To put it simply, good labour relations are good for all of us.

The issue at hand here is very simple. These bills diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement. Bill C-4 will support and strengthen it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party to speak about this important bill, which we should all agree is a bad bill.

The bill we are dealing with today in the House of Commons is a direct attack on the basic principles that all Canadians share. This bill is an attack on democracy, accountability, and transparency.

The first bill that the Conservative government introduced under the former prime minister had to do with transparency. The first bill that this government has introduced is an attack on union transparency.

My question is quite clear. Yesterday the Prime Minister said, in answering a question I asked him, that Bill C-525 is undemocratic. Can the minister explain to this House how it could be undemocratic to have a secret-ballot vote?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is undemocratic because the process used by the previous government did not include consultation. They did not go out into our community and apparently did not even consult with employers. Rather, this was jammed through, in a process not supported by either side, and caused unfairness.

The bill itself has three components. The first purpose, it would seem, is to make unionization more difficult. It is more difficult under the bill to be certified and much easier to become decertified. The idea of the voting system, whether by card check or by voting, was put in as an addition to the real purpose the government apparently had, which was to disrupt and cause unfairness in labour relations.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I can see that some people are getting very passionate about this. I would say that if members want to have their say to please stand up during question period, and they will likely have an opportunity to ask questions. While someone is speaking, it would be nice to be respectful of the person speaking.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I am pleased to participate in today's discussion on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Over 60% of workers in the riding of Jonquière are unionized.

My question is for my colleague. Why is there nothing in the bill about sick leave? That is unfortunate. We are currently negotiating with public servants. Are we going to include sick leave later and negotiate with public servants in good faith?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question of sick leave is related to negotiations with the public service and is not really the issue in this bill. This bill relates to repealing two onerous bills that were basically political instruments meant to make unionization harder and negotiations impossible and to cause disruption to the labour movement. I can assure the member that we are working collectively with the civil service to find a reasonable, open, transparent, and fair process when negotiating with workers.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for introducing this bill in the House of Commons today. We can all agree that over the last number of months, we have had many people in our constituencies raise concerns about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and the fact that they were going to have a tremendous negative impact on unions and unionized workers in the country.

I would like to ask the minister today, as she moves this motion to make those bills redundant, if she thinks this was an attempt to break unions in this country and sever unionized workers.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the motivation for the bills is somewhat speculative but would indicate that the previous government had an agenda that was perhaps pro-business to the point that they would actually would be disruptive. I am pro-business but also pro-labour. A fair and balanced relationship between both sides, when it comes to collective bargaining and many of the advancements in Canada in terms of labour relations, is crucial.

The purpose of the bill was a clear attack on the organized labour movement, one that was not necessary and was not called for. Even the employers found it despicable, unwarranted, and a direct attack on the trade union movement.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the Bloc Québécois's position on this bill. We would like to congratulate the minister for taking such prompt action and doing the right thing.

I believe that this bill should never have been introduced and that her actions will remedy an injustice to unions because the existing bill required accountability only from the unions and not from the major employer organizations. I think that the balance she spoke about is quite warranted. I congratulate her for introducing the bill. She can count on our support.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes the importance of the union movement, historical and present, as it continues to contribute valuable knowledge and insight to us as a government. I am sure that it tried to co-operate with the previous government.

Good relationships with both employers and employees is absolutely critical for Canada's success.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister talked about consultation with unions, but I would like to know if she talked to anyone other than union leadership. That has been a cozy relationship. She met with the Teamsters several times, the American Federation of Labor, and some of the biggest unions in Canada, but has she actually talked to union members? The data we have shows that 86% of union members support the legislation we put forward last year. Did she have consultations with actual Canadian workers before she brought Bill C-4 forward?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I actually spoke to 22,000 people in the riding of Kildonan--St. Paul over the past year and a half. Not only that, I talked to employers, who are represented under FETCO, the executive of unions, and many members of the unions themselves. Consultation was broad.

The real point is that during the election, the Liberal party, our government now, made it very clear that our intention was to repeal these two bills and restore a fair and balanced table for labour and industrial relations in Canada.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing this legislation to the House.

I just have a simple question based on historical fact. Over the number of years I have been in the House, and even before, labour relations has always been done through a tripartite process, and the tripartite process includes labour and employers, who talk together about changes to the labour code. Why is it that this government chose not to do what the Mulroney government did, which was to put together a process like that that talks about the balance that is important for labour and for employers?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the route the previous government took is questionable.

Many of my friends are business owners. I was a business owner myself before I joined the House. Respect for labour relations and organizations that represent workers makes better relationships in that workplace for that business and ultimately for the Canadian economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to greet all the members of the House once again. I have the great honour and pleasure to rise on behalf of my party. Before broaching the more political aspect of this issue, I would like to salute my hon. colleague the minister, who is introducing her first bill. This is an important moment for her.

I really want to thank her for what she is doing, but I hope she will understand that she is wrong on that project.

I have respect for her, because we share the same experience. I have been a member of the National Assembly, which is the provincial legislature in Quebec. She has also been a member of a provincial legislature, in Manitoba. However, the point is that the hon. minister was a member of the provincial legislature under what party? It was the NDP. It is real proof, when we read the bill, that the roots are there, and it is all wrong for the people of Canada.

It is a sad day for some of the fundamental principles that we share in the House of Commons. This bill attacks the principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. Those are fundamental principles of democracy that were intrinsic in our two bills and, unfortunately, are being trampled on by Bill C-4 introduced by the Liberal government.

It is clear that this bill is the Liberal Party of Canada's way of thanking the union bosses for spending millions of dollars, without consulting their members, to fight the Conservative Party before the election campaign, when they were not subject to the restrictions on election expenses. Thus, this is a way of thanking the union leaders, but not Canadians.

Let us also remember that all of this is due to the work of the previous government. Our government introduced two private members' bills, which shows that it was open to letting its caucus participate in the democratic process. I am talking about Bill C-377, which has to do with accountability, and Bill C-525, which has to do with the democratic process and which became law. Bill C-4 directly attacks these two fundamental pillars, and we are going to demonstrate why it is a bad bill.

First, let us talk about the issue of democracy. Bill C-525 allowed for and even required a secret ballot for union certification. If ever the union members wanted to terminate their union certification, that also had to be done by secret ballot.

All members of this House were elected by secret ballot. Throughout our history, thousands of Canadians across the country have been elected and sat in the House because of the principle of the secret ballot. How can members of the House be against secret ballots? There is no better way to give unions even more authority than to give them the support of members through a secret ballot.

Here is what currently happens. Someone knocks on the worker's door, accompanied by three or four friends, and asks the worker if he wants to sign the sheet. The three or four friends may remember the brave man who chose not to sign the sheet. Is it not better to proceed by secret ballot? This calls for a much more extensive democratic process.

Yesterday, during question period, we questioned the Prime Minister about the union bosses who illegally financed the Liberal Party, which was recognized by Elections Canada. The Prime Minister replied that this was a response to our opposition to unions in Bill C-525, which was undemocratic. I have a lot of respect for the office of prime minister, but I still do not understand how a Canadian prime minister elected by secret ballot can find this undemocratic. I am sorry, but this is a fundamental principle that we must respect.

How can the Prime Minister say it is undemocratic when we vote by secret vote, when this guy was elected through a secret vote? How come?

What the minister is saying does not make sense, because she said there were no consultations. Stop right there. We held consultations. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance examined this issue, as did the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

How many parliamentary consultations did the government hold about this bill? None. They have a lot of nerve telling us something is undemocratic when they did not consult. For one thing, that is not true, and for another, they themselves did not do it.

Another disturbing thing about the bill is that the secret ballot principle exists in provincial legislatures in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. I see some folks over there who will probably say that I am a Quebec MP and that Quebec does not have it. They are right. However, in my previous life, when I was a provincial MNA, I introduced a bill about that. My idea never became a reality, unfortunately. We were not in power. I just want people to know that I am seeing things logically.

I also want to point out that when we look at all of this, the motivation behind it is that they want to protect union bosses' benefits. Those same union leaders are elected by secret ballot. Why should union leaders be elected by secret ballot if secret ballots are not allowed for union certification votes? According to the Prime Minister, that is undemocratic. This is illogical.

In fact, people spoke in favour of our bill. For instance, Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say:

As secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy, if the process is good enough to elect our politicians, it should be good enough to form a union.

If I understood correctly what the minister said earlier, she definitely did not consult Canadians. The 22,000 people she mentioned were all directly linked to the union movement. Speaking of the union movement, here is what Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada said on February 11, 2013:

...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.

What, then, is the problem with voting by secret ballot? Why does the Liberal Party have a problem with secret ballots? I look forward to hearing that. This debate has just begun, and dozens of people will be speaking on this. I would like the Liberals to explain to me why they are against secret ballots. It does not make sense, especially since we were elected to the House of Commons by secret ballot.

They also talk about the need for maintaining balance when it comes to labour relations. A union is formed and dissolved in exactly the same way. A secret ballot is the perfect balance. How can we and the NDP be against that? I know that the members across the way are democrats as well. That is why I say it is never too late to do the right thing and that they can fix this.

Fundamentally, a secret ballot makes the process a lot more credible. We have all heard horror stories about three or four bullies who knock on the door at 10 o'clock on a Sunday night and say sign here or else.

If people are able to vote their conscience in a voting booth and mark an “X” next to the yes or the no and then place their ballot in a box, as they do for so many things, such as electing us for example, then the problem is solved. I cannot wait to hear them explain why a secret ballot is undemocratic.

The other point concerns the issue of transparency. Bill C-377 is driven by this fundamental principle: transparency and accountability. All public bodies have rules requiring transparency and accountability. We MPs have them; departments have them; crown corporations have them; municipalities have them; the provincial and federal governments have them; and so do municipalities. Everyone has to be accountable, even charitable organizations. Then why impede the transparency and accountability of a union, which, need I remind members, is the only organization that taxes people without having the power to tax that belongs to the government?

I will explain. The Rand formula requires union members to accept a deduction from their wages in order to pay the union. We are not challenging this principle. Don't get me wrong on that. I do not want to be misquoted. We agree with this principle. We do not have a problem with that. However, the reality is that these people are accountable because the dues are mandatory.

Youri Chassin, of the Montreal Economic Institute, said that unions had a power to tax, which calls for much more transparency. All Canadians are affected by this, not just working Canadians, not just those who belong to unions, and not just those who are unionized.

This affects all Canadians because there is a tax credit for this. What kind of money are we talking about? We are not just talking about three or four dollars. We are talking about $500 million, half a billion dollars. Do my colleagues not think that unions should therefore be accountable to all Canadians? That is precisely the question.

Earlier, the minister said that everything was fine and that they are already accountable. That is not true. This affects all Canadians, and since they are paying $500 million for this tax credit, it makes sense that unions should be accountable to them. That is a fundamental principle. My colleagues agree with this.

I see some members starting to smile. You never know, we might end up convincing them.

The other important thing to remember in all this is that we are not alone. Canada is not an island. This is being done in other places, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and even France. Yes, even socialist France is doing it.

I am not talking about the Americans under George W. Bush. I am talking about socialist France requiring its unions to have transparency rules. The current minister, a former NDP MLA, cannot disagree with that. We shall see.

I spoke briefly about the requirements for charities. We are MPs and we spend our weekends working with charities. I am very proud of the fact that there are dozens of charitable organizations in my riding of Louis—Saint-Laurent that help the most vulnerable members of our society, whether it be the Knights of Columbus, Optimist Clubs, support groups, or La Luciole, which I spoke about here in the House last week to great applause from 335 members, including the Prime Minister. I am very proud of that.

Under the principles of transparency and accountability, these organizations must be held to account. Why flout that principle when it comes to unions? That does not make any sense.

As Air Canada flight attendant Marc Roumy said, the union would be stronger and more legitimate and would receive more support if it was more accountable.

Earlier the minister mentioned the theoretical possibility that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 could face court challenges. Has this been challenged? No, it has not been challenged. She was talking as though it would be the end of the world or things would not end well, but it has not been challenged.

We, however, consulted people, and even a former Supreme Court justice, the Hon. Michel Bastarache, gave evidence. What did he say? He said that this fell under federal jurisdiction because it was a taxation law, that it did not encroach on federal or provincial powers, and that it posed no problems with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The person who said all that was not just anyone; it was a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I do hope that the current government respects our right honourable justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. This former justice said that the bill was fine, that it passed the test.

I also have to wonder what the urgency is in all this. The bill was introduced and it passed. It was implemented for a few months. Where there any challenges? Did anyone take this matter to court? I will answer that myself, and the answer is no.

It is clear that the Liberal Party, with the support and assistance of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, rushed to pass this undemocratic law that is against transparency and accountability solely for partisan reasons and to thank the unions for spending millions of dollars fighting the Conservative Party. That makes no sense in a democracy.

Let us not forget that the biggest losers in all of this are ordinary workers, ordinary union members. The ones who work hard, who have families and who mind their own business and do not want to get involved in union issues and all that. They are the ones hurt by this bill because they will have a harder time getting access to information and there will be no democracy in their system, which we think should include secret ballots.

The government is doing this to thank big union bosses, and it has no respect for ordinary workers.

I am a guy from Quebec. I was a member of the National Assembly, and I can say that the infamous Charbonneau commission showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that unfortunately, unions bent the rules in some highly improper ways.

More transparency and more accountability is always good for democracy, and it is especially good for ordinary workers who pay their union dues.

Let me just say a few words in response to the address by the minister. She said it is quite important to have a real balance on this issue. She said that our government did not have balance on that. That is not true. We share the same balance on that in exactly the same way, to create a union and to dissemble a union in exactly the same way. That is really balanced. Now we are talking about balancing the subject, and we were for that.

The minister is talking about building a strong and robust economy with Bill C-4. We will see. I am not quite sure about this kind of activity, but what is good for the economy of Canada is to support good projects like the pipelines project. Now they should be good for the economy of Canada, not with this bill, but real projects for the private sector that are good for Canada, good for the economy, and good for Canadians.

The minister is talking about obligation and saying that the unions already have an obligation. So what is the deal? They already have an obligation to duplicate it, so what? Paste and copy, it is quite easy. If there is an obligation now, why is she against what we propose, because we share the same principles?

On Bill C-525, she said that it would be more difficult to dissemble a union. If the people, the workers, are happy with their union they will not want to dissemble it, but if they are against their bosses and think they will not be well defended by their leaders, this is an opportunity to do so by secret ballot.

She said that the former government was pro-business. What is the problem? Who creates jobs in this society? Is it the government? No. Is it the municipalities? No. Is it the provincial government? No. Who creates the real jobs? Business. Yes, we are proud to share the same principles.

However, more than that, who works in business? The workers. Men and women work hard. They rise up in the morning, work hard, get their wages, working hard for that, and we thank them for that.

We think of them when we read this bill. We think about the people who get up in the morning, work hard, and see their wages being used to finance unions. They want their money's worth.

We think of them because we think that wealth is created by private businesses, but we also believe that private business exists thanks to the support, assistance, and work of experienced Canadians who get up in the morning and earn their daily bread. We owe them our respect, but the legislation the government is proposing does not respect these workers.

In our opinion, it is clear that this bill cannot stand in its current form. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Foothills:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor: “this House decline to give second reading to 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, because the bill violates a fundamental principle of democracy by abolishing the provision whereby the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority”.

This bill makes no sense. Let us hope that the government drops it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hochelaga on a point of order.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like verification that the person who seconded the motion was in his seat. Those are the rules.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will answer the question that was just asked.

The person who moved the motion was present, but was not in his seat. In the meantime, I will check the Standing Orders before making my final decision. The person was in the chamber. The members heard the motion. I will determine whether the Standing Orders apply only to a vote or also when a motion is moved.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not sitting in my seat when you sat down, but I did move to my seat. When you started to read the motion, I was in my seat.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As I indicated, I will take this under review and will get back to the House.

Before I ask for questions and comments, I do want to remind members that when they are speaking, to try to avoid touching the mic out of respect for the people who are translating. If members could please try to restrain themselves from hitting their desks while they are speaking because it interrupts the ability to translate properly. Keep in mind also that if you are speaking very fast, it also affects the viewers at home who are listening.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech. I know he is new to this chamber, but he is certainly not new to politics. His approach to speaking in the House, obviously he is eloquent, articulate, passionate, and is very much able to put forward an argument no matter how weak the position of his party is. Although it was entertaining too.

The House is about debate, but we want to get to the essence and I know that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent would want the record clarified on one aspect, and then I want to make another comment and ask a question.

He referred to the fact that the legislation has not been challenged and he would want to know that the Alberta Union of Public Employees has launched a challenge to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on the particular legislation, so I know he would want that cleared up for the record.

The comment about banging the desk is because we were pretty animated talking about the big union henchmen and this is something that the Conservative government did in the last Parliament. Conservatives tried to villainize organized labour. Every reference to organized labour was about the big union bosses.

When the member for Red Deer—Lacombe introduced this legislation, he talked about the mountain of grievances against big union bosses. Through testimony we asked the president of the Labour Relations Council, “How many grievances were filed against big union bosses over the last 10 years? The answer was two. There were four against companies, but two against organized labour.

Does he see that as a mountain of grievances? Is that the mountain?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. I also noticed his combative style last time. I salute him and all my colleagues. I would like to offer my sincere apologies to the interpreters, because I know that their work is extremely difficult. When I listen to myself, I notice that I speak somewhat quickly, and I will try to correct that. I have tried to do that, but as the saying goes, a leopard cannot change its spots.

I will be very concerned with that. Sorry for sometimes knocking and that stuff. I did that at the National Assembly, too, and I was told to be quiet.

I would like to thank my colleague for informing me of what is happening in Alberta. I did not know that, and I thank him for setting the record straight. Facts are facts.

However, could the member tell me who illegally gave hundreds of dollars to the Liberal Party in the last election campaign? Who was found guilty of illegal financing? Was it not a union?

We are not against unions. However, as we have always said and as we will continue to repeat, we are first and foremost thinking of the humble union members who work and pay their union dues. We are against the big union bosses who, without consulting their members, spent millions of dollars before the election campaign, circumventing all the responsibilities and the balance prescribed by the Canada Elections Act.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that there are also women and mothers who are heads of families, who are union members as well, not just men providing for their families.

The member mentioned union bosses spending millions of dollars without consulting Canadians. I am not sure that the member has ever been a member of a union, but as a 20-year union member, I can assure him that Canadian social democratic unions all have fair democratic processes in place to vote on the direction of their funds. From a local union hall where we vote on spending to our national forums and councils, all decisions are accountable and transparent to our membership.

Organizers of all unions have the right to engage with workers. The overwhelming majority of organizing takes place when the employees call the union because they are suffering under unfair employers.

The member mentioned horror stories. The only horror stories I hear are those of unfair employers exploiting Canadian workers.

Will the member not agree that this was nothing more than the Conservatives' attempt to help the CFIB and their business allies to put more money in their pockets and remove the rights of Canadian workers?

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

Madam Speaker, before I address the substance of the question, I would like to remind members that I mentioned men and women, so yes, I was also talking about mothers who get up in the morning, who work hard, who are required to pay union dues, and who want to get their money's worth.

I have been a union member. I worked for the TQS Network. It shut down seven years ago. It was very tough on all of us. Let me be clear, our union leader worked for us, not for a political purpose. That is the main difference here.

The main difference is that we strongly support unions when it is time to work for the people, for the workers. That is exactly what my union did seven years ago and I praise them. I welcome this kind of question to be clear. We do support unions when they work for union workers instead of political agendas, as they did for the last year against the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. I appreciate his passion for this.

I was very pleased to have Bill C-525 passed. It is not very often we see a private member's bill passed. It is something I thought was going to be a hallmark of change in this country when it came to establishing democracy and democratic rights.

I, too, have been a member of a union. I have also been part of collective bargaining on the other side, sitting across the table. I know exactly who the union leaders are looking out for in these negotiations. In not all cases is it in the best interests of the workers they claim to represent.

My questions for my hon. friend who gave this speech are based on the information we have on the polling information that was conducted. Is there any clear indication as to whether or not actual union workers support the notion of having a mandatory secret ballot?

Second, could the member edify the House on why he thinks, after nine years of Conservative government, a private member's bill was passed?

Third, why, all of a sudden, is one of the first things the Liberal government does is make a move to remove democracy and accountability in this House with one of its first bills?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question, but first and foremost for the job he has done for democracy in this country with Bill C-525.

Yes, some polls were conducted a few years ago about this issue, in 2013 Leger Marketing in Quebec and also by Nanos in 2011. What was the support for that kind of bill, that kind of democracy? It was 84% and 86%. How many members here have been elected with that score? No one. I could only dream of that. I would have been proud to have had that result. Je ne fais pas pitié. I got 51% and a majority of 19,000 votes.

On the other aspect, it is quite important to recognize that the first bill the Conservative government put forward was the clarity bill, the transparency and accountability bill. Throughout the campaign, the Liberals said they want transparency and all that stuff. What was their first bill? A direct attack on democracy, accountability, and also transparency. Shame on them.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, even though, to some extent, I cannot understand what he is trying to accomplish.

I will ask a simple question. If there are problems with labour and employee relations, could he explain to the House exactly what they are? Before these bills were presented, I did not see any major issues in the relationship between unions and employers in this country, so I wonder what the motivation would be for the previous government to present the bills that it did.

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

Madam Speaker, it is obvious. The purpose of the bills was to strengthen unions' moral authority.

It always pays to have more democracy, more accountability, and more transparency. Making a vote secret improves credibility.

We know what we are talking about. We were all elected by secret ballot.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Terrebonne, Intergovernmental Relations; and the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Canada Post.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, that will be a hard act to follow, but I think I will be able to provide the House with some more content, and perhaps clarification on some facts.

I would like to thank the hard-working Canadians in Saskatoon West who voted me to be their voice in the House of Commons. Today especially, I feel it is important and I acknowledge their support, because it is important to remind me of who I am here to serve and why. It is also important that all of us here remember exactly who is affected, positively or negatively, by the decisions we make each and every day. This is a responsibility I do not take lightly.

Many of the individuals in my riding work part time or contract positions. The majority of them work in the retail and hospitality sector. Quite a few of my constituents work in unionized workplaces. Others have been impacted by the slowdown in the resource sector. Some own businesses and have employees of their own. A great number of my constituents are new Canadians, immigrants or refugees, working two or three casual or part-time jobs, trying to balance a family, a new country, a new language, and an unfamiliar culture. Every one of these workers deserves to be protected.

With this in mind, Bill C-4 is beyond partisan politics. It is about the individuals who brought us here and about making things better for the people we all represent. That is why I support the bill. I support it as a person who cares about the rights and well-being of my constituents and my fellow Canadians.

Bill C-4 is a small step forward toward a return to recognizing and respecting the rights of the hard-working individuals, men and women, who make up our country. It is not hard for me as a member of the NDP caucus to acknowledge the support for Bill C-4. I guess it will not come as a surprise to anyone that our party supports the bill.

However, it should come as a surprise to all Canadians that the government is having to, with no small amount of shame I hope, return to the people of Canada their hard-earned rights, their constitutional rights, their right to privacy, their rights of freedom of association, and freedom of speech, rights that took decades to achieve. As such, today is a day of mixed emotions.

On one hand, we are happy to see critical rights restored to hard-working Canadians. On the other hand, we worry about the erosion of workers' rights that took place under the previous government. Today, we ask the current government to be vigilant in restoring each and every one of the rights stolen from the Canadian people. We also ask that it update parts of the Canada Labour Code that are about 60 years out of date.

A great way to help rectify that problem would be to immediately act on the recommendations of the final report of the 2006 review of the labour code. It is long overdue. Many of these recommendations and much-needed updates would benefit the many hard-working Canadians working two or three part-time jobs, trying to support a family and purchase or maintain a home, a home whose affordability is increasingly out of reach of most middle-class Canadians in Canada, let alone for those individuals working multiple jobs at minimum wage.

It is a simple and perhaps obvious truth that it is easier to destroy things than to build them. For anyone who has wrestled with a blank page, a canvas, a drafting table, or a freshly surveyed drilling site knows, creating something new is hard work. It takes time, persistence, and patience, and is not for the faint of heart. Destruction, on the other hand, is something we have been able to accomplish with ease since we were all very young. At the age of one, a child will happily smash, in a matter of seconds, a birthday cake that took his or her parents an hour and a half to create. Over the past decade, we have witnessed more than our fair share of destruction, a destruction far less playful and humorous than the smashing of the cake.

In a few short years, we have seen the dismantling of the rights for each and every individual across the nation, rights that have taken decades to create, nurture, and grow, rights that protect each one of us, but also, and more important, rights that protect the most vulnerable among us.

The previous government, in a few short years, trampled on and set fire to those rights most dear to individual Canadians, and certainly to those individuals who care about the environment, social services, workers' rights, women's right, the poor and every other marginalized individual and community in this great land; also to those individuals who care about good, honest fiscal management and the economy, and children's education and futures; and especially to those who care about indigenous communities, their languages, cultures and people. These are not and should not be seen as mutually exclusive things. They work together. Each of us is better off by including the other.

Thankfully, today is a new day, and Bill C-4 is a great first step. However, we must do better, be better, and dream much bigger, because we have a lot of ground to make up.

I implore the governing party to be bold, to take the time to recognize respect, and provide rights to individuals who brought them here, because these are individuals who make up our great country. Each of them is a hard-working Canadian.

Today we also know that many Canadians are hurting. Many have lost their jobs and are in danger of, or have already, losing their homes. Many regularly use food banks and emergency shelter that, in some cases, is becoming their everyday shelter. This is unacceptable in a country as great as Canada. We can and must do better.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary, discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on a particular segment, on unions. The bill was pushed through Parliament by the previous government, despite widespread opposition from a wide variety of interests, not just unions. Why? Because the negative effects of the bill would harshly impact each and every Canadian.

Each of these groups and associations represent individuals whose rights they consider important, whether one belongs to a union or not. Some of those individuals and groups were constitutional and privacy experts, for example, the NHL Players Association, provincial governments, Conservative and Liberal senators, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry.

Likewise, along with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, we believe this bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If not repealed, this bill will be defeated by the courts.

The New Democrats opposed the bill at every stage, because the legislation was as unnecessary as it was irresponsible. It corrupted the very idea of fairness and balance in negotiations between parties and undermined the fundamental right of free collective bargaining. It was a partisan assault on the men and women who went to work every day to provide for their families.

Canada needs a strong and healthy trade union movement. Historically speaking, unions in Canada have done much, not only for their members, but for Canadian society as a whole. When unions are weakened, all working people feel it. Why? Because, contrary to the rhetoric of those threatened by workers' associations, namely the wealthy 1% and a few misguided Conservatives, attacks on collective bargaining do not promote economic growth. Attacks like these promote inequality, not a healthy economy.

In 2002, documents based on more than 1,000 studies of the impact of unions on domestic economies, the World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and a quicker response to economic downturns. A quick response to an economic downturn seems like it might be a positive thing right about now.

The previous government claimed at the time that it was acting in the name of transparency, but the Conservatives failed to mention that unions were already required to make their financial information available to their members. The bill is an unnecessary redundancy solving a non-existent problem.

Something we have not heard yet is that the bill would cost taxpayers a great deal of money to achieve absolutely nothing.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that it would cost much more than the $2.4 million allocated by the CRA to do this level of monitoring. In fact, it was estimated that Bill C-377 would cost the Canada Revenue Agency approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database over the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million per year for subsequent years. Many estimates were even much higher than that. I am being conservative.

As such, implementing the requirements in this bill will be ridiculously expensive for what is clearly redundant and unnecessary harassment. Repealing Bill C-377 would save millions of dollars annually, both for government and for unions, money that could be much better spent creating jobs rather than stifling them. In short, this bill should never have seen the light of day, and repealing it is just common sense.

Similarly, Bill C-525 was a private member's bill supported by the previous government. The bill was designed to make it harder for workers to unionize, and easier for unions to be decertified. Once again, the previous government was solving a non-existent problem.

Bill C-525 attacks the fundamental right of association by making certification of new worker associations or unions much more difficult and the decertification of existing unions much easier. The labour law changes were made despite there being zero evidence of a problem with the previous system of union certification.

A union, like any other type of association, such as the Association of Information Technology Professionals or the Canadian Society for Civil Engineers, exists to provide support and a voice for its members. What right does a government have to meddle in the daily management of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, for example? None. Therefore, why should the government meddle in daily management of a worker association or union? On the surface, it just seems silly.

It seems a government should have much more important things to accomplish with its time, its budget, and its efforts. However, the efforts of such destructive meddling are much more nefarious than a bizarrely childish obsessiveness with union busting, and these effects have a negative impact on all Canadians. Whether a person supports unions or not, the fact is unions have been a driving force in ensuring all hard-working Canadians, whether unionized or not, receive a basic level of rights, freedoms, and protections.

The health of Canadian unions is at the heart of the health of Canadian workers' rights for each and every working Canadian. Moreover, as mentioned previously, the organized association of working people is important to Canadians and the economy. Higher wages negotiated by unions improve the lives of everyday Canadians and inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week. Standing in the way of the well-being of hard-working Canadians is bad policy, bad governance, bad fiscal management, and bad for the economy.

As such, the NDP and Canadian unions are pleased that the federal government has tabled legislation to repeal the controversial bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

The CLC president, Hassan Yussuff said:

...these bills were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

Mark Hancock, the national president of CUPE, confirmed, saying:

This is good news for all Canadian workers. These bills were nothing more than political attacks on unions and we are happy that the new government is moving quickly to correct these wrongs...This is a good step in re-establishing a sense of respect for unions, the democratic voice of working people.

Likewise, Paul Meinema, the national president of UFCW, said:

UFCW 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.

The NDP will continue to push the government to restore and enhance collective bargaining rights as well as fair working conditions for all Canadians. The NDP will continue to pressure the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to enact anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation. Likewise, the NDP will push the government to repeal the previous government's dangerous legislation, just to confuse things also called Bill C-4. Larry Rousseau, in a 2013 article published by the The Huffington Post, called the previous Bill C-4 explosive, claiming the bill turned back the clock almost 50 years. A bill this backward, overtly ideological and explosive needs to be repealed, not just reviewed.

What value does a bill limiting a person's right to refuse unsafe work bring to the table? What exactly needs to be reviewed in a bill that does away with independent health and safety officers and that prevents federal public service workers from accessing the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunal over workplace discrimination and complaints? A review legitimizes this offensive legislation. It is time to just repeal it.

Having fought hard against these unnecessary and irresponsible bills, the NDP welcomes the changes tabled by the current government. The rights of working people have been under attack for far too long and the repeal of these bills is a good first step, but there is so much more to do for workers' rights and working conditions for Canadian men and women.

The NDP will push the government to restore good faith bargaining with our public sector workers. We will push the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and ensure that workers have fair and independent health and safety protections. We will push the government to adopt anti-scab and pay equity legislation, because all Canadian workers deserve fairness and respect.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I do want to go back to the question that was asked on the amendment by the member for Hochelaga who happens to be the whip of the second opposition party. I can indicate that on June 8, 1999, Acting Speaker McCLellan was seized with a similar question with respect to the seconder of the motion not being in his seat. At that time the Acting Speaker declared that the member needs only to be in the House. Therefore, the amendment was in order and accepted. Therefore, the motion that has been tabled is in order and is accepted by this Speaker.

Resuming debate.

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

Madam Speaker, at times there are speeches in this place that are passionate but are also bordering on absurd. I heard terms in the member's speech of “destruction”, “dismantling of rights”, but she did not go into the specifics of the content of those bills.

Bill C-525 is a secret ballot. Is that a destructive right? Canadians have enjoyed that since 1874. That is a right.

The second bill, Bill C-377, deals with disclosure. The Access to Information Act was brought to the House in 1983 by Pierre Trudeau. The member's province had the same legislation in 1991. Politicians on all levels expect, and it is on my website, if people pay taxes or anything by compulsion like union dues, they should be able to know easily where it goes. This goes for charities. The member used to run the United Way. I can check what it spent online. These are reasonable measures and it is 2016.

Why is the only section of Canadian society that is resisting disclosure the labour movement?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are some things I would like to clarify; specifically, around the fact that there are many organizations, private organizations, for-profit organizations, which receive government credit, government grants, which do not have the same type of reporting requirements that this bill was requesting of unions. We are going to disagree about this, obviously. That is the reason we say, and rightfully so, it was an attack on a particular group, and it did go in line with all the other attacks on all the other groups, including charities. The previous government worked behind the scenes in order to have audits done on those charities that disagreed with it. That is why I made the comment that we need to look at this in its totality.

The other thing I would like to mention is that although the member likes to talk about a secret vote as being sort of principle of Bill C-525, he needs to know that in that bill one of the secret votes was if a person was not there, somehow it secretly voted for him or her that he or she was against certification of the union. The fact that a person was not there and did not vote, it was a secret to him or her that he or she had voted “no”. It was just absurd.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a very good speech because it talked a lot about labour, organized labour, the importance of organized labour in our society, and the role of organized labour in the balance of rights of workers and, of course, the rights of employers to make a good living and those workers, those blue-collar workers, to make a good living.

I would like to ask a couple of questions of the member because I think it is important to get this on the record.

Why is it that the Conservatives, and especially the member from Quebec, who does not believe that the federal government should enter into provincial jurisdiction, generally speaking, have chosen to use the Income Tax Act to bypass provincial laws and legislation relating to the labour movement? It is their jurisdiction.

I do not, for the life of me, understand why the Conservatives are even messing around in provincial jurisdiction when it is a province's right to deal with the labour movement, the collective agreements, and organized labour in its particular province or territory. I ask that question of the member.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, members can tell from my comments that I think it was a way to go through a back door in order to put labour legislation into place that would be detrimental to unions and detrimental to working people. I think the previous government just hoped that somehow it would happen and no one would challenge it constitutionally.

However, what we know from what we have heard from communities and from what we have heard during committee is that it was not the right way to go, and that provinces have that jurisdiction.

Why go that way? I think it is because there was an anti-worker, anti-union philosophy on value of that previous government.

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

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my new colleague on her speech, which was very calm and provided a lot of information about how important the labour movement is and the work she has done in that area.

I could not help but notice how carefully she explained the reasons for her beliefs. Her speech was certainly less dramatic than the big show put on by the new Conservative recruit, who swooped in and made it look like the Conservatives' word was gospel and there were no problems with labour organizations, when the previous government attacked workers for years. Take, for example, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ tax credit; Aveos, which it hung out to dry; and the Canada Post lockout.

Honestly, it does not take a saintly, miracle-working government to want to remedy this situation.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what I can add to that, except to say that I do want to reflect to this House and to others that I have a deep value of the importance of protecting people's rights and the rights of workers and the rights of workers to join unions, to work with their colleagues to make life better.

I think we need to be reminded, in this House, that many of us are able to enjoy things like maternity leave, weekends, and the ability to share work, because a union went on strike, vulnerable people who had nothing, to say this was important to them.

That is why I am standing up to today to support the bill. It is a good first step. We need to go further, as I mentioned in my comments.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member if she would comment on the historical way that Parliament has, over generations, dealt with labour legislation.

Those of us who have been around the labour movement for many years know that in the federal jurisdiction, here in this place, governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have always had a tripartite working group process that allowed the labour department to sit down with organized labour, all of the different unions and all of the different employers in the federal family, to look at the Canada Labour Code. If changes were necessary because times had changed, they would go through the process of putting a tripartite committee together and then, following the discussions, provide a report to the minister of labour to look at different changes to the Labour Code.

Why is it that the previous government refused to do that and, instead, took the backdoor route of using a private member's bill to get through this process?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my comments, I spoke of the good work that was done in that tripartite arrangement for reviewing the Labour Code and the recommendations put forward by all parties involved in order to look at how we can modernize the Canada Labour Code, which had not been looked at prior to that for over 60 years.

My view is that the previous government did not believe in that type of working together to find common solutions that took the needs of both groups to find common ground. At times, the NDP has supported important bills like this one, to say that we are prepared to move forward together, that we will challenge the new government on things we feel need to go further. That is the kind of negotiation and working together required, where everyone's views are brought to the table to find the best possible solution. Ultimately, we are talking about the lives of many working men and women in Canada, who need us to work on their behalf and with them.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand here in my place to speak to Bill C-4. Before I do that, I just want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I want to start off by talking a little about my background, because I think it is important for the members to know that I am one of those union bosses the members opposite are talking about. I am one of those people who was high up in the union movement in the 1980s, and the 1970s for that matter, before I became a member of Parliament. I must be the one they are targeting who was not accountable and not transparent and had something to hide and that they were trying to fix in the pieces of legislation we are speaking to.

I wanted to come clean right off the bat that I have a particular bias. I am a labour unionist and am very proud of it. This country has a long history with the organized labour movement. It has done well in making those kinds of changes.

Let us talk a little about the history of the labour movement. It is pretty clear that the labour movement has had huge impacts on blue collar workers and workers in Canada. Part of that is obviously better wages, better working hours, and better health and safety, which is one of the main reasons unions started in the first place. Workers were under very severe pressure to work in unsafe conditions in the early part of our history. The labour movement was started because of the lack of protection for the everyday man and woman working in Canada.

I want to share with members the race to the bottom the Conservative Party, and the Reform Party before it, have been bringing to the House for the last 20 years I have been involved. It scares me. I will use the example of the Canada pension plan and pensions in general.

The labour movement had a huge role to play in bringing pensions, good pensions, to men and women all across the country to supplement their retirement incomes, because obviously, we know that the Government of Canada cannot look after all our seniors after retirement. The pension plans, the funding put in by employers and employees, are very important in our economy today.

We not only need to talk about the collective bargaining structure but about the social aspects of what collective bargaining and organized labour can do.

I just want to talk a little about a 2012 study, by the Boston Consulting Group, I have been reading about. Here is what I found out. On average, 14 cents of every dollar of income in Ontario communities comes from pensions. That means that in Ontario, 7% of all income in our towns and cities, or $27 billion, is derived from defined benefit pensions.

Instead of trying to diminish labour, we should in fact be trying to strengthen our relationship with employers and employees so that there are more pensions in the workplace so that pensioners, the people we represent in the House, have a good retirement.

I am proud to represent retired railroaders, mill workers, and miners, all these people in the Kenora—Rainy River district, and now the Kenora riding, that I have been a member of Parliament for for the past 16 years. These people have good pensions. Those workers were represented by organized labour. They had huge benefits because of good collective bargaining.

That does not mean that the employers did not make money. I was a railroader. I represented the railway unions. Those railways made money in the days when I was there negotiating collective bargaining agreements with them.

The fact that the previous government felt that it was in its best interest to try to diminish organized labour makes me wonder what the motive really was. In fact, it does more harm to Canada than it does good. We should be strengthening the opportunity for organized labour to work with the government and with employers, instead of the reverse.

The previous government set a very dangerous precedent. The balance between labour and employers has always been hard to arrive at. We have spent, I would bet, 100 years trying to get the balance right provincially, federally, and even municipally. Then we had a private member's bill foisted on us, without any discussion among the key players—labour, government, and employers—through the tripartite process that has been ongoing at the department of labour federally for as long as I can remember. That is a very dangerous precedent by any government.

Even Brian Mulroney's government would not have done something like that. I was involved in those days in opposition when Brian Mulroney's government wanted to bring some changes to the Canada Labour Code. It used the tripartite process.

The Conservative Party, and I think there are too many Reformers in there still, really needs to start thinking about what exactly its intent was in getting involved in provincial jurisdiction, which has nothing to do with the federal government, and using the Income Tax Act to do so.

That is exactly why the current government is repealing those pieces of legislation. First, this is not our jurisdiction. Second, they are unconstitutional. We all know that, and we know that if we do not do anything, the courts will throw them out, like it did many pieces of legislation the Conservative government brought it.

We are doing the right thing. We are putting in place the balance. The balance is always difficult to achieve. Yes, sometimes workers go on strike. They have to have the ability to do that. They have to have the ability to certify. They have to be able to do it without everyone in the world knowing their strategy and their plan. It is pretty hard to negotiate with both hands tied behind one's back. What the Conservative government proposed to do under that legislation was to have the union tell the employer, on the other side, all its financial resources, who it was speaking to, and what it was proposing to do.

If a union is putting money into social issues or into campaigns, that is its prerogative. I can say this because I was there at the top end of the union: union members know where their money is spent. It is ridiculous for any party to be suggesting to the average Canadian that somehow workers do not know where their dues go. We all know that this is just a fabrication to make it sound like it has to be done.

These two pieces of legislation destabilized that very careful balance that we in Canada, as legislators, tried for many years to make sure stayed in tact. The legislation we are proposing to repeal will be repealed because we want to make sure that the relationship between labour and the government and employers is respected and that collective bargaining will be done in the way it has always been done, between the employer and the unions. They will work it out. That is what the legislation is intended to do for Canadian workers and their employers.

I want to speak a little about the importance of our new government's relationship not just with labour but with the Canadian people. Over the next couple of months in this place, we are going to see the government probably remove a number of pieces of legislation the other side brought in that we think are counterproductive to building a good society. I hope that we on this side of the House never feel that we have to find an excuse for not be doing that. We ran on a platform of not allowing those kinds of things to happen anymore. We are going to have respect for the labour movement. We are going to have respect for Canadians. That is what we are going to do.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to correct the record, and I want to be very clear. I would encourage the member opposite to speak to Jerry Dias, Hassan Yussuff, or numerous other union leaders in this country about how Labour Canada and I, as the minister of labour, conducted ourselves in tripartite relationships.

Bill C-525, a number of changes that were placed in the Canada Labour Code of late, and new legislation put forward to make sure that interns are protected in the workplace were all done under a tripartite relationship that was respected. It was one that I would encourage the member opposite to speak to Mr. Dias or Hassan Yussuff about, because they participated in making sure that it was appropriate.

I think it is extremely important that the Canadian public understand that this side of the House respects all workers. For me, that was exceptionally important, and I do take offence at the member opposite intimating that this was not the case.

What I would like to ask the member opposite, with respect to this, is this: If he believes that nothing was done in a tripartite way, did he actually check that on the record? Has he done that numerous times?

Also, does the member have comments with respect to those issues related to secret ballot voting, like in Bill C-525, which many of the members of my riding have come forward with? They say that it is what they would like, just like the secret ballot when one casts a ballot in Canada's democracy.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting that the member, who was the minister of labour, stands up in this place and defends her time as the minister of labour but at the same time does not tell us why she went through the back door with a piece of legislation in a private member's bill. Why not use the regular process and show a little courage and have a real debate about the Canada Labour Code and the ramifications of the process? If there was a discussion about this process, then there obviously would have been a bill sponsored by the minister of labour, not a private member's bill.

I do not know exactly what the member is talking about, but I will tell members that the previous government had a bad habit of picking enemies and making everyone who did not agree with it an enemy of the state. I think the Conservatives decided that organized labour was an enemy of the state, like scientists, environmentalists, and anyone who disagreed with their platform. In the last election, I think people spoke about their involvement with labour, and they disagreed with everything the Conservatives were doing.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kenora for his good words about the role of unions and on extending defined benefit pension coverage. Another way of extending defined benefit pension coverage would be by expanding the Canada pension plan.

It took three ghosts to scare and convince Ebenezer Scrooge, but just before Christmas, the Minister of Finance met with the provinces, and he was scared away by only two ghosts: Brad Wall and Christy Clark.

I wonder if the member for Kenora could perhaps talk some sense to the Minister of Finance and convince him to proceed with an expansion of the Canadian pension plan.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member that this side of the House agrees and understands that the Canada pension plan needs some serious change and work.

The Minister of Finance, we are quite convinced, is working with his colleagues for one simple reason: to try to make those changes. Thanks to the previous government and its leader, I went door to door for 11 straight months. That is not true. I started about six months before that. Everyone we talked to on the hustings, every pensioner who only had the Canada pension to rely on, said that the previous government let Canadians down by doing nothing with the Canada pension plan.

On this side, we will make sure that we correct that, even if it takes us a little while to do it.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will follow the wonderful example of the hon. member for Kenora and start by giving members a bit about my background and some context.

I first want to mention that before I became an MP, I was privileged to work as a director of a large corporation. I worked for big business and was very proud to do so.

I also come from a family where my father worked for Canada Post for almost 30 years and was part of the union there. The only reason my mother does not live in poverty at the moment is that we very much benefit from his ongoing pension. The reason I mention this is that I believe we should treat all of our partners in the economy in a fair and balanced way, whether big business or unions. This is very much the principle that is behind the bill that I will be speaking to today, Bill C-4.

I am the very proud member of Parliament for Davenport, which is a riding in downtown west Toronto. We have a number of union members there, whether in the construction and labour trades, such as painters, carpenters, or from the public sector or Canada Post. There are many other unions that I have not mentioned. However, the point I want to make is that we have a lot of union members who want a fair and balanced federal labour policy, as do all Canadians. That is what we are trying to do with Bill C-4.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-4, which aims to repeal the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I would also invite all members of the House to support this important bill.

As mentioned in my introduction, in the broadest of strokes, Bill C-4 aims to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. Because this government has promised Canadians that we will do things differently from the start, the words “fairness" and “balance" resonate with me. We believe that how we do things is just as important as what we do. The laws that throw a wrench into positive working relationships between government and unions, between employers and employees, and between different levels of government do not help anyone. Negative and contentious labour relations are destructive. They gnaw away at the foundation of a structure until it can no longer stand. However, it is that structure that supports workers, employers, and our economy as a whole. Therefore, we need that structure to be strong.

My colleague the Minister of Labour has taken members through some of the finer points of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I would like to use my time today to explain the impact these bills have on unions and workers and how they and in turn all Canadians would benefit from the repeal of the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

I will begin by commenting on Bill C-377. Members should consider the fact that this bill forces labour organizations and labour trusts to provide very detailed financial and other information to the Canada Revenue Agency, such as salaries and time spent working on political or lobbying activities.

The bill also requires disclosure of all disbursements greater than $5,000 by unions, including names and addresses of anyone whose goods or services are purchased. There are a lot of other data requirements, which I will not go into. However, the key point is that the bill requires information that no other organization is required to provide, be it a public, private, non-profit, or charitable organization, or even a political party. To some this may not seem entirely unreasonable at first glance. However, if we dig a little deeper we would find that it could have serious and substantial ramifications.

First, it creates an extra level of unnecessary red tape, which could be particularly problematic for smaller organizations with fewer resources at their disposal. The Canada Revenue Agency would share that burden. It would have to develop new and expensive IT systems and other administrative systems to implement the bill. That is an unnecessary cost that would fall to Canadians. It is unnecessary because we already have legislation in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members, as we heard today during the earlier debate. All of this is referred to in the Canada Labour Code.

Furthermore, similar accountability measures have been put in place by almost every province. Bill C-377 would impose a large financial and administrative burden on labour organizations, labour trusts, and government bodies, among others, for information that is not required from other organizations. As though that were not enough, if these organizations do not report on time, they must pay a fine of $1,000 for every day they are late, up to a maximum of $25,000.

Fortunately, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, took all the necessary steps to waive reporting for the time being. However, we know that this is a temporary solution since the waiver only applies to the 2016 fiscal period. In addition to the administrative burden being significant and unjust overall, the effect that the reporting requirements would have on the collective bargaining process would also give an unfair advantage to employers at the bargaining table. For example, detailed information about union strike funds would be available to employers, which means that employers would be able to calculate how long union members might be able to stay off the job in a labour dispute. If that is not uneven footing, I do not know what is.

It is clear that Bill C-377 is unnecessary and discriminatory. It clearly disadvantages unions during the collective bargaining process. At the root of it, I believe it is an attempt to make things harder for unions and to drive a wedge between employer and employee relations in Canada.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This bill made changes to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act that affect how unions are certified and decertified. It makes it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. The changes mean the process is more susceptible to employer interference and makes unionization more difficult.

Bill C-525 is not just problematic for unions but imposes some serious burdens on others as well. For example, there are real implications for bodies such as the Canada Industrial Relations Board, as well as the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Both boards are responsible for the full cost and logistical responsibilities involved in holding representation votes. Under these changes, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would be required to hold a vote to certify a union not just when less than a majority of workers have signed union cards, but would need to do so in all cases. This would mean a fivefold increase in the board's workload.

These bills do not represent a positive contribution to labour relations in Canada. In fact, they cause real harm. It is no surprise that when policies are developed without proper consultation, as was the case with both of these bills, they often end up causing more harm than good. Liberals believe in reforming labour policies through meaningful engagement with unions, employers, stakeholders, provinces and territories, and the Canadian public. It is the only way to ensure a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. As we have said before, sound labour relations is essential for protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper. It is also the necessary foundation of a system where both employers and unions play valuable roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-4 and bring back the fair and balanced labour relations approach all Canadians want and deserve.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would mention that another way of improving wages and living conditions is through a strong minimum-wage policy. Unfortunately, a previous Liberal government removed the federal minimum wage in 1996. When this issue came up in the last Parliament, the Liberals voted in favour of reinstating the federal minimum wage. During the election, they cast some doubt on that idea.

I am wondering if the member for Davenport could clarify whether her government will do the right thing and reinstate a federal minimum wage.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to Bill C-4 today. The Government of Canada believes that we should be treating our unions in a fair and balanced way. This is the principle behind repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The other reason we are also repealing this is the whole process. If there are issues around workers or unions or just human resource policy in Canada, the best way for us to go about dealing with it is in an open, transparent, and consultative way.

To me, that is the way we should be dealing with any of the issues, both now and moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberal Party, which always talks about empowering the backbenchers, would be so anti-backbench, anti-private members' bills that the previous Parliament passed. It is as though there were something sinister about private members' business in this House. The fact of the matter is, two private members' bills were passed that had support of union members across the country.

I find it fascinating that a party that would tout the benefits of backbenchers and private members' business would then degrade two private members' bills that go to help union members across the country improve transparency.

There is nothing wrong with private members' business. This party had the most bills passed in a generation under private members' business.

Will the hon. member comment on why she sees such a negative connotation with private members' business?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason we are repealing this bill is that we believe that there was a huge issue around the process.

The bill was highly discriminatory and deeply ideological. For it to go through a normal process, it has to be open, transparent, and consultative. The process of a private member's bill did not allow for the intensity of dialogue in consultation with the broad array of stakeholders, as if we went through a normal process.

That is why we are repealing both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just to the hon. member's point about all the private members' bills that were adopted in the last Parliament, I do not know if he is aware that most of those private members' bills were government bills dressed up as private members' bills, and the government used its majority to get them through. That is why so many were passed.

I think it is quite clear that the previous government was trying to weaken the labour movement. We all agree on that. The question is why was it doing that. If we asked members on the other side, they would say because it would solve problems, it would solve economic problems and solve other problems.

Does the hon. member think that the problems we are having with the economy today are a result of the fact that we have unions, or are there other reasons we are in an economic slowdown?

On the social side, by getting rid of unions, would we have better education? Would we have better health care?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we very much believe that for Canada to have a strong middle class and a strong economy, we need to have a strong labour movement. We believe that unions play an important role in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and helping unionized workers to access benefits and pensions in addition to what I have just mentioned, helping the middle class grow and prosper.

This is why we are very much committing to repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in my place to speak to this today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

First, I want to thank everyone in the previous Parliament who passed my private member's Bill C-525. I am very disappointed at how this debate has been framed by members in the Liberal Party, the NDP, and others.

My bill is not an anti-union bill. It has been long established that unions have the right to exist and that Canadians have a charter right to associate and affiliate with one another. That is not what is in question here.

My bill is not anti-union. My bill is pro-democracy, and it worked in part with Bill C-377, which is pro-transparency. Those were the issues.

My bill came about as a result of consultations with my constituents. Every time we hear a Liberal MP or an NDP MP talk about consultations, the only people they are talking to are union leaders, or big business.

The Conservative Party actually talks to everyday ordinary Canadians. We know we are on the right side on this issue. We know we are right because polling information clearly indicates where Canadians are and where workers are, in particular where union workers are on this issue.

I already have had a number of calls from constituents and card carrying union members who are disappointed that it is a priority of the Liberal government to undo what we were able to do in the last Parliament, which was bestow a mandatory secret ballot in the process of certifying or decertifying a union.

How can it be called democracy if we take away the right to a secret ballot? It has been established long ago that the hallmark of any modern democracy is a secret ballot vote. Would members of Parliament feel that they were here legitimately if they were able to go door knocking and stand on people's doorsteps, make their pitch and say that they happened to have a ballot in their hands, and a couple of their friends with them, and encourage people to sign those ballots and vote for them. That is exactly what the card check process is.

I have been a member of a union, and my union served me well in times when I needed it. However, I was also in the hall where I heard my union representatives use these kinds of tactics, tactics that we hear of all the time, threats and intimidation, boisterousness, the louder they spoke, the more forceful their point was. It does not matter how right they were, it just mattered how loud they were. It was not necessary. I did not need to be convinced. I was going to support whatever we decided to do as a group. I did not need to be intimidated or beat into line on these issues.

I have also sat across the table as a municipal councillor negotiating on behalf of taxpayers for a public union. I saw through those secret negotiations, much like the ones the NDP always claimed, when we were doing trade negotiations. Every negotiation was done this way. I never heard an NDP member of Parliament say that union negotiations should be done in front of the entire world for everybody to see. Those members think TPP should be done that way, but they do not think a union negotiation should be done that way.

Notwithstanding that hypocrisy, I have been there. I have seen who was looking after who in these negotiations. I saw union leaders ensure that whatever the contract was, if it started to go bad for the union people, the people at the very top, the people with the seniority, not the new people, not the new workers, not the most vulnerable workers in the union, the ones who had the least seniority, but the ones who had the most seniority, the people with the most seniority looked after themselves. They were the ones who rose up to the top of the union leadership. The ones with the least seniority were vulnerable. Whatever negotiations happened, the people at the top made sure they took care of themselves first.

Where would that union member's right be to hold his or her union leaders to account if they were not actually representing even a junior member of the union to the best of their ability? There was no way because there was no mandatory secret ballot vote to determine who would represent those people at the collective bargaining table. This is absolutely fundamental.

We hear the other side complaining about a number of these issues, that Bill C-525 is anti-union, that it is creating disparity. Bill C-525 actually created the same process for creating a union as decertifying a union. Yet, the minister right now claims that they are going back to a more balanced approach. In her opinion, a more balanced approach would make it far easier for a union to be created and far harder for a union to be decertified. If it is the same way going in as it is going out, I do not understand how that tips the scales. That makes the scales level.

As a union leader, would a person not want to have his or her presence as a collective bargaining agent on behalf of the employees ratified by a secret ballot vote? Would he or she not like to carry that forward in confidence, knowing full well that he or she has 50% plus one of the membership of the union supporting him or her to negotiate a deal that is in their best interests?

The way it worked before my bill was passed was with a card check system. That is fine. A card check system is still used. It is just used to determine the threshold for when a vote should be called. That is fine. We must have some way of gauging interest.

However, we can do a card check under any guise. We can take a card to someone who is neither fluent in English nor French and tell them that they needed to sign this card to receive their pay and benefits. So, they sign a card. They do not know what they are signing. All of a sudden, there is 50% plus one of the members of the union. It was automatic. It is 50% plus one. It was automatic.

Is this not problematic? Does anyone not see an issue with this? It was open to abuse. It was open to intimidation.

What is wrong with a secret ballot?

I do not know whom the members in the Liberal Party consulted. They had closed-door meetings shortly after the election, but every union leader who came before the human resources committee during the deliberations on Bill C-525 had nothing but good things to say about the secret ballot.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada said that “CLAC supports efforts to...strengthen the democratic rights of workers” and stated that it looked forward to further speaking to the legislation when the Senate dealt with it. The CLAC representative repeated, “Yes, we are in favour of secret ballots.” That is a union leader who said that.

Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the largest public service union in Canada, said:

Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike actions, as examples.

Really? Robyn Benson said that in front of the committee. What is the problem? What is the issue? They want to be legitimized. They want to have that process legitimized.

FETCO also agreed with it. Mr. Farrell from FETCO said:

I believe the major disadvantage is that there's no clear evidence that all of the potential union members have had an opportunity to seriously consider the question of a unionization and to express their opinion behind the screen of a ballot box in a secret ballot vote.

What Mr. Farrell was actually saying and responding to there was a question that is very fundamental. If they do a card check system they actually would not even have to check with all the members of the bargaining unit. They could just go until they got 50% plus one, wipe their hands, call it a day. They did not even check with everyone. People can show up the next day at work never knowing that a union drive had even taken place and be an automatic member of the union.

How is that fair? How is that a democratic process? People do not even have an opportunity to discuss it.

I have a lot more examples. There are numerous polls by Leger and Nanos and ask the question, “Should Canadians have the right to a secret ballot before they decide to join a union or not? What is their best interest?” In every case, as confirmed by the testimony of union leaders themselves, Canadians overwhelmingly, over 70%, and sometimes over 80%, say, “Yes, this is true”. And when they asked an actual union member of someone who was in a union, that number even got higher, sometimes up into the high 80s percentages.

It makes absolutely no sense. There is not a problem here that needs to be undone, contrary to what these folks over there want Canadians to believe.

We on this side of the House, the Conservative Party, and only the Conservative Party, stand up for transparency and for accountability for workers.

If anyone in Canada has any doubts who is on the side of the everyday working man and woman in this country, it is Conservative members of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member attempts to be compelling in terms of his argument, but let me make a suggestion. Government has a responsibility to promote and encourage harmony and a sense of consensus related to labour relations between big business and unions, and all the different associated stakeholders. That is why we have a process that receives advice and opinions in the formation of legislation that has an impact that could take away from that harmony.

The member might want to crow about his private member's bill, but it was a private member's bill as opposed to a government piece of legislation that would have gone through a process of consultation and working with a wide number of stakeholders that are necessary in order to encourage and promote that harmony.

Why does the member believe the former Conservative government went against good practices of labour relations in adopting and bringing forward legislation and instead took it upon itself to cause mischief when it was just not called for?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, remember the part of my speech when I said that if you yell louder, you are somehow going to make your point better? The member who just asked me the question is a pro at this.

It was my bill. I brought it forward. I am a member of Parliament. I do not have the vast resources of government to engage. My job is to represent my constituents and I brought the bill forward on behalf of my constituents who had concerns about how they were being represented by their union.

I cannot interfere with what unions do, but I can at least put an accountability mechanism in on behalf of my constituents that would allow them to make this choice free from the prying eyes of both their employer and their union representatives.

While the member wants to go after and repeal secret ballots, he is doing it through secret meetings. We all know from the articles that appear in the media that the Prime Minister and a number of senior Liberals, I can only imagine, have met behind closed doors with union leaders who say one thing in that meeting and say another thing when they are testifying at committee in front of all Canadians. We know that union donations played a factor in the last election campaign on behalf of the Liberal Party.

No one on this side of the House, at least myself, is surprised that the Liberals can be bought. I am just surprised at how cheaply they let themselves go for.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe cited the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which is probably one of the more pro-employer labour organizations in the country. Would he acknowledge that even the Christian Labour Association of Canada said that Bill C-377 is too flawed to become law?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to appreciate the fact that I am talking about my private member's Bill C-525. Bill C-377 was a transparency mechanism that was brought in by one of my colleagues. He would be better served asking my colleague about that, but I support the notion of transparency.

Taxpayers subsidize union dues being paid to the tune of $500 million a year. That is exactly the budget of running the entire Parliament and democracy of our country. That is a lot of money and union members have a right to know where that money is being spent.

I do not think there was anything wrong with a $5,000 threshold. It is a mandatory tax if one is a union member. Union members have to pay it. That is the deal and that is fine. I do not disagree with that deal. I think union members ought to know where it goes.

After all our celebrations on democratic rights for women getting the right to vote in Manitoba, and references to Irene Parlby, one of the Famous Five, who is from my riding and came from Alix, Alberta, is the hon. member going to wear as a badge of honour the fact that when he passes this legislation proposed by the Liberals, he is going to take away the right to vote of every woman worker in this country?

That is the badge that he and the Liberal Party are going to wear because every woman, who is part of a union or not part of a union, has just lost the right to vote. I would be ashamed of that record.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-4, as I find it proposes some deeply troubling measures.

I will get directly to the point. Last night, I took the time to research the history of the right to a private ballot in a democracy. It will likely come as no surprise to this House that prior to secret ballots, citizens were often subject to threats and intimidation, but of course that is the entire point here, is it not?

We know that big, powerful unions supported the Liberal government in the election, so this is, in essence, payback by the Liberal government to those big union leaders.

Let us be clear on that. The Liberal government is denying workers the right to a secret ballot, knowing full well what that really means. It is 2016, and the right to a private ballot is being denied by our new Liberal government. Let us think about that.

Now, of course, Bill C-4 does more than deprive workers of a democratic right to a private ballot on the subject of unionization. It is also seeks to eliminate the transparency of requiring unions to publicly disclose how tax-deductible union dues are spent by big union bosses. Big wages, big expense accounts, and who knows what else?

I find it incredibly ironic that on the very day our Liberal government announces Bill C-4, Elections Canada reveals that the Liberal Party of Canada is caught illegally taking union donations, union donations that come from mandatory union dues. Of course, the Liberal Party and the union say it was all just a mistake. Somehow the union knew where the leader of the Liberal Party would be in advance and was provided access so that paid individuals would attend a Liberal election event. Were there any other mistakes of this nature? With the repealing of union financial disclosure, we will never know.

On that same theme, we also know that once upon a time the Liberal leader took payments from unions to give speeches. Thousands of dollars of union dues were paid to the member who is now the leader of the Liberal Party. We know this because, to give credit to the Liberal leader, it was disclosed. Interestingly enough, had these thousands of dollars been provided in terms of gifts there would be a clear conflict.

However, paying an elected MP for speeches is in effect a loophole in the conflict act. Surprise, surprise: the unions pay the member thousands of dollars for speeches and the member of Parliament in question turns around an opposes bills that unions do not like.

I just want to point out that this is not the 1970s in a banana republic.

This is happening in Canada today, because it is 2016.

I am deeply troubled that a member of Parliament can be paid thousands of dollars by unions for speeches and then turn around and oppose changing bills that unions do not like. What bills do unions oppose? They are bills that provide workers with the democratic right of a private ballot and bills that create fiscal transparency and accountability of those same big union bosses.

We are facing challenging economic times. Tens of thousands of Albertans have lost their jobs and one of the first bills from the new Liberal government is a union payback bill. It would do nothing to help our economy. It would do nothing to create jobs. It would do nothing for workers' democratic rights. It would do nothing for public accountability and transparency.

Has there been wide consultation with the Liberal government and stakeholders on the bill? We know there has not been wide consultation. I find that interesting. When it comes to projects that create jobs that Liberals do not support, they delay, citing a need for more consultation. Yet when it comes to payback for Liberal friends, the need for consultation is suddenly a muted concern. That suggests to me that this legislation is seriously flawed. I submit the Liberals are not widely consulting on the bill, because removing a worker's right to a private ballot raises the question as to why they want to limit democratic rights.

However, I do understand why the Liberals want to act quickly on this. I suspect if unions were ever forced to publicly disclose where all of those mandatory tax-deductible union dues flow, it might further raise uncomfortable questions. Are there other elected officials being paid by unions for speeches and then carrying out union legislative wish lists? We will never know. I guess it is better just to sweep it under the rug.

I admit I have not enjoyed giving this speech. I would rather us focus on ways that we can strengthen our economy and create more jobs for our citizens. I would rather find ways that we can make our communities safer and create more transparency and accountability within our democratic institutions. I would rather focus on finding ways to help those who are less fortunate and supporting seniors in our communities. Yet here we are, protecting the interests of big union bosses. This is a thank you from the Liberal government. This is not sunny ways and in my view it is not how we build a better Canada.

Let us also recognize that in today's global economic climate businesses often relocate to jurisdictions that have preferable regulatory or cost advantages. This also applies to labour laws. It is critically important that Canada have a competitive regulatory regime that does not place workers at an economic disadvantage. Labour laws absolutely need to be fair. They need to be balanced and ultimately provide workers with democratic rights that include the right to a private ballot.

Before I close, I just would like to say I am very proud to come from British Columbia. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to introduce secret ballot legislation in 1873, and here we are today in Ottawa saying private ballots for workers is somehow a bad idea. I guess it is because it is 2016.

I submit this legislation is misguided and flawed. It is disappointing to me that the Liberal government is using one of its very first bills to reward big union bosses instead of helping out middle-class Canadians that the Liberal government purports to support.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone would accuse former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal of being a big union boss or supporting big union bosses. He identified a number of problems with Bill C-377, including the unconstitutionality of the bill, the constitutionality question by the Canadian Bar Association, the invasion of privacy blatant in the bill, and the creation of inconsistent disclosure obligations between trade unions and government employers and corporations, both private and public.

I do not ask my friend to address all of these flaws, but could he at least address one of them?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's intervention. I have a tremendous amount of respect for former Senator Segal. He was in my caucus, and he is a very intelligent person. However, to be frank, democracy means having a variety of voices. He raised concerns about the bill, no different than many members of the NDP.

At the end of the day, we all stand behind something. However, I do not see the Liberal government standing behind it. It just says that it is flawed, or it is too much this or too much that. What the Liberals are doing is taking it all away and not bringing back anything that would be a substantive improvement, such as allowing those mandatory union dues to be online for members to see. It would be just like people donating to a charity or church where they would be able to find out where those dues went. To me that is the premise.

If the member opposite has better suggestions, get a hold of the minister, put some legislation together, and get it in here. I will support legislation that supports better transparency for union workers.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by my colleague's remarks. As the former president of a local union, I had to manage my members' money for eight years, eight wonderful years during which I was accountable to them. We had to present financial statements at every meeting.

What my colleague is saying is wrong because unions have to provide financial reports. Every union has its own members and its own clearly defined rules.

I am pleased that we are moving forward with the bill introduced by our government colleagues. It is a step in the right direction.

Union leaders are being talked about as though they are fat cats, but I do not see myself that way.

I would invite my colleague to side with workers. We can follow the example of unions in order to improve health and safety, increase salaries and enhance workers' right to a better life.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I will support things that help Canadian workers, and part of that is allowing them to know how their union dues are being used. It is the same as when people donate their hard-earned money to a charity. These funds are exempt from the Income Tax Act, and because of that, there are some responsibilities that go with it.

I recognize we live in a great country with a great democracy. All of us here were elected by secret ballot. Even our Speaker was elected by a secret ballot. We know, at the end of the day, that when people have their choice without intimidation, we are all better off as Canadians.

Those are the reasons why I stand in this chamber and speak. I respect that the member has her own reasons, and that is what makes our country great.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the discussions the member had with his colleagues when they passed Bill C-377, was he aware that seven provinces voiced opposition to this bill. They had concerns with encroachment on their jurisdiction as it related to labour issues?

Why did the previous federal government see fit to interfere in provincial jurisdictions as it related to labour relations, and put labour relations and the whole balance of labour relations in jeopardy in the provinces of the country when it was not a federation jurisdiction at all?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in today's complex environment, we will touch points at provincial, federal, and local levels. However, when these things are raised, we should not just say we oppose something out of a parochial sense of jurisdiction. We should say what the things are that we would like fixed. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has just said that it is all flawed and it will take everything away without giving workers the transparency they need.

In regard to Bill C-25, all of that is related to the federal sphere and has nothing to do provincially.

This is about supporting Canadian workers, and I would hope the member would consider that viewpoint.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, the proposed repeal of two labour bills passed by the previous government. This is an important piece of legislation, and I encourage my fellow members to support its passage in the House.

Some do not agree with our moving to repeal these bills, which is fair enough. However, suggesting the government has a hidden agenda goes too far. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister publicly made a commitment to repeal both these pieces of legislation. Canadians went to the polls and they expect us to keep our commitments. It was also clearly spelled out and made public in her mandate after the minister was sworn in as Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. This commitment was restated by the Prime Minister when he spoke to the Canadian Labour Congress in November. Far from being part of some hidden agenda, the government's intention to repeal these bills was made very clear, stated often, and its reasons for doing so were repeated frequently.

Let us start with the most important reason. Repealing these bills would help restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. While both of these bills pose a number of problems, today I am going to focus on the legislative amendments made by Bill C-525. Bill C-525 changed the union certification and decertification processes under three federal labour relations statutes: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Prior to these amendments enacted through Bill C-525, federally regulated unions could use what was called a “card check system” for certification. If a union demonstrated that a majority of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for these workers, although it was only required if less than a majority signed but enough to indicate a strong interest, 35% under the Canada Labour Code, for example.

Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot, and to require a vote even where more than 50% of voters had signed union member cards. It also made it easier for unions to be decertified by lowering the threshold to trigger a decertification vote to 40%, compared to majority support, which was previously required. Essentially, Bill C-525 made it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize. This is not good for our economy and it is not good for Canadians. Unions help to address inequality by helping to ensure fair wages. They help protect worker safety and prevent discrimination in the workplace. They also help employers because a fair workplace is a more productive workplace, and more productive workplaces help to grow our economy and help strengthen our middle class.

What was presented in Bill C-525 was essentially a solution in search of a problem. There were no great rallies on Parliament Hill or even in the boardrooms demanding that we change a union certification system that had worked successfully for many years. The card check system, whereby a union is certified by demonstrating majority support through signed union cards, has been used successfully for many years in the federal jurisdiction and in several provinces. A number of unions, like Unifor and the Airline Pilots Association, argued that it is fast and efficient and much more likely to be free of employer interference than the mandatory secret ballot system brought in under Bill C-525. The card check system is not undemocratic. It required a majority support through signed cards. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has strong measures in place to ensure the process of signed cards is fair.

It should also be noted that representatives from both sides of the bargaining table were highly critical of how the previous government brought in these changes. Both bills were brought in as private members' bills, and without consultation with employers, unions, or other levels of government.

Many argue that it set a very dangerous precedent for future labour reform. They are right. We believe that fair and balanced labour policies developed through real and meaningful consultation with unions, employers, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public are essential for harmonious labour relations.

Bill C-377 also presents problems that could have been averted with proper consultation. We have heard my colleagues talk about that in great detail. Among other things, it has the potential to seriously disrupt collective bargaining processes. For example, detailed information about unions, including information on union strike funds, would be available to employers. It seems like a blatant attempt to make things harder for unions. We recognize the essential role that unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping the middle class to grow and prosper.

It is clear that the legislative amendments enacted through these bills must be repealed in order to restore fairness and balance in our approach to labour relations in Canada. To do less would be a disservice to workers, employers, and the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the member for Yukon.

His speech was clear and very interesting, even if I disagree with it close to 100%. However, I respect the hon. member.

How can a gentleman like him, a very strong and good parliamentarian, oppose secret ballot votes?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there are secret ballot votes already under certain circumstances in the legislation, but it has been proven for years and years that the card-signing system is efficient and people have not complained about it. In fact, as I mentioned in my speech, Unifor and the Air Line Pilots Association said that this was more democratic and less likely to cause people to lobby and force votes.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been in the House for many years and understands the process of legislation and the structure of how we make improvements to the Canada Labour Code. One of the things that shocks me the most about the previous government bringing these two private members' bills forward is that anyone who is in government would know that the Department of Justice would have given the minister of labour and the member, in the private member's bill process, an explanation as to whether it was provincial or federal jurisdiction.

Why would the previous government bring in legislation that was in the provincial jurisdiction, related to provincial labour agreements, and did not have anything to do with the federal government per se?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up one of the major points about this bill, which is the case with some other bills too that I would love to talk about, and that is the process as opposed to just the content. I have certain personal qualms sometimes with how private members' bills do not get the same rigorous analysis by departments, the same type of consultation, and the same type of constitutional review as other bills. A private member's bill results in a law, the same as any other bill, so why would it not get the same type of thorough treatment?

Personally, I would like to reform the system to ensure that all bills are looked at with the same wisdom by the technocrats, the people who have spent their lives working on the technical details, so they can provide technical information, some of which the member mentioned, to parliamentarians. Of course, the bottom line is that parliamentarians ultimately have to and should make the final decision based on a comprehensive technical review to ensure the bill is under the right jurisdiction, makes technical sense and does not offend the Constitution. As we know, Bill C-377 is under a constitutional challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I sit here listening to members from the Conservative Party who, in some cases, literally thump on their desks for the cause of democracy, I would be remiss if I did not take note of the fact that when Bill C-525 was first presented in the House, it said that if people did not attend a meeting on certification, the government would, in effect, vote for them and say how they would be voting. In the case of certification, members not present would, effectively, be deemed to have voted against certification. In cases of votes for decertification, union members not present would be deemed to have voted for decertification.

Surely, if the government were to present legislation in the House that were to dictate the votes of members not present for votes, all of us, including members in the Conservative caucus, I think, would say that this was an affront to democracy.

In light of that conception in the original bill, does the member find it as rich as I do to be accepting lectures today from the Conservative caucus on the nature of democracy?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as part of sunny ways, I will not criticize anyone. However, I did want to compliment the member's father. I served with him in the House. He was a wonderful legislator. I know that the member will follow his process.

The point the member is making is that we need to have fairness and comparability in all the processes. We do not just assign votes to people who do not show up.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-4. Bill C-4 removes many of the barriers and administrative burdens on labour groups that the Conservative government put in place.

I would like to begin by saying that unions have played an important role in Canada for a very long time. It is that partnership that has contributed to the success of this country and our economy. It is important to mention that it has also improved the fundamental rights of individuals in the workplace. That is essential and should be noted.

The contributions of unions have been very large, but I would like to share a few points with the House tonight.

Unions have played a major role in establishing an eight-hour workday, a five-day work week, parental benefits, which are essential as well, and health and safety standards. There are many areas where the unions have contributed to the success of those changes.

Labour unions have greatly contributed to the balance between the rights of workers and the ability of employers to run efficient operations and businesses.

In my past life, I spent 11 years as the superintendent of the French school board. During that time, I had many opportunities to work closely with unions, unions that were our partners and our workers. I can assure members that it was a successful experience with successful negotiations. The employees were able to benefit from many of the things we negotiated, but the school board was also able to gain from the negotiations. It was a partnership that was extremely important.

Unfortunately, Bill C-377 has tipped the scales in favour of management by forcing the public disclosure of information, which in most cases, is not required for private corporations.

It is important to mention that Bill C-4 is in no way intended to cut transparency.

Bill C-377 is redundant legislation.

If we look at the province of Nova Scotia, the Trade Union Act has provisions that allow all union members to access copies of any financial statement free of charge. The result of this transparency measure is that no complaints have been filed in Nova Scotia over the last five years on this type of issue.

I must also mention that the province of Nova Scotia has noticed the federal government's interference in this area, which is traditionally a provincial jurisdiction. At the May 7, 2015 meeting of the Senate committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Nova Scotia Minister of Labour and Advanced Education, Hon. Kelly Regan, stated:

governments all across Canada are doing what they can to eliminate regulatory duplication and red tape....It's hard to understand why the federal government would enter into this area of provincial jurisdiction.

I agree fully with the minister.

It is even more surprising to hear the opposition say that most people were in favour. B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and of course, Nova Scotia all opposed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

I would now like to talk a little bit about Bill C-525. This Liberal government is proud to be able to undo the damage done by the Conservative government's Bill C-525. That bill is forcing workers who want to create a new union to obtain the signatures of 40% of its members and have a secret ballot on the issue. Obviously, the Conservative government's strategy was to add layers to the process for creating a new union.

Our government firmly believes that we should not discourage people from participating in a union. That is why we want to restore the former system under which workers only needed the signatures of 50% plus one.

As with so many of its initiatives, our government is working hard to collaborate with all regions of the country, with all sectors of the economy, to bring real change for all Canadians.

Our government has chosen to put its trust in this country's labour organizations and the workers they represent. We must ensure that they are not treated unfairly at the negotiating table. This represents a change of tone and attitude compared to that of the previous government. It is a tone where we treat not only unions and their workers with respect but also our indigenous communities, veterans, families, and democratic institutions.

I am proud to provide my full support to this bill and I congratulate the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for her leadership in bringing this legislation to the House.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear the member from Sackville speak about the collective bargaining process.

A very important part of collective bargaining is the ability for employees to withdraw their labour. That right really only has effect if the employer cannot just bring in replacement workers.

Several times in previous Parliaments, anti-scab legislation has come forward. Often the Liberals have spoken very positively about it, but when it came down to actually voting for it on final reading, they would sort of fall away, would not show up, or vote against it, that sort of thing.

Now that the Liberals have the majority and could pass anti-scab legislation, I am wondering if the member from Sackville could commit to do so.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on making the necessary changes that will allow for a strong relationship between unions and industry, the economy, so that we can ensure improvement and continued growth in this country.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question regarding consultation on Bill C-4.

The member talked about how none of the consultation happened before with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. However, we did extensive consultation. We had many union members and union leaders come in at committee and Senate stage to talk about this.

Does the member not understand that some of the polling we did with Leger and Nanos showed that more than 84% of union members were in support of the legislation we put forward.

Did the Liberals do any consultation with actual union members, or was it just with union leadership?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the member across talk about consultation.

We all know there was very little, if any, consultation. The Conservatives tried to put the legislation through in a private member's bill.

We consulted with all Canadians from one part of the country to the other throughout the campaign. It was very clear. That is why we are the government today. We are the government today and we will bring change for Canadians, positive change that will allow unions, the Canadian government, and companies to work closely together to improve the economy of this country.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very good speech. During his speech he spoke about red tape duplication. What we mean by that is, the provinces already have legislation dealing with these matters in their jurisdiction. In fact, this legislation that was put in tries to duplicate things that are already under provincial jurisdiction.

Why would any government, including our own, want to proceed in this fashion when it is not constitutionally our jurisdiction and just adds another layer on something that does not need to be done as it is?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite obvious that for the past government, working with the provinces was a no-no. There was no discussion. Whenever the prime minister or any ministers arrived in any one of the provinces or regions, they did not even let the provincial government know they were in town. They had no consultation whatsoever and never allowed them to expose information of that nature.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Because of the vote, we have extended the sitting by 10 minutes.

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey will resume when the motion comes back for debate.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Employees' Voting Rights Act was a common sense bill.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

The main principle of the bill was that all federally regulated workers should have the right to a free secret ballot vote when deciding to certify or decertify a union.

The card check system that had apparently been in place for federally regulated industries required 50% plus one of workers' union membership cards for union certification. This system was open to co-workers and other interested parties potentially pressuring employees into signing union cards. Rather than an automatic certification of a union process, the previous bill required a 50% plus one majority of votes cast in a secret ballot to support certification at a meeting for certification or decertification.

The principle behind this is similar to what we all undergo here in a general election.

Just as the secret ballot of a general election represents the voice of each elector, a secret ballot on certification would allow employees to freely express their wishes.

Many Canadians do not want to reveal who they voted for in a general election. I am sure that members experienced that as often as I did when they were going door to door in the last federal election. Some people are quite free in expressing how they are going to vote, but many would rather keep that to themselves.

Workers should be provided that same level of comfort in expressing their views, choosing to either express them publicly or to have the privacy of a secret ballot vote in the workplace, a place where they spend by far the majority of their time. They should be made to feel welcome and comfortable, no matter what their choice, in all circumstances.

The bill ensured that there was a framework in place to allow those workers to express their personal position.

One other change in the previous bill was the proposal to set the threshold of employee support required to trigger certification or decertification at 40%. It was amended to 40% so that the trigger was the same either way, which it had not been prior to this legislation. It would be the same for certification or decertification, the same to get in and the same to get out.

This number is more reflective of international conventions and the majority of provincial statutes. In fact, five provinces currently have this threshold or higher. I believe this approach is fair and creates a level playing field for both supporters and opponents in situations where the question of certification or decertification is at stake.

As I said before, the creation of the new legislation was about making sure that workers are able to express themselves as they deem fit in their workplaces, allowing both those who are opponents or partisans supporting accreditation or decreditation to express their views.

As I have said, it makes sense to me that we use a system for the democratic rights of workers, but it apparently also makes eminent sense to workers. Polling data on unionized and non-unionized employees across the country shows overwhelming support for a secret ballot vote on questions of certification and decertification. This seems fair to me.

Poll after poll indicates that, since 2003, support across Canada for secret ballot voting has rated between 83% and 89%, with some of the highest results coming from unionized or formerly unionized employees.

Clearly, Canadians believe that we should take important steps to secure this fundamental right for employees in federally regulated workplaces.

As Canadians, we have taken great pride in our democratic processes. The secret ballot is the hallmark of our modern democracy here in Canada. It is a system we support so strongly that Canadians have not only shed blood for our country to maintain its democracy but have actually spent significant amounts of time in other countries to help them achieve that same degree of freedom and democracy.

I ask how it could be undemocratic, as has been mentioned in the House by other members, to provide workers with a secret ballot vote. We know that PSAC has stated at committee that it uses a secret ballot vote itself for internal elections as well as for collective bargaining agreement ratification. Every member in the House was elected by a secret ballot vote.

As Justice Richards' stated in his ruling in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, “The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of modern democracy”.

Due to this basic principle, this basic value that I think all Canadians hold dear, I would encourage all members in the House to vote against the current bill being considered and maintain the bill of the MP from Red Deer—Lacombe. It is a common sense bill that makes the certification and decertification process for unions a democratic one in which all workers have a voice and can express that voice in the way they deem appropriate, in a comfortable manner, in their own workplaces.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, Bill C-377 is counterproductive to a positive working relationship between employers and employees. It creates unnecessary red tape for labour organizations and labour trusts. Legislation is already in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members. Therefore, I am wondering what the real reason was for the government at the time bringing forward this unfair legislation that brings extra red tape.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just so we are clear, the bill that was brought forward was a private member's bill. It was not government legislation. I think all Canadians agree, though, and I am sure the member would agree, that with regard to the bill I was speaking to, another private member's bill, Bill C-525, a democratic, transparent process is what is most appropriate.

For me, particularly as I spoke today about Bill C-525, making sure that we have a secret ballot vote is essential. It is a cornerstone and a principle of our Canadian democracy that we should all be defending.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very active in the debate surrounding Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were a direct attack on how unions operate.

When we debated the issue, the Conservative government of the day argued that it had the right to interfere in this matter because union dues were tax deductible and therefore some degree of accountability was needed. I also recall that professional associations, which also collect dues that are tax deductible, were not included in the bill.

It was therefore abundantly clear to me that this was a direct attack on how unions operate, particularly regarding the issue of unions having to show their accounting records. Obviously, this gives negotiators on the management side an advantage, since they would then be familiar with the financial position of the unions with which they are negotiating.

Why will the Conservative members not just admit that those two bills were a deliberate attack on unions in order to undermine their ability to stand up to the government, which was extremely harmful over the past four years?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, what I have spoken about today is the democratic process. Bill C-525, which is a private member's bill that I hope the House considers, is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Our intention here, and I think it was the intention of both private members who brought forward their legislation, and I would encourage people to speak to those individuals about their private member's bills, was to make sure that there was transparency as well as democracy being exercised.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did as a Conservative government when we came to power back in 2006 was introduce a transparency act. The first thing the Liberals did, or the second, perhaps we will give them that, was introduce this legislation to repeal a bill, whose importance the member and other speakers have done such a marvellous job of helping Canadians understand, rather than talking about the economic conditions in the west, the pipelines issue, dairy farmers' concerns with TPP, refugees, the Armed Forces, and so many other issues.

Why did the Liberal government choose to target this legislation as its first act when it came to power?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have concerns. I represent a riding with a significant number of dairy farmers. Today they are asking why the current government is not focused on the TPP. A number of individuals in my riding are involved in the agriculture community, whether they are farmers or people getting that produce to market. Why did the current government not mention agriculture in its throne speech? Why is it that we are focused on something that takes a system that was created to make people equivalent, where certification and decertification are both at 40%, an in and out equivalent, and there is a secret ballot vote, which they now would like to reverse?

I would ask the government on the opposite side when it will take care of farmers. When will it take care of the economy? We have some serious issues that have to be addressed in this country right now.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my esteemed colleague regarding the Liberals' intent to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Both of these bills were about transparency. As my colleague talked about earlier, the first bills we introduced as a government were about increasing transparency, and one of the first acts of the Liberal government is to introduce bills to reduce transparency.

Bill C-377 had an important purpose. The purpose was to extend the principle of public disclosure to a group of institutions that enjoy substantial public benefit: labour organizations. This is key. Public disclosure would increase the confidence of Canadians that unions spend their money wisely and effectively.

Regarding Bill C-525, which dealt with the issue of voting rights, it replaced a system called “card check”. The card-check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without allowing all employees to express their opinions. In fact, the unionization of a workplace could occur without a significant portion of the bargaining unit having been made aware of it.

Again, both of these bills dealt with improving transparency. In our strong view, Canadian union workers have the right to know how their mandatory union dues are spent. That is why our government passed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Repealing these laws sends a very clear message: the Liberal government cares more about thanking union bosses, who did everything in their power to help them get elected, rather than the thousands of hard-working union members whose dues were spent without consultation. Union leaders need to be held accountable and tell their members and the public how their tax-advantaged income is spent.

The Conservative Party will continue to support union transparency and stand up for union workers. As I have said in a couple of my other speeches, it is becoming quite clear that the only party that cares about Canadian workers and workers' families is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Even some labour organizations are very strongly in favour of our bill. The Christian Labour Association, Dick Heinen, the executive director, in February 2014, said:

Now fundamentally, CLAC believes in competition in the labour relations environment in Canada. We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all.

As well, John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, in his testimony to the Senate committee, said:

FETCO members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card-check system for the purpose of determining if a union is to become a certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles. It allows each and every employee to express their true wishes without undue influence or disclosure of how they cast their ballot. This is the mechanism that is used for the electoral process in Canada, and it is the fairest process.

It is no coincidence that the public sector union bosses worked hard to get the Liberal government elected, and now, quite frankly, it is payback time. The first thing that the Liberal government is doing is repealing these two very important bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

In addition, the President of the Treasury Board made a point of announcing that he is restoring the sick leave benefit to the public sector. That is a cost of $900 million a year. That is $900 million that is not available for health care, the environment, agriculture, and infrastructure. However, again we can see it is definitely payback time. Now we have a government that is beholden to public sector union bosses.

Quite interestingly, what I am seeing in the House and in government is a merging of the ideology of the Liberals and the NDP. We have the champagne socialists riding with the limousine Liberals. Quite frankly, the NDP has not changed. It is still the party of bad ideas and toxic policies. What is changing is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is moving very quickly to the left, and their alliance with public sector union bosses against the interest of Canadians in general is proof of that.

I actually would like to call up a committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada so that we can list a species called the “blue Liberal”, which is now in danger. They are the Liberals who actually cared about business. They were the prominent blue Liberals who were talking in favour of pipelines, economic development, and free trade. However, they are being completely ignored. I think the Species at Risk Act needs to look at the blue Liberal.

Given that it is payback time, let us imagine what is going on in the negotiation room between the government and the public sector unions. Do members not think for a minute that the public sector unions do not point their finger at the relevant Liberal negotiators and say, “Look, we got you elected and you better deliver”? The Liberal Party is bargaining with the same group that helped bring it into power.

The President of the Treasury Board is making a sham trying to talk tough, but we know what will really go on behind closed doors. These negotiations are fundamentally flawed. There is another word I could use, but it is quite unparliamentary. The negotiations will be all about how much they can fleece the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, the public sector unions have become an entity unto themselves. We see the evolution of public sector unions as powerful political entities that in some cases can determine who forms a government. The public sector unions will always remind the Liberals who got them elected, and the public interest itself will be left behind.

This is bad for democracy and it is bad for our country. The public service is supposed to be neutral and carry out the wishes of the duly elected government of the day, but the trends I am seeing make me very uneasy.

Again, I want to reiterate that as this session evolves and the legislation evolves, it is becoming quite clear that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that stands up for the workers of Canada. We defend the natural resource industries. We defend the oil sands. We encourage the growth of pipelines. We are the only people who care about working families in this country.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, members can think back to April and May of last year when the Liberal Party of Canada came out with its strong policy position on how best to rebalance the rights of workers and employers in Canada, certainly at the federal level, which was long before the real rigour of the campaign had started. It was a clear policy, and it earned the support of Canadians. It was a policy that got to the heart of what Canadians wanted vis-à-vis the balance of workers and employer rights at the federal level, and people swarmed to it. It was not a situation where the Liberal Party of Canada was cowing to the desires of unions. The Liberals put forward a policy that spoke to what Canadians wanted, desired, and had earned.

I would like the member to answer this question: why does he think that Canadians made a mistake? Canadians voted in the Liberal Party, and now we are implementing our platform.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the public sector unions are so adept at determining, in many cases, who forms the government, and that they worked very hard for the Liberal Party in the last election campaigns, tells me that our bills provided the true rebalancing between the rights of Canadians citizens at large, Canadian society, and the democratic rights of voters.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa suggests that the tax deductibility of union dues is some sort of special privilege. However, we afford exactly the same tax treatment to all employment expenses.

Let us imagine that the deduction of dues had something to do with Bill C-377. I wonder if the hon. member could explain to us why this legislation was only imposed on trade unions and not applied to medical associations, bar associations, and other professional associations whose dues are also tax deductible.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question because he has given me the opportunity to point out that union membership is forced. A person has no choice in certain workplaces whether to join the union or not. One has to pay the union dues.

Professional associations are regulatory bodies that deal with the technical capabilities of the individual members involved. They are technical and scientific organizations, where members have to have the skill sets to practice the professions of law, medicine, or so on. Unions are very different. Not only are union dues tax deductible, members are forced to pay those union dues or they will not be able to have that job. This is the difference.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all union-related legislation brought forward by the Conservatives was based on false premises and constituted attacks on the union movement.

What is a union? Unions ensure a better distribution of wealth and better working conditions. Pay equity, something we talked about at length this week, has been achieved in all unionized jobs in Quebec. It still remains to be achieved in all jobs.

Let us look at the Nordic countries. Over 70% of workers there are unionized, and those countries have the lowest poverty rates and the largest middle class.

The middle class is an endangered species in this country. What do the Conservatives have against the middle class?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a fundamental mistake in assuming that this party is anti-union. We are not. I come from a proud union family. My father was a union organizer in the 1930s when people had to be really tough to organize unions. Unions absolutely have their place, to ensure workers' rights in terms of compensation and so on.

In this particular case, we are dealing with the special privileges that are allocated to unions by law. As for the transparency legislation, both bills we had were eminently fair, to ensure the rights of citizens and also to ensure that unions operate as they should.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am honoured to give my maiden speech on Bill C-4, a bill that would re-establish a productive balance between unions and employers. I represent the riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, where many proud union brothers and sisters reside, work, and prosper together. The building trades, teachers, electricians, labourers, police, steelworkers, carpenters, and many others work to build this prosperous and peaceful city through their ingenuity and stubborn belief in hard work that should be rewarded with fair wages, safe working conditions, and equality of opportunity.

These are the values that I grew up with. Unions were a big part of my life and my family's life for the last two generations. I am the daughter of a proud steelworker. My father, Phil Tassi, was a millwright at Dofasco. It was through his hard work and passionate commitment that my family prospered and that I, with my brothers and sister, were able to build lives founded on security and stability. In fact, my sister, my brothers, my mother, and I all worked in the steel industry.

While Dofasco was never unionized, it benefited from what other unions in Hamilton attained. The hard-won achievements of unionized labour set an example for my father's employer to give its workers comparable rights, safety, and wages. This is but one very personal example of how unions directly and indirectly have improved the lives of Hamiltonians.

When conditions are at their best, unions, employers, and government work together to build safe, prosperous, and stable communities. It is this balance that Bill C-4 seeks to re-establish. This bill sets right what was skewed by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Hamilton is a city whose history is closely connected to the labour movement. It was in Hamilton that the movement for the nine-hour workday in Canada was started. It was in Hamilton in 1920 that Katie McVicar and Mary McNab, who were shoe workers and members of the Knights of Labour, fought for the rights of women to join the labour force and to be respected.

It was in Hamilton in 1935 that steelworkers organized a strike. Their employer did not accede to their demands. However, a greater victory was achieved. The union expanded to include all workers, regardless of skill or nationality. That was progress. These are the footings of the middle class in Hamilton: strong, built of cement, steel and hard work, wrought by the hands of people who believed in themselves and in one another.

Unions have been creating conditions where individual workers can be resourceful, innovative, and contribute to an employer's intellectual capital. That is good for workers and for business.

The Prime Minister has made a commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country. This will be a welcome relief from the previous government's approach, where labour and employers were pushed apart by legislation aimed at dividing and separating, rather than creating a healthy balance between worker and employer.

One only needs to look to Hamilton to see how a city can be built up through labour success and ravaged when industry declines. Even former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal criticized Bill C-377. He stated:

This will actually worsen labour relations in Canada, slow economic development, and upend the balance between free collective bargaining, capital investment and return, which are vital to a strong and free mixed-market economy. As a Conservative, I oppose the upending of this balance.

There is no need for Bill C-377. We already have legislation in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members. All of this is referred to in the Canada Labour Code. The needless red tape created by Bill C-377 creates an unfair playing field, where unions could be disadvantaged during collective bargaining. We believe in fairness for both parties during collective bargaining and feel that tilting the game in favour of one party is an affront to the ancient principles of fairness upon which Canadian democracy is founded.

The introduction of Bill C-377 in the House of Commons was an affront to Hamilton's working people. It was a bill designed to solve a problem that did not exist. No one I know in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas has ever told me they are clamouring for the far-reaching and personal information this legislation was designed to uncover.

Why was the last government interested in the private, personal information of union members? The Income Tax Act protects taxpayers from revealing their personal financial information. Yet, Bill C-377 reversed those protections and will force the disclosure of people's personal information to the general public. That is one of the reasons we are repealing this unnecessary and mean-spirited bill.

Unions have an important role to play. This repeal would allow the unions to continue to focus on finding their members work in this challenging economy, rather than focusing on mountains of unnecessary filings to the CRA.

Unions are democratic organizations and they are accountable to their members. If members do not like what unions are doing with their money, those members can vote their leaders out.

In fact, Bill C-377 requires that labour organizations disclose information that no other organization is required to disclose. That is not fair treatment.

There has been some discussion in the House about how other countries in the world require disclosure. Let us consider some of the facts.

I believe one example of France was raised. However, in that country, not only do the unions report but the employers report, too. In the United States, legislation similar to Bill C-377 has existed for a number of years, but one could argue that it has done little to further the cause of transparency and accountability.

Having discussed Bill C-377, I will briefly consider the ramifications of Bill C-525.

Both the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications and the Canadian Labour Council have argued that Bill C-525 establishes a dangerous precedent for labour relations law reform in Canada.

Traditionally, in Canada, any amendments to labour relations law have been arrived at through tripartite consultation between employer, labour, and government. This tripartite consultation has been considered essential by stakeholders to the maintenance of a labour-employer balance. Bill C-525 was introduced as a private member's bill, and private members' bills are outside the traditional tripartite process.

The tripartite process encourages balance between labour and employers. However, the previous government chose to use a back door to pass its legislation instead. This demonstrates a clear and utter disregard by the previous government for Canada's democratic tradition in labour relations law.

Bill C-525 is also an anti-union bill. More specifically, by requiring a secret ballot vote, Bill C-525 adds an unnecessary layer to the process of union formation. Bill C-525 makes it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified.

As I have already said, organized labour has provided stability and security to workers. To impede unionization is to hold workers back by making them fearful of being thrown into precarious working conditions. This makes people focus on the short term. It makes them anxious and tentative, rather than open and confident.

Hamilton and Canada were built by proud, confident workers. I came to Ottawa to represent a city that grew out of the fires of industry, through hard work, sacrifice, and care for each other. When Hamilton was most productive, it was because of labour, employers, and government working to create a safe, stable, and prosperous city, where people could innovate and create from a place of relative security. This collaboration depends on a balance between labour and employers, which was upset by the ideology of an anti-union agenda of the previous government.

Bill C-4 would be a positive step toward righting the balance between labour and employers.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has obviously spent quite a bit of time thinking about this issue. I am hoping that she might be able to help me understand this debate a bit better. I have found much of the debate in the House on this issue to be very confusing, because I keep hearing from the other parties that somehow a secret ballot is an unfair way for workers to decide if they want to join a union or not be part of one.

A secret ballot is typically thought of as the most sacrosanct and fair way for every person to be able to express their will and their conscience freely, without threat of intimidation.

Would someone please explain to me how it is somehow fair to take away the secret ballot as the means of choice for joining a union?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is about process. The secret ballot is an extra layer in the process that makes it harder for unions to unionize. It creates an extra layer and puts people in situations where they will feel undue pressure and uncomfortable with the choice they want to make about unionization.

The government believes in the opinions of Canadians. The government wants to restore the rights of Canadians. The government wants people to be able to vote with an unfettered discretion, because we believe in the Canadian vote. We want to hear their opinions and to have them set the balance and tone they need in their working environments.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech, standing up in support of those in the labour movement and recognizing the history of labour and its contributions.

Under the guise of transparency, Bill C-377 puts an onerous reporting burden on unions while raising privacy concerns for Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart. The Canadian Bar Association wrote a letter to the Conservatives pointing out how the bill tramples privacy and constitutional rights. Even the Christian Labour Association of Canada, CLAC, has called on the government to withdraw and redraft the bill because it violates privacy laws and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why does the member think the previous government and the Conservatives in the House today feel they do not need to respect the transparency that already exists for unions, and why they continue to push on this particular bill?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the previous government implemented the bill because it is anti-union. There is no other organization similar to unions that has this obligation to report. Why was this bill set up in the first place?

It causes financial strain; it causes unnecessary red tape. It puts those who are in bargaining situations at a disadvantage, because now employers have the books and can see what money the unions have.

I agree completely with my colleague that the bill is completely unfair. I am happy that within less than 100 days of our mandate I am standing in the House to support a bill that repeals this bill.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas for her maiden speech. I used to live in the Hamilton riding, and I am very impressed with what she had to say.

The member joins a long list of wonderful Hamilton women in Parliament, and I congratulate her.

I wonder if the member could comment on the tone that is being set with this legislation. We seem to be hearing some bombastic comments about the labour movement from the official opposition. Could the member please comment.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the tone this is setting.

During the election campaign, I had a number of people come to me to express their concerns about this bill. They felt that it was undemocratic, that it stripped people of their rights, and that it set up working conditions that were not ideal.

Now we are working to restore the trust and confidence in people, and to bring all parties together: employers, employees, and government.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important bill, a bill I invite all members of the House to support in order to restore a clear and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that both my parents were union members. It is through the labour movement and through their fight for fair wages, fair benefits, and safe working conditions that my family and our family prospered in Canada. We owe it to a strong middle class.

If passed, Bill C-4 would repeal the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, both of which have undermined labour unions and labour relations in our country. Let me tell members how.

I will start with Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require all labour organizations and labour trusts across Canada to provide very detailed financial and other information to the Minister of National Revenue. This information would then be made available to the public on the Canada Revenue Agency's website. If labour organizations do not comply with these rules, they would face hefty fines.

At first glance, these new reporting requirements might seem like a good thing; sharing financial information promotes transparency and accountability. I am sure members of the House would agree that is a worthy goal. I do. However, and there is a big however, if we examine the bill further, we will find that in fact it discriminates against labour unions.

First, Bill C-377 discriminates against unions because it places onerous, unfair public reporting obligations on them that do not apply to other organizations, such as professional associations that benefit from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act.

Why is this onerous task imposed on unions alone? Why tip the scales? Perhaps these financial reporting requirements would be justified if similar requirements did not already exist elsewhere, but they do.

Unions already are required to disclose financial information to their members under the Canada Labour Code and many provincial labour relations statutes. This includes British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition to Bill C-377 discriminating against unions, it is also unnecessary. It creates an extra administrative burden, just another layer of red tape. The Liberal Party of Canada does not like red tape.

There is another reason that the bill is inherently unfair to labour unions. Simply put, it creates an imbalance between unions and employers during the collective bargaining process. How exactly? By giving employers access to key union information, without employers being required to share similar information. This makes for a very uneven playing field during the collective bargaining process.

For example, employers would know how much money the union had in a strike fund for a possible work stoppage and how long they could stay out if it came to a strike. This clearly undermines the union's most important negotiating lever.

I would like to move on to Bill C-525, which Bill C-4 would also repeal.

Bill C-525 changed the way that unions were certified and decertified under the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It replaced what is known as a card-check system with a mandatory vote system.

For decades, and I emphasize decades, prior to Bill C-525 coming into force, if a union demonstrated that a majority of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for those workers. A vote was only required if less than a majority signed, but there was still enough to indicate a strong interest. Under the Canada Labour Code, it was 35% of workers. Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote and to require a vote even where more than 50% of workers had signed a union membership card.

More important, Bill C-525 also makes it easier for unions to be decertified. It lowers the threshold to trigger a decertification vote from majority support to 40%.

Overall, as stakeholders such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees have pointed out, the card-check model is faster, more efficient and more likely to be free of employer interference than the new method.

In short, Bill C-525 makes it harder for employees to unionize and makes it easier for a union to be decertified. It tips the scales in an unbalanced manner.

Bill C-525 made significant changes to a system that worked. There was a democratic and fair system in place for employees for decades to express their support for a union. A card-check system relies on majority support, a key democratic principle.

The bottom line is that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 upset the delicate balance between the rights of employers and the rights of employees. The bill put before the House, Bill C-4, seeks to repeal the legislative changes made by these two bills. It seeks to restore the rights of labour organizations in our proud country.

Unifor's national president, Jerry Dias, welcomes Bill C-4. He said, “...we have simply been given back rights that were taken from us...”. Why are these rights so important? Because the rights of labour unions and the workers they represent are also the rights of Canadians. Who are those Canadians? They are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and cleaners, the people we encounter everyday. They are Canadians who are working hard to put money in their banks and to save for their children's future.

As elected officials, we have a responsibility to protect those rights. Labour unions advocate for decent wages and safe working environments. They play an essential role in maintaining positive labour relations between employers and employees. Sound labour relations protect the rights of Canadian workers and help the middle class grow and prosper.

Let us not allow Bills C-377 and C-525 to continue to diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement. I urge the members of the House to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and lend their support for Bill C-4, which would restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that Bill C-377 was around for a long time. It was sponsored by one of our colleagues, Jeff Watson. Jeff worked tirelessly to bring it to fruition and make it law. I once asked Jeff why he was working so hard for this. He used to be a very enthusiastic union member in the auto industry. He said that he was doing it for his colleagues who were on the line, his fellow union members.

I used to be in the PSAC union. I understand guys on the line, the people doing the actual work. They wanted Bill C-377. As I said, Bill C-377 was around for a long while. In my own personal personal experience, I had two people come to see me about Bill C-377 and tell me we should not endorse it. I also had 33 people come to me and say that we needed Bill C-377. They said that they needed it for their organizers.

How could that member and that party go against the rank and file of our great labour movement?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit ironic that in yesterday's opposition day we had the members of the Conservative Party speak to the strength of our middle class in Canada. I think one of the strengths that underpins our middle class is our labour movement.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

So are you against it?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not against it, sir. The labour movement in Canada is very strong. We are supporting it. We want to bring balance back to the collective bargaining process.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I remind my colleagues to address the Chair at all times.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address something that was just brought forward. First, they are not just guys that work on the line. Unionized workers across Canada are health care workers and public sector workers, men and women supporting their families with well-paying jobs.

I come from a unionized workplace. Having been there for 20 years, I know the workplace about which the previous member spoke. He would be hard pressed to find one person in that workplace say that he or she supports that regressive legislation.

As a union member, transparency is important to me and it is available to me at all points in time. The way union members direct their funds is actually by the direction of the members. Although we contribute dues, we determine the direction of those dues at every level.

After his excellent speech, why does my colleague feel that this is so important to the labour movement and to the rank and file, the working people of Canada?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need a fair and balanced approach restored in the collective bargaining process in Canada. Workers' rights and views need to be represented at the bargaining table in a fair and balanced manner. That is what the bill aims to achieve.

In a democracy, unions and the formation of unions is a fundamental right and we fully support that within the bill.

Bill C-377 was punitive to unions. It ignored the employer bargaining units. It did not look at them at all. It was a poke at unions to be frank. The right thing to do is to repeal it, and that is what we will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a former union member. We were not always given the statistics as to where our dues went or where the money went that was collected from my paycheque.

The government claims to want accountability. Why then would it want to remove an accountability bill? Would the member please explain to the House and all Canadians why he is against accountability?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, union financial disclosure is already addressed in the Canada Labour Code and in many provincial statutes. Bill C-377 was an onerous bill that provided extra red tape to unions and did nothing to further the employee and employer bargaining process.

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, and of the amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. Every time I speak in this place, as each of us does, I remind myself that I do so as the representative of the constituents of Mégantic—L'Érable.

As a newly elected member, I could easily get swept away by our magnificent nation's capital and its surroundings. It was with my constituents in mind that I prepared this speech.

If my colleagues do not mind, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that yesterday, the Eastern Townships public health department released its report on the health of the people of Lac-Mégantic, following the tragedy in that town. This report revealed that residents are still struggling and still need the support of members of the House. I think that all parliamentarians here would publicly agree to support the people of Lac-Mégantic, who have suffered as a result of this tragedy. I urge the government to work with all parliamentarians to help everyone get through this tragedy, which was, of course, a very difficult experience for the people of Lac-Mégantic. We will have to use the necessary resources, and we will all work together, across party lines, in a non-partisan and non-political manner, to ensure that the people of Lac-Mégantic get the services they need.

I want to start by saying that my speech on Bill C-4 is in no way an attack on unions or union leaders, and is certainly not an attack on the unionized workers who work hard to earn a living and support their families.

What I would like to talk about today is in fact the thousands of workers who have no corporate or partisan interests. They are happy in their jobs. They like being properly represented by their unions, and when they go home at night, they are just as happy to be with their families and forget about work until the next morning. That is the daily life of most workers, those whose voices we do not hear, those whom we tend to take for granted.

Here in the House and at the various levels of government, whether local, provincial, or federal, many people claim that they speak for those silent workers. Lobby groups and unions all claim that they speak on behalf of all of their members and in their place. It is easy to do so, because those individuals do not hear us. They do not attend meetings with the decision-makers and, at the risk of disappointing members, when they go home tonight, they probably will not read today's Hansard.

Why? Because they are busy. They work hard to earn their paycheques and take care of their families and their homes. They are also busy paying the bills. They expect us, their MPs, to do our work like they do theirs. They expect us to take care of business in our ridings and in our country, to manage their money as though it were our own, and to build a better future for Canada. That is what those thousands of workers expect from us.

They expect that from their union too. They expect their union representatives to deal with their working conditions and employer-employee relations and to be there when problems crop up. Like us, union representatives are elected. Like us, they do their best to represent their members, as we do for our constituents.

I would like to take a moment to thank the unions that have helped build the country we have now by improving the lives of all workers.

Bill C-4 repeals two statutes, the purpose of which was quite clear, namely to allow union members to vote for union certification by secret ballot without worrying about the pressure and corporate interests of the big unions.

We have all heard the questionable stories about people being pressured to sign union membership cards by three or four people who are not necessarily well intentioned. Often those people are not even co-workers.

I cannot see how a worker is supposed to refuse to sign when those three or four people threaten to stay at his apartment, home, or the restaurant where he is eating, until they get what they want.

The legislation gave that worker a way out by ensuring that his final decision would be made by secret ballot. In other words, when faced with two or three individuals insisting that they would not leave his home until he signs the card, he could always say yes, knowing that he had a way out.

That person would be able to vote by secret ballot, to make an informed decision, free from pressure from either the unions or those three or four people who wanted to force the person to sign the membership card.

With this bill, those three or four individuals would not have stuck around at the worker's front door long, trying to get a signature. That is the truth. I have to wonder why certain unions still use such methods to represent workers. Are they truly trying to defend the interests of their members or future members? Or are they simply acting in their corporate interest, to grow their own organization and to get the associated union dues?

What is really at stake with this old method is workers' money. Unfortunately, some unions are prepared to do anything to get the workers' money and do not care about what is good for them.

As the saying goes, the union wants what is good for you and wants your goods as well. That is the truth. Why are the Liberals, in one of their very first actions in government, going after Canadian workers and this democratic safeguard? I would truly like to understand.

Setting partisanship aside, how can this Liberal government, which from the beginning of the session has been spouting democratic principles, sabotage at the first opportunity a law that finally gave a voice to workers who work hard and want to avoid problems?

This law gave them a way out, a means to finally have their say, without fear of reprisal, on whether they want to be part of a union or not.

I listened to the comments of the members opposite, and since the beginning of the debate on this bill, I have not heard a clear answer. I heard the arguments of my colleague, who has done a fine job since the start.

He has a lot of experience as an opposition member. He highlighted the benefits of these two bills. I listened to the answers the minister gave him, but, unfortunately, I still do not understand.

I must therefore come to the conclusion that Bill C-4 has only one goal, namely to allow the unions to perpetuate their old ways of doing things. We tried to correct the situation in the interest of workers.

Why is the Liberal government doing this? You can find the answers if you look hard enough. If the other side does not provide the answers, you have to look a little harder and go back in time. You try to think about what happened before that could explain why the Liberal government absolutely wants to let the unions go back to their old ways. I think that I found part of the answer when I considered all that was said in the last federal election.

Last year, well before the election campaign began, the major unions ran a huge campaign against the Conservative Party using millions of dollars given to them by workers to represent them and negotiate their working conditions. The cat is out of the bag.

Here are a few examples of what was said in the union propaganda that was given to all unionized workers in my riding over the past year. Some of the key phrases were “the Conservative government's track record” and “what you need to know to vote for a better quality of life”. Those statements were then explained.

That is electioneering, and it was paid for with public funds. All Canadians paid for those documents through tax credits, and they were handed out to all unionized workers so that they could take a stand.

There was other fine rhetoric included in these pamphlets, such as “contempt for Parliament” and “actively anti-union”. On one page, the unions claimed to understand workers' values better than did the workers themselves. It read, “your values and vision for the future”. The unions were telling workers what to think. That is what they told unionized workers using Canadian taxpayers' money.

Later on, the unions told workers what they needed to know to vote for their safety and the safety of their loved ones. They said that transportation was less safe. They used the Lac-Mégantic tragedy to oppose what we had done. It is absolutely unbelievable.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, some people want to use tragedies to score political points and advance their cause. As we saw recently in the Quebec City region, people are talking about Lac-Mégantic just to promote themselves. We do not want that. I just wanted to mention that as an aside.

Here are some other excerpts: “many reasons to vote against Harper”, “the Conservative track record”, “what you need to know before voting“, and so on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would like to inform the member that, when speaking in the House, he must not refer to another member by name.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are right, and I am sorry.

Let me get back to that question: “Why do we have to dump the Conservatives?” I found some quotes, and here is one of the best ones:

Get involved! Take the time to help make change happen! We are looking for volunteers in various ridings. Our goal is to talk to as many people as possible to tell them to vote for a change in government.

They were even offering training on how to vote. It is democratic, but I am skeptical about the reasons and motivations underlying our unions' big democratic push. That message was sent to all union members.

Here is another good quote I found when I listened to the debates and read some accounts of our debates.

In response to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who asked the minister to explain how it could be undemocratic to have a secret-ballot vote for unionization, this is what the minister said:

...it is undemocratic because the process used by the previous government did not include consultation. They did not go out into our community and apparently did not even consult with employers.

If I follow the minister's logic and understand what she said, Bill C-4 must be undemocratic.

When is the minister going to come to my riding, Mégantic—L'Érable, to consult the workers there? It is unbelievable. When is she going to come and consult the businesses in my region? Will she commit, here and now in the House, to visiting every riding in Canada to ask each and every worker their opinion on Bill C-4?

I invite the minister to come to my riding and I invite all of my colleagues across the aisle to do the same. I will arrange quite a visit for them.

Not only will the minister be able to consult each and every worker, explain her position, and hear the workers' opinions, but at the same time, she will also discover a very vibrant region full of motivated entrepreneurs and hard-working people.

However, she will also meet workers who do not agree with her on Bill C-4 and who cannot afford to make the trip here to the nation's capital to make the government hear what they have to say. Most of all, she will meet people who have absolutely no desire to come and listen to what we say here, because they are too busy earning a living and taking care of their families.

Between us, without mentioning anyone by name, since the vote was held by secret ballot, I will share a little secret with the House. I know that it will stay within these walls. When the minister comes to my riding, she will also meet unionized workers who voted for the Conservative Party. Indeed, she will.

A number of unionized workers voted for the Conservative Party and chose to support the party despite the millions of dollars that the big union bosses decided to spend to fight the big bad Conservatives, who asked them to be accountable to the workers.

She will hear that they are not at all pleased with how their boss spent their union dues during the election campaign. These people feel cheated because their money was used to fight their own democratic convictions. They are angry because their money was not used to defend their working conditions, but to promote a partisan political ideology that they do not share.

What 86% of unionized workers want is for their hard-earned money to be used properly and not for campaigning for or against a party.

Unions are the only organizations to receive so much public money without having to be transparent. Why is the Liberal government against that?

For all these reasons, I will be voting against Bill C-4.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say in all transparency that I am absolutely shocked by the comments made by members opposite today in debate on this legislation.

My riding is Saint John—Rothesay and it has a deep and historic labour movement, a very strong labour history. I had the pleasure two weeks ago to visit the Frank & Ella Hatheway labour exhibit and was given a tour by George Vair and Chuck Hickey.

The party opposite's agenda over the last 10 years has been nothing short of degrading and demoralizing union workers and its own union workers in the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I have many friends in that union. Over 10 years they have been demoralized and degraded.

Let us be clear. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were designed for one reason and that was to weaken unions.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask myself a question since no one else has asked me one.

Do I think that unions are the only organizations that should be publicly accountable? The answer is no. We would not want a charitable organization to invest in the stock market, for example, and then give half of what it makes to its directors as bonuses. We do not want that. Why does that not happen? That does not happen because these organizations are publicly accountable. It would be embarrassing for them to do so. I answered my question.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments and ask a question.

I heard comments about things such as perpetuating the old union ways. My question is this. Why are the unions always characterized as being crooked? Why this negative image of unions?

I was the treasurer of my union for 19 years. I had to bring my ledgers to every general meeting and show them to everyone. At the meeting we would talk about our expenses all together. Everything was open and transparent. Why are people saying that all unions are bands of crooks and that everything they do is bad? I do not understand that logic.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I truly do not remember saying in my speech that unions are crooks. I think that perhaps the member misinterpreted what I was saying. I did not say that at all.

I spoke about the unions' old ways of doing things. We received complaints about that, and some workers approached our party to ask if it was possible to put an end to those methods in order to improve democracy in unions. Not all unions were doing things that way. I was the vice-president of my union, and we also had very good methods and ways of doing things.

I therefore do not see any reason for calling these people names, as the NDP just did, just because I said that people want to change the old ways of doing things.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I myself was a union member, a CAW worker, a union steward at one time many years ago.

Unifor has its resort on the lake in my riding. It built a million-dollar wind turbine on its property. These are the types of things that need to be uncovered. Locals keep the books and do a great job. The workers who pay their dues are great, hard-working people.

We need to shine the light on the excesses of the national executives. I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly right. We hope that people will speak out against all such action taken by the major unions, perhaps with good intentions, but not with the intention of using workers' funds appropriately.

Why do workers give money to their unions? It is so that the union will represent them, get them better working conditions, resolve disputes with their employer, and help to improve their lot. Those are the reasons why people pay union dues. There are no other reasons.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been talking about transparency and democracy. I think we have a two-tiered system. Let me explain. During a vote on union certification, as he is proposing, the union would have to collect more than 50% of the votes of all the employees in question. All of the employees who do not vote will be deemed to have voted against unionization.

Let us now talk about our democracy. With this type of rule, no member in this House would have been elected in the last election or any other election, since no one here received more than 50% of the total votes in their riding.

I have a question for my colleague. Are there two different types of transparency? Is there one sort of transparency and democracy for unions and another one for parliamentarians?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her question.

I must say that some of our colleagues in the House did receive 50% plus one of the votes in their riding. Some of them managed to do so, but it is true that this is not the case for everyone in the House. I do want to congratulate those members on their excellent results. We are proud of their results and what they managed to accomplish in their ridings as they proudly represented unionized workers in their ridings. These people work hard and believe that the Conservative Party's decisions were good ones.

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

Madam Speaker, the reason we are debating this bill today is because the former Conservative government introduced two private members' bills through the backdoor of the private member's hour without working or consulting with unions, businesses, or the many different stakeholders, and it changed the law through that back door. If the Conservatives believed it was necessary, they did not have the political courage to do it in the form of a government bill.

Lo and behold, as the new government we recognize that we have to rectify a past mistake of the Conservative government. There are many past mistakes, and this is one that we are rectifying today.

My question to the member is this. Why does he believe that his former government used the back door to change labour laws through private member's legislation that should be based on the consensus of the different stakeholders?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit disappointed by my colleague's comments. The reason is quite simple. Why is he belittling the work that members do in the House? That is unbelievable. All members have the right to introduce bills. In the past, we allowed our members to speak and introduce bills. That is part of the democratic process.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and his answers with rapt attention. I participated in the debates on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which are now law.

Many of the aspects of these bills that we discussed and voted on were clearly designed not to address a specific problem but to undermine unions' ability to do their work. One of those aspects is the mandatory disclosure of expenses in excess of $5,000, initially, and salaries over $100,000.

I would like to know why the government of the day, which is now in opposition, wanted to create that kind of bureaucracy to monitor small expenses, which are transparent for all unions anyway?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, why is my colleague opposed to people knowing those things? This is about public money. Do unionized workers have the right to know what is being done with their money or do they not? We think they do.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

I am proud to stand today to speak in support of Bill C-4. The war on organized labour is over. This legislation would reverse the legacy of the previous government, which rushed through two anti-union measures, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, just prior to the last election. Those measures put in place redundant reporting requirements and made it harder to certify and easier to decertify a union. With Bill C-4, our government would repeal both of these punitive pieces of legislation.

The reasons we are doing this are threefold. The old combination of legislation under Bills C-377 and C-525 was unnecessary, impeded collective bargaining, and was ideologically driven.

Argument number one is that the old legislation is unnecessary. No one asked for Bills C-377 and C-525. Employees did not ask for them, unions did not ask for them, and even employers were not clamouring for this legislation. These bills constituted a solution to a problem that did not even exist. The only champions of Bills C-377 and C-525 were the members of the previous government. The ostensible reason they asserted was that they were trying to promote increased financial transparency and accountability for unions and to inject democratic principles into their processes. This rationale was defective then, and it remains defective now. First, to the idea that unions are not transparent and that members do not get to see the financial statements or expenditures, this information was and has always been made available to union members. Unions are member-based organizations that release information to their members, information that is confidential.

My colleagues across the way keep harping on about how unions are undemocratic organizations. Once again, that is incorrect.

Unions meet regularly, and all members are welcome to participate. At meetings, members are empowered to hold their leaders accountable. Discussions and debate take place during the meetings, differences of opinion are aired, and solutions are put forward. Taken together, those aspects are features of a democratic system.

Unions also hold membership votes. Decisions are made by the members themselves. The members are the ones who make decisions and issue instructions. Leaders are elected by union members and can be removed from their positions. That is another key principle of a democratic system.

I say this with some experience. I am the product of an organized workplace. For the past 12 years, before being elected, I served as a civil servant with the Ontario public service, practising law as a crown attorney. I have first-hand knowledge of the transparency and accountability parameters by which unions abide.

Yet another argument offered by the previous government in support of the old package of legislation was that it represented a modest increase in the financial disclosure obligations for unions. Again, this is incorrect. The reporting requirement in old Bill C-377 calls for at least 24 detailed statements to be submitted by unions of any size, from the smallest groups to the largest national bodies. The collection and managing of these submissions would cost the government millions of dollars, $11 million to start the oversight mechanism and $2 million every year thereafter. Those are not my figures. They come from the Canada Revenue Agency and the parliamentary budget officer. Just so we are clear, under Bills C-377 and C-525, the previous Conservative government increased the size and scope of government and government regulation, adding to the amount of red tape and, more important, adding to the amount that Canadian taxpayers would be required to shell out for such additional bureaucracy. The irony is palpable.

Argument number two is that the old legislation impeded collective bargaining. As I said at the outset, Bill C-525 made it harder to certify and easier to decertify a union. With the new Bill C-4, we would repeal those provisions. Our government recognizes that certification of a union is an important part of the collective bargaining process.

As I mentioned, I spent 12 years as a crown attorney specializing in the area of constitutional law. Section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of association. That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include “the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining”. Why is collective bargaining so important as to warrant constitutional protection? The Supreme Court has explained that, in paragraph 58 of a decision called MPAO.

The Supreme Court said:

The guarantee functions to protect individuals against more powerful entities. By banding together in the pursuit of common goals, individuals are able to prevent more powerful entities from thwarting their legitimate goals and desires. In this way, the guarantee of freedom of association empowers vulnerable groups and helps them work to right imbalances in society. It protects marginalized groups and makes possible a more equal society.

Collective bargaining is important because it helps to promote fairness and equality. We get that and we are not going to waste more taxpayer dollars litigating these types of cases in the courts. On that point, I would simply note that the charter challenge launched by the Alberta Union of Public Employees against the old Bill C-377 was suspended immediately upon our government's announcement that we would be repealing the government's punitive legislation.

However, it is not just me who understands the utility of collective bargaining as a vehicle for addressing inequality, it is also my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. It is people like Mr. Hassan Yussuff, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is my neighbour in Roncesvalles Village and a tireless advocate for workers' rights. It is people like Wyatt Bilger, a hard-working carpenter and resident of my riding and a member of Carpenters Union Local 27. It is people like the countless artists, filmmakers, performers, and television producers in my riding who contribute so much culturally to our community, who are also proud members of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. It is people like the hard-working tradespeople and manufacturing employees in Parkdale—High Park who are members of LiUNA, Unifor, and the CAW.

All of these individuals and groups appreciate what this newly elected government recognizes, that workplaces that include collective bargaining are a net positive, not a net negative for our communities.

Argument number three is that the old legislation was ideologically driven. There was no rationale whatsoever that informed the passage of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 other than rigid, anti-union sentiment. To illustrate this point, let us look no further than the rushed passage of the bills through Parliament. Bill C-377 was one of the four bills to get to the Senate just before the writ was issued for the last election. It was expedited to the Senate and was made made into law. But one of the four bills that received support from all parties in this chamber was left to die on the Senate order paper in place of passing Bill C-377.

What I am talking about is Bill C-279 that had been introduced as private members' legislation by my NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Bill C-279 was going to amend the Canada Human Rights Act to include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination. All parties supported and passed that private member's bill in the House in the 41st Parliament. However, instead of championing that bill in the Senate, the previous Conservative government decided to promote the passage of Bill C-377. Conservatives chose to attack organized labour rather than back Bill C-279, which would have protected the rights and freedoms of gender and gender variant Canadians who deserve the same treatment and rights as every other Canadian.

Not only did the Conservatives attack unions, they told trans and gender variant Canadians that their rights were not a priority. Thankfully that was yet another mistake of the Conservatives that our government has pledged to rectify. The commitment to amend the Canada Human Rights Act to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination is in the mandate letter for the Attorney General of Canada.

We have seen this ideological pattern before in terms of the old war on the environment, the war on the civil service, and the war on evidence-based policy. We have taken stands to reverse all of those previous battles. Now with Bill C-4, our government brings to an end the war on organized labour.

The role of this government, of any government, is to create jobs, but it is not just about creating any jobs, it is about creating good quality, secure, well-paying jobs. We recognize that unions help to do this. They ensure fair compensation for workers, promote safety for individuals, and protect workers' job security and their well-being.

A secure worker is a more productive worker and productive workers are good for the economy. We understand this. The previous government did not. As I said, the war on organized labour is over. Unions are not the enemy of progress, they are a partner in that progress. Our government is committed to working with them, not against them, to further the economic development of this country.

For these reasons, I urge members in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his good speech. I really appreciate the fact that he worked hard on that and it was clear. I do not agree, but it was clear.

There was one point that I strongly disagree with. At the beginning of his speech he said clearly that in this part of the House we always say that unions are undemocratic. I never say that. If so, please give me the time, the date, and the place where we said that. If not, please retract it.

Here is what I think: our bills always meant to strengthen union democracy by giving more authority and ensuring greater transparency, and above all, by making sure that secret ballots would give unassailable authority to decisions made by unions and union members.

How can any member duly elected to the House of Commons, elected by secret ballot, be against secret ballot voting?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to both questions.

First, the only inference that can be drawn by tactically deciding to promote this legislation, which was a private member's bill, on the eve of an election call is that it was ideologically motivated and democracy, or lack thereof, within the union processes was at the heart of the motivations of the Conservatives.

With regard to the second point, we have heard a lot during the course of the debate, even today, about the voting processes within the unions. I find it a bit ironic, to say the least, that members opposite are championing this point while, at the same time, completely sacrificing other important interests, such as the privacy interests of individuals involved in the unions.

According to the Conservatives' legislation, which we are taking off the books, there would be things like whether someone was entering a substance abuse program or what kind of prescription medication a person or his or her spouse was using that would be made public pursuant to the reporting requirements. This is a blatant attack on individuals' rights and on unions, and that is why we seek to oppose it.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In response to the question I just heard, clearly, we do not need to talk specifically about an attack on unions. However, the inference is there. Obviously, it has been implied, not only in this debate but also in the debate that took place in the previous Parliament on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

When you look at the contents of the debates here in the House and the discussions that took place in the relevant committees, it is clear that the legislation was not meant to unshackle the workers, but rather to attack unions' ability to properly represent them.

The provisions in the bills, which later became law, not only undermined unions' ability to do their jobs properly, but also created a very specific and massive bureaucracy to manage minor situations, which is very surprising from a government that always claimed to prefer less bureaucracy.

How will repealing those bills, which is what Bill C-4 proposes, affect the bureaucracy that was proposed by the Conservative government of the day?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

As I mentioned in my original comments, Madam Speaker, the financial impact on increasing the size of the bureaucracy would have been extremely significant. The numbers that I provided in my original speech were provided by the CRA and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would cost approximately $11 million to start up the oversight and $2 million thereafter.

We have made a decision that this kind of overlay, that this kind of bureaucracy, is unnecessary: first, because we are not ideologically opposed to organized labour; and second, and most important, that these kinds of accountability and transparency mechanisms already exist under the Canada Labour Code and under provincial legislation that is applicable. It is redundant and unnecessary legislation. That is why we are prioritizing it and getting rid of it.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague identified the fact that constitutional experts had said the legislation went against the Constitution. Privacy experts have said it exposes millions of Canadians and their privacy. Also, seven out of ten provinces have spoken against it.

Would my colleague agree that this was a solution for a problem that did not exist? There were ulterior motives. This was about trying to find something to solve a problem that did not exist.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the government is repealing two laws that have changed the way unions operate.

Bill C-377 has created unnecessary red tape and has put organized labour at a disadvantage in the collective bargaining process.

Bill C-525 makes it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified.

The measures the government is taking in Bill C-4, are part of a plan designed to ensure that Canada's labour laws best serve employees and employers.

This new bill is part of the government's plan to strengthen the middle class in our great country and to fully recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers.

This government started with a tax break for hard-working Canadians. In the riding I represent, that is a tax break for hard-working nurses, teachers, soldiers, and many other public servants.

We will follow that tax break with the new Canada child benefit, a monthly tax-free, income-tested benefit that would lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, a benefit that will help nine out of ten Canadian families.

We will also support our veterans by restoring the option of the lifelong pension and by caring for their physical and mental health, and that of their families. It is the sacred obligation of the government to unconditionally support those who have unconditionally served for our safety and freedom.

The government will rebuild its relationship with indigenous Canadians on a nation-to-nation basis, a relationship based upon mutual respect, recognition of rights, and understanding of traditional knowledge.

This bill is also about respect and fairness, national economic prosperity, and supporting the middle class, which is made up of those dedicated workers who contribute to the growth of our communities and our economy.

It is clear that the previous government did not believe in fairness or the importance of unions and the role they play. Its actions were motivated by a desire to undermine the union movement.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were counterproductive to a positive working relationship between employees and employers. Furthermore, it was not a widespread request of the business community. It was unnecessary and caused difficulties for unions.

The two anti-labour bills, which this bill seeks to reverse and reset, were direct attacks on unions by the previous Conservative government. They undermined the right for workers in federally regulated sectors to form a union, and imposed unnecessary and onerous reporting burdens on all unions.

The current government is taking a different route, which consists in listening to the union groups, communities, and legal experts who sounded the alarm about these bills that likely violate charter rights. A number of constitutional experts felt that Bill C-377 was likely unconstitutional.

Privacy experts said that the bill would compromise the private information of millions of Canadians. The bill also discriminates against unions. It does not take into account other types of organizations, such as professional associations. What is more, seven provinces are against the bill because they feel it encroaches on their jurisdiction.

As my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has so eloquently stated, Bill C-525 was simply a solution looking for a problem.

Simply put, in over 10 years and after thousands of rulings by the Industrial Relations Board, there were merely two judgments against unions for questionable practices during union organizing.

That is why the government has taken significant steps to rebuild labour relations after a decade of acrimony between unions and the Conservatives. It is why the government has introduced legislation to repeal these two anti-labour bills.

I have the honour every day of representing the riding of Fredericton, which is home to many dedicated workers who have been unfavourably and unfairly affected by Bills C-377 and C-525, which are mean-spirited.

Educated, professional, proud public servants, many of whom are taking care of our aging population, live in the riding.

We are home to university scientists and researchers, themselves fostering creative approaches and solutions to the existential challenges we face as a society, as well as making new discoveries to the way we view the world and how we provide economic opportunity, social well-being, and environmental sustainability to our community.

We are also home to almost 1,000 civilian employees at Base Gagetown, employees who, amidst all the coming and going of our men and women in uniform, keep the lights on, the roads safe, and the buildings operational at Canada's largest military training base.

The economic and fiscal contribution of these professional public servants is enormous. Base Gagetown alone contributes upward of $600 million annually to the New Brunswick economy.

The base, the largest federal government asset and largest contributor to our socio-economic vibrancy in the riding, would simply not remain operational without the diligence and hard work of civilian employees, the support of their families, and, in fact, the support of the entire town of Oromocto, Canada's model town, which sprung up just over a half century ago to provide service and a home for the base.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were not mere attacks on the civilian workforce at Base Gagetown. They were seen as an attack on the community of Oromocto. As I knocked on doors last winter, spring, summer, and fall, clear across the Oromocto community, I heard time and time again how the community felt largely betrayed by the former government and how it felt it was time for a positive change.

On October 19, the people of Oromocto spoke clearly and they spoke for that real change.

As the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has said many times, we promised to repeal these bills because they are detrimental to labour relations. In Oromocto, labour relations have had a negative impact on the morale of the community.

Unions have a major role to play in protecting workers' rights and growing the middle class. The former government trampled on many basic labour rights that were hard won by the unions. That made it more difficult for workers to enjoy freedom of association, bargain collectively in good faith and work in a safe environment.

The government plans on restoring fair and balanced labour legislation that recognizes the important role unions play in Canada and respects their major contribution to the growth and prosperity of the middle class.

This begins with repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, legislation that diminishes and weakens Canada's labour movement. This side of the floor knows that the bill may face a stiff test in the Senate. It is, however, sad to hear members opposite say that they will direct the Senate to kill the bill and continue to disadvantage the organized labour movement in Canada.

I believe the Senate exists to study and recommend improvements and enhancements to legislation. I hope the upper chamber will serve to do just that and will work collaboratively with all parliamentarians in the House.

Canadians elected a government that would ensure evidence based decision making. On balance, there was very little evidence to support the passing of these two bills. Canadians elected a government that work hard to reinstitute fairness in decision making. Over and above balance, there was nothing fair in these bills.

This government promised to stand up for Canadians, and this is exactly what we have set out to do, and Bill C-4 would do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a former union member. I was one of the people who stumped for Bill C-377, saying it was a needed thing for union accountability in Canada. It strikes me as very interesting that people like me, as a former union member, would not be supportive of such legislation. I absolutely support it and want to see it continue in Canada.

I do not see anything wrong with accountability in the union and labour movements. A lot of former and current members are supportive of the same. What does the member opposite have against union accountability?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that accountability is paramount in all our actions. That is why we are undertaking to repeal the bills. We are holding ourselves accountable to the commitment we made to Canadians in the election to reintroduce fairness into Canada's Parliament and the way we work hard for people in our community. We heard this was greatly lacking and that it had developed over the previous 10 years. We were elected to reset that.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech honouring members in his community who are members of unions.

The NDP, of course, is pleased that the federal government has tabled legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I would also like to say that we noticed Bill C-377 would have cost a tremendous amount to taxpayers to implement, as well as to keep the database going.

In my community, many union members put money into their communities through United Way programs, non-profit organizations. Bill C-377 would have tied up the funds that union members happily put into their communities to keep them thriving when government programs are lacking.

Could the member across please speak to the ways that the union members in his community contribute as well?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, not only is it the financial contribution that organized labour adds to communities, but physical support, support for charities, for community building endeavours, for those less fortunate in our communities. It is, by and large, the labour movement that is always leading or very much active in all sorts of different activities that take place, throughout Fredericton, New Maryland, Oromocto, clear across the Grand Lake region, which I have the honour of representing.

Quite frankly, I look forward to continued partnering with union members, organized labour, and with all constituents in the riding I represent, to ensure that we keep building a healthy and safe community.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, my parents were union members. My dad was a local union president. From an early age, I knew that unions played an important role in growing strong middle-class jobs like my parents', promoting strong jobs and middle-class work that the people of St. Catharines and all of Niagara rely on.

With regard to Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, the sole purpose seems to be ideologically punitive. There were no demands from unions or industry for these bills.

Could the hon. members please advise how the government intends to restore a positive relationship with unions with the current bill before the House?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is about restoring and resetting the relationship with the labour movement across the country, as we are set to do with many other stakeholder groups in communities who have been left hung out to dry by the previous government.

At the end of the day, we need to ensure that we are fair in our deliberations, that we listen, that we come with evidence to support the decisions we are making, but that we be open to considering alternative views from what we may initially think is the case.

I expect that being consultative, being collaborative, and listening well will serve every member in this House in good stead in their communities if they undertake to operate in such a manner.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Essex.

I am pleased to rise in the House to debate 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. First of all, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting this bill. The NDP strongly opposed the previous Conservative government's attempt to limit the rights of unions and change the rules governing labour relations.

This bill reflects one of the promises made by the NDP during the election campaign. Although I support this bill, I must mention how much work still needs to be done with regard to workers' rights and their working conditions.

The bill restores and respects workers' rights. Like thousands of other people in my riding of Jonquière, I am very proud to have been a part of the labour movement. I was the president of my local chapter for eight years, and I managed it well.

Since we started debating Bill C-4, I cannot help but feel a twinge of sadness about many of the comments I have heard here in the House. For eight years, I was directly accountable to my members at meetings and even at my workplace. I had to deal with some very sensitive issues with my members and defend both long-time and new employees.

At union meetings we had a duty to present our financial statements to members. The same goes for all locals, in all unions. The members themselves must decide whether they agree with the spending their union is doing within their own organization. We must be transparent and accountable to our members. That is enshrined in all of our laws, and all unions must comply.

Over those eight years, I did so and we even implemented an audit system, which also exists in all unions. Our union has an officer to look over all the books and statements. I must say that when there is an anomaly, for example, if an invoice is missing or if an expenditure was left out or made by mistake, we are set straight and we are always accountable to this movement and our members.

Unions and their members do not need a government telling them what to do because they already have their regulations. They already have their own rules, rules that the members voted on either in meetings or in committees that are themselves elected by the members. Transparency is already part of the process, and leaders are accountable to union members every step of the way.

If a worker finds fault with the union's internal processes or the representatives, there is a great organization to handle that: the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB. The board is there for those people. It is impartial, and it exists to protect workers who feel their rights have been violated. There is even a complaints process. We do not need laws like the ones the Conservatives brought in to dictate how unions should be organized.

The union movement is very happy about Bill C-4, which would repeal the previous government's unfair bills C-377 and C-525. The New Democrats opposed those bills at every stage in the process because they were useless and irresponsible legislative measures that made a mockery of the very ideas of equality and fairness in negotiations between the parties and that undermined people's basic right to free collective bargaining.

It was a partisan assault on the men and women who go to work every day to provide for their families. Those same people voted to elect representatives to the House of Commons to defend their interests.

I was very disappointed that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent reiterated his support for his party's bills, when he was not even a member for the party at that time.

Blaming the unions for his party's defeat is a little like blaming the groundhog for a longer winter. Ultimately, the workers spoke, and the Conservatives did not have their support, essentially because the Conservatives trampled all over workers' rights.

I would like to provide some direction for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, since he seems to have lost his way somewhere between Quebec City and Ottawa.

The World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and a quicker response to economic downturns. I think our economy could use a good boost right about now.

The Conservatives put all their eggs in one basket and we are seeing the consequences of that today. Unfortunately, people often forget what the union movement has done for workers: minimum wage, paid overtime, occupational safety standards, parental and maternity leave, paid vacation, and protection from discrimination and sexual harassment.

Just yesterday, we voted for a motion on pay equity moved by the NDP. I thank all the parties who supported the motion. I am still scratching my head about the fact that the Conservatives refused to support our motion, and especially that their leader refused to support our motion, considering that until recently she was the minister of status of women.

Bill C-4 is an excellent first step. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to fix past mistakes, such as the attack on sick leave introduced in the omnibus Bill C-59.

We also have to take a look at what we can improve, beyond the repairs that need to be made because of the Conservatives' bad decisions. It is high time that we modernized some of the outdated provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

It has been almost 60 years since the Canada Labour Code was overhauled. I join with my colleague from Saskatoon West in highlighting the importance of following up on the recommendations of the report released after the 2006 review of the Canada Labour Code.

That follow-up is already overdue. A good number of those recommendations and the vital updates would benefit many workers. For example, take the issues of workplace safety and preventive withdrawal for pregnant women. In Quebec, under the CSST regulations, once women are 26 weeks pregnant they are entitled to preventive withdrawal for their protection and that of their foetus. There is no such provision in the Canada Labour Code. Thus, we still have far to go. We must do more to improve working conditions for our women, our future mothers, and for all workers. Every worker deserves to be protected.

Some workers have a very hard time putting food on the table every day. Therefore, we urge the government to restore the federal minimum wage, to pass anti-scab legislation and to fight for greater pay equity.

I am pleased to have had this time and the opportunity to debate this bill, because the rights of workers across Canada have been violated by the Conservatives' actions.

Unions have many procedures, bylaws and rules. Consequently, this whole movement is already well established.

I see that my time is up, but I could talk a long time about this subject.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and welcome her to the House. I wish her the very best as she starts her new career.

The member had some very good points in her speech. However, so that she is aware as we debate, the rational the Conservative government used at the time to put forward these two pieces of legislation, the reason the member for Red Deer—Lacombe cited for putting forward Bill C-525, was that it was to address the mountain of grievances against big union bosses and their strong-arm tactics to organize labour sites.

When the president of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee, I asked specifically about this mountain of grievances. In over 10 years, she had dealt with 4,000 grievances. The number of grievances against the big union bosses was two in 10 years. Would the member see that as a mountain of grievances? Does she believe that would be justification enough to go forward with this punitive anti-union legislation?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. That is a very good question.

People always have a tendency to exaggerate when it comes to unions. We are therefore wondering whether the Conservatives were exaggerating when they spoke about union fat cats who cheat and who do not support all areas of policy. There is reason to wonder.

As I was saying in my speech, members already have access to a complaint process. If they feel wronged, they can lodge a complaint through an independent committee, which will consider the matter.

That is why we are in favour of Bill C-4. We support all workers.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

She spoke a great deal about the Conservatives in her speech. We were defeated in the last election, but I would like to remind her that the NDP was unable to hold on to the role of official opposition. In my opinion, they too were judged harshly because of their statements and their relationship with the party in power.

How does it violate workers' rights to simply ask for accountability to the House, to Canadians, and to unionized workers?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the unions themselves have to be accountable to their members. Members pay union dues and union locals already have well-established rules. It is an obligation.

Every union has to be accountable to its members, and if those members are not satisfied, then they have recourse to a challenge process and an independent committee. This process works and the government does not need to be involved.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, some of the things we hear here are enough to make your hair stand on end.

My colleague mentioned a review committee. As I mentioned earlier, I was a union treasurer for 19 years, and our union had a review committee. I was also part of my union's review committee. We audited the books, and there was transparency at many levels.

Could my colleague share her experience with respect to bookkeeping?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

It is true that we have to keep detailed financial records, provide supporting documentation, and produce financial statements. This is similar to what happens in an organization or a company. I always compared my local or my union to a small business, because we are accountable to our members.

Every month, we produced financial statements and kept the books. During union meetings, we had to propose and distribute the financial statements. When there is a call for spending that is higher than normal, depending on the bylaws, we must submit proposals and present reports, and the members approve each expenditure.

The process is the same at every level. We are always transparent and accountable to our members.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 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. This bill represents an important effort to reverse the anti-union and anti-worker legislation that was ushered through Parliament by the previous Conservative government.

The NDP worked tirelessly to oppose Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 at every step of the way, so it should come as no surprise that our party is in full support of repealing these bills.

While I welcome the changes tabled by the government as a good first step, there is so much more to do for workers' rights and conditions. New Democrats are calling on the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage, to adopt anti-scab legislation, and to implement proactive pay equity legislation, as per the NDP motion passed in this place just a few days ago. The NDP is also calling on the government to restore good-faith bargaining with our public service workers by repealing Division 20 of Bill C-59, related to sick days.

After a decade of Conservative darkness, I am encouraged to see the Liberal government taking the first steps to restore some of the rights of working people that were under attack under the previous government.

As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am determined to be a strong voice for working people both in my home riding and across Canada. The struggle of working people in Canada for unionization and their gains have benefited all Canadians. The fight of unions for a fair workplace for all workers in our country began with the fight in 1872 to have a shorter workday, but it has included changes to maternity and parental leave, the right to a safe workplace, and more.

My riding has proud union members working in auto manufacturing, health care, long-term care, education, municipalities, trades, retail, and the public sector. The benefits of being a unionized worker include a legally binding contract that guarantees working conditions, job security, paid holidays, wages, benefits, health and safety, and more.

On average, unionized workers earn $5 more per hour than non-unionized workers. For women, the difference is $6.65 an hour. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week.

Unions also provide great support for communities. In my riding of Essex, unionized workers give generously and selflessly to the United Way and other non-profit organizations, which has made a vast difference in the lives of people in all of our communities, not just in the lives of union members. Gaps that exist due to government cuts and program reductions are picked up by caring union members who continue to dig deep into their pockets, even when they are suffering in their own industries.

I spent much of the last year knocking on doors and talking with people from every community in my riding of Essex. Their stories and struggles were the struggles of all hard-working Canadians: high unemployment through no fault of their own, and in our region, one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada, with many still ineligible for EI.

Workers are struggling to make ends meet. Our communities are filled with the working poor, who are left no choice but to work in minimum-wage jobs and part-time or casual jobs, often piecing together two or three different jobs just to make ends meet. Sadly, this is a growing reality across Canada. Statistics tell us that 60% of all new Canadian jobs are considered precarious, part-time, temporary, contract-based, freelance, and self-employed positions. These workers are taxi drivers, contract teachers, office cleaners, and clerks. They often have no workplace pension, no job benefits, and no job security.

As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to work together and advocate for solutions that will improve the lives of all Canadians. Instead, in the previous Parliament, the Conservatives pushed through legislation, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, designed to weaken unions and make it more difficult for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to join a union.

These two bills moved through Parliament as private member's bills, although it was crystal clear that these were government-led initiatives. Even now, the Conservatives are threatening to use their power in the Senate to block legislation that would restore labour rights. Canadians are fed up with the unelected, unaccountable, under-investigation Senate. There is no place in our democracy for these senators to upend the work done by Canadians' representatives here in this place.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary, discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. Guised as a move to improve transparency, those who actually know how union locals operate also know that Bill C-377 had absolutely nothing to do with transparency. As a union member, I know the direction of the union members' funds and how they are determined, in fact, by the membership. Transparency between union members and their elected governing executives is never an issue. Members are always able to access the financial disclosure of their allocation of dues. Not a penny is spent that is not reported to the membership.

Reporting requirements in Bill C-377 would bog down unions in so much red tape that it would severely interfere with their ability to serve their membership. According to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, this bill went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by violating Canadians' right to the freedom of association and privacy rights of those who work for a union.

Bill C-377 would also cost millions of dollars to implement. The parliamentary budget officer estimated it would cost more than $2.4 million allocated by the Canada Revenue Agency. In fact, it was estimated that it would cost the CRA approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database over the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million in each subsequent year. Repealing the contents of Bill C-377 would save millions of dollars for both the government and the unions, and, as I previously mentioned, would continue the critical support that unionized workers provide for their communities where government gaps exist.

Bill C-4, the government bill before us today, also seeks to repeal Bill C-525, another bill introduced by a Conservative backbencher and ushered through by a Conservative government intent on attacking the labour movement. Bill C-525 fundamentally changed the process for certifying or decertifying a union under federal jurisdiction, essentially making it harder to certify a union and easier to decertify. It should come as no surprise that workers would want to unionize. As I outlined earlier, unionized jobs tend to have higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions than non-unionized jobs. Bill C-525 would impact all federally regulated workers seeking to certify or decertify as a union. Workers under this jurisdiction include the energy sector, airline sector, telecommunications, rail, and postal workers.

For these federally regulated workers, to certify as a unionized workforce it was previously the case that a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of employees sign a card indicating they wish to be a member of a union. It is called the “card check system”. If between 35% and 50% of employees sign a card, a vote is triggered to ask employees if they wish to be unionized. Bill C-525 changed all this by outlawing the card check model and replacing it with a two-step process. First, the card-signing process where the percentage of signed cards required to trigger a vote increased from 35% to 40%. The second step included a government supervised vote. These changes were fundamentally unfair and put workers wanting to unionize at a serious disadvantage.

Bills C-377 and C-525 were not in the best interests of workers. Instead, they were designed to further attack and erode the labour movement in Canada. New Democrats will always stand for the interests of working Canadians. I am proud of how our party provided strong and effective leadership in opposing these bills in the House, at committee, and in the media. Today's legislation to repeal Bills C-377 and C-525 is a step in the right direction. I am also proud of our successful NDP motion this week calling for immediate action on pay equity. Let us also move forward on restoring and enhancing collective bargaining rights as well as fairer working conditions for all Canadians.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. I, like her, am proud to rise and support Bill C-4. In my estimation, the previous bills, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, were clearly attacks on the labour movement. I have heard a lot of speeches here this morning and this afternoon, and it is clear that the opposition members are coming from a place of extremism. Whether attacking, as in this case, the labour movement or, in other instances the indigenous organizations, non-profits, or charities, it is clearly a place that does not appreciate the balance of government.

I wonder if the hon. member could offer her comments on my impressions.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that we have definitely heard some things in the House over the last few days of debate on this bill that have really made it clear that the Conservatives in the previous government were anti-worker, anti-union, and really tried to impose legislation that would break unions across this country.

I am proud to stand with my counterparts across the aisle and down the aisle in support of repealing both of these really regressive, terrible, anti-worker pieces of legislation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am personally insulted by some of the inclinations shown here that this is an attack on transparency and accountability.

I spent thirty and a half years as a union member. In fact, I was a union president. One of the things our members often talked about was the issue of accountability and transparency. It is the cornerstone of democracy. It is the cornerstone of democracy in this House and in this country. It is also the cornerstone of democracy within the labour movement.

What does the hon. member have against another layer of accountability and transparency within the labour movement? My members did not have a problem with it. I do not understand why she would.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be curious to find out if the membership that the MP was formerly in charge of as a president still feels that way today. Would they like the public to have access to all of their books, to the tune of the millions of dollars it would cost the taxpayers?

Unions are transparent to their membership. That is what is required inside a union. We do not have a responsibility to provide that information, just as other organizations do not either, as was mentioned earlier in regard to the bar association.

This attack on unions, and it is an attack on unions because no other associations or organizations were mentioned when this bill was brought forward, is undemocratic at its very roots.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' comments are that this is all about accountability, openness, and transparency.

We made an amendment to the bill, that we should go beyond organized labour to the employers' groups, chambers of commerce, bar associations, and anyone who gets a tax deduction. We wanted to open it up, because if it is good for organized labour, then it would be good for everyone. We put forward that amendment to the bill, and the Conservatives voted against it.

I want the member to know that we stand with the NDP. We recognize that those two pieces of legislation were nothing but a deliberate attack on organized labour. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member across for the support. It is not just a matter of the the NDP and the Liberals opposing this piece. There was widespread opposition from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, the NHL Players' Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry, amongst others.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to ask for the support of the House for Bill C-4, which would repeal the legislative amendments enacted by Bills C-377 and C-525 of the previous Parliament.

I am proud to call York Centre home to a large number of businesses and manufacturers. I have met people and heard stories from businesses that started in their garages and have grown into international brands. These range from storefronts to factories, many of which are local success stories that now have national, and even international, reach.

Not so coincidentally, York Centre is also home to a large number of unions and unionized workers. These are employees across a broad spectrum, from construction and the skilled trades, to factory workers, administrative employees, teachers, and public servants. It is no coincidence that my riding is home to so many thriving businesses and labour organizations. Both go together and have to worth together for our economy to thrive.

As we have stated before, our government believes that fair and balanced labour relations are absolutely essential for the prosperity of Canadian workers and our country's economic growth. Both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly, in safe and healthy work environments.

It is our labour laws that help ensure there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. However, in the previous Parliament, a number of pieces of legislation were passed that changed our labour relations system. Bills C-377 and C-525, private members' bills supported by the previous government, upset the delicate balance between unions and employers.

Under Bill C-377, labour organizations and labour trusts are required to provide the Canada Revenue Agency with details of their assets, liabilities, income and expenditures, as well as salaries paid to their officers, directors, and other specified employees. They are also required to provide information on the time spent by officers on political lobbying and non-labour relations activities. This information is then to be made publicly available on the CRA's website.

This creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Under the Canada Labour Code, unions in federally regulated workplaces, as well as employers' organizations, are already required to provide their financial statements to their own members, free and on demand. It is worth noting that eight provinces have similar financial disclosure requirements.

Why should unions be subject to these onerous and redundant reporting requirements, requirements that do not apply to other organizations that also benefit from similar status under the Income Tax Act, such as professional organizations?

Then there is the issue of this information being publicly available. Publishing this information on the CRA's website means that employers will have access to key union information, including how much they have set aside in a strike fund. It is not difficult to see how this puts the unions at a serious disadvantage during the collective bargaining process.

Essentially, Bill C-377 imbalances the system. This brings me to Bill C-525, which also tilts the scales in favour of employers.

Prior to Bill C-525, federally regulated private sector workers who wanted to organize could do so in a relatively simple and straightforward manner. If a majority of employees signed a union card, they could go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, show it the signed union cards, and the CIRB could certify them as the bargaining agent for those workers. If less than a majority of employees signed union cards, but at least 35% did, a certification vote could be held. The card-check system worked well for many years, so why was it replaced by a system that many stakeholders, such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, feel is less efficient and more vulnerable to employer interference?

Under Bill C-525, unions are required to show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote, making it more difficult to get the right to vote. In addition, even when the majority of workers have clearly demonstrated their support by signing union membership cards, a secret ballot vote must be held before they can be certified as a bargaining agent.

The card check system, which is based on obtaining majority support, is no less democratic than a mandatory vote system. It has also proven to be an efficient and effective way to gauge employee wishes. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees, this two-stage process essentially forces those in favour of a union to vote twice. By slowing the process, the employer has the opportunity to intimidate, harass, and unethically induce employees to vote no. Not all employers would attempt to prevent unions from organizing. However, there are examples of those who have.

The bottom line is that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 put unions at a disadvantage and make it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize in the first place.

Why would we want to make life more difficult for unions and the workers they represent? We recognize the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadians. As Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff stated, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were “nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers”.

The federal labour relations system used to be respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of genuine and proven consultative and consensual processes that had been followed for decades with respect to amending the Labour Code. As I mentioned earlier, the prosperity of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy relies on those same fair and balanced labour relations. Repealing the legislative amendments made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will help restore that balance.

I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues in the House will support Bill C-4 so we can achieve this.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for York Centre spoke very eloquently about the balance between labour and employers. A cornerstone of that balance is that in the rare instances where the collective bargaining process breaks down, there is economic pressure on both sides. In a strike or lockout, the employees do not receive their salaries and the employer has to do without their labour. That balance is disrupted if the employer can just bring in replacement workers. Therefore, anti-scab legislation is a very important component of preserving that important balance between labour and management.

I wonder if the member for York Centre could clearly commit to saying that the new Liberal government will introduce and pass anti-scab legislation.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill on the table today, Bill C-4, deals in particular with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and speaks to a fair and balanced relationship between both sides, which is crucial when it comes to collective bargaining. That is the issue on the floor of the House today, that is the commitment that our government has made, and that is the commitment that we will be upholding when we vote on this bill next week.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard two different Liberal members today talk about the fact that a secret ballot would mean an extra level of red tape in order for unions to certify. Does he believe democracy is just red tape?

Also, if the Liberals are concerned about privacy, if that is the one thing they are camping on, why would they not simply amend the legislation to deal with any privacy issues they feel is a concern and allow workers the capability of a secret ballot and the ability to see the books when they want to see them?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the process used by the previous government to bring in Bill C-525 was undemocratic. The Conservatives did not go out into the community, a community like York Centre, to consult with organizations and employers to determine what the implications of such an act would be. The bill was rammed through in a process not supported by either side, management or labour. It unbalanced the delicate scales in the labour relations process. That is why the government is committed to standing up for the rights of workers and ensuring that Bill C-4 repeals those two bills.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, we often talk about social trust, in other words, the good faith relationship between the members of a society to advance that society. In the context of labour law, there is a good faith relationship between the employer and the employees to advance the common interests of the business. Does my colleague see the bill introduced and passed by the previous government as a negation of social trust?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the year and a half that I met and engaged with my constituents in York Centre, on many occasions I had the opportunity to discuss with members of organized labour and employers the issue that the hon. member speaks about, the trust and working relationship that is essential in our economy to ensure the labour relations process moves forward and is built on a foundation of trust. That is what these two bills that we seek to negate do.

As our government has said, we will stand all the way through to repeal them using Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address important issues facing the chamber.

I look at the bill before us as a bill that would right a wrong. The previous government made a mistake when it brought in a private member's bill through the back door, legislation that was to make a political statement which was to the detriment of the union movement in Canada. However, it goes far beyond just the union movement, as it affects every aspect of our economy, which is something I will take a bit of time to highlight.

In my former years as a member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, I had the opportunity to be engaged in a number of different debates regarding unions and labour legislation. In fact, in 1988, we had our most controversial days inside the Manitoba legislation, and it was surrounding labour legislation.

Some might recall the use of the tool called the “final offer selection”. It was brought in by a New Democratic government. When the New Democratic government fell, it was replaced with a Conservative government, and one of the first things on its agenda was to get rid of the final offer selection tool.

I recall very vividly how much resistance there was to that. When we went into committee, there was well over 100 people, from all different sectors of society, who wanted to contribute. We met for hours and hours, sometimes until three or four o'clock in the morning on several evenings. That was my baptism to the whole issue of labour relations. Through that, I got a better appreciation of the importance of getting it right, which is something the previous government failed to do.

If the Conservatives recognized the importance of labour relations, they would never have attempted to introduce, through the back door of the House of Commons, through a private member's bill, labour legislation that was inappropriate. The government had a choice back then, and it chose confrontation with organized labour in Canada.

I truly believe that the Conservatives do not understand or appreciate the valuable work that unions not only do today but have done in the past, and the important role they will have into the future. This is something that we in the Liberal Party have always respected. We understand and value the contributions that unions make and will make.

When we take a look at Bill C-4, members should be aware that it is here because of two private members' bills, as has been talked about extensively here today. We heard government members say how wonderful those private members' bills were. We heard New Democrats say that they were bad bills. We also heard government members point out why those two pieces of legislation should never have seen the light of day.

To give a different perspective, if the previous Conservative government truly wanted to change labour legislation of that nature, it should have brought the bills in the form of government legislation, much like we see here, with the new Prime Minister and minister responsible for the labour act. That is what should have happened, but it did not happen that way.

Members asked what the result was of the bills being put forward in that sort of format. There is an obligation on ministers to consult and work with the many different stakeholder groups out there. However, the opportunity to be consulted, and for the minister at that time to conduct consultations and work with the different stakeholders, which I would suggest is their responsibility, was never done. It was never done because it was introduced through private members' legislation and there were limits.

Members will have more debate on the legislation before us than we did on one of those bills that went through second reading, third reading, and ultimately passage. It is because there are severe limitations when proposed legislation is brought in through a private member's bill. The process in terms of going to committee is also changed.

Even if somehow, in some sort of twisted way, the government wanted to bring it in through government legislation, I suspect there is a very good chance that it would not have passed. There is no doubt in my mind, they never would have reached consensus.

The former government should have taken this seriously. However, it did not. It was more concerned about scoring political points than improving harmony or consensus within Canada's labour movement, industry as a whole, and our economy. The Conservatives were more interested in being able to tell whoever their stakeholders and vested interest groups were that they were hitting hard on the unions. They were doing it in an unfair fashion, and they had no qualms about doing that.

I sat on the opposition bench as those votes proceeded. It was quite disappointing. We in the Liberal Party understand how important it is that we have, promote, and encourage labour harmony. That is what governments should be doing, not trying to cause divisive mechanisms or change the system to make it more lopsided. That is not what the government should be doing. We should be trying to encourage that harmony and consensus. That is something we would see with Bill C-4.

The only group of people who will oppose this piece of legislation will be led by the Conservative Party in most part. However, let us recognize that the real reason we have the legislation before us today is because it was a commitment.

My colleague from the Atlantic region, our critic at the time, enunciated just why the private member's bill that was being proposed was fundamentally flawed. He was right. It was and is fundamentally flawed. That is why it needs to be changed. That is why the leader of the third party back then, today's Prime Minister, made a commitment to rectify the wrong. That is what Bill C-4 would do.

I hear a lot about labour legislation coming from the New Democratic Party, and I would caution members. In one of the committees, the Ontario minister of labour made a presentation. She indicated that the private members' bills, if passed, would have the federal government overstepping its constitutional boundaries and stepping into an area of provincial jurisdiction. I am grateful my New Democratic friends are supporting the bill. I applaud them. However, they need to keep in mind that there is some legislation that might be better seen at the provincial level. We have to respect that jurisdictional issue, or at the very least, have that discussion with our provincial counterparts.

For example, the anti-scab legislation was talked about a lot in Manitoba during the late 70s and early 80s. It was not passed through the Manitoba legislature. Instead, the government of Howard Pawley made the decision to bring in the final offer selection, which I made reference to earlier. My understanding is that the only government that has ever brought in anti-scab legislation in a true form, from what I recall, was a Liberal administration in Quebec. It might have changed in recent years. I do not know. We see many different labour laws brought up at the provincial level.

What we have today is part of an election commitment, but when there are labour changes, we need to work with the stakeholders. That is what I would like to recommend when people look at this, especially the Conservatives. They should consider the way that labour and industry as a whole, the economy, was affected by introducing bills through the back door, which absolutely no one, outside of someone who belonged to the Conservative Party and happened to be a member of the House of Commons, was actually calling for. Bill C-4 is a bill that every member in the House should be supporting.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member. This is not the first time he has risen to speak in the House, to say the least. I greatly appreciate his eloquence.

However, given that he is an experienced politician, I am disappointed in one thing in particular. He keeps talking about the back door. Here in the House there is no back door. There is a large door that the 338 duly elected members walk through every day. We are all members of the House of Commons. No one gets in here through any other door. We all enter through the same door.

Is the member saying that those who were elected during the last government who were not ministers could not propose bills? Does it mean that those guys are not as good as ministers? What is he doing? He is a government MP, but he is not a minister. Does that mean he is a backdoor guy? I do not think so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, all doors that lead to the House of Commons are good doors, but I must advise the member there are back doors in this building too. The former government often used the back door of private members' bills to pass what should have been government legislation. I, for one, believe in private members' hour and private member's bills and have participated in many discussions on private member's bills, but I do not support a government that consistently uses private members' hour as a way to get through what should be government bills. In some of those cases, the Conservative government used private members' hour to complete its legislative agenda. That happened on a few occasions.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP is in favour of repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-535. I just have a comment for my colleague.

We know that Quebec has provincial anti-scab legislation. However, this is about federal workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I think the New Democratic Party has made a wise decision in supporting Bill C-4, and I also believe that the Bloc is supporting it. I have not heard from the Green Party, but I suspect there is a very good likelihood that it too will be supporting it. The only party that has not seen fit to support this legislation is the Conservative Party. Nonetheless, I appreciate the support we are receiving.

Having said that, the member raises the issue of anti-scab legislation. I would like to think that provinces of all political stripes have had the opportunity to introduce such legislation. Every province has advisory boards on labour set up where there is both management and labour present. If it is meant to be, hopefully it will be. Nonetheless, we need to have a proactive minister responsible for labour who keeps all options open and is open to listening to what the provinces and the many different stakeholders have to say.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for a very passionate, balanced speech. It is clear to me that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were clear attacks on the labour movement. I am proud to stand with the hon. member to support Bill C-4, but I come back to the point that has been made many times this morning and the last time we debated this bill, that the previous bills were a solution to a problem that did not exist.

Could the member speak to the origins of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. If I were to speculate, I would say they came from somewhere within the Conservative mini-caucus or somewhere out of the Conservative Party.

There were flaws in the legislation. The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, stated at the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-377 that the bill had significant privacy intrusions and that the bill was highly disproportionate. Serious concerns were there. The legislation was never called for by anyone outside of the Conservative caucus, as best I can tell.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to debate on Bill C-4.

A lot of the things that have been discussed and debated today are of great concern to me, and I think many Canadians. We talked about things like a secret ballot being unnecessary red tape and going against the foundation of our democracy. I find it unbelievable that many of our Liberal and NDP colleagues have made such comments today. It is the secret ballot, the way we elect almost every political official in our country, federal, provincial, and municipal, and they find it to be unnecessary red tape.

I would like to ask them how they think they came into this House today. Would they prefer that there not be a secret ballot, or no ballot whatsoever? I question their frame of mind when they are talking about a secret ballot being undemocratic.

It is also quite ironic that the first piece of legislation from the new government, a government that campaigned quite passionately about openness, transparency and accountability, is a bill that will absolutely gut transparency and accountability in legislation that we put forward for unions. I find that to be incredibly ironic, and I would say another broken promise by the new Liberal government.

Equally as frustrating for me as a member of Parliament from Alberta is that I have to question the motives of the government and why they would be bringing this piece of legislation forward right now. I am getting calls every day, from welders, waitresses, pipefitters, rig hands. They ask me when the government will come up with some kind of strategy that will help them get back to work. When will the government announce some sort of plan that will help their families as they try to make ends meet? They could potentially lose their jobs, or they have already lost their jobs. Where is the priority of the government when thousands of Albertans have been laid off?

The labour study was released today, and 22,000 full-time jobs were lost in Alberta in January alone. Alberta's unemployment rate went to 7.4%, which is the first time since 1988 that it has been higher than the Canadian average. We have heard predictions that Alberta's unemployment rate will exceed 8% by the end of 2016, the highest it has been since the Liberal Party put through the national energy program.

With thousands of workers, not only from Alberta, but Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, losing their jobs due to the downturn in the energy sector, the priority of the government is to reward the union bosses who helped get it elected instead of talking to Canadian families who have lost their jobs. I have to tell these families that in my discussions and debates in the House of Commons that Alberta is obviously not a priority. Canada's economy is certainly not a priority. The families who have lost their jobs are not a priority. However, what is a priority is rewarding those big union bosses who helped get the Liberals elected. I find that to be extremely frustrating.

The Liberal plan to repeal this legislation, a piece of legislation that was intended to ensure transparency and accountability for union leaders, I find very irresponsible. Despite what the minister would have us believe, repealing this piece of legislation and bringing forward Bill C-4 is an attack on Canadian workers.

The Minister of Employment said she believes that repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will restore balance to unions. The only balance that Bill C-4 will bring is tipping the balance away from union workers back to the union leadership.

I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of union members are in favour of this type of legislation, the type of legislation that we put forward in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In a Leger poll, 86% of union members supported this kind of legislation. In a similar poll, 84% of all Canadians supported this type of legislation that brings accountability and transparency to unions. They want to be able to vote via a secret ballot on union leadership or union business, and they want to know how their union dues are being spent. I do not think that is too much to ask.

Canadians support transparency and accountability. Union members support transparency and accountability, and yet the Liberal government does not. This is a disturbing trend. It seems to be a sort of theme for the new Liberal government.

One of the first things the Minister of Indigenous Affairs did when she got her cabinet post was announce that she will ignore the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, where residents in first nations communities have the opportunity to see the finances of their leadership made public.

The first piece of legislation by the new employment minister is a bill that would gut transparency and accountability by unions. Do members see a recurring theme here? I do.

I heard today from a Liberal member, in her speech, that a secret ballot is in some way additional red tape that goes against the very foundation of our democracy. I just cannot believe that asking union members to vote in a secret ballot somehow puts them out, that we are asking them to do too much. Those members really need to rethink the stance they are taking. Without any credible rationale, or really any legitimate discussion with union members, the Liberal government is gutting two significant pieces of legislation that were a victory for union members.

The motive for Bill C-4 is really quiet simple. This is an opportunity to repay union leadership that helped get the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, an NDP MLA in Manitoba, elected.

Last week, we heard that the Liberal Party was found guilty of accepting illegal union donations during a campaign event. The Prime Minister's own campaign team specifically asked the union to have members be props at a campaign event. His campaign team knew that they would be paid $100 each.

That was not the only campaign event he had. He had another campaign event with the Carpenters' District Council in Vaughan and another with the International Union of Operating Engineers in Oakville. This has been a cozy relationship with the unions, and I would be curious to know if there were illegal donations made at those two campaign events as well.

Since the election, the Prime Minister has met with the Teamsters three times, the engineers' union three times, and even the American Federation of Labour, the largest union in the United States. He has made meeting with the unions a top priority. He has met with close to a dozen of them. Yet during that time, we have lost thousands of jobs in the energy sector, with more to come. How many times has he met with people in the oil and gas sector? How many times has he met with stakeholders in the oil and gas industry? He has met with them once, and it was yesterday in Calgary. It shows us where the priorities of the Liberal government seem to lie right now.

The Liberal Party campaigned on accountability and transparency. It is obvious that it has no intentions of keeping that campaign promise. Canadians deserve better.

At the federal level, the previous Conservative government introduced extensive reforms to ensure that Canadians have trust in their political institutions. The first piece of legislation we brought in as a Conservative government was the Federal Accountability Act, something that we are very proud of on this side of the House. It brought accountability and transparency to Canadians. It did not gut it.

The Federal Accountability Act reformed the financing of political parties. It reduced opportunities to influence politicians with contributions by banning contributions from unions and corporations, and it levelled the playing field among individual contributors.

We also introduced Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which made unions more transparent and accountable to both unions and Canadians. The specific intent of these bills was to preserve the democratic rights of Canadian workers and increase public confidence that unions spend their money wisely and effectively. With the passage of this legislation, the public was empowered to gauge the effectiveness, financial integrity, and health of their labour unions.

Some opponents today described Bill C-377 as anti-union. They said that union money should not be scrutinized by Canadians, let alone by their own union members. This is simply not true. These unions are subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, and they are subsidized by a very significant amount. The federal government offers generous tax benefits to workers' organizations and a tax exemption on profits earned on investments, income from employers, and the profits generated by training centres. Despite receiving these substantial tax benefits, these organizations in the past were not required to disclose publicly how they used these tax advantages.

To put this in the same context, for the federal government, including me, and I am sure all of my colleagues in this room, every dime we spend is open to the public. It is on my website. People can check it out right now. Provinces, municipalities, and charities are asked to make these types of financial records public. The only ones who are not are unions.

It is frustrating that unions that should be accountable to their members and that receive generous tax breaks with taxpayer dollars do not feel that they should have the same obligation to disclose their finances to the public.

In most cases the money is deducted from the payroll whether the employee wishes to be part of that union or not. The money is then subject to tax exemptions that keep $500 million out of the Canadian treasury each year.

I think, and it is obvious from the polls we have done, that most Canadians believe these dollars and what is being done with them should be made public. Bill C-377 is about that disclosure, and it was a positive step forward for unions and Canadian workers. It ensured that union members and Canadians could have access to the knowledge on how union money was being spent, how their membership dues were being spent, as well as the investment in taxes and dollars that resulted from these dues.

Bill C-377 simply imposed transparency and accountability on unions, nothing more. It required labour organizations to file public information a return with the Canadian Revenue Agency on an annual basis. We heard that today. They said that they were doing that in seven provinces. All of a sudden they are saying that now that we are asking them to do it across the country, it is some sort of unbearable burden. If they are already doing it in many cases, it is not that hard to make a second copy and give it to the CRA.

The disclosure requirements would include financial statements, including the amount paid for political and lobbying activities, and the salaries paid to executive and staff. Nothing more.

In addition, the bill requires the CRA to display this information on a website for the public to see. Far from targeting unions, Bill C-377 does nothing more than impose the same obligations that registered charities across Canada now face. I am a Rotarian and I have been one for many years. We do our financial audits. We do our year-end audits and ensure it is available for the public to see. We certainly do not consider that to be some incredible burden.

If charities across Canada can somehow manage to do this, unions that receive a half a billion dollars a year through taxpayer subsidies can manage to do this as well. Their members want them to do these things.

If the Minister of Employment believes that transparency and accountability is so devastating to Canadian unions, why do so many other countries have similar legislation, and their unions have thrived? The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, even France, socialist France, asked their unions to have similar legislation and to put their financial documents forward to the public. Even some Canadian labour organizations already do this. If their head office is in the United States, they have to make their financials public as well.

Some people have said that this creates an unfair burden on unions. This type of legislation has been in the United States for decades and has not impacted their collective bargaining in any way. The fact is that this bill does not regulate the activities of trade unions, how they participate in collective bargaining or in any way how they spend their funds.

The bill does not violate their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has stood up to constitutional challenge. For example, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache released his opinion on Bill C-377, and said that it was constitutional and would be upheld in the court he sat on. This shows, a former Supreme Court justice has said that these pieces of legislation that we put forward are not unconstitutional.

The bills simply provide greater transparency and accountability, ironically, two things the Liberal government campaigned on but do not seem too eager to follow up on.

As I touched on earlier, a survey conducted by the Leger firm in 2013 showed that of the 1,400 Canadians it polled, 83% said they wanted to see this type of legislation to be adopted by unions, and 84% of current union members also agreed. A Nanos poll done in 2011 showed similar results. Therefore, this has not changed. For some reason, the Liberal Party wants us to think that between 2013 and 2016 there has been an incredible earthquake of change in position of union members.

When the Minister of Employment brought forward C-4, did she actually consult with union members before she brought this forward? If 84% of union members in 2013 supported the type of legislation that we put forward with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, what has changed in three years? What has changed in three years that now the Liberal government believes the union membership has been crying for it to repeal this type of legislation.

I am certain there has been an outcry, but my bet is it is from the union leadership, not the union members who the Liberals failed to consult before bringing this forward.

Earlier this week I asked the Minister of Employment if she had actually consulted with union members before bringing this type of legislation forward. Her answer was a no answer. She could not answer. I think the fact is that the Liberals did not. What she said was that she had spoken to 22,000 residents in her constituency during the election campaign.

I would like to ask her this. Did she say to them that her bill would be in favour of less democracy? Did she ask them if they were okay with the government's stomping on the very foundation of our democracy and getting rid of secret ballots? Does she think her Manitoba riding spoke for the rest of Canada? I would be interested in seeing what her answer is on something like that.

It is in the public interest that the financial information of workers' organizations be disclosed because of the tax breaks they receive. It is a benefit of the union workers because they exercise their democratic right through a secret ballot. It is also the benefit of a government to consult with Canadians, as we did when we drafted this type of legislation. For example, Dan Kelly, president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said he supported Bill C-377. He said that almost all unionized workplaces are forced to pay union dues. Therefore, unions should be required to publicly disclose how they use those funds. He also stated that public financial disclosure for unions would enhance transparency and accountability with regard to trade union activities. He was not the only one. We had lawyers, union members, and professors all come and speak to the committee and Senate committee in support of this legislation.

Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers, to ensure that they have a fair and productive workplace and can work in an environment where they feel they can speak with their conscience. This is about balance and it creates a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice so they feel it is better suited to their needs. It is a Liberal government that is attempting to repeal legislation that created accountability, transparency, and fairness for workers. The Liberals plan to go back to a system that was broken and balanced unfairly. This is not what Canadians want.

The Liberal Minister of Employment said that the government was repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 in favour of creating a balanced network. This is exactly what our previous legislation did. The main principle of that legislation was that all federally regulated workers should have the democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot, especially when they are voting to certify or decertify their union. The legislation recognized the right to peaceful association is one that extends to all workers in Canada, should they wish to have a union represent them or not. The choice is theirs to make, and it should be theirs to make by way of a secret ballot. The choice should not belong to their union leadership. The system was open to abuse, where co-workers could be coerced or intimidated into voting for a union. It is not unreasonable, nor should it be unreasonable, to ask to have a secret ballot. It is consistent with every democratic system we have in this country. It is a basic right afforded to all voters, and should be reasonably extended to workers who are voicing their opinion on whether they want to be in a union. The only way to achieve this is through a secret ballot.

It seems that the Liberals' goal and mandate here is to change every voting system that we have across this country. It is absolutely clear that the Liberal government has no respect for Canadians' right to vote. They want to get rid of the secret ballot here in the House. They want unions to go back to the card check system. They also do not believe that Canadians have the right to vote in a referendum when we are talking about possibly changing the very system of how we select our government. Piece by piece, the current Liberal government is intent on dismantling our democracy.

During the spring of last year, I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of a union at a gas plant in southern Alberta. It had about 80 members. I wanted to ask them how they felt about the legislation we had put forward. They were honest. They said they were being pressured by their union leadership in eastern Canada to vote against the Conservatives because of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I asked them whom they supported and how they were going to vote. They said they were voting Conservative and supported the bills and information contained therein, that they wanted to see the financial records of their union leadership and to have the freedom of conscience to be able to vote in a secret ballot.

Right now, as we put forward Bill C-4, I want the Minister of Employment to come forward and be honest with Canadians. The reason she is putting forward Bill C-4 is that it is a way to repay the union leadership who helped get her elected. It is not a bill that is in the best interests of Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I want to let the member know that we do not have enough time for the full 10 minutes of questions. However, the next time the matter is before the House he will be able to answer those questions and comments. We have time for a brief question and a brief comment.

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. He quoted some polls with respect to the support for Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 at the time. I want to comment on the behaviour of the previous government.

In the budget, $900 million was announced before there were even negotiations. Was that in the spirit of the unions or in the spirit of management imposing a solution? I want him to comment on his past government's behaviour on its ability to negotiate with the union leadership.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. If the member for Foothills could answer quickly, he will then have nine minutes left at the next sitting of the House when we debate this.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I question whether that question has anything to do with Bill C-4. I think the Liberals are trying to avoid the fact that the vast majority of union members support the type of legislation we have in place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 16 at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Foothills has nine minutes remaining in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over a week ago, I listened very intently to the member's speech and I have been waiting over the constituency week to ask him a question. I know he had a good week, like I did.

I want to get his comments on the fact that when the Conservative government first came into office in 2006, its first bill was the Federal Accountability Act, to change the way that Ottawa worked, to reduce the influence of lobbyists, and to bring accountability to Canadians. Yet, the Liberal government's first bill is to reduce accountability, roll back accountability for unions, and take away secret ballots for union members. Over 80% of union members supported the provisions that were brought in under the Conservative government, such as supporting secret ballots for certification and decertification and more transparency for the finances of unions.

Perhaps he could talk about the differences in philosophy between the Conservative Party, which is on the side of the worker, and his party, which is on the side of the big union bosses.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly right. I spoke about that in my speech. This is not just with this bill but a trend that we are seeing with the new Liberal government.

The first act of business for the new Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs is to ignore the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The second one for the new Minister of Democratic Institutions is to tell Canadians that it is not right to have a referendum when changing such an important part of our democratic foundation. Now the first order of business for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is to gut legislation that brings accountability and transparency to unions.

It seems like, piece by piece, the new government's mandate is to dismantle our democracy, including the opportunity for union members. As my colleague said, the vast majority of them support accountability and transparency and want secret ballots. They want to make sure they can vote with their consciences when they are certifying and decertifying as a union. The new government's plan, which we are seeing in almost every ministry along the line, is to reduce accountability and transparency. I find that very disconcerting.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the members who have just arrived in the House of Commons, it is fascinating to hear the revisionist history from the Conservatives, that they are on the side of the working people and transparency. I could not think of anything more bizarre. I would actually think they were kidding us, but it is this kind of undermining of public confidence that the Conservative Party has specialized in.

The Conservatives' idea of privacy is maximum privacy for their friends and maximum accountability for the public, whereas it really should be maximum accountability for politicians and privacy for individuals. I mention that because there was the Brent Rathgeber bill last session, a Conservative bill, which was a very good bill about bringing accountability to Ottawa. The Conservatives gutted that bill. They gutted a bill that would have disclosed the salaries of the people who worked for the party. They gutted a bill that would have disclosed the kind of money that was being paid out. Brent thought that a $188,000 threshold should be made public. They cut it so that only people making over $444,000 a year had to disclose that.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. The Conservatives beat up on the unions, they beat up on first nations leadership, but they protected their friends for the last eight years. Why the hypocrisy?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague talks about the public trust and yet, when it comes time to vote for Bill C-4, I am sure he is going to vote for it and he will be voting against secret ballots for unions. How does he not see that is not in the public trust? He is saying that union members should not have the ability to have a secret ballot, and I just cannot believe that. We heard that a lot in the NDP and Liberal speeches, that somehow a secret ballot is undemocratic and adds additional bureaucracy and red tape to this process.

I would like to ask the member in what field he feels a secret ballot is undemocratic. That is really disconcerting. This seems to be the path that the other parties in the House seem to want to go down.

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

Madam Speaker, the first questioner and the person providing the answer were wrong when they made the statement that the first order of business was Bill C-4.

Let us be very clear. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister's first order of business in this House was to give tax breaks to Canadians. That was the first order of business.

This bill that we are talking about today is rectifying a wrong. The government, through the back door of private members' legislation, passed two labour bills which offended not only the labour movement but also many businesses throughout the country, from coast to coast to coast.

Focusing strictly on the legislation, would the member not agree that the previous Conservative government was wrong in using the back door of private members' hour instead of trying to build a consensus between labour and the different stakeholders in changing legislation? It intentionally used the back door of private members' hour to have confrontation in an area where there should be more harmony. That was the former government's record.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

First, if he had actually listened to anything that was going on today, or maybe last Friday, my comments were that the first piece of legislation brought forward by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour was this bill, which guts accountability and transparency of unions.

I did not say anything about the government. We can get into a discussion about how great it has been in that first 100 days, but we would be here for a long time.

Let us talk about the back door. Is it deplorable to ensure that the members of Parliament have an opportunity to speak their mind, to speak to the issues of their constituents? It was very clear how the party across the aisle felt about that when we brought forward a motion to support energy east: all four of the Liberal Alberta MPs voted against that. That shows on this side of the House that we empower our MPs to speak their minds, but on that side, not so much.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the hypocrisy of the Conservatives with regard to secret ballots.

I do not know if he voted that day, but I will remind the member that the rest of his members, or at least many of them, did vote on a secret ballot to elect the Speaker. I find the hypocrisy of secret balloting that he is noting rather interesting when he was either a participant in it or his colleagues were.

I would like to have a yes or no answer. Did the member participate in a secret ballot? What does he think about his colleagues participating in a secret ballot?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if he is saying that a secret ballot is bad. A secret ballot is a cornerstone of our democracy, a hallmark. If we look at any level of government, municipal, provincial, or federal, they are elected by secret ballot.

Why would this be the one time that we say it is good for everything else in the Canadian political landscape except for unions, that that is the one spot where we should not allow them to have a secret ballot because for some reason that is undemocratic?

I would like that member to explain to me how he finds secret ballots for unions to be undemocratic.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. The bills that were introduced under the Conservative government were introduced by members who were not ministers.

Would the member approve of allowing other members who are not ministers, or about 150 people in the Liberal Party right now, to introduce bills, or should they all be regarded as bills brought in through the back door?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, exactly. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament, no matter where they sit in this House, to speak.

I do not think it should just be ministers who should have an opportunity to bring forward bills. The whole idea is that we are speaking for our residents, our constituents. We have that voice, and we should be able to exercise it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased on this snowy Tuesday morning to have an opportunity to voice my concerns about some of the legislation passed by the previous government. It is a part of the things that we are going to have to fix.

Bill C-4 is sound legislation that has been written in collaboration. I emphasize that word because it is important when we are producing legislation that it be done in collaboration with the people who are going to be affected. That was not done in the previous government. It was done through a private member's bill, not through the government introducing a piece of legislation the proper way. It was done through the back door, and I am sure we will see that attempted again. However, this time the Conservatives are on that side and we are the government.

Labour stakeholders are important people for us to be talking to when we are putting legislation together, and we have the intention of reversing several destructive policies from the previous Conservative regime. Specifically, Bill C-4 will repeal Bill C-377, Conservative legislation that promised to upset existing labour relations and did just that. It ignored the fact that union financial disclosure, which they continually talk about, is already addressed in the Canadian Labour Code and many provincial labour statutes. It failed to recognize that Bill C-377 is discriminatory against unions and ignores other types of organizations. It is one of those pick and choose options, which was very typical of the previous government. Why were professional associations not part of that? They also received favourable treatment under taxation law, but no one said anything about the professional associations and promised to invade the privacy of labour organizations and their members.

Obviously, the underlying intention of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, the other legislation being repealed by Bill C-4, was to attack organized labour. I am pleased to say, thank goodness that assault is over, which brings me to the second point.

Bill C-4 marks the end of the federal government's intentional confrontation with labour. Most who follow these matters will readily admit that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, both brought in by the previous Conservative government, were part of a hostile attitude toward labour and labour supporters. Bill C-4 will help to set that relationship back on a positive path, something that would improve working conditions, advance productivity, help create jobs, and continue to build this great country of ours.

Of course, creating jobs, promoting innovation, and improving productivity were key planks in our Liberal platform. Moreover, our government recognizes the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and in helping the middle class grow and prosper. I am pleased to add my support to this approach.

We on this side of the House are committed to fair and balanced federal labour policy, and one of those steps is what we are doing today by repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-377 had nothing to do with efficiency. There was a lot of talk about that, but it had nothing to do with efficiency. It actually created new and unnecessary red tape for unions. This happened because the government imposed new demands on workers, even though the Canada Labour Code and many provincial labour statutes already ensure financial accountability from unions. This costly by-product of a vindictive and anti-labour government put unions at a disadvantage during collective bargaining, hindering productivity at the front end of the process.

Then, just to make things worse, Bill C-525 made it more difficult for employees to unionize and easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. This negativity, which is a continued rant on unions, took a toll on labour and the environment in which they have to function. Bill C-4 is part of our government's plan to ensure that Canada's labour laws best serve employees, and, very importantly, employers, which by extension also serves Canadians. Put another way, when labour is successful, our economy can prosper in ways that ensures prosperity is felt by each and every Canadian, not just a select few at the top of the corporate ladder.

It is also worth noting that Bill C-4 does more than stop the federal government's attack on labour; it also responds to very serious concerns expressed by experts all across Canada. For example, the Alberta union of public employees launched a constitutional challenge against Bill C-377. While the court proceedings have been temporarily suspended, given this government's stated intervention to repeal the bill, the underlying concerns remain valid. Privacy concerns were also raised by the Canadian Bar Association and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The CBA suggested that the bill may be subject to legal challenges on those very grounds.

Despite all of this, the previous government plunged forward with its ideologically driven legislative agenda, which showed indifference to the Canadians who were suffering and the difficulties it was creating in our economy and our country. This is just a small snapshot of the trouble prompted by the passage of Bill C-377.

Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island are all on the record as opposing Bill C-377. Those seven provinces, bastions of manufacturing, resource extraction, hospitality and tourism, and countless other sectors that are vital to GDP maintenance and growth, all called on the previous federal government to stop the assault against labour.

Let us stop to think about the fact that seven of our ten provinces were actively opposing this and the Conservative government did not care. It did not matter to the Conservatives. They had their own ideology, and that is what they were working with. These seven premiers specifically raised concerns that Bill C-377 encroached upon their jurisdiction over labour issues. They also criticized the bill for potentially destabilizing their labour relations environment, particularly with respect to collective bargaining processes. These premiers know that kicking labour does nothing to advance job creation or industrial growth or relationships.

Three of the provinces, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, also criticized Bill C-377 for eroding the privacy rights of union members and expressed concerns that it would create an unnecessary burden on labour organizations. These premiers understand the added dangers of more red tape.

However, Bill C-377 was not the only problem with the labour agenda of the Conservatives. Sadly, for a government that pretended to have a strong fiscal management style, much was lacking in its approach. It could be argued that multiple recessions, waning consumer confidence, and shaky job numbers all bore witness to clear Conservative fiscal failures.

Bill C-525 was equally problematic for many stakeholders. A number of labour organizations, such as the CLC, Unifor, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, all expressed opposition to Bill C-525, arguing that the card check certification model is quicker, more efficient, and more likely to be free of employer interference.

However, good governance was not the goal of Bill C-377 or Bill C-525, which is why Liberals in the Senate and the House opposed the legislation. Of course, debate is healthy and something we want to see happen, especially when it comes to any measure that impacts such a large section of society. Unfortunately, the process used to pass Bill C-525 did not allow debate to surface. That is because the previous Conservative government introduced their agenda in Bill C-525 via a private member's bill rather than government legislation. If the government is serious about doing something, it introduces its own legislation; it does not do it through a back door via a private member's bill. This may seem like a nuance, but the tactic is not without compromise and consequences. Government legislation is introduced after public consultation and outreach. A private member's bill comes with no such effort, and it shows in the diminished quality of the statute.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are faulty and they are hurting the economy. Bill C-4 would repeal them, because we need to make sure that labour has the tools it needs as well for success.

All labour organizations in Canada, including even the smallest locals and national unions, labour councils, federations of labour and other umbrella organizations, as well as intermediate organizations, were left out of the process by the previous government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that more than 18,000 labour entities would be affected by the implementation of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, yet the government of the day locked them all out of the process. That is wrong. Bill C-4 would make things right again.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. Her comments that struck me the most strange were her repeated references to the back door, referring to members of Parliament using private members' legislation to advance a cause that is important.

I have had the privilege and honour of having two pieces of private members' legislation passed in the House in the last 10 years, and at no time did I or any of the people supporting my initiatives consider the method I used as back door. It is demeaning to every member in the House to consider private members' legislation a back door. This is the basis of our democracy in Canada, and it is a real disservice to have repeated references to this as a back door by the member and the previous member.

Let me get more to the point of Bill C-4 and what it would do in terms of repealing some of the initiatives that our government undertook. In terms of accountability, we know, just recently during the election, that there were a number of times when the Liberal government actually had unions pay their members to come to announcements. I do not believe that most of the union members were aware of that. The bills we put forward to enact more transparency would have addressed that.

Why does the member think it is not important for union members to know how their dollars are being spent?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by recognizing the great work that my colleague on the other side of the House did with those particular bills to which he referred. Those bills were supported by almost everybody in the House.

However, there is a big difference between introducing the kinds of private members' bills that he did versus something that would affect labour movement throughout our country. Private members' bills, for those who are new here, are wonderful tools members' can use to advance issues they care about. However, changing the rules of labour legislation across the country is not the kind of thing that would get done through private members' bills.

I happen to have Local 183 in my riding, a major labour union. I talk to many of the rank and file folks about these issues, not just the leadership at the top. They understand what Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 do, and they are totally opposed to them. They want to make sure that they have the right and opportunity to continue to enjoy pensions, the great health care benefits they have, and the wonderful things that their families get to enjoy as a result of their participation in an active, strong union.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek made an excellent point when she said that some of the anti-worker legislation passed by the former Conservative government interfered with provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

I wonder, though, whether the member could explain if the Liberal Party's new-found respect for the provinces and for working people extends to the field of pensions. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party talked about improving the Canada pension plan. When the Minister of Finance met with the provinces, he found that almost all of them were in favour of doing so. Only the right-wing governments of Brad Wall and Christy Clark objected, and yet the hon. finance minister seems to have let the Canada pension plan fall by the wayside.

I wonder if the member for Humber River—Black Creek could recommit to improving Canada pension plan benefits for working people in our great country.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in the issue of pensions.

I was the critic at one point on the issue of pensions when I was on the other side of the House, and I did a lot of work on the issue. It is an important issue for Canadians. We want to make sure they have pensions. At that time there were concerns over bankruptcy and insolvency and what would happen to companies with unfunded liabilities. There are a lot of complexities in the pension file, but it is extremely important that we take action.

We have been in government for just over 100 days and we have already done an amazing number of things through the leadership of our Prime Minister. My colleague should be patient. Changes to the Canada pension plan need to happen, and I do hope they happen. I am quite confident that in the future the member will see a variety of changes to our pension plan that will make it better for all Canadians.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions and comments that we continually hear from the official opposition across the aisle is that there is no broad support by the membership for unions. I can assure the House that I have not received one phone call, one email, or any correspondence against Bill C-4.

I would like to ask if my hon. colleague could comment on that. Has she received any correspondence from her constituents against Bill C-4?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, no I have not. What I did receive from another major carpenters' union, Local 27 in Toronto, was its concern about what this would do to the membership, the undermining of unions.

If we look at all of that and tie it back into the previous question on the provinces, we see that building and advancing a country is about working together. That means we have to work together with our provinces. Whether we are talking about labour issues or pension issues, our new government's relationship with our provinces now is on a very positive upswing, versus the previous government that rarely met with any of the provincial leaders. Certainly the prime minister did not have ministers meetings. Those are really important opportunities for us to share knowledge and information with each other, but to be able to advance Canada's agenda we need to have the provinces on side. They were not on side with Bill C-377.

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

Madam Speaker, my riding of Sarnia—Lambton has a very large construction union workforce. It is one of the best in North America, certainly top notch in safety, quality, and productivity. During the campaign, I spoke to many of the members, the union workers as well as the leadership, and I did not have the same experience as the member across the aisle. They understood the importance of the transparency and accountability that were coming from Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Their concerns were more about minor modifications that they wanted to see in terms of the onerous paperwork they were complaining about for items over $5,000 and also the political participation documentation. On Bill C-525, their only objection was that they wanted to make sure that, when people showed up to vote, only the people who showed up to vote had their votes counted as a percentage.

Therefore, in terms of the worker support, they understood that there was something good in these bills to protect their rights in transparency and accountability. The government is eliminating it without providing any other mechanism to address those concerns. My question for the member is this. What mechanisms is she going to put in place to ensure transparency and accountability?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 would repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. It would turn around and ultimately strengthen the relationship with our labour unions across our great country.

As for the words “transparency and accountability”, we have heard for 10 or 12 years all about transparency and accountability and how the government was going to be so transparent and accountable. At the end of the day, it was a major disappointment because the government of the day, the Conservative government, was the complete opposite of transparent and accountable. As a Canadian, I found it a huge disappointment. There was a lot of talk, but what did it deliver? It was the exact opposite.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the Conservatives tell us that they are friends of the workers. It is sort of like the crocodile inviting us down to the riverbank to have a luncheon with him.

We saw the attack on labour. We saw the attack on environmental groups. We saw the attack on any organization that was seen as even a potential threat to the ideology of the Conservative government. The attacks it launched against charities, from OXFAM to PEN to birdwatchers, which were absolutely unconscionable, were allowed to happen in the country. I would like to ask my hon. colleague's thoughts on the matter.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always amazing, because sometimes we forget just how much damage was being done by the previous government. Our charities are out there actively trying to raise money for a variety of causes and to make a difference in our country, then being attacked, investigated, and fearing for their lives if they ever criticized the government. I cannot tell you how many groups came to see me. They were so afraid of saying anything in case the Conservative government would come after them, whether through CRA or other cases.

That is not the Canada we want, and I am really glad that we have moved on to a new Canada with our new Prime Minister.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Liberal government. Since it was elected in October last year, the new Prime Minister has promised more accountability, more transparency, and more openness, yet even though he put this in the mandate letters for his ministers and in fact he said, “We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government”, why is it that this, one of the Liberals' first pieces of legislation, in fact, would gut transparency and accountability that was created by legislation that we, as the Conservative government, brought in?

Repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 sends a very clear message: The Liberals care more about thanking union bosses who helped them get elected than they care about the hard-working union members. These union members are the ones whose dues were spent without consultation. Union leaders need to be held accountable, and they need to tell their members and the public how their tax-advantaged income is spent.

Our Conservative government was a strong supporter of accountability. Our Conservative government introduced the Federal Accountability Act and other legislation designed to increase transparency in government agencies and crown corporations. Bill C-377 was simply about transparency requirements that fall upon entities that enjoy public trust and will allow Canada to catch up with other advanced economies when it comes to financial disclosure.

It is important to note that the union funding model itself delivers over $4.5 billion annually to labour organizations in Canada. If individuals work in a unionized workplace, they are required by law to pay dues. If they refuse, they are fired. This financial power alone should be reason enough to require enhanced transparency, and I will say a little more about that shortly.

The workers are forced to make these contributions, including those in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk. They deserve to know how their money is being spent, as do members of the general public who subsidize this revenue through the tax system.

It should come as no surprise that a Nanos poll found that 86% of unionized Canadians support greater transparency for labour organizations, and a 2013 Leger survey said that 83% of all working Canadians want our union leaders to follow the example set by other nations' union leaders who joined with government to achieve public disclosure. Many of Canada's labour unions publicly supported Bill C-377. This is what Marc Roumy, a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees had to say:

...many of my colleagues and [I] believe our union would be stronger if we had a truly open and easy access to our union's financial statements. If we have nothing to hide...

—then they should be able to get detailed financial statements, which they have fought for, for years.

If we are looking for support for these measures, look no further than the former head of the AFL-CIO, which is the largest labour organization in the United States. George Meany, who testified at the U.S. Senate union disclosure hearings said:

All of these [transparency] bills are based on...the goldfish bowl theory, the concept that reporting and public disclosure of union finances...will either eliminate or tend to discourage the abuses.... The AFL-CIO firmly believes this theory to be sound.

Even a former Liberal cabinet minister, Jean Lapierre, voiced his support for Bill C-377, stating:

Frankly, I agree with that bill because I think now every organization has to be transparent. The unions, a lot of times, have acted like they were private clubs. And so I think everybody should go to more transparency and I think that the initiative is welcomed by the membership and also by the public at large because why would you hide your financial statements if you get all those tax credits and what have you? So no, I think it's long overdue.

Canadian labour organizations receive over $400 million every year in tax benefits. The union dues are tax deductible and all revenues are tax exempt. These tax-exempt funds, drawn from mandatory dues, are funnelled into a wide range of causes, many of which have nothing to do with the collective bargaining process.

Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being used to influence public policy, since, unlike charities, no constraints are put on the political activities of labour organizations. Sadly, unions are able to force employees to pay for the funding of political parties and lobbying activities they do not even support. For example, the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada stated after the vote to merge his union with the CAW, “Can you imagine what it will mean to the CEP, the CAW when we’re the first unionized party that governs a country?”

I think Canadians deserve to know how the so-called super-unions plan to use the hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal to achieve that end.

Labour organizations, quite frankly, enjoy a more privileged position in our society and economy than any other entity, yet they have no public reporting requirements, unlike charities; publicly traded companies; federal, provincial, and municipal governments; government agencies; boards; crown corporations; first nation bands; foundations; political parties; and MP, senator, and MLA offices.

Bill C-4 also sets out to repeal Bill C-525, which was passed by our Conservative government. Bill C-525 required the holding of a secret ballot for the creation and abolition of trade unions. According to four surveys by Labour Watch, support for secret ballots ranged from 86% to 92% among currently unionized Canadians.

The proposed abolishment of a secret ballot is an attack on the democratic process. All members of Parliament are elected by secret ballot, so why take this away from unionized workers? How can the Prime Minister say this is undemocratic when he and his entire caucus were elected by secret ballot?

The sad reality for many union members is that professional union organizers exert unacceptable pressure on employees, give false information, and will even resort to fraudulently signing cards on behalf of employees in order to get signed cards. Only secret ballot votes can counter such tactics. How can the Liberal government argue that this is what the majority of union workers want?

John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, told the Senate that “A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles.”

What is the problem? What is the issue? The Liberals want to be legitimized, so why are they taking this away? Without any credible rationale, or really any legitimate discussion with union members, the Liberal government is gutting two significant pieces of legislation that were a victory for union members.

Perhaps the motive for Bill C-4 is quite simple. This is an opportunity to repay the union leadership that helped get the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, an NDP MLA in Manitoba, elected.

Bill C-4 goes against the principles of transparency and accountability. It goes against the fundamental principle of democracy: the secret ballot. It goes against the wishes of hard-working union members themselves. This is why I will be joining my Conservative colleagues in voting against Bill C-4.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why it is okay for members of Parliament basically to have a secret ballot in electing the Speaker, but the member suggested that the Liberals were elected on a secret ballot. I do not know if that is an inference that voters have to declare their political choice when they go to the ballot box, or that their choices be known. I ask this because all of us had that privilege of being elected via secret ballot, so people did not feel intimidated or did not feel they had to disclose their political choice at the end of the day, but we do that here. One of the member's colleagues passed a resolution in the House of Commons that we have a secret vote for the Speaker.

I would also ask why the Conservatives are opposed to making public the Board of Internal Economy? It hides in a shroud of secrecy, and the public should know. Why is it not proper to have minutes or the recordings of those deliberations open to the public?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, as members well know, every one of us in this chamber was elected by secret ballot. Our constituents go into voting booths behind cardboard frames so that no one can see their vote, and there are measures taken so that the ballot is folded and put into the ballot box without anyone else knowing how that person voted.

That is one of the fundamental principles of our democratic society. In fact, when we voted for the Speaker, we did that with a secret ballot. That was deemed acceptable. That was deemed, in fact, required, to preserve the anonymity of our vote.

What we are saying is that we have given that right to union members. We are asking the Liberal government not to take it away.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk. In her speech there was a lot of talk about transparency and accountability in explaining why the opposition is against the passage of Bill C-4.

My question really is this. If, at the end of the day, this was such an important initiative when that member was in government, why did the Conservatives not, ultimately, have that initiative move forward as a government bill rather than allowing it to proceed by way of private members' legislation? As a government bill, it would have been subject to greater consultation with labour groups and workers, and all of the kinds of things that they were talking about rather than the government's bringing it forward under the cover of two private members' pieces of legislation.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am intrigued this morning by the conflicting statements of the Liberal government members.

First, just bringing forward the bill contradicts everything that the new Prime Minister has been touting about more openness, more transparency, more clarity, more accountability. They are saying, “No, no, take that away, take away that transparency and clarity that was given to union members”, but they are also denigrating private members' bills.

Under our government, more private members' bills were passed than ever before in Canadian history, because we respect the members who want to bring forward those private members' bills. We also had more free votes within our party than any other party ever had, allowing our members to represent the wishes of their constituents.

Now, I notice that thePrime Minister has announced that certain controversial legislation coming forward will be heavily whipped on the Liberal side, the Prime Minister, again, who said that there would be more free votes, as long, perhaps, as they agreed with him.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for helping me understand this more clearly, because I found the debate around this issue very confusing.

We repeatedly hear from the other side that, for some reason, there is something sinister or wrong with democratically elected members passing a bill and that somehow it is wrong or unfair to workers to leave them alone with their conscience when they make a decision.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize what is happening with Bill C-4.

The Liberal government, despite its claims to want more openness, transparency, clarity, and accountability, is stripping union members of what they wanted. Roughly 85% of union members want financial disclosure; up to 90% want to be able to have a secret ballot.

Why on earth would the Liberal government take away that freedom, that accountability, they claim they want?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-4, which was introduced by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to repeal the legislative changes made in the previous Parliament by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

In the broader strokes, this particular bill ultimately aims to restore balance and a fairer approach in labour relations here in Canada. It seeks to restore the balance between employers, workers and, I would note, the government. This is ultimately what I found the most offensive part of the previous two private members' bills that were introduced and passed in the previous 41st Parliament, the notion of actually making sure there was a broad consultative process. From my perspective, because it was introduced as private members' legislation, it did not afford the same kind of opportunity that a piece of government legislation would have done. Had it been introduced by the government, the minister for employment would have been responsible for a broad consultative process with workers, labour unions, and other interested parties. Instead, it was done under private members' legislation.

I listened to some of the earlier commentary that our concern about private members' legislation somehow demeans the value of such legislation. That is not the case. There are appropriate times and ways in which private members' legislation should be brought forth, but there is no guarantee under private members' legislation of the same opportunity for a broad consultative approach that can be done by way of a government bill. For us, the reasons for bringing forth Bill C-4 are not only that it was a campaign platform commitment, but more importantly that of making sure that we do things by way of broadly consulting all Canadians. From my perspective, the former Bills C-377 and C-525 seem to be solutions in search of a problem when there was not a fundamental problem.

The other issue I want to raise is that the fundamental outcome of this legislation being put forward was to freeze labour relations in Canada. At its core, this approach by the previous government was fundamentally flawed. If we are to effectively move our economy forward, we have to bring everyone together, rather than taking the approach of the previous government which sought to divide people. That, again, was at the fundamental heart of those two pieces of private members' legislation.

I would like to use my time today to discuss the details of these two pieces of legislation, why they would be repealed by this government, and what the ultimate impact might be on unions and workers. In turn, this will give Canadians a sense of the benefit of repealing the legislation, as we are proposing under Bill C-4.

Let me begin with Bill C-377. This private member's legislation was introduced by the former member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Russ Hiebert. As I understood it, the purpose of the bill was essentially to force labour organizations and labour trusts to provide detailed financial and other information to the Canada Revenue Agency. That would include things like disclosure of salaries, time spent working on political and lobbying activities, and so forth.

From my perspective, the issue was not so much the disclosure but the fact it would apply only to labour unions. This information was not being required more broadly from other organizations, such as professional organizations. They were not asked to have the same standard of disclosure.

Therefore, from my perspective, that is somewhat problematic. While it might not seem, as framed by the members of the official opposition, that public disclosure is not unreasonable, if we really dig down deep into the particular issue, we will see there are some serious and substantive ramifications with their approach.

First, it creates an extra level of unnecessary and, ironically, by a government that was seeking to reduce red tape, a more bureaucratic process. The kinds of regulatory requirements that would be imposed upon smaller unions to comply with the requirements under Bill C-377 is particularly odious.

As well, the Canada Revenue Agency would also have to share this burden, multiplying the amount of the work the CRA would have to do. As a result, that cost burden would have been ultimately borne by all taxpayers.

The proposed changes were unnecessary because unions were already financially accountable to their members under the Canada Labour Code.

Provinces, in many instances, I believe in seven jurisdictions, indicated that this was also an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. Many of them felt this legislation was potentially ultra vires of the provincial sphere. I find that ironic coming from that party, which talks so much about the importance of preserving the rights of provinces. This is already being regulated. Therefore, Bill C-377 imposes large financial and administrative burdens on labour organizations and labour trusts that were not ultimately required for others.

While the administrative burden and reporting requirements are significant, it would also have a chilling effect on the collective bargaining process and, potentially, give an unfair advantage to employers at the bargaining table because of the requirements of financial disclosure. For example, because of the nature of those disclosures, information about the strike funds of unions would potentially be available to employers. That same reciprocity does not exist for the unions; knowing the capacity of the employer to deal with a strike situation. As a result, the employer would have the advantage of knowing how long a union member might be able to be sustained in a strike position. It was not ultimately a function of an even application of so-called transparency in Bill C-377.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This was, of course, a private member's bill that was introduced by the current member for Red Deer—Lacombe. The bill basically attempts to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which ultimately affects how unions are certified and decertified.

In a nutshell, that legislation was an attempt to make it more difficult for unions to ultimately get certification. It was not just problematic for unions, but also imposed some serious burdens on others as well. For example, there were real potential implications for a number of agencies, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. These boards would have had to bear the additional administrative cost and logistical responsibilities in holding representation votes.

Under these changes, rather than under the CIRB's previous requirement to hold a vote to certify a union in roughly 20% of cases where less than a majority of workers have signed union cards, ultimately this would have meant a fivefold increase in work. Therefore, these bills are not a contribution to labour relations in Canada.

At the end of the day, these two pieces of legislation have done more harm to the nature of labour relations in Canada and they need to be repealed. I welcome the debate on this subject.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased the member explained a lot of why the Liberals put forward Bill C-4. He clarified a lot of the confusion.

He was pretty clear that accountability and transparency was great as long as it was easy. However, as soon as it was a burden on the CRA or the unions, then there would be pull-back on that. This explains a lot about the Liberals' platform moving forward in the last 100 days.

My colleague talked about how this would help move the economy forward, if we eliminated transparency and accountability, secret ballots, and those kinds of things. Does the member feel that eliminating the democratic process of secret ballots is somehow going to help unions and the government move the economy forward?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share a common commitment with my friend, the member for Foothills. We both had the privilege of entering this place at the same time.

For me, the fundamental issue with respect to transparency and accountability was the nature in which the legislation was ultimately brought forward. It did not allow for broad consultation. It ultimately had the impact of actually chilling or making more difficult the nature of Canada labour relations.

When we are not all pulling together, unions, employers, workers, and government, at the end of the day we are going in opposite directions. That is not how we ultimately bring the Canadian economy forward.

If this were an important issue of openness and transparency, the Conservatives should have taken a fulsome approach of consulting with all the affected partners in this situation so they could have had that appropriate input, and everyone could have bought in to their scheme.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that in my time in the riding, as I was knocking on doors during the campaign and after becoming the member for that area, I heard again and again from unions about their concerns, about their wanting to see these bills removed.

I am very happy to be standing here today saying that I will support moving in this right direction. However, there is still more work to be done.

For promised labour policy reform, will the Liberal government commit to reinstating a fair minimum wage in federally regulated sectors? I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the third party will be supporting our position on Bill C-4. This was an important situation where we felt that the approach of the previous government was inappropriate and that we needed to have a restart in our relationship with organized labour.

As to the member's substantive question on the minimum wage, the member knows well this party's position. We supported the motion put forward by the NDP with respect to this.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. I spent a week in my riding, where I had the opportunity to speak with individuals and families who have been negatively affected by the previous government's bills.

I had the great pleasure of spending some time in the riding this past week, talking with individuals and families in Oromocto, family members of civilian employees at Canada's largest military training base, Base Gagetown. They are very pleased with the movement of the government to reset relations with unions and governments across the country.

I had a chance to talk with researchers working at our National Research Council as well as local firefighters. All were happy to see the movement of the government.

Could my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt speak to some of the conversations he had throughout his constituency about the fairness this bill seeks to address?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, during my constituency break, I had the opportunity to sit down with employers. They recognized that it was important to have a good working relationship with their labour unions. I think of a specific auto parts manufacturer that is struggling to ensure that it can work proactively to get goods to market.

It is important that we create the conditions that ultimately lead to strong employer-employee relations, as opposed to creating the kind of divisive policies we saw from the other side.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House to speak in support of Bill C-4, and with it the repeal of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-4 is an important step forward and yet another example of this government following through on our promises.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that this is my first time rising in the House to speak in debate since being elected by the great people of Newmarket—Aurora. I want to thank the voters who placed their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa.

I also want to thank the hundreds of volunteers who supported our campaign during the election. As a long-time resident of my community, I am truly honoured by this. I particularly want to thank my wife Andrea, and our two sons, without whom the success of the campaign would not have been possible.

I look forward to working with all members in this House in an effort to accomplish great things for our great country.

There is an important topic in front of us today, and that is Bill C-4. This government recognizes the important role that unions play in protecting the rights of Canadian workers and in helping to ensure a strong and prosperous middle class. Bill C-4 is an integral step to ensuring Canada's labour laws best foster positive and productive working relationships between employees and employers, an approach that strives for balance. If we look to Bills C-377 and C-525, the Employees’ Voting Rights Act, it is clear that balance was not the objective.

What is also clear is that a number of legitimate concerns were raised by stakeholders, which were ultimately ignored by the previous government. While it rushed to pass these bills just before the election for partisan gain and as a tool to punish unions, Bill C-4 would go a long way to restoring the fairness and balance that was lost under the previous bills. Not only did the legislation diminish and weaken Canada's labour movement, it was also counterproductive to ensuring a positive work environment. The bills were political gimmicks used for partisan gain and nothing more. They addressed no pressing problem, no great evil, and merely duplicated much of the legislation found in the Canada Labour Code and provincial regulations. We campaigned, and rightfully so, on repealing these hyperpartisan acts, and today we are closer to doing so.

It was clear from the beginning that Bill C-377 would create an unnecessary advantage for unions during collective bargaining, while Bill C-525 would make it more challenging to unionize and much easier for bargaining agents to be decertified. This meant that union members already facing challenging conditions when going through the collective bargaining process would have to tackle even more red tape and more uncertainty. This government wants to eliminate the unnecessary red tape and allow Canadians access to the kind of productive, positive working relationship between employees and employers that unions strive for and Canadians deserve. We will accomplish this through Bill C-4.

After the introduction of Bill C-377 by the last government, a number of high profile organizations were vocal about their opposition to it, including the Canadian Bar Association, the association representing police unions, and the federal Privacy Commissioner, to name a few. These organizations argued that Bill C-377 is ultimately an invasion of privacy for the significant number of people falling under its broad reporting requirements. Through several well-crafted and thoughtful, albeit ignored submissions, the Canadian Bar Association warned that this bill interferes with the internal administration and operations of a union, which is likely prohibited under the constitutional protection of freedom of association. Many provincial governments and employees agree, and the Alberta union of public employees launched a constitutional challenge against the legislation.

Beyond the likely unconstitutionality of Bill C-377, it would also be impractical to administer, including the high cost this would place on the Canada Revenue Agency to process the increased volume of disclosure. Though it is always easy to increase regulation or create more red tape, the costs, whether to the organization, or in this case to the government agency, can be significant and should not be overlooked. This is yet another reason to repeal this bill.

While the Conservatives wanted to increase the number of hoops for unions and their members to jump through, this government is committed to eliminating them.

To say that these bills were not a highly partisan move by the previous government would be false. All we need to do is look back over two years ago, when on June 26, 2013, a Friday afternoon just days before the summer recess, 16 Conservative senators broke ranks and voted to gut Bill C-377 and send the amended legislation back to this place. Parliament was prorogued before members of the House could deal with it, sending it back to the Senate without any changes. It took another two years before the long reach of the former PMO finally managed to accomplish what it set out to do in the first place and the law came into force.

Aside from the large number of organizations that were quite vocal in their condemnation of Bill C-377, a number of provinces, seven to be exact, also stood in opposition to it. These provinces already implement strong and important requirements for financial disclosure among the unions. Duplicating these measures not only encroaches on the jurisdiction of these provinces but also creates undue adversity for unions. Above and beyond these duplications, Bill C-377 also goes a step further and requires labour organizations to disclose more information than required of any other organization. This unfair treatment would ultimately have severe consequences on how unions operate in serving their members. Our government wants to protect the role of the union on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who rely on them. Unions are a legitimate part of the Canadian economy and its social fabric.

Bill C-4 recognizes the concerns that were raised months and in some cases years ago, and addresses them by allowing the provinces to continue their work in their jurisdiction. Bill C-4 would also ensure that labour issues are free of the potential breaches of individual privacy rights that were so obviously threatened by Bill C-377. The provinces play an important role in securing the transparency and accountability of unions, and through the imposition of Bill C-377, labour units are thrust into unfair circumstances that make it challenging and sometimes impossible to be compliant.

Bill C-4 would clean up the mess that Bill C-377 left behind. It would restore balance to existing relations between unions and employers. It would get rid of the duplication of reporting requirements. It would remove the discriminatory nature of Bill C-377, and it would uphold the privacy of all parties.

This government has also been steadfast in its position on how best to rebalance the rights of workers and employers in Canada. Bill C-4 will be a welcome relief to the past government's back-door nature, exemplified by Bill C-525, a private member's bill that had no stakeholder consultation whatsoever yet will wield significant impact.

Bill C-525's impact spreads deep, from the way unions can form to how they operate, and ultimately whether or not they can decertify. Bill C-525 put in place a requirement for a majority secret ballot vote by employees before any bargaining unit can be certified or decertified, a clear and obvious attack on unions by the previous government. By changing these thresholds under Bill C-525, not only did the previous government make it harder for bargaining agents to be certified, it made it easier for a bargaining agent to be decertified. Bill C-4 will go a long way to re-establishing a positive working relationship between employees and employers to allow for a more efficient, quicker process. Through the repeal of Bill C-525, I am proud to say that the certification process will be more efficient and more likely to be free of employer interference.

This government will work hard for the rights of workers and employers across Canada, and Bill C-4 is the first step in rectifying the partisan attacks on hard-working Canadians by the past government.

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to discuss such an important bill, which affects over 18,000 labour entities in Canada, including locals found in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora. This government stood before Canadians last October and made a commitment to voters that if the Liberal Party formed government, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 would be repealed. Well here we are, a little over 100 days later, doing exactly that. This is a government that believes in bargaining in good faith and that unions play an important and legitimate role in the success of our economy. I am proud to have this opportunity in the House to defend those rights and look forward to a productive and respectful working relationship with labour unions moving forward. I urge all members to do the right thing and support Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member opposite for his election and for a wonderful speech.

Taxpayers, though, are supporting half a billion dollars per year of credits related to union dues. Professional organizations and charities which are given those kind of tax breaks are providing financial transparency due to the requirements that they already have in place. Does the member not think that taxpayers have a right to know where the half a billion dollars a year in tax breaks for union dues goes? If he does think they have a right to know, why is he taking that right away?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question, and I also want to thank her for welcoming me to the House and congratulating me on my speech.

Of course, that is an important issue, and people have a right to know where taxpayer money goes. The point is that the legitimacy, the transparency, and the openness are already there. The old bills create no new mechanisms. Reporting requirements were already there. All they do is make it harder for unions to operate and less likely that they will be able to thrive in this economy. That is the purpose of repealing these bills. I am happy to support Bill C-4. At the same time, we are supporting openness and transparency.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been hearing this strange talk from the Conservatives about accountability and transparency. This is from a government that was the most secretive in Canadian history.

When we saw Bill C-377 go through, it was denounced by the Privacy Commissioner as an attack on the right to privacy. Conservatives are into the right to privacy when it comes to their friends, but we have a bill that was challenged for breaching the Constitution, breaching provincial laws, interfering with the right to organize, and was also attacked by the Privacy Commissioner.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Conservatives, in their vendetta against their political enemies, would have thrown the important issue of the constitutional right to privacy out the window just so they could get at their political enemies. Do they still think they can stand up in the House and somehow credibly say they were on the side of accountability and trust?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the member's sense of irony in hearing the new Conservative position about openness and transparency. This breach of privacy actually comes as a bit of a surprise from the Conservative benches. It is the same government, as we will recall, that rid Canada of its long-form census because it breached privacy in its opinion. Therefore, I do not understand why the Conservatives protect privacy rights on one hand and not on the other.

I also do not know why they did not have lawyers advising them. This would clearly be a constitutional breach on the privacy front as well as the right to freedom of association. In fact, part of me thinks the Conservatives probably knew that this would be challenged but they were doing it for a political gimmick for partisan gain. I am sure the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent would agree that this was an attack on unions. I know he appreciated that attack and that is perhaps why—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Through you, Madam Speaker, perhaps the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent failed to recognize that was an attack on the unions. In any event, it was an attack on the unions. That was what it was. The constitutionality of it was not considered properly.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to welcome the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

It is interesting. I was hoping that they would be having a free vote on this. The Liberals talked about transparency and accountability, and yet they do not have free votes anymore.

I do not think they can afford it. They are collecting $5.4 billion a year in fees, getting close to $500 million in taxable benefit, and they do not want to have a vote, as we have to have, to get elected here or to be Speaker. I am wondering what part of the accountability you are missing when it is all about accountability and showing the taxpayers where their dollars are actually being spent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before the answer, I want to remind the member that I am not missing any accountability and that he needs to address the Chair and not the member.

A very brief answer from the member for Newmarket—Aurora, please.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, accountability is already there. Again, this is not a real argument. The accountability mechanisms in Bill C-377 go above and beyond anything that is reasonably necessary. I wonder why he thinks union members should have more accountability than members of Parliament when it comes to reporting their expenses.

As for a free vote, whether this is a free vote or not, I am happy to vote for Bill C-4. I welcome all the members opposite to have a free vote and join me in supporting Bill C-4 and helping unions prosper in our great economy.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-4, which would roll back the rights of hard-working union members and repeal transparency legislation that finally allowed some sunshine to be let into the financial ledgers of opaque unions.

I respect the Minister of Employment. I have had the pleasure of getting to know her over the past 16 years and enjoyed the time we spent together in the Manitoba legislature. I remember that my hon. friend and her NDP colleagues at the time introduced a similar bill in 2000 and rammed it through the Manitoba legislature, a bill that massively favoured the interests of union elites and took away the ability of union members to stop their union dues paying for their union bosses' political agendas.

I also noted her comments in the House about how Bill C-4 would improve Canada's economy. I only pray that her now Liberal government does not increase Canada's debt by over 500% as her former NDP colleagues have done in Manitoba since her days in government. It is also interesting to note that at that time, former Liberal MP Jon Gerrard and leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party not only spoke against this legislation but he voted against it as well.

Today I want to talk about three things: first, the flawed motivation the Liberals have for introducing this legislation at this time; second, the importance of a secret ballot as a pillar of our democratic institutions; and third, the principle of fairness for certification and decertification.

The timing of this legislation leads me to believe that the new Liberal government is on manoeuvres. The fact that even the Liberal minister who introduced this legislation admitted that the bill was quickly tabled leads me to believe that ulterior motives are behind it.

It is too easy to just assume that this legislation is a reward for all the unions that backed the Liberals in the last election. Not even the Liberal government would change the law to remove mandatory secret ballots for union workers as a quick “thank you” to the unions that actively and publicly supported them but also spent thousands upon thousands if not millions of workers' dollars attacking the Conservative Party.

The big issue here is not Bill C-4 itself. It is not even Bill C-5, the bill the Liberals introduced next to settle their union debts. We have to look at the big picture here. It is not just that the Liberals owe some of their election victory to the thousands of workers' dollars the union spent against us, it is that the Liberals are using the rights of workers across the country as a bargaining chip, literally.

The lightening speed of the bill's introduction can only be explained by the looming spectre of collective bargaining the Liberals have coming with their own public service unions. Quite simply, they are trading the rights of hard-working Canadians in the hope of a smoother ride at their own negotiating table. It leads me to ask: did the Liberals care about union rank and file or only about making their own lives easier? It is clear that the Liberals are introducing this legislation for their own ends and not to solve a problem that actually exists.

This leads me to my second point: the importance of the secret ballot as a democratic principle. Each hon. member in the chamber is here today because residents in their ridings chose to give them the most personal thing they possess, their vote. We have no higher duty in our role as members than to safeguard the democratic principles that hold our country together. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process. It seems absurd to me that a member of the House could get up and argue that we need less voter protection, that we need less transparency, that we need less democracy. It seems absurd to me that a member of the House could get up and argue that we need more secrecy, that we need more union intimidation, and that we need more power for big union bosses.

The Liberals are creating a problem that does not exist. Nobody is banging down my door, nobody is calling my office, and nobody is emailing me saying they want workers to be stripped of the right to a secret ballot. Even the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada Robyn Benson said so much herself when she testified in committee in 2014, “Contrary to what you may have heard, 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.”

The old card check system allowed for a workplace to be unionized without letting all employees have their say. In fact, unionization could proceed with a significant portion of the workers having no idea unionization is even going on.

As many of my hon. colleagues will know from their experience in electoral campaigns, candidates often spend their time going door to door, asking for support of their friends and neighbours. Most say yes. Sometimes they mean it, and sometimes they just want them to get off the porch or do not feel comfortable saying no to their face. It is a good thing that candidates cannot force people to vote at the door when they are canvassing; otherwise, the potential for voter intimidation would be disturbing, indeed. It is a good thing we have a secret ballot vote later to decide who the MP will be.

The former card check system, without a mandatory secret ballot, was ripe for intimidation, intentional or not. In this system, workers could be pressured by unions or their colleagues in the signing of a union card. I ask colleagues to imagine what it feels like in a workplace full of tension, where a worker is on the fence about joining a union but is bombarded by peer pressure from all sides.

The only true way to safeguard the rights of these workers is to let them express their true wishes through a vote, and the only way to do this properly is through a secret ballot. This notion enjoys widespread support across Canada and 5 of 10 Canadian provinces have mandatory secret ballot vote legislation. The Liberals have absolutely no good reason to get rid of this vital check.

Finally, let me now turn to one specific detail in the bill, that which deals with the number of votes it takes to certify or decertify a union. Before Bill C-525, it took the signatures of 35% of the bargaining unit to trigger the process to certify a union, while it took 50% to decertify it.

Bill C-525 is grounded in the core principle of creating an equal and fair playing field for supporters and opponents of unionization. We believe that it should be up to the workers to decide, not the employers, and not the union bosses. This was achieved by setting the bar for both certification and decertification processes at 40%; a wholly reasonable number to trigger a vote that necessarily involves wide-ranging consultation.

Now, the Liberals are trying to narrow the circle of people that unions and employees need to involve to make decisions; ultimately, making the process less democratic.

The bill is all about narrowing the democratic legitimacy of unions and scaling back the rights of workers to select their representatives and to determine their own fate. It is truly an affront to democracy for elected members of this chamber to demand that other institutions in their country be made less democratic, that they be made more exclusive.

As the representative of the residents of Brandon—Souris, I cannot support the legislation. It is clearly designed to settle Liberal debts to unions from their last election campaign, to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot, and to create an uneven playing field for workers to determine their own fate.

I encourage all members of this House to vote against the bill.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier the Liberals brought up the fact that the argument that Bill C-377 was about transparency was false. The unions already have a legal obligation to provide detailed financial statements. Bill C-377 does not require anything or demand transparency from other professional associations, such as the Conseil du patronat du Québec, or chambers of commerce. This is a two-tiered approach.

As far as Bill C-525 is concerned, similar legislation was passed in the United States and the unionization rate dropped from 35% to 11%. Organized labour is the middle class and in Quebec that means teachers, nurses, bus drivers, and public servants.

Why are the Conservatives against the middle class?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes the very point that these workers are middle-class Canadian citizens and they work hard every day. Why should they not have the democratic right to a secret ballot to be in a union? I do not know what they are afraid of when 40% is all we were asking for in that bill to have a union.

However, for the mechanisms that the member is in favour of, to walk in and have a card-signing process, they may end up with over 50% of the individuals who sign up and could end up in a union while not even knowing that the unionization process was going on. That is what we see as unfair in this whole process.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the comments from my colleague from Brandon—Souris, and I acknowledge the great work he is doing on this file.

I was in my riding this weekend and I was talking to my neighbour. He was talking about what the union did to intimidate him during one of the provincial elections in Saskatchewan. The union bosses came in and intimidated him. They said basically he needed to vote for a certain party and that his obligation as a union member was to vote for that party.

We look at the intimidation that was going on in a provincial election; now let us put it into ballot vote. Let us put it into the situation where they are going to certify or decertify a union. Can members imagine the intimidation that would be in that room in an open ballot? Can members imagine the intimidation that they would put on their members if the election were an open ballot?

I ask this of my colleague. In the scenario of a closed or secret ballot, what is the issue? That is how most democracies operate today. Why can the unions not operate in that same fashion?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is the hub of what we are talking about here in this debate on Bill C-4, brought forward by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

It is very true that the intimidation that I spoke about in my own remarks here is exactly why they need to have a secret ballot. Under the old mechanisms, a 35% sign-up gave them a union, but they had to have 50% to decertify a union. My colleague brought in Bill C-525, one of the first bills that I had the opportunity to speak to in this House. We levelled it at 40% either way, and that does still not even require half. It is a very fair piece of legislation that was on the books, and that is why I make the comment and the point that the Liberals are trying to fix something that is not broken.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we support the government's proposed changes in response to the Conservatives' anti-union bills.

I represent a riding that has seen its share of companies close their doors. Workers now have increasingly precarious, part-time jobs through no fault of their own.

Does my colleague realize that to introduce a bill against unions is to be against workers?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, again that question makes the point that when they have a 35% sign-up to have a union and 50% to decertify, what was wrong with sawing that off at 40% to have a union or to decertify it?

I am not surprised that my colleague who just asked the question from the New Democratic Party agrees with this bill brought forward by the former NDP minister in Manitoba who is now the Liberal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in Canada. It looks to me like the Liberal government is trying to outflank the NDP on the left with this kind of legislation. It is certainly not fair to workers seeking union certification.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on the bill thus far.

This exercise is not so much about outlining the vision of the legislation that we have before us, but about untangling what has been tangled before. Therefore, we now find ourselves in this position where we are taking back two particular bills.

I will not specifically address the issue of private members' bills and how they are being used, whether for nefarious reasons or not. Personally, I respect private members' bills, no matter what they are. They are from a member and there is a reason they exist. However, I would like to attack these particular bills based on their policies and how they are unfair in this context.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were bills that I did not support from the beginning. Therefore, we need to undo what has been done in order to proceed any further, and Bill C-4 would do just that.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 passed without the extensive consultation process traditionally used for labour relations law reform. This is what we call the tripartite way of doing things. We have the government, the union and organized labour and, of course, we have the employers, all of which need to be consulted on something as important as this, because it affects so many Canadians across the country. Changes to labour relations legislation has always been preceded by this.

I have two examples of how this was done. I would like to bring these examples to the House because they illustrate the way things should be done using the tripartite process.

In 1995, the Sims task force did extensive public consultations on part 1 of the Canada Labour Code, and included labour, employers, and government stakeholders. The name of the report is “Seeking a Balance”, which formed the basis of major changes that came into effect in 1999. Going further back to 1978, the second example I would like to use, was the Woods task force, which was another tripartite consultative process. It was used to bring about change to the federal industrial relations system.

However, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, there was not much consultation. I am not sure of all the work that the members did in response to these two bills, but I would assume that the opposition during the committee process both here in the House and in the Senate illustrates that a lot of consultation did not take place in this tripartite manner.

I will go to the part where the bill talks about some of the other non-labour practices of the former government. Of course, in many situations the Conservatives went against many of the unions and organized labour, and a result caused a very poisoned atmosphere over the past while. Whenever we heard the government talk about big union bosses and the like, it created a stir among organized labour and many governments, both provincial and here in Ottawa.

Here are some of the rules the Conservatives brought in: a requirement to provide information on the time spent by officers on political lobbying, which would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website; and an obligation on unions to provide their financial statements to their own members for free and when they are asked for it.

This was almost a situation where the Conservatives wanted to create a solution to a problem that did not exist. They did so without the right amount of consultation and, as a result, neglected to see some of the steps that had been taken over the past 20 to 25 years by organized labour, employers and the associations they are represented by.

Bill C-377 was directed solely at labour organizations, and that was quite evident during the evidence that was given here in the House and in both House and Senate committees. It was directed at labour trusts and not at any other professional associations, which, by the way, benefited from similar treatment under the Income Tax Act, but they were not specifically told to be more transparent as well.

As hon. colleagues will recall, the Minister of National Revenue has waived the reporting requirements for 2016 in Bill C-377 knowing that we intend to work to repeal the bill.

I will go back to the debate that took place, before we get into Bill C-4. When Bill C-377 went to the Senate, a colleague of ours by the name of Hugh Segal, a Conservative senator at the time, was vociferously against the bill, to the point where he had brought amendments that were accepted at the time. I will read an editorial he did after retiring from the Senate about how he was against Bill C-377 and its fundamental principles. I will quote from his editorial:

The Canadian Bar Association questioned its constitutionality, as it sought to circumvent normal provincial jurisdiction over labour relations and trade unions by imposing Canada Revenue Agency reporting requirements via federal statute.

There he talked about the constitutional crisis that had been raised by this particular situation. We can question the constitutionality of the bill as defined by the powers directed by the provincial governments and the federal government, which are laid out quite clearly.

Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal went on to say:

There was also the issue raised by many witnesses before the committee that reporting relationships for small expenditures being imposed on unions and union locals were not being imposed on other corporate or charitable/not-for-profit groups.

We saw this in the House of Commons testimony as well, when witnesses talked about how the same onus was not put on other associations to divulge or make transparent the activities they do and the contributions they receive, including from whom, which really would have created a balance.

The imbalance during labour negotiations was also talked about and mentioned in Hugh Segal's article and the point was made that information would be divulged by local labour organizations to the point where it would put them at a distinct disadvantage in certain negotiations.

I want to thank him for doing that, because I thought that in earnest he had put together some very viable amendments. Let us face it, like every bill of this size, there are good points and there are bad points, but Conservative Senator Hugh Segal attempted to make amendments. I should not say “attempted”, because he actually did make them. His amendments were accepted by members of the Senate, and then the bill was sent back here to the House for it to address it once more with those fixes in place. The House was prorogued.

Here, I know that everyone is just waiting to hear how this works, right? It is that type of day.

[An hon. member]

With bated breath.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

With bated breath, yes indeed, Madam Speaker.

When prorogation takes place, the bill resets and goes back to its original form. The bill in its original form then went back to the Senate, but Hugh Segal was not there, unfortunately. Therefore, it was passed in its original form, which is the reason why we are here today talking about Bill C-4 in this manner.

I want to talk about one of the situations my NDP colleague brought up earlier when it comes to transparency. I remember when a gentleman, an independent member of Parliament, Brent Rathgeber, had a private member's bill on transparency and the disclosure of salaries, and so on and so forth. He specifically went after a couple of elements within the public discussion. He went after the CBC, wanting the disclosure of CBC salaries, and so on and so forth. There were some problems with the bill when it came to the CBC being quasi-competitive in the private sector, but he also talked about divulging or making transparent the salaries of people in government, including the salaries of the people who worked in the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office of the day, the Conservative Prime Minister.

The Conservatives amended the bill. Mr. Rathgeber's bill said that anyone making around $150,000 should have their salary divulged. It was based on the sunshine list that exists in Ontario, which concerns anyone making more than $150,000. The Conservatives amended it so that only someone making more than $400,000 a year would have their salary disclosed. Anyone making less than that would not have their salary disclosed. As we say back home, “You are too cute by half, sir”. The Conservatives were trying to protect their own.

It is funny that we have massive disclosure demanded from labour organizations, but when it came to the Conservative Prime Minister's Office, it was not the same standard. That is why we are here today.

I support Bill C-4 for the reason that it untangles the effects of the two private members' bills, despite the strong efforts by the two members who brought forward these private members' bills, a process that we still uphold here as honourable for each and every individual member. However, I disagree with them and therefore I would strongly urge all of us to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member go on a bit of a tangent about sunshine lists and the disclosure of PMO salaries. There are interesting arguments to be made on both sides of that. I just want to clarify if he is in favour of the current Prime Minister's Office disclosing a sunshine list in the format he has talked about. Will the Liberal government bring forward the sunshine list legislation he is praising in his remarks?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am always in favour of transparency. I would never turn it down. Anyone who works around here should have full disclosure on this. That is my view personally. I do believe in that.

As a matter of fact, I was referring to Mr. Rathgeber's bill. I point towards his chair because that is where he used to sit. He was an hon. member, a very smart man, and he worked very hard. What he tried to do was put more disclosure on certain aspects of governance. He pointed out the hypocrisy that tends to occur in this place, small or large, and that was happening at the time. Demanding transparency of one group includes transparency for all.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I support what my colleague has to say in favour of workers' rights and improving their working conditions.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a proud provincial public servant. I have a great deal of respect for all public servants, who work daily for the common good. I think the best way to send a clear message is to lead by example.

Accordingly, in the current negotiations with public servants, will my colleague ask the government to restore public service sick leave and adopt the provisions with regard to health and better working conditions?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, obviously, with regard to what she is talking about right now, we will let the discussions unfold. I have always had a deep respect for public sector workers. I have always had respect for them, their remuneration, and anything dealing with the benefits they receive. Yes, I do. It is a negotiation between the government and the union. I realize that. I will leave that at what it is right now and speak about it later when the time comes to vote on that particular legislation.

What I am focused on right now is untangling the mess in Bill C-4, and I thank the member for her comments about it. She supports Bill C-4, and I appreciate that support for all the reasons we do: the injustices in the particular provisions contained within Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very astute comments. I appreciate hearing the history of this place. For those us who are new, sometimes it is very elucidating.

One of the things I most appreciated about his remarks was his comment about the balance between labour, corporations, and government. Neither side is all right or all wrong, and I do not like it when people say they are doing something because they are pro labour or against labour. We all have to find a proper balance.

If he could, I would like the hon. member to expand on where he sees a proper balance being.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his astute comments as well, as we trade all kinds of compliments between each other.

In the spirit of this massive love-in that we embarked on, yes, we are talking about the love-in as well when it comes to these particular tripartite negotiations. That is what he talked about: the businesses, the employers, organized labour and, of course, government. He also pointed out that we want to avoid what happened last time with sweeping generalizations about who we are as groups.

Many times I have heard people say that they do not really like unions or they are all for unions. We must have a conversation that looks at and accentuates the wonderful things they do, and if we have disagreements, bring them here to the House.

My other hon. colleague pointed out the situation with sick leave. It is a valid point. We know there will be disagreements. We have to look at the books as they are and the fiscal balance that we hope to achieve, and that is why we cannot use sweeping generalizations any more with terms like “big union bosses” or “corporate bosses”, and the like. If we go that way, we will all sound like Donald Trump, and wouldn't that be a bad thing?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to follow up with the reference to Donald Trump in this chamber. I will leave it at that.

I would like to refer to Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The Conservatives often attached names to their bills. Basically these were known as bills to create two straw men. It was really an attempt to create an issue that had not existed and they sought a solution to a problem that did not exist. I say that because unions and corporations are barred from political donations.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien brought this to the House, and it was something that I and my colleagues supported. It has been a good way going forward, and has been replicated by provincial NDP governments to ensure ordinary voters and citizens have as much of an impact on the voting process as larger and medium-sized corporations, big unions, and small unions do.

Another good change I saw was the limitations put on some of the lobbying activity that took place related to those donations. I often saw, through TPP grants, a former program, the government of the day, either the Conservatives or the Liberals, would have large grant donations go to companies under the TPP program. Those companies then would spend hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the party. That was a bad practice.

Another bad practice was related to the funds that members of Parliament were allowed to keep in secrecy, different from the riding association. In the past a number of different MPs were able to accumulate funds independently. That has changed as well.

Those contributions, be it political, union, or corporate donations, are gone. Those were good, credible movements made by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. I give him credit for that because this is a better place and more reflective of the people.

With regard to the tone we heard from union bosses, this is nothing more than passive aggressive attacks on their institutions and Canadians who are democratically elected to their positions through their membership, and membership reviews. In fact, if the union collectively bargains for an agreement and the membership turns it down, it could then remove the leadership for the collective bargaining.

Sometimes it is done voluntarily, when the leadership recognizes it has missed the point from the workers. Most recently, we saw this take place in Ontario with public servants of correctional facilities. An agreement was turned down, and the message to the union negotiators, including the executive, was that greater accountability was needed and not enough was being done to win their support.

There are processes in place for accountability. Union members can get annual reports.

I would like to talk a little about some big union bosses, Rob from CUPE Local 82 and Dino from UNIFOR Local 444. We had a skate and donate program. CUPE Local 82 members took Family Day off and volunteered to help raise money for a local women's shelter and our downtown mission. I was fortunate to get two children's bicycles from UNIFOR Local 444. There were no complaints whatsoever. There were non-union, union, and other people from the not-for-profit sector there. We tripled our donations for those organizations and food banks. We also brought in triple the amount of food.

Big union bosses contribute so much on a regular basis to social justice causes; everything from refugees to a number of different programs, including food banks. They hold press conferences. Local 200 donates to eight children's groups. This is in the Windsor Star. It is in the public. All the members from local 200 are Ford workers. They have had a struggle with this economy. It is because of their quality of work, that we have not lost more jobs. We have seen the failed practices of Liberal governments in the past and the former Conservative government with respect to the auto industry, which shrank from number two in the world in assembly to number eight.

Despite that, we have investment taking place because the members of the unions are good workers and they run a series of health and safety programs to ensure injury reduction in the workplace. Unions have bargained for those rights to increase the productivity of the workers. Because of that, without any government investment at all, Fiat has invested in the Windsor Chrysler assembly plant. It is now hiring 1,000 workers to increase production for the new minivan now known as the Pacifica.

Despite the economic conditions, this plant is the number one manufacturing facility since World War II. It has been operating now for over 10 years on three shifts, and has been making money for the company, rescuing it at different times. As well, the unions have been donating money on a regular basis. Members know this because it has been in the paper. Local 200 has given to the autism society of Windsor and Essex, the Bulimia Anorexia Nervosa Association, the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Child Abuse Prevention Portal, Computers for Kids, Childhood Leukemia Foundation, Canadian Mental Health Association, Griefworks children's program, Jumpstart, and the Sunshine Foundation Dreams for Kids.

This is not only published in the Windsor Star, but it also is also publicized in the general media through TV and radio. Therefore, union members know exactly what is taking place because they are tuned in. We have had long-standing representation from their executives, but they have had to win their workers over. That is done mostly through the confidence in their collective bargaining agreement and through their actions in the public.

There are hundreds of thousands of dollars locally in my community, and I am proud to say I have a union town. The hypocrisy about this is when we talk about secret votes. Let us set the record straight. Unions are not allowed secret votes, but it is okay for members of Parliament to have a secret vote to elect a Speaker. There is no problem with that. We have the Board of Internal Economy committee. We hunker down behind closed doors and nothing goes public, and that is okay. We have different rules.

When I was a city councillor, and that was a while ago, we could only go in camera, or behind closed doors when the public and media were excluded, for issues related to property, personnel, and conflict of interest. There were very specific rules. However, what I have seen in my years here is that if somebody sneezes, the committee can go in camera. It is a ridiculous process and it shuts the doors to accountability. Although the taping continues, we cannot make the information public later on. Member can access it to listen to the proceedings, but they cannot talk about it. It is outrageous that this hypocrisy takes place.

Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 trample on a number of different rights, which are often looked at by experts as constitutionally unacceptable. Most important, they will also cost Canadian taxpayers over $20 million just to instate a program and an additional $5 million for one bill alone. It is a cost that should not be accepted. Therefore, I and my colleagues support Bill C-4.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He kind of railed against the term “big union bosses”. However, would he respond to the words of his former colleague, Ryan Cleary, the former NDP MP for St. John's South—Mount Pearl? In his recent blog post, which appeared in the Newfoundland Herald this week, he said, “As a NDP MP, for example, there was an unspoken rule that I could not take a public stand on a fishery issue without first running it by the [Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union]...”.

When he talks about transparency and accountability, does the member think that is what he is referring to? Is that the NDP mantra, that any public stand members take in their constituency or for the portfolios to which they are assigned must first be run through the union, which, in the case of Ryan Cleary, was the FFAW? Does he have a similar arrangement that he would like to share with the House? Is Mr. Cleary not telling the truth, or what is the big union boss relationship with the NDP?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, no, I do not have that with the unions, but I do consult, just like I consult with industry, on a regular basis when an issue comes up that is related to them.

I would remind the member that Ryan Cleary ran as Conservative candidate in the last election and failed.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's comments, especially those about the Board of Internal Economy. However, my question is about another matter. My colleague spoke quite a bit about the social justice efforts of the big union bosses, but I would like to go back to the democratic aspect that he also touched on.

At a meeting of several union representatives of my labour union, the treasurer put forward a budget that would increase union dues. I am not referring to my local, but to the national union. The members voted against that budget. The executive then withdrew, but came back half an hour later with another budget, which was approved. I find that this process is very democratic.

Has my colleague been in similar situations involving big union bosses?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It is, Madam Speaker, and that is what takes place. There are those opportunities to do those types of double-checks within their own system and determine what they feel is appropriate as members to participate in the activity that the unions choose.

Nobody likes to have money taken off their paycheque, but for a long time a lot of union members have known this practice and have participated in it. They have ensured that the money is spent in accountable ways. The membership, again, has the opportunity to see the books whenever it wants. That is an open, accountable system. Members also get a chance to vote on their leadership and on their collective bargaining agreements to decide whether it is appropriate. They have plenty of opportunities in those elements.

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

Madam Speaker, it was encouraging to hear the member speak about getting union money out of politics as a positive thing. Of course, he knows that union money is not completely out of politics. In fact, it plays a major role not only at the provincial level, but also at the federal level in terms of pre-writ advertising.

Is the member supportive, broadly speaking, of preventing mandatory dues from being diverted to fund political causes unrelated to workplace needs?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, our skate and family day was a free event for the constituents, during which two bikes, a boy's and a girl's, worth $200 were donated as was food for the food bank. CUPE Local 82 members volunteered their time for this event, which was greatly supported. I encourage more members to partner to make these things happen. Union involvement with charities across the country is significant.

The member knows that they have an opportunity to change their dues as mentioned in a previous question. Perhaps he was listening.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak today. This is the first time I have risen to speak in debate. I first want to thank voters in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay for electing me. They elected me with a very strong mandate, almost 50% of the vote. I certainly want to acknowledge and thank the great MPs who ran and served in my riding before me: Rodney Weston, Paul Zed, Elsie Wayne, Gerry Merrithew, to name a few. This is a matter of note too. I am the third Liberal MP to serve in Saint John—Rothesay in the riding's history, so I am very honoured by that.

I also want to thank my great campaign team and my campaign managers, Warren Coombs and Warren Long, for their leadership in helping me along the way; and I certainly want to thank my constituents very much.

I was elected on a mandate to stand up for Canada's marginalized and middle class. The past 10 years of the Conservatives' attempts to degrade, demoralize, and dismantle unions cannot continue. That is what Bill C-4 begins to do.

I would like to begin my speech today by highlighting the proud history of unions in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. We are the first incorporated city in Canada. I am tremendously proud to represent Saint John—Rothesay in the House.

In 1851, believe it or not, Saint John stood as the third largest city in British North America, with a population of 31,000. Saint John was led by the hands of merchants, financiers, railroad men, and most importantly and significantly, shipbuilders, envisioning a prosperous economic centre. At this time, business in our great city flourished, pioneered by the shipbuilding and rail community. Saint John was a stronghold for trade unions. With united and well-represented tradespeople, Saint John was a perfect example of how unions can positively contribute to our communities. Let us not forget that it was unions that built the middle class of our country. It is unions that protect the workers. It is also the Liberal Party of Canada that is standing up for the middle class.

Saint John was a perfect example of how unions can positively contribute to our communities. As a cornerstone of business, unions created a strong and vibrant middle class that built an unrivalled shipbuilding and trade hub for Saint John.

As Saint John proved that the strength of our economy relies on the middle class, bills like Bill C-377 and C-525, and the proposed amendment from across the floor, weaken the labour movement and hold back Canadian potential. The bills must be repealed.

In 2016, unions continue to play a vital role in my riding's economy. I stand up for, and will continue to stand up for, local unions such as our local firefighters union, police union, IBEW, the Public Service Alliance, and many more. We are a union city. That is exactly what Bill C-4 does. It stands up for unions, Canadian workers, and most importantly, Canada's middle class. It is why I whole-heartedly disagree with the amendment presented by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I stand with the government in supporting Bill C-4 as currently written.

Bill C-4 should be supported by all members, without the proposed amendment, for two reasons. Bill C-377 creates unnecessary red tape for unions. Bill C-525 was supported without evidence, and neither unions nor employers wanted it. The amendment only seeks to undermine the purpose of Bill C-4, by pitting employers against employees.

At the time, the Conservative government claimed Bill C-377 was in large part justifiable due to the complaints received from union members. Let us be clear. These complaints represented 0.0002% of the over 4 million union members in Canada, while pre-existing legislation from both provincial and federal governments already required unions to issue financial reports and make them available to members.

This did two things. It created a massive unnecessary administrative burden as well as put unions at a major disadvantage during collective bargaining, making it more difficult for unions to influence the Canadian labour landscape. That is not what this government is about. In fact, it was the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage who stated in January of 2011: “Cutting red tape is a most effective way to show that we are making government work for people, not the other way around.”

The opposition could not justify support for Bill C-377 then, and it cannot justify it with these proposed amendments.

The amendment presented before the House speaks specifically to Bill C-525 and the certification and decertification of unions. This amendment seeks to oppose the exact goal of this bill. It cites legislation that was baseless and without evidence in 2014 and continues to be so in 2016. Bill C-525 was presented on the basis of consultations with labour unions and employers. However, neither employers nor unions sought out these changes or identified a single problem in the process in relation to this amendment.

Opposing this amendment upholds the commitment of our government to building evidence-based policy. If the Conservatives ever looked at considering the evidence, they would have found that their so-called mountain of complaints, which is how it was described at the time, was a whopping six complaints out of 4,000 decisions the Canada Industrial Relations Board made in the past 10 years. Although I am not a member from British Columbia, six out of 4,000 does not seem to be a very big mountain.

This amendment states:

...the bill violates a fundamental principle of democracy by abolishing the provision that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

In fact, it does the complete opposite.

This amendment promotes a system that unions in Saint John—Rothesay and across the country agree has not been working well.

Bill C-525 eliminated card-check certification and added an unnecessary second step for certification. It has become an invitation for employers to interfere with the democratic right of workers to choose representation. Amendments made to this bill in 2014, went even further on the Conservatives' assault of democracy and the attack on unions by further lowering the threshold for decertification applications to reach a vote. It undermines collective bargaining and, to be clear, the Canadian labour movement.

I would like to clarify what the secret ballot vote-based majority discussed in the amendment actually means. It requires any organization seeking certification as a bargaining agent to enter into mandatory voting and replaces the card-check system whereby employees voice their willingness to form a union by signing a union card. In the system imposed by Bill C-525, unions require support from 50% of all employees instead of 50% of the employees who voted. If we were to apply this same logic to the 2011 election, which elected the previous Conservative government, it would have received only 23.6% of the vote, not even half of what is now required to form a union.

Numerous unions from my riding have voiced their opposition to Bill C-525, arguing that the card-check certification model is quicker, more efficient, and more likely to be free of interference.

In conclusion, as the member of Parliament from a community with a proven union track record, I unequivocally support Bill C-4 without the presented amendments. This amendment is just like Bill C-525, which is a complete assault on unions and especially employees. It has created a diluted form of democracy that gives employers too much influence over the creation of a union, and attempts to fix a problem that never existed, and is based on evidence never existed.

I am standing up for unions, and for the unions in Saint John—Rothesay, by saying no to this amendment and yes to evidence-based policies.

In closing, I would like to thank union leaders like Dave Stevens, Peter Anderson, Abel Leblanc, Pat Riley, Chuck Hickey, Darlene Bambridge, Debbie Ferguson, and other great people in the riding of Saint John—Rothesay, for taking a leadership position and helping unions grow in Saint John—Rothesay.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I found a couple of things the member said interesting. He had time to thank union leaders, but I did not hear him thank any union members in his riding. It might also be important to speak to them before he supports Bill C-4.

We heard a lot from the member's Liberal colleagues today that for some reason a private member's bill is illegitimate, that it does not really mean anything, that if it does not come from a minister or if it is not a government bill then it really has no weight. I am curious. As a backbencher and a new member of Parliament himself, does he agree with the statement that you have no voice and you will likely not have a private member's bill because your party does not believe in them?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that you are to address the chair, and I do have a voice.

The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am a backbencher and I am new to politics. I certainly believe that everybody has a voice and everybody should have a say in what happens.

I did mention that there are a lot of union leaders in Saint John—Rothesay, but a lot of my good friends are hard-working union members. Whether union leadership or union members, it was pretty much unanimous that Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were not popular in unions. They were designed as bills that were detrimental to unions. That is why a lot of people in Saint John—Rothesay supported me.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting today to watch our Conservative colleagues suddenly showing their great love for unions. Over the last eight years I have just heard ridicule and attacks on organized labour from that lot. To suggest that they are friends of unions is almost as ridiculous as saying that their legislation always met the standards of the Constitution. This was legislation that was brought in by Peter MacKay, the former justice minister, who had more recalls than the Ford Pinto.

The Conservatives believe that they can use the House and legislation to ignore the Constitution, to override privacy rights, to ignore provincial legislation just so they can get at their political enemies, the big straw men that they have created: the big Indian chiefs; the big, bad union bosses; radical environmentalists. We hear the trioka of blither from them consistently about their straw enemies. The fact that they would use legislation that is not charter-compliant in an attempt to attack their enemies actually debases the House. Whether the new government ended the legislation or it was ended in the courts, it would still be ended one way or the other, just like so much of the legislation that they brought in, which they knew was not charter-compliant, which they knew overstepped their bounds and debased the role of Parliament, which is to create credible legislation.

What does my colleague think is in the pathology of the Conservatives' minds that makes them believe they can ignore these clear jurisdictional divides that are supposed to keep government in check?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am new to politics. I grew up in a non-union house. My dad's whole career was with a local lumber company in Saint John that was not unionized. I learned first-hand and learned from going door to door that unions are good for the economy, they are good to grow the middle class, and they are there to protect workers.

With respect to the statements by members opposite about the party opposite, I am not sure where the attack on unionized workers started and where it ended, or whether it evolved over 10 years. Whether the party opposite agrees with that or not, that was a fact. I heard time and time again, at door after door, from union workers who told me that the Conservative government was out to get them. I learned growing up that perception can be reality at times, and there was a perception across Canada that the Conservative government was anti-union, and that is something those members are going to have to live with. They saw the results of that in the election.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been struggling to find some rational reason why the Liberals have decided to introduce Bill C-4 to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 without any chance of allowing both bills to be tested over time.

I was a proud member of the International Association of Firefighters prior to being elected to this chamber. I started my union involvement early in my career, becoming an executive officer and secretary of our association. After a period of raising our children, I became president of our local for three years. I contributed to our provincial and international association, lobbying on behalf of firefighters and their families with all levels of government.

Our association talked about our issues to those in office and we were appreciative of the time they gave us. We hoped our talks with politicians would be in the backs of their minds when the issues came up, not just in caucus, but around the cabinet table. Political action at the time was more about education than it was about influence. There was no political action funding, no well to draw from, and it was simply a matter of working hard to have our issues understood.

As an association, we strove for better understanding and better agreements for our members. Our members came first. Now, as a member of the House, my focus does not differ. I serve in the House for the best interests of my constituents, many of whom are union members.

Last year, a Forum Research poll showed 62% of Canadians approved of Bill C-377, while only 18% disapproved of it. I am assuming that many who were asked are also union members. The survey also revealed an appetite for even greater transparency with 78% of those surveyed saying they would like to see the bill expanded to include employer groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The labour strategy has evolved. We realize that we can actually influence the decision makers beyond just education. We can actually help candidates and now parties win campaigns.

By funding campaigns with targeted political action funding, we were having an impact. When we started, there was little accounting of how much our union dues were being used for this activity. However, as the request for more direct funding was made, we were able to account for just how much funding was being directed to a political activity and it was quite a lot of money. With the ability to finance massive negative advertising campaigns against a candidate or party, a union's influence has increased exponentially in the modern political age.

Political action funding targeted directly to influence election campaigns is widespread and whether this type of engagement is ratified by the membership at large has become inconsequential.

Prior to Bill C-377, there was virtually no accounting of how much of our union dues were being used for this type of blatantly partisan political activity. To see the effect PAC funding has had, one only has to look back some 15 years in Ontario to see why this is happening now more than ever. As partners of the Liberal government in Ontario, unions have had their way with the government because the borrower is always servant to the lender. They have had the Liberal government's ear and have influenced a vast array of policies and yes, even the outcome of elections in spite of the fact that many union members do not agree with what party that money is supporting.

The union spend over the airwaves in the 2014 Ontario election should make any member of the House and members from legislatures and assemblies from coast to coast to coast blush and take notice.

Members of the House, legislatures, assemblies, and in fact unions across Canada should also heed a strong warning and look at the problems that support for a Liberal government has had on its union members in Ontario.

Failed government policies have resulted in plant closures and lost jobs, lower wages and benefits, and have caused many job and wealth creators to leave the province. Failed government policy has also resulted in choking debt and deficits. That has impacted union members in Ontario with cuts in health services and has impacted their quality of life.

I would humbly suggest that the biggest threat to the union movement and its workers in this country is not Bill C-377, but rather bad government policies. It appears that the federal Liberal government is on the same path as Ontario.

The repealing of Bill C-377 is nothing more than payback for the help the Liberals received this fall. Bill C-377 sought to establish mechanisms of transparency and accountability. I have heard the arguments against it, but the question is a simple one: What is wrong with being transparent and accountable?

A good friend of mine and former member of the House once told me that there is no monopoly on a good idea. The need for transparency in our institutions should be universally accepted in the House no matter which team we play for. Transparency is a good idea and it needs to continue to be one of the hallmarks of our Canadian democracy. It should be about what is good for all workers, and that includes trade unions. Canadian taxpayers accord individual union members deductions to support their unions under the Income Tax Act, that same deduction I benefited from as a union member for 30 and a half years.

What is wrong with transparency and disclosure? I suggest the only thing wrong with transparency and disclosure is if there is something to hide. During the election, because I was a candidate for a party that brought in Bill C-377, I heard from many fellow union members, who had been hearing from their executive and leadership how bad Bill C-377 was for labour. When I asked the members of my union and others I ran into at the door what was so bad about it, the only answer they could come up with was that it was intended to bust unions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws similar to the one brought in by the previous government exist in other countries and the union movement in those countries has not been busted. Repealing Bill C-377 does not promote an open and transparent system. Quite the contrary, it puts unions and union leaders back in the shadows, keeps memberships in the dark, and does not follow the principles of our democracy.

On the issue of Bill C-525, union certification and decertification votes can be highly charged political events that can cause union members to be intimidated by a process that exposes one's views. It can cause stress and fracture relationships. Why should they not be held in secret ballots and why should someone not have the right to keep their views tightly held to them, and them alone? Bill C-525 eliminated coercion, removed intimidation, and mirrored the right of every Canadian who casts a ballot to be entitled to cast their votes in secret and to vote with their conscience.

On February 3, 2016, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent asked a question in the House of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and she responded on behalf of the Liberal government. He asked, “Yesterday the Prime Minister said, in answering a question I asked him, that Bill C-525 is undemocratic. Can the minister explain to this House how it could be undemocratic to have a secret-ballot vote?”

Her answer to the chamber was, “it is undemocratic because the process used by the previous government did not include consultation. They did not go out into our community and apparently did not even consult with employers.”

How much consultation has the government held on repealing these acts other than to meet with those writing big cheques to the Liberal Party caucus? How much consideration is being given to allow fairly recent legislation to take root?

The U.S. passed a union transparency law in 1959, the labour-management reporting and disclosure act, or, as it was better known at the time, the union members' bill of rights. The act was intended to protect and promote democratic processes and democratic rights of union members, including the freedom to vote at meetings, to express any argument or opinions, and to voice views upon union candidates and union business. The legislation stood the test of time for nearly 40 years, before Congress made some amendments to modernize it.

The bill before the House today is not sound legislation. It is more about paying back political favours and less about the strength of unions in this country. It is not in the best interests of Canadians, and I urge all members of the House to see it for what it is and reject it as a step backward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by my colleague. Much of it focused on openness, transparency, and disclosure. He posed the rhetorical question of why the government would be against openness and transparency and, of course, it is not. This bill has nothing to do with openness and transparency.

Liberals put forward an amendment. If this was not an attack on labour, if this was about openness and transparency, if it is a good thing, it should be good for them. Everybody benefits from a tax deduction of dues paid, such as professional organizations, lawyers, doctors, chambers of commerce, CFIB members. They are all tax deductible

However, the member's Conservative government voted against that amendment, against openness and transparency. How can he square that with the whole charade about openness and transparency when it was only unions that would fall under this legislation?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, one does not have to be a member of those organizations. If there is a unionized workplace, one has to be a member of that unionized workplace. Therefore, I would suggest that there is no way that the current government is open and transparent when it looks at repealing the bill right off the bat. There is no way the Liberals are like that.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Barrie—Innisfil started out by quoting a polling, suggesting that most people supported Bill C-377 and in fact wanted it extended to employer organizations. I could ask the hon. member who paid for that polling, but instead, if for argument's sake we accept that is true, then why did the former Conservative government not apply Bill C-377 to these employer organizations?

The answer we seem to be getting from the Conservatives is that those organizations are voluntary and only unions are mandatory. However, if one wants to work as a doctor, one has to join the Medical Association and has to pay dues. Those dues are tax deductible, just like a union. If one wants to practise as a lawyer, one has to join the Bar Association and has to pay dues to the Bar Association. Those dues are tax deductible.

I want to give the member for Barrie—Innisfil another chance to answer the question of why Bill C-377 was only imposed on trade unions.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-377, I look at the issue of transparency and accountability. I think the members of the previous government did a very good job at making sure that the union members were aware of where their money was going and how it was being spent. This was what it was about. I do not begrudge that.

I find it kind of funny that the hon. member would be talking about polling, and our polling, when in fact they are the ones who do most of the polling to find out exactly how people are thinking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not anti-union. My father was a CAW worker for 35 years, my mother and daughter are both part of the teachers' union, and I was married to a welder from local 663.

However, many union workers before Bill C-377 were upset that many unions received their member dues and were spending them to support the NDP without a secret ballot to get a majority vote.

My question for the member is: Does he see anything in Bill C-4 that would protect the rights of union members?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything that would protect the rights of union members. In fact, in a lot of cases, the money that is being spent by union leaders across this country is really unknown, and not even at the grassroots union membership level do they have the ability to find that information out.

I would also suggest that one of the challenges with this is the fact that a lot of the money that is being spent is not going to who the actual union members are supporting. It is actually going to other parties that those union workers do not support.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today.

Governing is all about seeking a balance between things like the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and another, between social and economic values, and between labour and business.

I do not believe there has been any government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance, allowing ideology to trump evidence and political expediency to replace due process, than the previous Conservative government. Such has been the case in its actions towards labour relations and workers' rights in this country.

After years of attacks on fundamental labour rights, it is very gratifying that one of the first acts our government is doing is restoring fair and balanced labour laws that respect the integral role played by unions and their importance to a strong middle class and a fair and prosperous society.

Labour law systems are very complex. The ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of labour and management that must be respected if and when reforms are made. The federal labour relations system is well regarded and supported by both labour and employers, as the result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades in amending labour laws.

One of the most comprehensive changes in recent history to part I of the Canada Labour Code was the result of a full consultative process. It was chaired by the well-respected labour neutral, Andrew Sims, who produced a report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. Mr. Sims said that if labour law is to be changed, it should be because of two things. It should be because there is a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public's interest, or done on a consensus basis.

There are perhaps no greater examples of how the previous government showed contempt for these principles and upset the labour relations balance than the two private members' bills that Bill C-4 seeks to repeal. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were deeply ideological and highly partisan pieces of legislation that served no public good or policy objective. Their sole purpose was to diminish and weaken the labour movement in this country.

These types of labour policies, based on ideology rather than evidence, produce unstable labour laws that hurt, not help, the interests of employers, employees, and the economy in the long term.

Bill C-377 was badly crafted and is fundamentally flawed legislation that made unprecedented and unwarranted disclosure about unions and their members, as well as other organizations that do business with unions, based on no demonstrated need for this law.

Constitutional experts have said it was unconstitutional. Privacy experts believe it will violate privacy rights of millions of Canadians. Seven provinces, representing more than 80% of Canada's population, opposed it, as it interferes with provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

Even well-respected Conservatives such as retired Senator Hugh Segal said it was “badly drafted legislation, flawed, unconstitutional and technically incompetent...”.

Both the current and previous Privacy Commissioners said that the bill was a serious breach of privacy in their testimony at the House and at Senate committees. Past privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, said quite clearly that Bill C-377 was a “a serious breach of privacy.”

The current Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said more bluntly that he thought the bill goes too far. In his words, a balance should be struck between transparency, which is an important value, and privacy, which is a value that is also just as important, something Bill C-377 failed to do.

To prove how unfair and unbalanced this bill is, let me share a short story. In 2012, I wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency and asked if they could provide the same information on its employees that Bill C-377 was asking of labour organizations. Its response was that it could not provide the information. The information I received from CRA is that the Privacy Act precludes the CRA from disclosing personal information about its employees. Therefore, CRA, the agency that was set to enforce this law, could not comply with exactly what was being asked of organized labour, of unions, though the passage of Bill C-377.

The second piece of legislation that Bill C-4 will repeal is Bill C-525, the Employees' Voting Rights Act. Like Bill C-377, there was never any evidence provided in support of its need. It was simply another solution in search of a problem. Politically motivated and ideologically based, its sole goal was to make it harder for unions to certify and easier for unions to decertify.

The sponsor of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, claimed that the bill was needed because of the “mountain of complaints” regarding union coercion of workers during union certification campaigns.

He said the following in Hansard:

When we hear one person complain about the actions of union organizers, that can be dismissed as a one-off situation. However when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

That is a serious claim.

Many members might be surprised that when the chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee during study of the bill, she said that out of 4,000 decisions rendered by the CIRB in the previous 10 years, there were only two complaints of unfair labour practices by unions. That is quite a mountain. She said there were actually more founded unfair labour practice complaints against employers rather than unions.

Bill C-525 made a significant change to the fundamental rights of workers in how they organize themselves, without evidence for its need, bypassing the established consultative process that is critical to maintaining balance in labour relations. Does anyone believe that this is a responsible and fair way for government to make laws that affect the fundamental rights of Canadians?

The previous government was intent on injecting political ideology into labour relations, to a degree that has never been witnessed before at the federal level. I believe both employers and labour would agree that this does nothing to promote harmonious labour relations and is not in the best interests of the economy or our society. Governments must always seek a balance in how they govern, and perhaps no greater place is this required than in labour relations.

The stakeholders in the federal labour sector long ago developed a proven consultative process to amend federal labour legislation. Past Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments supported such a process because it provided legislative stabilities for all stakeholders, and it worked. As a result, there existed a delicate balance that served fairly the interests of employers, unions, workers, and the Canadian economy.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 politicized that process and undermined the balance in our labour relations system. They were short-sighted labour reforms made without a legitimate consultative process, driven by ideology rather than evidence.

That is why our government is repealing Bills C-377 and C-525. We are committed to the tripartite consultative process, and it is our hope that Bill C-4 will help to re-establish what Andrew Sims said was so important to our modern labour relations regime, and that is balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member for Cape Breton—Canso, whom I salute.

I would like to point out that, unlike three of his colleagues this morning, he did not mention the back room or back-door bill issue.

The two bills which were introduced in past legislation were identified this morning by three Liberal members as “back-door bills”.

I am sorry, but everybody here entered by the front door, not by the back door.

Like 151 of his colleagues, the member is not in the cabinet. Does that mean that the government and the 151 members will not introduce bills, because they would be back-door bills?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment and the question.

To suggest that we as a party do not believe in private members' bills would be very dishonest. However, to pretend that these bills were private members' bills is wrong. The members who presented them were like the Milli Vanilli of legislators. They lip-synched the bills.

Check the lobby registry. See how many times the Merit contractors were in and out of the Prime Minister's Office. The PMO's fingerprints were all over both pieces of legislation. To even disguise them as private members' bills is a disservice to private members' legislation.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as passionate speaker and a defender of rights. I am glad that this side of the House looks at labour, labour unions, and generally employees as people to be protected. We have had so many incidents of employees losing their protection, whether it was through bankruptcy, moving, contractual labour, or contracting labour out.

I would like the member's opinion on why the previous government was so hell-bent on making such an unpleasant environment for the labour unions, and employees in general.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfair to ask me to look inside the mind of the past government to figure out why the Conservatives wanted to do what they did.

However, it is great to have my colleague back in the House, and she has summed it up. There has been no government in this country that has had organized labour in its crosshairs like the past Conservative government.

We have seen record use of back-to-work legislation. We have seen changes to labour legislation, with the labour laws of this country being changed within 400-page omnibus bills. We saw the change to the definition of “danger” being slid into an omnibus bill. Practices that have long served this country, such as a tripartite consultative consensus-building process, which is to the benefit of Canadian workers, were run over roughshod, and these two pieces of legislation are just two examples.

We saw an obvious attack on organized labour over the tenure of the last government. Why? I do not know if it was part of that divide and conquer, with one group against another in the bigger scheme of things. However, obviously it was one that did not work out well for that Conservative government.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to restore fair and responsible labour policies in Canada because unions and employers play an important role in protecting the rights of Canadian workers. They help make the middle class more accessible and help it to grow.

We need to work with labour organizations, not against them. That is why we have kept our promise and that is why I invite every member of the House to support this important bill.

We introduced Bill C-4, which repeals the legislative changes made under Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. That is an excellent decision.

Unions and labour organizations have expressed strong opposition to these two laws since they were introduced in Parliament. In spite of everything, obviously, some people may oppose Bill C-4. We are prepared to listen to the concerns of all of the parties involved.

However, I would like to be proactive and explain to the members here today that, despite what some may think, Bill C-4 will be good for labour relations across Canada. Certain supporters of Bill C-377 indicated that it was necessary to improve union financial transparency. They also said that it was necessary to ensure public access to information on union spending, given the favourable treatment that unions receive under taxation law.

However, these arguments do not hold water. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code already requires unions to provide financial statements to their members free of charge upon request. What is more, provincial labour statutes include similar requirements. Also, the onerous disclosure requirements apply only to labour organizations and labour trusts. They do not apply to other groups that also benefit from special tax breaks under the Income Tax Act. This practice discriminates against unions.

I realize that some provinces have raised questions about repealing Bill C-377. British Columbia's finance minister wrote to the Senate to express his support for this bill. He said there was merit in increasing union transparency, since unions receive tax advantages. However, as I said, these onerous disclosure requirements discriminate against unions, and British Columbia's opinion is not shared by the majority.

Seven provinces came out against Bill C-377, claiming that it encroached on their jurisdictions. These provinces are Quebec, New Brunswick, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia.

As for Bill C-525, employers and other stakeholders who support union certification by secret ballot could be displeased. They do not need to worry, though, since the previous card check system for sectors under federal jurisdiction was successful for many years. This system is still used in many provinces.

As for Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, some non-unionized members could have a problem with the repeal of Bill C-525. They could be concerned that this bill is being repealed but stakeholders have not been consulted.

I want to reassure them. We are doing this because we want to listen to all of the stakeholders. By repealing the legislative changes made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, we will simply go back to the way things were so that we can start over again. We will do more than our predecessors and ensure that all stakeholders are properly consulted before any changes are made to federal laws and policies.

We aim to restore a climate of co-operation and develop evidence-based policies. All parties must participate in a constructive manner.

We will use genuine consultations as the basis for developing labour policies that will make Canadian workers and employers more prosperous and improve the economy overall. Those are just some of the ways that Bill C-4 will be good for labour relations and, as a result, our economy.

It is clear that repealing the changes made by Bills C-377 and C-525 is the sensible thing to do. We are listening and acting respectfully. Our government made a commitment to enhancing Canadians' economic and social security, and that is what we are doing.

In my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, employers, unionized workers and unions have joined forces to defend our region's interests.

In a remote region such as ours, it can be hard for workers and people in general to make their voices heard. Mainstream media do not often talk about what is going on in our regions, but we are coping with major issues too. I would like to share a personal and professional experience. In the fall of 2014, when my region was contending with major cuts in several sectors of our economy, we got word that Quebec CEGEPs were slated for yet another round of cuts. At the time, I was the executive director of the CEGEP de Matane. Management and employees alike felt powerless to do anything about all of the budget cuts, which were going to result in job losses, raise the unemployment rate, which was already three times higher than the Canadian average, and exacerbate a very difficult economic situation. Rather than endure the cuts alone, I decided to get all of the CEGEP employees and their union representatives together, and I put an unusual idea to them. I suggesting holding a two-day retreat to discuss the repercussions of the cuts in the region with relevant experts and donating the equivalent of two days' salary to the CEGEP de Matane foundation. In return, I promised not to cut a single job. The goal was to mitigate the cuts and clearly demonstrate our commitment to our community, our workers, and our CEGEP.

In an unprecedented expression of solidarity, all the employees, their union representatives, their union, and the entire student population supported this initiative. We had two days dedicated to reflection, and we all contributed two days' salary to the CEGEP de Matane foundation. We mobilized a number of local socio-economic stakeholders who joined forces to defend the interests of our workers and our region.

Division never serves the community. It is time to come together and develop a relationship of trust with our workers. Together, we can create real, positive change.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. People in my riding are also thinking about the repercussions of employees' working conditions. On January 29, 2016, a group called SOS Pauvreté presented a brief on this issue.

According to the brief, having a job does not guarantee that one will not experience poverty. Introducing bills on working conditions is great, but in the context of the labour policy reforms promised by the Liberals, is the government prepared to commit to restoring a fair federal minimum wage, in order to ensure that, in all regions, working is never synonymous with poverty?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her question. The economic well-being of our regions is a concern for our government.

As I said earlier, the economic situation in our regions is very difficult, and the unemployment rate is very high. By working together to make the investments in our regions that we promised during the campaign and by investing in infrastructure, we will create good, well-paying jobs in order to support our families. In recent weeks we have made various commitments and announcements with respect to fostering the development of our regional economies. I am very proud to be involved in this type of initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about secret ballots. All of us in the House were elected by secret ballot. As a matter of principle, I think we understand why secret ballots are important, because they allow people to exercise their political choices free from fear of intimidation or pressure. Therefore, as they wish, people can either be public or private about their political opinions. If we accept that principle for the people who choose their representatives in the House, then why would the hon. member not support ensuring that we have secret ballots in union elections as well?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my opposition colleague knows that the card check system ensures automatic accreditation without a vote.

The union can also prove that it received a signed membership card from a majority of the unit members or employees. It is important to know that this does not eliminate the possibility of having a secret ballot. There is provision for this type of mechanism, and it can exist under the current process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of wisdom from my colleague.

I would ask him to provide some comment on the importance of working with labour and management, and whether the best way to have a productive workforce is to work co-operatively.

When the bills were brought in as private members' bills, there was a great deal of concern that they had absolutely no government connection, and that there was no discussions or consultations. That is one of the reasons we have to rectify the wrong that the previous government did when bringing the legislation in a couple of years back.

Could the member speak to the importance of consultations and working with labour and management, as well as how it would benefit Canadians to do so?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

I was a unionized employee of the federal government and various organizations for many years. In recent years, I worked with union associations and union representatives. The key to developing an organization, no matter what kind, is to work together with the union representatives, the unions, management and employers in order to develop excellent collaboration that will advance our files and our organizations. Attempting to sow division will not help advance files and initiatives and develop our economy. By having employers, union members, and unions work together, we can build our country in a constructive manner and develop our economy.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my Conservative colleagues, I rise in the House today to voice my opposition to 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.

The point of my speech is quite simple: I want to show Canadians and all the hard workers in my riding that the Liberal government's measures are not in the public's interest.

The Liberal government is working instead for special interest groups of which union bosses are members. Just two weeks ago, we learned that union leaders and the Liberal team made arrangements during the last election campaign. Today, in reading Bill C-4, I can see that the Liberals and union leaders are working hand in hand without any regard for the interests of workers or the general public. I must deplore this in the strongest possible terms.

First, by passing Bill C-4, the Liberal government will abolish two flagship pieces of legislation that the Conservatives put in place to protect workers and ensure union transparency. Bill C-377 provided for increased accountability on the part of union leaders by requiring unions to disclose any expenditures over $5,000 and any salaries over $100,000.

Bill C-525 required that a secret ballot vote be held to set up or do away with company unions. These provisions would have put an end to the intimidation that too often occurs during the union certification or decertification process. When employees were called upon to vote for or against the unionization of their workplace, this bill would have allowed them to do so in an informed manner via secret ballot, as is already the case in the provincial legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia.

Why do the Liberals want to do away with those provisions? Is it not legitimate for the unionization process to be transparent? Simply put, what seems to be common sense for Canadians is not for the Liberals. The fact of the matter is that it only took them a few weeks to forget their promise to be a transparent government.

Second, the Conservatives were not simply advocating for union transparency because it is a fundamental value. We were also advocating for it on economic principle. Every year, deductible union dues cost the federal government and Canadians some $500 million. A responsible government has a legitimate reason to demand accountability for these tax advantages.

A number of other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and even France, have long required labour organizations to disclose their financial statements.

Third, because I have a very hard time understanding the government's position on transparency, I wondered whether my Conservative colleagues and I are the only ones who are concerned about these issues. The answer is no. I was pleased to come across a Leger survey from 2013, which indicated that 83% of 1,400 respondents said that they supported a bill like the one the Conservatives passed.

More interestingly, 84% of workers who contribute to a union said that they wanted such a bill to be passed, which is similar to the percentage of Canadians who wanted such a bill to be passed. These percentages therefore confirm the public's position on this issue.

During the proceedings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, there were many different kinds of groups that supported the Conservative bill.

Among them were the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; LabourWatch; the Conseil du patronat du Québec; Merit Canada; the Montreal Economic Institute; the Independent Contractors and Business Association of British Columbia; the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec; Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University; Douglas J. Forer, a partner with McLennan Ross; Moin Yahya, an associate professor with the University of Alberta faculty of law; Francis Donovan, a butcher at Safeway Canada; Marc Roumy, an Air Canada flight attendant; Brian Johnston, a partner with Stewart McKelvey; the hon. Michel Bastarache, a former Supreme Court justice; and Ken Pereira, a union worker and union leader, just to name a few.

That being said, I want to assure my colleagues across the aisle that the Liberals are not the only ones who hold consultations. The Conservatives also held some, which revealed that our provisions in support of union transparency were welcome and desired.

Fourth, it is one thing for the Liberal government to ignore the surveys and the people consulted, whom I mentioned, and to believe that its position is what is best for Canadians. However, another moral principle comes to mind when I look closely at that position, and that is the principle of political independence.

In order to ensure that the government remains impartial and able to make decisions in the public interest and free from outside influences, I think it should avoid associating with lobby groups that have an interest in the business of government. That is certainly not what we are seeing at this time.

Here is how I see it. First, this is a bad law for democracy, transparency, and accountability. Second, it is pretty clear that the purpose of this law is to thank union leaders for their support in the latest election campaign. Third, the Liberal government's very first piece of legislation will take away workers' power just to make union bosses happy. Fourth, this law will not protect workers. It will open the door to workplace bullying because employees will have to state their position on unionization publicly rather than secretly. Fifth, transparency is a fundamental principle, and by overturning the old law, the Liberals are flouting this principle. Sixth, even though the law did not regulate union activities or how unions could use their money, it did provide for accountability. Seventh, unions are the only private organizations that have access to funds that people are required to pay, which is like the power to tax. Mandatory contributions, unlike voluntary contributions, should entail a moral obligation to demonstrate transparency. Eighth, since unions are already required to open their books to their members, it should not cost them much more to open their books to everyone. Ninth, union dues should not be used for purposes not approved by union members.

I did not get into politics to criticize excessively everything the government opposite does. I believe we must work together in the House to make the best possible decisions in the public interest.

That being said, I want to use this last part of my speech to share with the government the way I see things with regard to unionization, which, in my view, represents how a very large segment of the public feels about this as well.

What is more, since the Liberal government keeps saying that it wants to consult various stakeholders and different people and listen to their points of view before making decisions, then I would hope that my thoughts here will be taken into consideration.

First, as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, the former mayor of Victoriaville, and a former school principal, I have worked and negotiated with a number of union groups on many occasions. These negotiations were always carried out respectfully, and for that reason, my perception of unions and unionized employees is anything but negative.

On the contrary, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a group of individuals with common interests to ask someone to negotiate on their behalf. Essentially, the union's mission is to improve its members' working conditions, and that mission is absolutely valid and legitimate.

However, the comment made by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour that unions play a critical role in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly in safe, healthy work environments seems to suggest that the law passed by the previous government undermines the unionization principle and workers' rights, and that is completely untrue.

The minister should also know that just because employees are not unionized does not mean that their rights will not be respected. I am fortunate that my riding is home to Cascades, a family company that has been in Kingsey Falls since 1964 and still employs nearly 11,000 workers in North America and Europe.

Thanks to the management philosophy of the Lemaire brothers, employees of many of the company's operating units voluntarily chose not to unionize because they know that they are afforded favourable working conditions. This company shows that it is not necessary for employees to be unionized to have excellent working conditions. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Cascades and all of the companies across the country that take care of their employees.

Finally, the bill is a direct attack on democracy, accountability, and transparency. It does nothing to protect workers or the public.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his detailed remarks.

I would like to raise a few points about his speech. Many provinces, particularly Nova Scotia, clearly indicated that Bill C-377 was a duplication of existing measures. The extra requirements were therefore unnecessary.

It is also important to point out that seven of the 10 provinces were against Bill C-377. They clearly explained and showed that these measures already existed.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his question.

Just because the provinces are against certain initiatives does not mean that the government cannot move forward. This matter also falls under federal jurisdiction. In this case, I note that the Conservatives' actions during their last term of office did not in any way jeopardize unions or their fundamental purpose. It simply ensured that the Canadian people and Canadian workers would be respected and that union dues would be used to improve working conditions through negotiations with management.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech, especially how he had his facts straight.

The Liberal government likes to pretend that it is fact- and evidence-based in everything it does. We heard today that in multiple polls, more than 83% of union workers were in favour of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Another fact is that without Bill C-377, there would be no financial transparency to the taxpayer for the half a billion dollars in tax credits from union dues.

I am interested in my colleague's opinion. Does he think that Bill C-4 is a fact- and evidence-based approach?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I completely agree with her. I searched through all the documentation I had and did not find any justification for changing the law. The bill does not in any way attack Canadian unions and workers. The sole objective of the bill was to ensure that union leaders were accountable for the use of monies paid by Canadian workers. I am still trying to determine the objective of the amending legislation.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will help my colleague out with his research.

In a letter sent to the Conservatives, the Canadian Bar Association said that the Conservatives' bill violated privacy and constitutional rights. Even the Christian Labour Association of Canada called on the government to withdraw the bill and draft a new version because the bill violated privacy laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There were some who said that this was not a good bill.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I want to be clear that I never suggested that everyone agreed on this bill. That is the beauty of democracy. There are some who are in favour and others who are against.

My point was that the government claimed that there was no consultation and that the public was completely against the bill, which is entirely untrue. In a survey, 83% of the general public and 84% of unionized workers who pay dues supported the Conservatives' bill.

The government was elected with 42% of the vote, and it thinks it has the authority to change this law. Since 83% or 84% of the public agrees with the bill, I have to wonder about the legitimacy of this decision.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill and talk about the restoration of a fair and balanced relationship that needs to exist in a regulatory framework for unions to ensure that workers are provided with adequate protection, and that we acknowledge that the disclosures already in place provide many of the things that the hon. members opposite talked about.

The reality is that the Canada Labour Code already provides for such disclosure, and that under Bill C-377 we are seeing a lot more red tape and are placing unions in a precarious situation of being very disadvantaged through in collective bargaining process. We can see its negatives, but we have not seen any of the positives.

It is no coincidence that the changes in Bill C-4 have been brought forward so early, as they are a recognition of this government's commitment to restoring that balance and fairness that the Prime Minister promised in the last election campaign. I would remind members that the Prime Minister had the opportunity to speak at length about the importance of restoring that balance and it became a very important plank in the last election. Certainly we heard it reiterated in the mandate letter given to the minister.

While I have a great many concerns about Bill C-377 that was adopted in the previous Parliament and which this bill would repeal, I want to focus the preponderance of my comments today on Bill C-525 and the legislative amendments proposed in that bill. Bill C-525 changed union certification and decertification processes under three federal labour relations statutes: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Prior to the amendments being enacted through Bill C-525, federally regulated unions could use what was called a card check system for certification. If a union demonstrated that a majority of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for those workers. A vote was only required if less than a majority signed, but enough to indicate a strong interest, for example, 35% under the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before being able to hold a secret vote, and required a vote even when more than 50% of workers had signed union membership cards. It made it easier for unions to be decertified by lowering the threshold to trigger a decertification vote to 40%, compared to the majority support that was previously required. Essentially, Bill C-525 makes it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize. That is not good for our economy, nor is it good for Canadians.

Unions help address inequality by helping to ensure there are fair wages. They help protect workers' safety and prevent discrimination in the workplace. They also help employers because a fair workplace is a more productive workplace, and a more productive workplace helps to grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

What Bill C-525 presented was essentially a solution in search of a problem. There were no great rallies on Parliament Hill or even in any boardrooms demanding that we change a union certification system that had worked successfully for many, many years. The card check system, whereby a union is certified by demonstrating majority support for signed union cards, has been used successfully for many years in the federal jurisdiction and in several provinces. A number of unions like Unifor and the Air Line Pilots Association argued that it is fast and efficient and much more likely to be free of employer interference than the mandatory secret ballot system brought in under Bill C-525, which we seek to repeal.

The card check system is not undemocratic. It requires majority support through signed cards, and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board has strong measures in place to ensure that this process is fair. It should also be noted that representatives from both sides of the bargaining table were highly critical of how the previous government brought in these changes. Both bills were brought in as private members' bills without consultation with either employers, unions, or other levels of government. Many argued that it set a very dangerous precedent for the future of labour reform. They are right. That precedent must be expunged. We believe that fair and balanced labour policies developed through real and meaningful consultations with unions, employers, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and the Canadian public are essential for harmonious labour relations.

Bill C-377 also presents problems that could be averted with proper consultation. Members have heard my colleagues talk about this in great detail, and I alluded to it earlier in my comments.

Among other things, it has the potential to seriously disrupt the collective bargaining process. For example, detailed information about unions, including information on union strike funds, will be available to employers. It seems to me like a blatant attempt to make things harder for unions.

It is essential that we have a system that is both fair and balanced, that the regulations we have in place ensure there is proper disclosure and rules in our labour negotiation process, but that we allow unions to be strong to protect the rights of workers, to ensure that our economy can grow and be productive, and that employers are treated fairly.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to intervene yet with the member. I would like to congratulate him on his election. Obviously I have a different opinion that I have given in this place.

We elect our Speaker in the House by secret ballot. In fact, our constituents elect us as members of Parliament by secret ballot. Why is the government putting forward a bill that would take away the right to a secret ballot by union members? We have seen how it benefits us in this place and in the country in the democratic process. Why would the government take away that right?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed that in my comments. We had a system and a regime that worked very effectively. There was no one clamouring for the changes that were made. They were made in a way that was incredibly detrimental to the labour movement as a whole.

Having a fair and balanced approach is absolutely essential to the success of our labour market going forward. If we tinker with a system by bringing in the types of changes that are punitive, that create red tape, and that are ineffective, all we do is create more tension between unions and employers and, in fact, undermine the essential role that unions have to play. It is very clear that these changes are required to get us back to the state we were in previously.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my friend and colleague back in the chamber, speaking so passionately and well-informed about this and many other topics.

He took a bit of a hiatus from the chamber. I have a question about some of the testimony that was presented both in the House hearings and in the Senate hearings and about part of a study that was undertaken?

The province of British Columbia has flip-flopped back and forth between card check and secret ballot a number of times. For the past 18 years, it has studied the impact of the card check over the secret ballot. Miss Sara Slinn, associate professor from Osgoode Hall law school, has been researching this for a number of years. She said that it was intimidation on the part of the employer that skewed the vote in favour of the employer, of non-certifcation, in the case of the secret ballot. I will read into the record her comments. She said:

In sum, the research evidence shows that there is no support for the notion that votes are necessarily a superior mechanism to cards for determining union representation. Nor does it support the notion that union intimidation or pressure is a substantial phenomenon in certification. What it does demonstrate is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference, is a real phenomenon. It's effective, and it's more effective under votes than card-based mechanisms.

Is my colleague familiar with the research done by Miss Slinn?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was maybe making the point at too high a level, but the points made by the parliamentary secretary are very pertinent to the argument.

The problem I have with the assertion that was made by the member opposite in his question was that it cloaked a lot of misinformation in shadows of the truth. We had an incredibly effective system that was working, that nobody was asking to have changed, and the previous government brought forward changes that were incredibly disruptive to labour relations and put unions at a great disadvantage and potentially greatly harmed the collective bargaining process.

Members can obfuscate and try to create these false arguments around principles that do not exist around being more democratic, but it is not true. We have to get down to the core fact. We had a system that worked and was effective for both sides and we need to return to that.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not often that we, in the House of Commons, are called upon to repeal legislation passed by the previous government. However, in this case it is absolutely necessary, and I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-4.

The reason is very clear. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 upset the balance in labour relations in Canada, giving employers a distinct advantage over unions. It is unfair, unbalanced and un-Canadian.

For example, let us take a look at how Bill C-377 impacts the collective bargaining process. On one side, we have union representatives trying to negotiate a wage increase, better working conditions or more flexible work hours and so on. On the other side, we have the employer who wants to operate as efficiently as possible in order to maximize profits.

If there is a deadlock in the bargaining, each party has their own tools to break the deadlock. Employers can lock out employees. Similarly, unions can go on strike. It is very clear that they are seen at the collective bargaining table in a truthful manner to resolve the matter.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require labour organizations and labour trusts, including unions, to file detailed financial and other information returns with the Canada Revenue Agency.

That information, such as details on their assets, their liabilities, their salaries and so on is then to be made public on the CRA's website. This means that unions must reveal how much money they have in their strike fund for a possible work stoppage. That means employers can find out how long a union could stay out if it came to a strike.

Under Bill C-377, the collective bargaining system is no longer a level playing field. It gives the employers' side a distinct advantage. By knowing that the union has only a certain amount of funds for a strike or lock-out, they know exactly how far the union can be pushed to accept less in order to avoid either of those eventualities. Does anybody really think that is fair? I do not think it is, and neither does our government.

Let us remember that collective bargaining went well for decades under the previous system.

Bill C-377 also contains other provisions that are equally unacceptable. For example, unions, but not employers, have to report salaries paid to their officers and directors. Unions, but not employers, have to reports time spent by some personnel on political lobbying and non-union related activities.

In addition, the bill duplicates existing requirements under the Canadian Labour Code that requires the unions to provide their members with reports on their financials, free of charge and on demand. Similar requirements are also already in place under many provincial labour laws.

The second bill to be repealed, Bill C-525, has been described by my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, as a solution looking for a problem. That is a very apt description.

First, what the bill changes is the way unions can become certified or decertified. Previously, unions getting themselves certified was not a big problem. Even if 35% of employees signed cards, they had to present this to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to be registered as the bargaining agent.

Unfortunately, we have seen examples of employers that will resort to any measure to deter their employees from unionizing.

What Bill C-525 does in effect is allows employers to know exactly when a union might be trying to organize a workplace union. Even though most employers act ethically to prevent unions from organizing, the point is that employers now have a powerful tool they did not have before to slow down or stop the union certification process.

Prior Bill C-525, when federally regulated private sector workers wanted to organize in a particular workplace, if a majority of the employees signed union cards, they could go to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, show it the cards and the CIRB could certify them as the bargaining agent. This was the system from decades onwards. If less than a majority of employees signed union cards, but at least 35% did, certification could be done.

More generally is the ability to unfairly influence the collective bargaining process.

Canada needs a collective bargaining system, a system that is fair and balanced, a system in which both unions and employers come to the table in good faith to bargain on an equal level.

Repealing the changes made by these two bills would help correct the current imbalance. I hope all my colleagues in the House will give this measure their support.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Naturally, we are very pleased to hear that the government will repeal these two ill-conceived laws brought in by the previous government.

My colleague spoke about good faith. Indeed, it is very important for workers to be able to bargain in good faith.

However, although this bill shows some openness towards workers and unions, the Liberals committed to repealing the law regarding sick leave for the public service, but now they are joining the bargaining table with the same agreement and the same negotiator as the Conservatives. Why? This seems like a smokescreen to me. There is no real change in approach.

How does my colleague explain his government's actions?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-4 is passed, it will restore total fairness and balance to the Canadian labour relations system.

The repealing of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is required.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard members across the way say that a secret ballot creates opportunities for intimidation by the employer.

With all due respect, this makes absolutely no sense to me. How can there be intimidation around a secret ballot vote?

I wonder if the hon. member could explain how that works. If intimidation is such a problem in secret ballot elections, why do we do that in virtually every other case where we have elections?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious. The unions and employers have equal rights and are sitting at the bargaining table. The decisions made at the bargaining table need to be done by the correct procedures. That is the way we want to bring changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some comment in terms of how important it is that we have good labour management relationships here in Canada. This is something the Conservative Party, when it was in government, never really recognized. By having good labour management relationships, it is better for our economy and all Canadians benefit from that.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide some comment on just how important it is that we get it right, and how the legislation that we are debating today actually fixes a problem that the former Conservative government created.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people are working in factories, some are in unions and some are independent, without unions.

If somebody wants to form a union or work with a union, they should be free to take part in a union. There should be a free process, a free way of working. There should be a process to bring issues to the bargaining table. That is the best way to do it.

That is why we want to get these bills rescinded, and to move forward on Bill C-4.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard various Liberal members say that taking a secret ballot away will somehow make the labour movement stronger.

I would simply point out that seven provinces actually utilize the secret ballot in certifying or decertifying a union. Is this member saying that those seven provinces are wrong in how they deal with labour relations?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is a priority of our mandate. These bills need to be rescinded. Bill C-4 is required to be passed. This will put collective bargaining on the table in a better way, and will be a benefit to the employees.

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, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this House to speak to 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.

This bill would finally repeal the devastating attack that the former Conservative government launched against working people across this country. The two bills that would be repealed were known in the 41st Parliament as Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These bills were not only mean-spirited attacks on unions, but they were, as Jack Layton said in his last speech to the House, part of a larger agenda by a government that preyed on the concept of dividing Canadians one from the other.

New Democrats fought relentlessly against these Conservative anti-union bills, and we certainly welcome the changes of the new Liberal government. I remember when Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament against the tide of not just labour organizations but also constitutional and privacy experts. There was opposition from the insurance and mutual fund industry, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, even the Canadian Bar Association, and the National Hockey League Players' Association.

To go on about the constitutionality of the bill, the Conservatives were never good at working within our Constitution. They constantly went head-to-head with the judiciary in this country, losing big battles whenever they put Conservative legislation before Canadian constitutional values. They lost on mandatory minimums, time-served sentencing, and even tried to break a rule to allow an ineligible judge to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada.

A few years ago a whistle-blower from the Department of Justice brought to light the fact that the government was not fully vetting its legislation to see if it was constitutional or not. When Bill C-377 was tabled, it came as no surprise that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada stated that the bill would ultimately be defeated by the courts, because it went against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill would violate freedom of association and the private lives of those workers who were unionized.

Now I will move on to the details of Bill C-377. It was a law that was discriminatory and imposed onerous and detailed reporting requirements on labour organizations. It was designed as a method to crush union finances and bury any action under bureaucratic red tape. Unions already do fully transparent reporting to their membership, as do many organizations and other associations that this bill did not cover.

Labour organizations were suddenly going to be subject to public, outside of their membership, disclosure to everyone. No other association would be forced to do anything similar. Why were the unions the only ones targeted? What about the clubs, the think tanks, the religious organizations, and even the council of chief executives? They were all left out.

Law societies and the Canadian Medical Association were also not subject to this law. It was a bill that was designed as a clear attack on workers' rights.

Bill C-377 was not only an ill-advised method of dividing Canadians, it was also extremely expensive. The parliamentary budget officer, a position created by the Conservative government, stated that it would cost the Canada Revenue Agency approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database for the first two years, and approximately $2.1 million per year for subsequent years.

The bill was so contentious that even Conservative Party senators fought against it. I should note the great Conservative Hugh Segal among other things mentioned that it would violate the privacy of millions, would tilt the advantage towards employers during negotiations, and was basically a declaration of war against workers. He felt it was unconstitutional and discriminatory, and was not even a dignified way to govern this country.

Repealing this bill would save millions of dollars annually, both for the government and for labour organizations. Bill C-525 was a law designed to harm and diminish unions by making it much more difficult for workers to collectively form a union, and making it much easier for a union to be decertified.

The government pushed hard for these private members' bills to be passed back in the day. It marked a trend by the Conservatives to take contentious attacks and place them in private members' bills so they were subject to less scrutiny and debate than full government legislation would have been.

Many stakeholders who were directly affected by the legislation have also applauded the government for its plan to repeal the two private members' bills.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress has been clear that these pieces of legislation were nothing more than an attempt to undermine a union's ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

In their attempt to divide Canadians, the Conservatives have always liked to attack unionized workers, as though they are the privileged of Canadian society who do nothing to help the non-unionized. The truth of course is very different. Workers and unions spend their paycheques in local communities like mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Their incomes support local businesses, and they bolster our tax base, which adds to everyone's quality of life.

The benefits that are often enjoyed by unionized workers attract and support crucial care infrastructure, such as dentists, therapists, opticians, and family lawyers, to help build vibrant communities, not to mention that the money that unionized workers contribute to their pension plan comes back to them so that they can spend it in the community. It also means that fewer workers need to rely on family or social programs to get by.

When unions have the power to stand up for fairness, they raise the bar for everyone. We can thank the labour movement for its victories in securing parental leave, workplace safety standards, minimum wages, vacation pay, and protection from discrimination and harassment for all workers in this country. It is clear that these laws had to go, and we applaud the Liberals for being on the correct side of this fight and for quickly moving to repeal this legislation.

We also know that the struggle for fair working conditions is far from over. New Democrats will continue to push the government to restore and enhance collective bargaining rights, as well as fairer working conditions for all Canadians. The fight continues as our very own NDP member for Jonquière is proposing anti-scab legislation to ensure fairness and balance in labour negotiations. The prohibition against using replacement workers would protect the interests of working Canadians and their families against the might of large, powerful, and global employers.

The New Democratic Party has deep roots in the lives of working people. After all, our party was created out of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress to be the voice of the regular working family. We follow that tradition closely, as we are proud of being the only unionized political party, where our employees have a say in their workplace.

The Liberals should be applauded for working in Parliament to give collective bargaining rights to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We trust that they will continue this trend and work with their own employees to grant them collective bargaining rights as well.

Workers in my community have brought to my attention that there are more and more part-time and contractual employees in the riding, and more needs to be done to protect them. The last review of the Canada Labour Code was done 10 years ago, in 2006. There were recommendations that came out of that review, which would specifically help precarious and part-time workers in my riding, but they were never fully implemented. New Democrats will be working hard to push the Liberals in acting on these recommendations. Part-time and contractual employees deserve the same fairness that we demand for all workers across this country.

The Canada Labour Code needs to be updated and modernized. There are sections in the code that are at least 60 years out of date. Repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are important first steps. However, it is important that we do not sit back and congratulate ourselves, as sections of our Canada Labour Code dealing with harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements need major updates.

When Tommy Douglas was premier of Saskatchewan, he knew that securing basic workers' rights was key to a just and prosperous society. He was able to get ideas from working people and implement them for the benefit of all. Tommy passed legislation establishing a 40-hour work week, paid vacations, and collective bargaining rights for all workers. Conservatives have tried to turn back the clock and strip workers of the vested rights they fought so hard to achieve. We now have much to do to enshrine protections for working families across this country.

Working people in my riding know that repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are important first steps. New Democrats will be there to hold the government's feet to the fire to ensure that we continue bettering the lives of workers from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from the NDP to the chamber. I am sure, as he starts his career here in the House of Commons, there will be many issues on which we will disagree, but certainly on this one we are very much like-minded.

As we went through the study on Bill C-377, there were a number of comments made regarding the legislation, saying this was the same legislation, for the most part, as George Bush brought in as Republican legislation in the United States. We were able to witness one of the standard claims that was filed in the United States, and it was around 745 pages. It was a pretty impressive document.

The charity in Canada that records the highest amount of revenue is a hospital in Toronto. When it files, it has one of the most comprehensive, detailed filings for a charity in the country. It is 24 pages. It is pretty impressive when they are stacked up beside each other. The Conservatives contended that this was just about openness and clarity, and that we ask charities to do that. Does he see the difference between what is asked of charities and what was being asked of organized labour? Does he see that there was something else behind the motivation, other than openness and transparency?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely there was something behind this. There is, any time a single organization is subjected to this kind of onerous paperwork. Obviously, the thing that was behind it all was to tie them up in red tape and make a union an ineffective voice for the workers in their particular jurisdiction.

I agree with the member that there certainly was a method, with the very fact that these same rules were not applied to other professional associations, clubs, or religious organizations. It was only unions that were singled out by the bill. The fact is that unions are already extremely accountable to their workers. Workers can replace the leadership of the union if it is not doing a good job. They have to open their finances. They already have to do reporting to the CRA. The bill was simply another level of red tape to completely kneecap them.

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

Madam Speaker, we talk about the importance of labour and management relations. As a government, whether federal or provincial, we should be encouraging harmony and consensus wherever we can. It is healthy for the Canadian economy when we see that harmony within.

In relation to jurisdiction, we have seen many labour laws look toward provincial jurisdiction. For example, there is anti-scab legislation that was introduced at the provincial level. I wonder if the member could provide some thoughts or his comments in regard to the importance of respecting some of the provincial jurisdictional issues, in particular with respect to some of the labour laws we have in Canada today, and not to underestimate the provincial governments' role in that area.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Jonquière will be introducing a bill for anti-scab legislation. I certainly think she is much more qualified than I am to defend her particular bill. However, when it comes to respecting jurisdiction between the federal realm and the provincial realm, absolutely, we do have to have a crystal clear definition between the two.

However, there is also an important role for the federal government to play in leadership. That is why the NDP was proud to stand for a $15 per hour minimum wage. We knew it would encourage provincial jurisdictions to follow suit. Similarly, if we show the same leadership in the federal arena, we are hoping our provincial cousins will also follow suit.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, oftentimes in this place we refer to industry or we refer to the labour movement or organized labour when we are discussing policy. Certainly industry is an important terminology. We across the aisle come up with policy or try to come up with policy that encourages industry to develop, because industry creates jobs for Canadians, and oftentimes when we refer to organized labour or unions, we have to acknowledge that there has been a significant impact of organized labour in the western world over time in ensuring fairness and equality for workers' treatment. However, with respect to this bill here, I would like to pause and not talk about industry and not talk about organized labour, but actually talk about workers. I think we have to do that because of where we are in Canada right now.

I cannot get up in this place and talk about any sort of policy related to workers or the economy without bringing it back to my riding. I cannot stress enough how important it is for everyone in this House to understand that there are more than 100,000 people who have been laid off in the energy sector in Alberta and what that means to the Canadian economy. These are not just numbers. They are not just statistics on unemployment. They are people in my riding. They are our brothers and our sisters. They are family members. They are our neighbours. They are people's husbands and wives. They are accountants. They are administrative professional. They are rig hands. They are every single part of the economy, and they pay taxes. They try to make ends meet for their kids.

If we are going to talk about organizations that help create jobs or help support workers, we first have to focus on workers themselves. I think it is important to do that to reframe this debate today, because this is the first piece of legislation that the government has put out in the House with regard to supporting workers.

My colleague who just gave a speech talked about how unions were the voice of the regular working family. I would like to think that we here are also the voice of regular working families.

Therefore, if we look at the first piece of legislation that the government has put in place to support workers, what would it do?

We have 100,000-plus people in Alberta whose severance pay is running out. This does not even take into consideration the contractors who have been laid off, the ripple effects down through the service industry. There are a lot of people out of work in my riding, and the first piece of legislation that the Government of Canada puts forward with regard to workers would do the following: it would remove transparency measures for union leaders to report how they are spending their members' union dues; and it would remove the secret ballot provision for union formation.

I could spend the duration of my time talking about that particular issue and its merits. I know that has been debated over and over again.

However, I have to tell members that it does not cut it for me to go back to my riding and report in a householder or in a town hall meeting what the government is doing, what the government's priority is for those who are out of work and for those who know they are going to be in the next round layoffs, that the priority is those two things. Is the government kidding me? That is not going to get somebody's job back.

This is the government's first piece of legislation. There are so many things it could have done for workers, for people, not for industry, not for big labour, but for workers, the people who are actually out of work in my province.

It could ensure that we keep taxes low. We know that, when we have a low-tax system, we see the economy grow because people have more in their wallets to spend, to make ends meet. We know that companies have more flexibility and freedom to be able to make investments, which create jobs. We could keep taxes low.

Are we doing that? No, we are not. We are hearing signals that the government wants to increase taxes on job-creating companies while people are out of work and cannot make ends meet. We know that the government has signalled that it wants to increase CPP premiums. I do not know about other members, but I can certainly tell them right now that it does not help somebody who is out of work or who is looking for a job. The last thing people need is more money coming off their paycheques every week. I certainly am not comfortable telling people in my riding that is what the government is doing and it is a fantastic thing that is going to create jobs.

The government has also signalled that it is going to increase EI premiums. What would that do and why is that important for workers? Once again, it will be more money off their paycheques. Anyone running a small business or looking to create jobs in the economy right now will have to pay more premiums. Does anyone think that will facilitate more job creation? No. It is crazy. Anyone who has looked at those types of programs in this economy has said that it will put a further chill on the economy.

These are the government's actual priorities for people who are out of work in my riding right now, and it is worth getting mad about. Furthermore, to rub salt into this wound, the government has added a layer of regulatory uncertainty. That is a very unsexy way of saying that it has made it more difficult for the energy sector to do business.

The government has signalled in recent weeks that rather than having a clearly defined arm's-length process in which it will rely on a third party and scientific evidence to make an assessment of a major energy project, which would create jobs, the government has said that it is going to rely on a political process. Again, this is not about driving just to a yes, but to a yes or a no under set parameters, where industry knows what is happening in a scientific review process, so that investments can be made with some level of certainty.

The government is not sure what is going to happen. If it goes through with this new process it is putting in place, it may or may not accept that recommendation.

What do members think that would do for the average worker, since we are talking about workers here? It means that we do not know if these projects are going to start one way or another, even if they meet the parameters that have been laid out by the government. It is like holding your finger in the wind and seeing which way the popular winds are blowing. That is not a way to create jobs. That is not a way to stand up for workers. That is the government's priority.

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, who tabled this as her first bill and priority to “protect workers”, has said nothing about attracting or retaining skilled labour in my province as it goes through a major period of unemployment. She has not talked about the fact that when skilled labourers have to leave because they cannot make ends meet in my province, it will affect future increases in investment and job creation down the road. No, she tabled this bill to take away secret ballots. That is the priority. That is crazy. I cannot understand this.

I am standing in this place and making this speech. My stepfather is an electrician and a long-time union member. My brother-in-law is an electrician and a union member. I was a union member. One of my first jobs was in a union. I have managed in a union situation. I understand what it is like to be a unionized worker and to have family members who are in a unionized environment. At the end of the day, what is important is people having jobs, and I have heard absolutely nothing from the government in the past weeks in Parliament showing how the government is going to help grow the economy. In fact, it has been quite the opposite.

What I find very interesting in my personal journey here is that the minister who tabled this piece of legislation as the government's top priority for workers was the NDP provincial minister of industry when I was 19 years old in Manitoba and looking at where I would start my career. That was the beginning of an interesting period for Manitoba.

It is amazing how history repeats itself. If we are talking about who is the voice for the regular working family and workers in Canada, I hope we can send a message to Canadians that the government putting this forward as its top priority, when there are so many other things that need to be done in this country and in my riding for the people who are out of work, is absolutely ridiculous. It is crazy.

I will not stand by. I will certainly be a strong voice for my constituents in saying that what the Liberals have done here is wrong.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, there are people out of work across this country and our hearts go out to them, their families, and their communities, which are also suffering because people do not have jobs. One of the things Liberals recognize is that the labour movement in this country has been critical to our getting to the point we are at as employees, as employers, and as companies. It is about protection, it is about safety, it is about a number of things.

My question is this. At what point does my hon. colleague think this is important?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is not enough to say that her party's heart goes out to the people in my riding. Every time the government stands up and puts more regulatory uncertainties into the energy industry, raises CPP premiums, raises EI premiums, raises taxes on businesses, their heart does not go out to them. Liberals are doing them a disservice.

At what point do we stand up for workers? It is when we think strongly about how economic policy is actually affecting the growth of business. This is not an academic exercise; these are people's lives and people's jobs.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that businesses greatly dislike when looking for investment or for continuing to invest is uncertainty and conflict. One of the things that we have known increasingly as the participation rate falls in the labour markets over a number of years—less in the public sector, but certainly dramatically in the private sector—is that it has led to more unrest and uncertainty as collective agreements are no longer the norm in the private sector and businesses do not have that ability to go out and make those investments knowing what their labour costs would be.

I would also suggest, and perhaps the member would like to comment on this, is that the amount of uncertainty and conflict created around the energy and resource sectors by the previous government increased companies' inability to invest. There was so much strife and the degrading of our environmental laws. There was so much conflict between the previous governments and organized labour right across the country, both public and private, that the very low to terrible growth rates this country had during the member's government's time in office is a direct reflection of policies made in part at the cabinet level by the previous government.

We all look for certainty. We all look to support those working families. One of those ways is to have good collective agreements between workers and the employers who employ them.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, to the people listening at home, my colleague opposite would have them believe his rhetoric, but here are the facts. Canada had one of the highest GDP growth rates over recessionary levels. People can look at the budget we tabled last year and see those figures, compared to our peer G7 countries. When we talk about regulatory certainty, the member makes it seem like Canada is somehow North Korea in terms of environmental assessment. The fact remains that Canada has one of the most stringent, robust, and arm's-length environmental assessment processes for major natural resource projects.

The New Democrats cannot quantify that degradation of the environment. They cannot quantify that because it is not fair. We actually have one of the strongest assessment frameworks here, but the key thing they do not like is the certainty of it. They want to be able to politically interfere in that process, and that is not right. One way or the other, yes or no, what we need is a process that is stable and certain and we need government policy that supports workers. That means lower taxes and ensuring that families are thought of rather than just special interest groups, major union bosses, and even big CEOs. This is about Canadian families and I hope that we can come together on that policy somehow, in some way, in this Parliament.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. It also happens to be my first appropriate opportunity to make a few acknowledgements. I hope, Madam Speaker, you will allow me that latitude.

First, congratulations, Madam Speaker, on your re-election to this great place and on your ascension to being one of our deputy Speakers. You are already doing a fantastic job and I know you will be dispatching fairness and justice on a regular basis for all of us.

Most important, and probably the most important words I will utter in this whole term, is to thank my constituents of Hamilton Centre for the honour of being returned to this place. This is my fifth term here, and after having been around for a while, I begin to think that at some point they will get tired of me. That day is coming. It may not be here yet. I am looking over and I see my friend from Flamborough—Glanbrook laughing, and he knows there is still a good chunk of people who wish I were not here. Nonetheless, I got enough to garner them together to get here. In all sincerity, though, there is no greater honour, as everyone knows, whether brand new here or having served here longer than I, than that feeling we have every time we walk in here and take our place in the House. It is such an honour and I thank my constituents of Hamilton Centre for that honour. I will do my best to make them feel proud of that decision.

To the matter at hand, I found the last speech quite interesting. It was quite the dance. There was no music, but a lot of dancing going on. It started in one place, moved to another place, and had the discussion go over here. When they are in opposition it is always said that, “It is not that we do not like unions, it is not that we are opposed to working people. We just have this particular problem here, here and here”. The next thing we know, they are bridging over and talking about some other darn thing.

I remember when these bills were brought in and how proud the now official opposition members were to go after the labour movement. At best, they believe that the labour movement has had its purpose, but that its purpose has now gone by and unions are no longer needed.

I would like to place on the record a 2002 study that was done of a thousand other studies on the effect of unions on national economies. In that report, it said that “high levels of unionization lead to higher income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and speedier adjustments to economic shocks.” One can only begin to imagine what kind of raving lefty would have come out with such socialistic discussions about the impact of unions on our society, and yet the author was the World Bank.

I heard the previous speaker talk about her concerns with unions. However, from my constituents in Hamilton, I know who was in the forefront of universal health care in Hamilton and Canada. It was the labour movement. I know who was in the forefront of fighting for CPP and who is in the forefront today fighting for CPP for people who do not have pensions, who do not have collective agreements. That is what the labour movement is doing. Who else is standing up for the poor in this country? Who else is standing up for the unemployed? Who else is on the front line of ensuring that we have decent minimum wage protection in this country? What about environmental protection? If members look at any demonstration, or any submission to a legislative body, they will always find the Canadian labour movement at the forefront of all the things that make this the greatest country in the world.

We are not the greatest country in the world because we have the lowest tax rate or because we have the weakest environmental protection. We are the greatest country in the world for the antithesis of that, which is that we have those protections. These do not just come about by themselves, no matter how good a government is. I will say that about NDP, Liberal, or Conservative governments, because it does not matter. There is only so much that they are going to get done, it will still require the labour movement to be there at the forefront fighting, first of all, for the rights of workers and then spending generations after that fighting to defend those rights.

However, with the last government, we saw an outright attack on the labour movement. It is interesting that the Conservatives were telling the labour movement that the unions forced dues and that their members got tax credits for their dues, therefore the public had the right to all this information. I remember the debate, and that was part of what they talked about.

It is interesting that the Conservatives said that was what they wanted to bring about, but in reality, they led an attack on the labour movement for the reasons I just said. However, interestingly, that same application could be made to the Canadian Medical Association, or the law societies, but the Conservatives did not include them.

It was supposedly about fairness for the average Canadian, the taxpayer. It was supposed to be about transparency and all this was the rightful demand of the public, so the former government said, because of tax implications. People were getting benefits from this. The unions were charging dues and members were allowed to have a tax deduction for those dues. For both of those reasons, the Conservatives said that there should be accountability. However, the legal and medical professions, although they may not call themselves unions, they de facto are. In fact, we have seen doctors go on strike in our country on quite a few occasions.

Therefore, the myth the previous government was putting forward was that this was all about the taxpayer, just like when the previous speaker said it was all about working people. All of that is a camouflage. The fact is that with Bill C-525, the Conservatives brought in the changes for certification.

By the way, I would mention the similarities between former Prime Minister Harper and former Ontario Premier Mike Harris. In addition to starting with the letter “H” and both having six letters, they even had the same chief of staff for a while—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he cannot indirectly or directly talk about someone who is elected in the House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, you are right. I was assuming the former primer minister had stepped down from this place, but he did not, and I apologize. However, I can say Harris because he is not a member here and never was.

However, if we take a look at the studies that have been done, guess what happened? Fewer unions were organizing and fewer organizing drives were successful. Right now the Conservatives would be saying “yes” that this was the whole idea.

Therefore, we are pleased to stand in repealing this legislation. We would have a bill in front of this place too if we had won the election, because the current legislation is wrong.

Promises were made to the labour movement to give them back their rights, and the government of the day right now is honouring that commitment. We are proud to support the bill and to hold the Liberals to account for the promises they have made. When they do honour them, we will say so. When it is time to give them their due credit, we will do that. This is the right thing to do. It was a promise made, and it is important to get this done and cleaned out of the way.

It is high time we had a government in Canada and a House of Commons that actually saw the labour movement as the positive contribution to our nation that it is, rather than always assuming that when we hear “union” we hear a negative and anti-democratic, which is what the Conservative government tried to say all the time. It is not true. It will never be true. As someone who is a proud product of the Canadian labour movement, I am proud to stand here and list and enunciate the great things the labour movement has done to make Canada the greatest country in the world.

This is the right legislation, and we are pleased and proud to stand and support it.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member would know, when I was a mayor in Hamilton and whenever there was an event where we were all to speak, we all wanted to know the list of speakers because nobody wanted to come after the member across the way because of his remarkable and formidable speech-making ability.

In view of some of the situations that are arising with regard to organized labour, would the member commit to doing his best to work with the government in order to ensure positive results for the working people of Hamilton and the working people of Canada? He could do this as he did in the past in a team Hamilton capacity. Would he commit to trying to work with the government in these terms?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his kind words and I congratulate him on his election to this place. I recognize the hon. member's role. We may have disagreements from time to time on different details of the labour movement, things that are important and the order of things, but any question of the major contribution that the labour movement makes to Canada I know my friend from Hamilton East shares that. I thank him for his voice over the years and for his continuing voice.

On that last point, team Hamilton was started by Mayor Fred Eisenberger. The whole idea of team Hamilton was wherever possible, MPs and MPPs from all parties would get together, not to fight or to put government members on the spot, to agree on common issues that were in the best interests of home town Hamilton. We would all agree to move forward. In my case, being in opposition, the most I could usually offer was a willingness to shut up and not stand in this place and make a big deal out of something when quietly we were trying to get something done. That can only be done with co-operation, respect, and leadership.

I look forward to continuing that, because I know one thing for sure, and that is that nobody else but a Hamiltonian would get up and ask “What can I do for Hamilton?” It has to be Hamiltonians. We need to stick together, so I am in.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my hon. colleague. His style is very strong, and I like that, even if I disagree.

I want to remind the member that I was once a union member and I was proud of my union and my union representatives, because they worked hard for the well-being of the workers. The difference is the bosses. My union was affiliated with the FTQ. When I heard about all the misconduct of the FTQ exposed at the Charbonneau commission, I was outraged. That is the point.

How can that gentleman, who has been elected five times under a secret ballot vote, disagree on having a secret ballot to create a union?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his compliments. I appreciate that. If that is his style, I look forward to more of this back and forth.

I would remind the member that there are problems in democratic unions just like there are problems in Canada, in our own democracy. We even had an inquiry led by Judge Gomery which looked into people accused of stealing tens of millions of dollars. Did that mean that we said to heck with Canadian democracy and threw it out the window? No. We say we have a problem, but we have systems and checks and balances to take care of that problem and we will do it in an open and transparent way. That is exactly what the labour movement does with those sorts of things. The members are in charge, they pay the freight, and they are the ones calling the shots.

That was what was so obscene about the legislation. It left the impression that unions were full of big union bosses and the goons and the guns and the stealing and all the other nonsense. That was the impression my colleague's party left and it was the impression it wanted to leave. That was the impression the legislation left. It had the desired effect. That secret ballot lessened the number of successes that were there because of intimidation. Anyone who has studied this issue knows that this is a fact. This hiding behind the secret ballot as the only way to do it is not the issue at hand. What matters is fairness and equity, and the workplace is not a fair and equitable place. Different rules are needed for that kind of circumstance.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, this House is quite different than it was in the previous Parliament. For nearly 10 years, a bitter tone pervaded everything that had to do with social justice. Everyone could see it and read it. In contrast, this government's gesture, its repealing of the legislation that came out of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, is a sign of its openness towards the driving forces of Quebec's economy.

This is what was missing during the previous government's reign. It did not really respect those who are working hard to build our economy, namely, the workers.

We wanted to believe that the vitriolic rhetoric of the Tea Party in the United States was centred around what is known as the deep south and the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the Conservatives proved to us that they were but a northern branch of the Republican Party of the Bushes, Trump, Romney, and other right-wing politicians.

Those are the people my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent is defending so blithely. I remember the day when he brandished his membership card from the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in front of the media. He did so proudly, but I think he was mistaken. He did not join the conservative party of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. He joined a party that wears a blue mask to hide its true roots, those of the defunct Canadian Alliance, a party that respects only the rich and powerful of this world and that despises the less fortunate and the working men and women of this country.

Those two bills were false fronts for hatred of social justice, for a desire to reduce workers to tools of production rather than regard them as human beings worthy of respect, for a neo-liberal ideology with the singular political goal of destroying those who would make our society more egalitarian.

Even Senator Segal, a Conservative, condemned those bills. All through those years of anti-union and anti-progressive governance, we saw special bills to force striking workers back to work, military policies that supplanted international politics, and economic policies that gave more money to the rich and took it away from our society's middle class and the poor.

Even though they are no longer in power, the Conservatives continue to cause damage that we will no longer have to bear once our nation becomes independent and free from the threat of their return to power. When they introduced their bills that were harmful to the common good, we listened to them speak about their good intentions to defend workers from the evil unions that represent them.

These same members defended policies that would reduce wages. These same members who claim to be the strongest supporters of pay equity also support policies on temporary workers, economic treaties with countries that support the exploitation of workers, policies on military contracts with countries that have no respect for human rights, especially the rights of women, and economic policies against labour-sponsored funds such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

The time had come to move on to other things and have substantive debates in the House of Commons. I am proud to be a union activist, not because my approach is based on ideology, but because I believe in having a level playing field in our society. It would be a lie to say that we currently have a level playing field. I know that my right-wing colleagues will certainly disagree. That is to be expected.

When we turn ideology and rhetoric into the dogma of governance, we end up forgetting the facts, evidence, and scientific data that should be the driving forces of our actions in government. It is not surprising that the same government that passed its ideological bills also muzzled federal government scientists at the same time. When the data contradict our beliefs, then it is best to prevent people from reading them, right?

I am a unionist because unions are useful in our society. That is something that even old-school Conservatives acknowledge. Unions here are not ideological, they are pragmatic. They adopt constructive approaches. They are able to partner with businesses and employers for the economy and for the common good. Attacking and berating them, which became commonplace under the former government, was mean-spirited and vicious. The previous government was part of the global phenomenon of violating union rights. The rich and powerful of this world want to squeeze the middle class by taking away some of the leverage it needs for success.

It was nothing short of a concerted strategy by the former prime minister and his friends in the financial community to remove workers' last defences. Without our unions, it would certainly be easier for the government to lower the minimum wage, do away with our public heath care system, and butcher the welfare state that our parents and unions fought so hard to build in the 1960s and 1970s.

Regardless of what the big guns on the right, such as the Duhaimes and the Donald Trumps of this world, may say, Quebeckers and Canadians agreed on some things. The economic ultra-liberalism that contributed to the worldwide poverty of the 1930s was not the way to go in the 21st century.

Once again, I would like to commend the government on the gesture of openness it made by introducing Bill C-4. We are far from the promised land. There are still many inequalities. However, this is a step in the right direction, and it at least shows us the direction that we should take. We have not finished talking about inequalities in the House. There are still far too many.

For nearly 40 years now, workers' purchasing power has been decreasing, while executives' salaries have been increasing. The grand scheme to tear down the welfare state across the western world has been under way for too long.

Whether we are talking about Reagan, Thatcher, whom my colleague from Outremont so admired, Bush, or our former Canadian prime minister, too many politicians deliberately lie to voters. They claim to want what is good for them, yet all the while adopt policies that favour the rich and powerful. As the saying goes, “I want what is good for you and I want your goods as well.”

The time has come to reverse the trend. The time has come to think about the group instead of the individual, and that is why we have unions. In unity there is strength, as we know, and unions help bring strength to workers around the world.

Long live Michel Chartrand, Thérèse Casgrain, Marcel Pépin, Lorraine Pagé, and my friend Réjean Parent. Long live all those who fight for social justice.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her very intelligent and passionate speech.

It is obvious to me that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were direct attacks on unions, in the same way that the former government liked to attack environmental groups and indigenous peoples.

Where does the hon. member think this philosophy of always attacking and dividing people came from? What does she think about that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, all the groups fighting for social justice are being attacked all over the world.

This neo-liberal trend has us up against a wall, since there are more and more inequalities, in fact. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier the member mentioned my membership card, which I actually have with me. Unfortunately, the standing orders prevent me from displaying it. However, I definitely have it with me, and I can assure the House that I am very proud of it. Why?

Back in 1981, when I was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, we believed in democracy, transparency, and accountability, and those exact issues are in play with Bill C-4 because it is an attack on those three pillars of our democratic system.

While those statements were not uninteresting, they were a little too exaggerated. It is an exaggeration to talk about hatred for social justice and the dogma of governance and to say that we cared only for the rich.

Since we are on the subject of history and the Conservatives of the 1980s, may I remind my hon. colleague that her party was founded by the hon. Lucien Bouchard? Does she remember that in 1982 and 1983, he was the chief negotiator for the government that took a very hard line against unions? That is a useful reminder.

Here is my question: how can a member of Parliament oppose secret ballot voting? Does my colleague disagree with Robyn Benson, who said:

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.

Robyn Benson is a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She is not a big, bad Conservative. She is a union leader.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, regarding the history lesson, I want to reassure my colleague that as a teacher, I am very familiar with the events of 1982-83.

To answer his question on secret ballots, I want to point out what happened in the United States, where similar legislation was passed and the rate of unionization dropped from about 30% to 11% in less than 30 years. That is what happens with secret ballots. The Conservative Party's decision to bring in secret ballots has nothing to do with democracy. It is an attack on the union movement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was estimated that Bill C-377 would cost the Canada Revenue Agency approximately $21 million to establish the electronic database over the first two years and approximately $2.1 million per year for subsequent years. Our cost estimates were much higher on the cost of implementing these new requirements, not to mention the astronomical number of hours that would be wasted by each labour organization in order to comply with these regulations.

The member mentioned that she was a former union member. We all know that money from many labour organizations goes into our communities to fund wonderful things that fill in the gaps where money does not exist from the government or other levels. Could the member please highlight some of the differences that union contributions have made in her community?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the member enough for raising this issue.

I was a member of a union of teachers and educational support staff. In 1989, we established a network to protect the environment and help create environmentally friendly schools that worked on ecology, pacifism and solidarity. That is an example of what unions do.

Also, in unionized companies affiliated with the FTQ, committees promoting French are created to help workers. My colleague is quite correct. Unions promote greater respect for workers and greater social justice.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Jonquière, Human Trafficking.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about support for unions and so forth. I grew up in a union town, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. My dad was a union executive, and I was very proud of him, and I was a union member myself. I find it rather offensive that just because I am a Conservative and particularly a fiscal Conservative that somehow I am anti-union or we are all anti-union. We have to realize that is just a red herring.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to stand up for good hard-working Canadians, including union members, and speak against Bill C-4. I believe, as do my Conservative colleagues, that transparency and accountability are the pillars of our policies. In fact, it was our former Conservative government that created the Federal Accountability Act, and we did not stop there. As well, we created and passed legislation to ensure unions were accountable to their members and to all Canadians. Bill C-4 would threaten accountability and transparency in labour negotiations and labour relations. All Canadians should know where their money goes and be entitled to accountability.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul told the House the legislation reflects the Liberal government's “commitment to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in this country”. However, in fact this bill would remove the balance struck between big union bosses and Canadians. Bill C-4 perhaps would better reflect the uncomfortably close relationship between the Liberal government and union bosses.

I would like to review the content of both bills that would be repealed by Bill C-4.

We are looking at Bill C-525. Bill C-525 addressed the concerns the union members themselves had with the previous card check system. The card check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without allowing all employees to express their opinion. In fact, the unionization of a workplace could occur without a significant proportion of the bargaining unit having been made aware. That is just wrong. In the current system, if a certification drive were to be conducted for a bargaining unit of 100 employers and the union were able to obtain the signatures of 51 members, the bargaining unit would be certified. There is not a requirement for the remaining 49% of members to be notified that a unionization drive is even taking place or to be given the opportunity to express their opinions or opposition. That is just wrong. The card check system is susceptible to abuse wherein workers could be pressured by unions and/or their their colleagues into signing a union card. A secret ballot vote allows employees to provide an honest and accurate indication of support, free from the threat of pressure or intimidation from both unions and employers.

Now let us look at Bill C-377. It also took steps to improve transparency with union funds. Previously, labour organizations that enjoyed substantial public benefits were not required to publicly disclose their financial activity. Labour organizations operate tax free, and their members receive full income tax deductibility for their dues and payments, and receive their strike pay tax free. Dues deductibility alone costs the federal treasury in the range of half a billion dollars a year. That is a staggering amount of money. Financial transparency occurs in institutions receiving substantial public benefit. This is not a new concept. Bill C-377 addressed this gap in financial accountability, extending transparency to unions. In short, the bill required that every labour organization in Canada file a standard set of financials each year, which are posted on the CRA website, much like Canadian charities already do. It was not radical legislation.

It is a fact. Canadians, union members, stakeholders, and at least members on this side of the House, support transparency and accountability.

Let me share some of the widespread support that these bills have received.

With regard to Bill C-525, in a news release from April 2014, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business welcomed its passage, stating, “secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy..”. I think virtually anybody in Canada has to agree with that statement.

A poll commissioned by the Canadian LabourWatch Association found that 86% of unionized or formerly unionized workers supported secret ballot voting for union accreditation. Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that forces union dues upon workers.

Further, in his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, John Mortimer, president of the Canadian LabourWatch Association, expressed support for Bill C-525, making the following points:

Since 1977, six provinces, including Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, have established laws guaranteeing secret ballots for union certification. The secret ballot is statutorily guaranteed for the majority of Canadians. This type of secret ballot has not caused unions to disappear, not even in Nova Scotia, where it has been in place since 1977. The rate of new unionizations is lower than before and reflects what informed employees are making as a private choice. That is what they want.

Sometimes employees are victims of inappropriate tactics and given wrong information to get them to sign a membership card. That is just wrong. For example, we know that some employees sign their card without knowing the true result, which is the unionization of their workplace. With regard to timelines for holding secret ballots, seven Canadian jurisdictions do not set timelines for votes.

Now, Bill C-377 also received significant support. I will highlight a few of them.

During his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in 2015, Aaron Wudrick, federal director, indicated that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supported the bill for the following reasons. He said that given that unions enjoy a wide range of tax benefits and special tax treatment, it would be appropriate to require them to disclose their financial information, as is the case with charities.

It is a no-brainer. Transparency is very important because it acts as a deterrent and allows a broader class of people to uncover any transgressions.

In testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, Terrance Oakey, president of Merit Canada, was in favour of Bill C-377. He said that the bill would enable Canada to catch up with other advanced economies when it comes to financial disclosure. That has to be a good thing.

The bill would not change the mandatory payment of dues by unionized workers, nor the manner in which that money is used. The bill only deals with the transparency requirements that should be imposed on labour organizations. Workers paying dues deserve to know how that money will be spent—it is the least that should happen—and Canadians have a right to know how their taxes are being used to influence public policy.

A 2011 poll by Nanos found that 86% of unionized Canadians supported greater union transparency. That is an opinion shared by 83% of the general public.

With this support, why does the Liberal government want to repeal these important pieces of legislation? I must ask the government where the fairness is for hard-working Canadians. It is just wrong-headed, and we cannot stand for this.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened at some length to the member's rationale for why he opposes the government's initiatives with respect to Bill C-4, and I will reference specific comments that he made with respect to Bill C-377. In the previous Parliament, the first time that the matter was referred to the Senate, the bill was amended significantly by the Senate Tory majority, which seemed to have been opposed by the member's government at that time.

Does my friend have a comment as to why, at a time when Conservatives could not get support from their own Senate Tory colleagues, they felt the need to gut the attempts made by that caucus to make improvements to the bill?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to confess, as my colleague probably knows, that I was not around for that.

It comes down to transparency. It is a no-brainer. It was good legislation. Union members supported it. It is not all about union leaders. Union members are quite often not informed by their own leadership, so we have to stand up for hard-working union members. We are not here to support the union bosses; we are here to support the hard-working union members.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives cannot simply claim to be in favour of transparency and equity, even if every Conservative member tells me that he or she supports workers and unions. In my opinion, when a government interferes in an organization's business and tries to pit its members and leaders against each other, that government cannot then turn around and say that it wants to help the organization. The truth is that the useless bill that the Conservatives introduced was designed to give unfair advantage to anti-union employers. That is what it boils down to.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that there is a question there.

I have to reiterate that this bill is all about fairness. The member talked about organizations' leaders, and that seems to be what that party talks about. It gets its campaign workers and others from major union bosses and so forth. As Canadians, as Conservatives, and as someone who is a fiscal conservative, we care about the average worker.

Sometimes the party that appears to have tight focus with others in the labour movement throws the average worker under the bus. This is an exact example of it. Union members, the rank and file, want more transparency, and they certainly want secret ballots because the intimidation factor is too strong. I have seen it first-hand. People are afraid. I have heard members from the other side ask how many cases have come up where they are not complaining. They are afraid to complain.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to get the floor in this debate, but not for lack of trying.

I recognize that the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach is new to this place, but the debates around Bill C-377 were very clear. It was not just union leadership; it was union membership. It was a disguised attempt to tie the hands of fair collective bargaining.

Public release of information like union financing prejudices unions going in to collective bargaining, potentially on the verge of strikes.

This was anti-union legislation. I urge newly elected Conservatives to reconsider.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I obviously disagree. It is absolutely the right thing to do. Our legislation in the past was good, and of course I support the past legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today following my good friend from Edmonton Griesbach who talked about his own personal experience with his family and as a former union member himself. I hope to contribute to the debate here on Bill C-4 today, dispel some of the myths brought to this place by some of my colleagues in government, and talk in depth about the two reforms that Bill C-4 essentially would dismantle, what I would call the modernization of the labour movement from the last Parliament that is being dismantled in Bill C-4.

However first, I am concerned when members of this place suggest that those measures being unwound in Bill C-4 are a tax on union members or a tax on the labour movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have heard statistics from polls that have shown that union members support the measures contained in both Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 from the last Parliament. In many ways, the labour movement is the last large portion of our society to embrace the modern concepts of transparency that are really commonplace throughout government of all levels and throughout the charitable sector. It is sad that it takes Parliament to pull the movement into this modern age of transparency and disclosure, but it was something that was supported by union members.

There is no dismantling of rights. There is no attack, and I am going to spend a few moments to talk about what those bills contain and why it is a bad public policy move to step away from these modernization efforts for the labour movement. However, more importantly, why it is not an attack is that I, like many of my colleagues, was elected to Parliament in 2012 and in the last general election by members of unions, to a large extent.

I am very proud to have some of my best door-knockers who are either former or current members of the CAW, now Unifor, working in our auto industry at General Motors in Oshawa. I am very proud to have the strong support of members of the Power Workers' Union, working both at the Darlington generating station in my riding and at the Pickering station nearby. When I ran for office I spoke to Don MacKinnon, the head of that union, who has been a very good advocate for clean and reliable nuclear energy. I rely on the expertise that a lot of leading figures in the labour movement bring to their sectors. I consulted those same members on our trade agreements when I was parliamentary secretary for international trade in the last Parliament. I am very proud to represent these people who do get benefits from belonging to their union.

We have heard many speeches about how, over the last century, the union movement has been helpful and has advocated public policy and so on. Nothing in the two bills from the last Parliament took any of that away. It is really cowardice of debate when people have to hide the real actions of Bill C-4 behind saying unions brought us health care and unions brought us weekends. Let us talk about what was in those bills from the previous Parliament and what Bill C-4 is attempting to do. Let us not wrap it up in the trappings of unions having made a large and profound impact on our society. They have, and none of these moves were right-to-work movements or banishing unions. This was about making sure of the movement, which is supported through tax exemption status, which is supported by the Rand formula, meaning dues are paid under compulsion much like taxes are. We cannot pick or choose whether we pay this out of our paycheque. That fact means that the movement needs to embrace these concepts themselves, and it is disappointing that it did not.

For people who have been following this debate at home, Bill C-4 is essentially the new Liberal government's attempt at unwinding two very modest reforms from the previous Parliament. The first is Bill C-525, which was a bill that brought essentially the secret ballot to union certification.

It is interesting that the secret ballot has been the underpinning of our parliamentary electoral process since it was brought in by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mackenzie in 1874. I think it is now considered a fundamental element of elections in Canada, where there is a secret ballot so that people can place their X in a way they determine is best without fear of somebody watching, and without fear of repercussions.

It is essentially a basic tenet of our parliamentary democracy in Canada, yet it is somehow absurd to extend that same protection of a secret ballot to the certification vote, to truly vote how one feels is best for one's personal view. I guess by saying that it should not be there, does it mean the certification vote is somehow outside of normal tenets of democracy? That is all I can determine from some of the comments here, such as rights being taken away and attacks on the union movement.

People in Canada need to know that Bill C-525 was for the secret ballot. I am sure a lot of Canadians who do not belong to a union are probably surprised that there was no secret ballot before. This is what we are talking about.

I have heard some members say there would be intimidation by employers and that sort of thing. That is nonsense. The secret ballot is inherently secret. There is no employer there watching the vote, and the votes will not be named. Therefore, one can exercise one's democratic right to cast a ballot the way one sees fit for one's own personal views and the way one sees fit for the future of one's workforce, whether to stay in the form of a non-unionized environment or to unionize.

Really, unions should be embracing the concept of having a full and robust democratic measure as part of their originating entrance into a workplace. Why would they shy away from a secret ballot? It is a fundamental pillar for all levels of government, and the labour movement should endorse that.

Second, Bill C-4 would unwind Bill C-377, from the last Parliament. We have heard a lot of people getting very heated about that subject as well. It is similarly disappointing that such legislation had to be brought forward and that the labour movement would not itself embrace this concept.

Yet again, another Liberal government, in fact the father of the current Prime Minister, brought in access to information legislation in 1983. In subsequent years, all provincial levels of government and virtually all major municipalities have embraced this same concept of whether there would be transparency. If one pays one's taxes by compulsion, one should be able to know where that money goes and assess whether it is being well spent.

This same basic tenet extends to the charitable sector as well, which through the CRA and through its tax assistance for charitable donations, has similar responsibilities on disclosure, to allow Canadians to assess where that money was being spent. Therefore, why should one part of our society, in this case the union movement, be exempt from a generational move towards transparency?

Quite frankly, I do not understand it. With a $5,000 threshold, CRA and the Government of Canada are not looking into an organization's children's Christmas party. However, if an organization is backing a major political campaign, like the Working Families in Ontario, or sending delegates to a large convention overseas that is taking positions that would be adverse to Canadian principles, they should be able to see where that money is being spent, because the government has allowed that money to be spent on a tax-exempt basis.

Therefore, for politicians at all levels and the charitable sector, Canadians know that transparency is commonplace now. The new government mentions it on occasion. This same level of transparency has been in effect in the United States, in the brother and sister unions, since the Kennedy administration.

Therefore, with Bill C-4, two fundamental reforms that would be good for the labour movement would be withdrawn. It concerns this side of the House. Hopefully it should concern more and more Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and I am a little troubled.

There are political parties that stand for small government. We hear parties talk about the reach they want into every single civil institution, whether it is a first nations band or a labour union. Next they will be deciding whether or not the members of the church we send across to Rome to elect the pope should have to publicly declare how they are voting and spending their dollars.

How far a reach would that party deem to be justified? Would it be reaching into every self-organized, democratic body in this country, deciding that it will make the decision on what is good for them, that it will assess the dollars spent as to whether it is in keeping with Canadian principle? How far a reach does this party contemplate? How many democratic institutions does it want to run besides itself in this Parliament?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question that my friend asked.

The question is simple. Any organization that the Government of Canada has given tax-exempt status to or requires Canadians to pay, by compulsion, dues or taxes or levies should know, at a fundamental level, and be able to see how that money is spent.

To bring it home to the hon. member, I am sitting in this Parliament a few years earlier than I intended in large part because the previous MP had some issues with spending disclosures. Orange juice or other things were not disclosed.

This is the era of transparency, which that side uses as a term, from time to time, but in its first 100 days would remove that same basic transparency, in Bill C-4, from the labour movement and from first nations governments. It is a step backwards.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I have often wondered about this is why now. With all the things that are going on in Canada, why bring this legislation forward now?

I look at things, and I go back to Saskatchewan, and what is important to us is jobs, of course, and the economy. I look across eastern Canada and at the manufacturing sector and how there is a lack of performance in jobs and exports in that sector, and how it is not competitive here in Ontario because of provincial rules.

Can the member explain to me why the Liberal Party felt it was necessary, to take as its first action here in the House of Commons, in its first 100 days, to repeal this legislation? Can he give us some insight on what he thinks is the reason behind that?

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

Madam Speaker, the member always has very insightful questions in this House.

I cannot put myself in the shoes of the new government, and I certainly would not want to be in those shoes. However, if we look at the first 100 days—and there is a snazzy video out on the first 100 days—we can see the legislative agenda.

Bill C-1 is a formulaic administration-of-oaths bill; Bill C-2 was tax increases and the elimination of the TFSA; Bill C-3 was a massive injection of spending, in large part to cover a promise on the Syrian refugee resettlement; Bill C-4 is the unwinding of labour modernization from the previous Parliament, clearly a quid pro quo for support during the election; and Bill C-5 is undoing the sick day negotiation with the public service.

If we look at the legislative agenda of the new government in the first 100 days, it is tax, spend, and support the friends who got them into office. Contrast that with the previous government's first 100 days. There was the Federal Accountability Act, child care benefits for all families, and a GST reduction. It was about giving back to Canadians, not taking away.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to rise in the House today on behalf of the many union members who live in my great riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. My riding is home to many union members. In fact, many of my good friends and family are union members.

The Liberal Party would have Canadians believe that the Conservative Party of Canada is anti-union. That is ludicrous. We on this side of the House are pro-worker, pro-accountability, and pro-transparency. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, introduced by the previous government, made much headway in increasing both union member and non-union member confidence in unions.

One of the things I found troubling earlier this morning was my colleagues' statements on the opposite side of the House that the introduction of our legislation as two private members' bills was a back-door method of legislation. On this side of the House, we value all our members in the House, backbenchers and front benchers. Our government's record on private member's bills is better than any previous government's. The two private member's pieces of legislation that I was privileged to introduce were debated in the House and then passed into law. I will forever be grateful that as a private member I had the opportunity to introduce those bills and to see the support for them in the House and to know that they are now part of our government's legislation.

As a brief summary of the legislation the Liberal government is planning to repeal via Bill C-4, Bill C-525, the Employees' Voting Rights Act, was introduced by my hard-working colleague, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. The legislation made it mandatory that a secret ballot be conducted for the accreditation or revocation of a trade union, rather than the automatic certification of a union when a majority of employees, 50% plus one, sign their membership card. The legislation strikes a balance by creating the same process when it comes to unionizing a workplace and to revoking a union according to the employee wishes. The decision of whether to unionize rests with the employees, not with the union and not with the employer.

I would like to pose a few questions to my colleagues across the floor. First, why is the Liberal government so against secret ballot voting? We know that the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, stated at the committee charged with studying Bill C-525 that it uses secret ballot votes for internal elections and for the ratification of settlement agreements from collective bargaining. The president of PSAC, Robyn Benson had this to say:

Contrary to what you may have heard, 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.

Furthermore, when asked if she believed that if there were to be a secret ballot vote, it should be 50% plus one of all employees, not just those present, her answer was yes, that she agreed.

Every member in the House was elected by a secret ballot vote, and on election day as nominees we are not allowed to stand beside the voting booth to tell voters to cast a ballot in our favour. I believe the hard-working men and women, my friends, union members from Kitchener-Conestoga, deserve the same privilege that we give to all constituents in our riding on federal election day, a free and secret vote. Without this commitment, employees who have not signed their membership card may not even be aware that a union certification drive is in process, and they may not be in favour of that union or its representatives.

One question that arises is whether it is even fair for them not to be consulted, since they must pay union dues and be members of the union. Another question is whether employees had signed their union card free of intimidation.

It is clear to me that allowing secret ballot voting is very common sense. However, do not just take my word for it. Here are a few others who support this legislation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business clearly pointed out that “As secret ballot votes are a cornerstone of our democracy, if the process is good enough to elect our politicians, it should be good enough to form a union.”

Everyone in the House knows how important small and medium-sized business is to the engine of the economy of Canada, and the Canadian Federation of independent Business speaks very clearly on behalf of the workers in those businesses.

The Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications group testified that it and its members also support Bill C-525.

John Mortimer, the president of the Canadian LabourWatch Association, expressed his support on behalf of his organization for Bill C-525 for many reasons, including the fact that sometimes employees are victims of inappropriate tactics and are given the wrong information so that they will sign their membership card. For example, some employees sign their card without knowing the true result, which is the unionization of their workplace.

The Canadian LabourWatch Association also commissioned a poll of unionized and formerly unionized workers, which was very helpful. It found that 86% support secret ballot voting for union accreditation.

I could go on. However, let me just quote Merit Canada. It pointed out that the old system under which employees expressed support for its union's certification by signing their membership card resulted in intimidation and manipulation by both union organizers and management.

I hope that my colleagues from the Liberal Party do not support the manipulation and intimidation of hard-working Canadians.

Bill C-525's asking for a secret ballot is just plain common sense and the very cornerstone of modern democracy, as has been pointed out many times today.

Moving now to Bill C-377, what is the Liberal government trying to accomplish by giving a free pass to unions with respect to its financial transparency?

Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), introduced by my former colleague the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, would extend the principle of public disclosure to a group of institutions that enjoy substantial public benefits, in other words, labour organizations. The basic premise of the bill is that every labour organization in Canada will file a standard set of financials each year, which will then be posted on the CRA website, much like Canadian charities already do.

These bills are common sense and, as members will hear during the remainder of my remarks, are what Canadians want. I do not understand why the current Liberal government has decided to repeal these laws that increase confidence in and the integrity of our unions as one of its first acts in this Parliament.

While I think this is common sense, let us also hear from others.

In a Leger survey conducted in 2013, consisting of 1,400 respondents, not only did 83% of Canadians surveyed indicate they wanted public disclosure but 84% of current union members surveyed also said they wanted public disclosure.

Furthermore, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supported this piece of legislation. It said that similar legislation has been in place for charities for many years and that there ought to be treatment of labour organizations analogous to that of charities.

The Quebec Employers Council also welcomed Bill C-377, citing that it is appropriate to make public the amount of dues that workers are required to pay, and which involve significant tax advantages, as well as the manner in which they are used.

This bill is actually about public disclosure, and this is a very positive step forward for unions and Canadian workers. Public disclosure will demonstrate that labour organizations spend their money wisely, effectively, and obtain good value for members' dues. This bill does not tell unions how to spend their money or restrict them in any way.

In my province of Ontario we have what we call the “sunshine list”, which makes public a list of all publicly funded employees who make over $100,000. In addition, salaries, benefits and office expenses of members of Parliament, MLAs, and others are also easy to obtain online.

Because union directors are also publicly funded through the mandatory union dues of all of their members, it only makes sense that union leaders in positions of authority and employees of the union earning more than $100,000 will have to disclose their earnings.

It is also important to recognize that the salaries of many Canadian union leaders are already published online in the United States. The U.S. has had legislation requiring public disclosure since 1959, before many of my colleagues in the House house were even born. The Liberals would have us travel back in time and limit this form of accountability.

The actions that Bill C-4 is bringing into effect would not increase the confidence that Canadians have in our unions and our leadership, and it is important that we oppose the bill at every opportunity.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was the third opposition member who stated that grassroots union members absolutely support the two bills in question, when my experience has been the complete opposite.

The previous two bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, I understand, were extremely unpopular across the country. I can speak firsthand for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital that they were extremely unpopular.

On October 19, Canadians spoke. Notwithstanding the will of Canadians on October 19, my question for the hon. member is more specific than that.

There are seven provinces that have voiced their opposition to Bill C-377 because it basically duplicates work they already do at the provincial level. I am wondering if the hon. member would comment on a bill that duplicates what many provinces are already doing, with several of them speaking out against the bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, again I think this question points out some of the differences between our parties' perspective on unions.

We certainly appreciate what unions do, we appreciate union workers, and we want to listen to the union members. That is why I quoted some anecdotal evidence that members in my riding say this or say that. However, the Leger poll of some 1,400 respondents—a very large sample—that I referred to in my comments clearly indicated that 84% of the current union members surveyed said they wanted public disclosure.

The Liberal Party often talks about scientific evidence and evidence-based decision-making. Here we have the evidence. It is important that we on this side continue to work on behalf of the union members, not simply the union leaders who do not want this kind of disclosure and who do not want secret ballot voting.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his contributions to today's debate. I found the history somewhat revisionist and I want to understand what he thinks.

He likes to say that private members' bills are a good way of doing public policy and are great for democracy. How many of these private members' bills, including Bill C-525, were totally in line with the ideology of the government of the day?

We all know that this private member's bill got through because the former PMO wanted it to get through. The Senate did not want it to get through, but the former PMO wanted it to get through.

It is a bit rich to say that these independent private members' bills somehow float out there and become law because that is how democracy works in the House. We all know that it became law because the former PMO wanted it to become law. How do you reconcile that with your position?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will not reconcile it, but I would remind the member to address the Speaker as opposed to the member in the House.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might just say parenthetically that the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora has some very big shoes to fill, replacing the member who represented that area for the last number of years. I certainly had the privilege and honour of working with her.

This again comes to the heart of the differences between our parties. On this side of the House, not only do private members have the freedom to craft a piece of private member's legislation and try to gain support on all sides of the House, but at the end of the process they also have the freedom to vote their conscience on this private member's legislation.

I would challenge my counterparts on the other side. I would request that they ask their leadership for the same privilege that this party has had for all the years I have been here in Parliament and to have a free vote on this private member's legislation and to actually see some work that is initiated from the grassroots in the ridings we represent, come to Parliament, bring it to the discussion and then bring it to fruition in a piece of legislation that is implemented into law.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House and speak to this important bill. As somebody from northern Manitoba, I am proud to come from a union town, Thompson, a proud mining town where we all know clearly how important it is to have a strong group of unions in our community. I am also proud of the role that unionized work has played in my family. My dad was a member of the important union in our community, the steelworkers, as was my grandmother. I know what it means to grow up in a household where union work means families and communities being better off.

I am also proud to rise in this House as a New Democrat. The NDP of course is a party that was born out of a labour movement, and it has always stood up for unions and the rights of Canadian workers. We have proudly voiced our fervent opposition to the former Conservative government's attempt to restrict the power of unions and to make it more difficult for workers to organize.

Unions have been a key player in the fight against inequality in our country, and they have been essential stakeholders in pressuring the government into implementing key policy changes that have benefited our entire society. From workplace safety regulations to the weekend, we must not forget the good that has come from the victories of the labour movement.

It is the labour movement, especially in a world where the middle class and the working class are shrinking in size and influence, that is a necessary counterweight to the corporate greed that has been disproportionately rising in power over the last three decades. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I rise in this House along with my colleagues to express our support for 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. We welcome the actions taken by the government and will continue to fight for the rights of working people who were undermined by the previous government for so long.

Bill C-4 would repeal two pieces of legislation, Bills C-377 and C-525, that were pushed through by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. These two anti-union bills were designed to make it harder for Canadians to join unions in the federal sector as well as to fundamentally weaken the power of unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting. Both bills have been met with widespread opposition and criticism from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, and, of course, hard-working union members and workers across the country.

Bill C-377 forced unions to file information on the Internet about the salaries of their members as well as the unions' labour and political relations and activities. This bill was put forth by the Conservatives under the guise of increased transparency, they said. However, it is crucial to note the fact that unions are already required to make their financial information available to all their members. Furthermore, the NDP as well as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada believe that the bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the right of freedom of association and the private lives of all who are members of a union. In addition, Bill C-377 would cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $21 million just to establish an electronic database needed to store this information about union members, and it would cost the Canadian public $2.1 million each year after that. By repealing this piece of legislation, it goes without saying that both the Government of Canada as well as unions themselves would be able to save millions of dollars annually.

Bill C-525 proposed to drastically change the process through which unions under federal jurisdiction become certified. The bill increased the number of membership cards needed to certify a union and eliminated the possibility of forming a union through a majority card check. Prior to this legislation, a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of its employees signed a card indicating that they wanted to be part of a union. However, Bill C-525 outlawed this process. Because of this, the bill makes it harder for workers to unionize while making it easier for unions to be decertified. As such, Bill C-525 leaves workers vulnerable to intimidation by employers or third party members.

Yes, Bill C-4 would be a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done to ensure the rights of workers and improve working conditions for all Canadians.

Now I want to acknowledge the fundamental role that unions play in Canadian society through the protection of Canadian workers, the promotion of health and safety in our workplaces, and the role they play as the collective democratic voice for working people. I want to stress the fundamental importance of unions in providing education about workers' rights and standing up against workplace bullying and harassment.

Unions have been trailblazers when it comes to ending all forms of discrimination. They have been at the forefront of fighting for women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and the rights of racialized and indigenous peoples. They contribute to democracy by giving workers collective bargaining power, thereby lowering inequality in our country.

Furthermore, a new study done by the International Monetary Fund, perhaps an unusual source for such information, indicates how increases in income inequality can be directly linked to the decline of rates of unionization. This is particularly shocking considering the IMF has actually contributed to decreased levels of unionization itself.

Moreover, a decline in unionization correlates to weaker employment laws, leaving workers vulnerable in terms of their rights and more open to exploitation. Unionization helps to equalize the distribution of wages. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each year. On average, the hourly wage of a unionized worker is $5 higher than that of a non-unionized worker. For women, that difference goes up to $6.65 an hour. Because of this, it is paramount that the importance of unions be recognized and respected accordingly.

As previously expressed, Bill C-4 is a good first step, but New Democrats are disappointed that some major actions are missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to push the government to restore good faith bargaining with public service workers, starting the repeal of division 20 of the Conservative omnibus budget bill, Bill C-59, that attacks a worker's right to sick days.

Furthermore, New Democrats call upon the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to adopt anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation immediately. The NDP will also push the government to repeal former Bill C-4 rather than just review it. This contentious legislation has been called unconstitutional, as pointed out by many, and is said to stack the deck in the government's favour by undermining fair collective bargaining.

I wish to thank all the workers, union members, labour activists, and advocates who made the repeal of these pieces of anti-union legislation possible. As a member of Parliament for the NDP, as well as the critic for jobs, employment and workplace development, it is important for me to show solidarity for our union brothers and sisters.

All those who believe that unionization is outdated need only look at how productivity gains have been divided between labour and capital over the past 30 years or so. Nowadays, capital compensation is completely out of proportion with performance, compared to the low pay labour receives. Speculation is valued more than the production of goods and services. This trend has increased in proportion with the decrease in the rate of unionization in society.

As I reiterate my support for this bill, I would like to send a clear message to the government. The structural problems that the middle class and workers in Canada are facing go beyond the scope of this bill. The fight against inequality requires a structural review of government operations, and the country is counting on the new government to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, Liberals acknowledge the efforts not only of today and in the past, but also no doubt into the future, that the labour movement has a made for all sorts of good reasons, from many social programs to rates of pay that exist today, and so forth.

It intrigued me when the member made reference to anti-scab legislation. I can remember the debates in the late 1980s, because I was in the Manitoba legislature. On one occasion, the premier, Howard Pawley, told the union community that instead of anti-scab legislation, there would be final offer selection. This is something the member's father spoke a great deal about in the Manitoba legislature. Does the member not believe that it is important that we work with labour and business, so that when legislation is developed, it is done on a consultative basis and we should not preclude or prejudge what others might actually want?

Final offer selection at the time served a great purpose and Liberals want to keep options open. Would she not agree?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I stand here as a member of a party that does believe that anti-scab legislation works, and there are models to prove that. It works for workers and it works for communities. It also works for industry in being able to avoid the conflict and tension that comes from labour disputes all too often.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, Bill C-4 as put forward by the government is a good first step but there is a lot more that we would like to see the government do, including the repeal of division 20 of the Conservative omnibus budget bill that attacks workers' rights to sick days, including implementing proactive pay equity legislation immediately, and looking at the need to implement anti-scab legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my NDP colleague about a specific point.

We keep hearing the Liberals talk about backdoor bills, bills introduced by MPs who are not ministers. In that regard, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Alexandrine Latendresse. A few years ago, she introduced a private member's bill in the House and it passed, proving how effective this tool can be and how important it is to allow members to introduce bills even though they are not ministers.

I would like to ask my NDP colleague whether she is in favour of allowing MPs to introduce bills and whether she agrees that we should not consider those MPs as backdoor MPs.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I have been in the House for seven years now. Although I appreciate the hon. member's example, unfortunately the previous Conservative government repeatedly demonstrated anti-democratic behaviour in the House. We hope to start a new chapter.

The debate today is based on the need to respect and support democracy in the union environment, instead of imposing an ideology that goes against workers and unionism. We must respect workers' rights. That is why we support this bill today.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really want to follow up on the point that was raised by my friend in his previous question with respect to the whole concept of private members' legislation. I simply want to state our objection. The issue is not about the right of members to bring forward legislation. The question at the end of the day is the fulsomeness of actual participation by all affected groups in these private members' bills.

Does the member have a particular comment with respect to whether labour had an adequate opportunity to participate fully in those two pieces of private members' legislation that we are attempting to repeal today?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, a quick answer is absolutely not. Labour did not get the opportunity to explain or speak in the fullest of terms in opposition to these bills.

I do want to bring the debate back to the important opportunity we have here today to start anew and remove these two bad bills, but let us go further. That is why the NDP message today is that this is an important first step but let us keep going to protect the rights of working people in our country.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. For the people who are watching from home, it is a bad day in Ottawa outside of this place. The snow is falling and they are predicting over a foot of snow here. Traffic has come to a halt almost, yet it is warm in here.

We are discussing Bill C-4, and it is always a pleasure when we can stand and debate the issues.

It is kind of a bad day in here as well for the governing party. One of the first things the Liberals did was take away the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The second thing they did was pull our troops out of the war against ISIL. Now they have Bill C-4.

The majority of people in my riding of Battle River—Crowfoot would oppose Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is 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. As we have already heard today, the previous Conservative government already passed amendments to the Labour Code and these three statutes.

The amendments improved two key laws on democracy and union transparency. Bill C-377 provided more accountability for union leaders. Bill C-525 required the holding of a secret ballot for the creation or abolition of trade unions. Now the Liberal government is saying, who needs secret ballots?

What about accountability? The Liberals have never liked accountability. That is why it was up to the Conservative Party to move the Federal Accountability Act as our first measure when we formed government.

As a government, we stood up on behalf of union workers. I remember the day the member brought this forward as a private member's bill. He came around and spoke to us. He talked about the union workers who had said they were having difficulty getting that type of accountability or knowing where their money was being spent.

Everyone knows that some Canadian workers are forced to pay union dues. Until the previous government took action, union bosses, those people who are in charge of the management of a union, did not consult the workers about decisions they had made on behalf of their. Union bosses were not held accountable for their management of the union dues they collected. There was a lack of transparency and accountability when It came to the actions involving where those dollars were to be spent.

There were no rules or regulations that said that the leadership was under any obligation to open the books so union members could see for themselves the various ways that the union leaders were spending union dues. Canadians could not see how much money was raised by any given union. Canadians could not see how any given union was spending its money. It was one big secret.

Sometimes the secrecy extended to union members themselves. They could not see the books of their own union. Some unions would allow members to see the books at a union meeting. Sometimes one had to ask to see the books of one's own union. Imagine anyone doing that. In all honesty, imagine a worker risking being blackballed by the union. The union could very well ask members why they wanted to see that, what they wanted, and what they were looking for. It could ask if there was there something that was bothering them or ask why they needed the information because nobody else had asked for it. Now all of a sudden the union member is the one who is almost guilty of wanting transparency. Too many union members could be intimidated to do whatever was necessary to try to see the books.

Not all union members are accountants. They do not all have commerce degrees. They are not all able to look at the books on the screen and have the union bosses stand over them, or take it home. They wanted the ability to see where some of their dollars were being spent. They may not be able to read the 100 pages of a document, while union bosses are standing over them trying to figure out what part of the document the member might want to see and for what reason he or she might want to see it.

I remember when Mr. Hiebert asked me to support the bill. He talked about the number of members who had come to him in regard to it. He had studied it. He had thought there must be more transparency than there was. He worked with opposition and government members, and he tried to drum up support for his private member's bill.

A lot of the new members across the way will find out about the process of a private member's bill. First, they will find out how difficult it is to be in that lottery and to get their name drawn, and then how difficult it is to actually work it through, especially in a majority government. I remember Mr. Russ Hiebert doing that.

I also remember union people coming in on both sides, questioning why we were doing it. I remember both union bosses and members thanking us, saying that it was about time.

The legislation he brought forward in that private member's bill lifted the veil of secrecy off the union spending. Any union member, from the comfort and safety of their home, could see their unions' books, could go through it line by line, and see where the money was being spent.

We simply made it so the leaders of the unions would make public their decisions concerning the expenditure of the union dues they had collected and any other monies that were given or raised by the union.

I think Canadians would agree that this was a fair measure. A union is a public institution. It is not a profit-chasing corporation competing in the marketplace where there may be some secrets as far as marketing their product. I think most Canadians realize that charities have to do it, as do many other different groups. It is reasonable.

The second change that the previous Conservative government made to the way that unions were run in Canada was to increase the level of democracy in how unions operated in Canada. We are a democratic country. We take very serious our democracy. We govern ourselves using the method of a secret ballot. This provides a voter with the highest level of democracy and the most freedom.

Canadians would agree that unions should also conduct their affairs at the highest level of democracy. We made the change to stop workers, union members, from having to publicly inform their colleagues whether they may actually support their union, or whether certain changes that they wanted within their union did not force them to stand up publicly when a secret ballot could really have them voice their concerns.

Our changes freed workers from pressure. Both before and during the election campaigns, unions spent millions of dollars to straight partisan ends. Union bosses can do that because they are under no obligation to tell anyone if they did. My wife is in a union; she is a registered nurse. She told me about the day, and I think it was before I was elected, when the union boss came from Edmonton to our little town and told the registered nurses how they would vote. She was sitting in the meeting. She questioned it. All of a sudden there were hums and haws, but it was intimidation. Union bosses can do that because they are under no obligation for anything.

Some unions do tell what they will do and how they are involved, but some union bosses proudly provide details of how they spend union dues fighting a political party that in some cases supported many members of that very union.

I believe, with all due respect, that the measure we are debating today is payback to the unions for them showing up when the now Prime Minister made announcements. We saw the emails. We saw them go out. They would say that Justin was in town, that they needed 100 people in the picture. I think we are now seeing some of that payback.

Other unions do say how their money is being spent. Again, we wanted to see transparency. We want to see measures brought forward so that democracy was enhanced even within the unions.

Our previous government gave union members the right to know what was going on within their union. It also gave them the right to vote. Why? Because the union is an important institution. The union, in some places, can intervene on behalf of their workers. When we do not have transparency, pretty soon we have an institution that crumbles.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of the member's speech that I would like to comment on, but first to I want acknowledge the great value our unions play in society today. We in the Liberal Party believe that is the case. The question is whether the Conservatives believe likewise.

Another point I would like to emphasize is that the member made reference to the Liberal Party's priorities in legislation. I can assure the member that the government's first piece of legislation was a tax break to the middle class of Canada. This was very important to the Liberal Party. Also important to the Liberal Party is the importance of having good solid relationships between labour and management. We saw the poisonous atmosphere that was created by the Conservative government. This bill is about rectifying a wrong.

Would the member not acknowledge that by introducing the legislation as Conservatives did through the back door, they denied the opportunity on the different stakeholders, both labour and management, to make presentations to the minister? It should have been done with full consultation when they changed the legislation.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the members who have been in the House for years remember the great work of Garry Breitkreuz. I remember Mr. Breitkreuz fighting for private members' bills. It was a way that the backbencher in this place could bring forward proposals, could bring forward issues that perhaps constituents had brought forward.

Again, we see the Liberal Party now asking, who needs private members' bills? The Liberals are in a majority government and they are going to ram through what they want. If I were a backbench Liberal MP, I would be disappointed with that type of attitude. Every member is an important member. Even if a member is not in the front row, every member has the ability to initiate legislation and change law in our country. That is what Mr. Hiebert did. He did his homework and he saw this thing through. Yes, it was a controversial bill, but when we enhance transparency, when we enhance accountability, we can leave saying that we have accomplished something.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect there is a little red light and a bell that goes off in the Conservative lobby every time a Conservative MP says “big union bosses”. It seems to pepper every one of their speeches.

I would like to clarify this for my friend. He may not have ever attended a union meeting of any kind. However, on the idea that an outside big union boss, according to the Conservatives, would be able to come to into a room full of nurses and tell them how to vote, my friend has a deep misconception of how nurses and union members in our country think, which is entirely independent of what their leadership may or may not say on a given election.

The acts the Conservatives brought in were going to cost the Canadian taxpayer more than $21 million and were opposed by not just every labour union in the country, but were opposed by the Canadian Bar Association and the NHL Players' Association. My friend can hate on hockey and I will let him take that defence if he wants, but if what he was looking for was accountability and transparency, I would have suggested that the Conservatives could have started with themselves. They gave us every Senate scandal for the last 10 years. They were unable to account for the three-quarters of a billion dollars they spent on self-promoting ads. A little do as we say, not as we do was the Conservative agenda.

If we want to have labour peace in our country, allow unions to form as they always have.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are no red lights going off in our lobby when we talk about big union bosses. I think there is a red light going off in the NDP lobby when anyone stands and says “big gas, big oil”, but there are no red lights going off here.

We realize that whether it be more transparency for members of Parliament through an accountability act, more transparency to councils of first nation groups through the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, and likewise with unions, we want to see important institutions and other levels of government having the most transparent, the most accountable organizations. Charities have it. They have put their books in order. They have full accounting and transparency. Charities realize that their charitable number is why they have to do it. Unions should do the same.

Any time the NDP members stand and say that the unions should be able to do whatever they want, nobody is discussing whether unions have fulfilled an important role in our country's past or not. Undoubtedly they have. Do they have a role in the future? Yes, but we need transparency and accountability with that group. That is what our amendments originally brought forward.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am usually pleased to take part in the debates of the House of Commons. However, that is not the case today, because the Liberal values do not represent the values of union members. In fact, they are quite removed from the values of a responsible government that were bequeathed by our Conservative government. In the last Parliament, we gave a voice to union members on fundamental values.

To do away with transparency and the freedom afforded by a secret ballot shows the lack of respect of the Liberal government, which is practising the politics of avoidance. It is sad to see that the Liberals have bowed to pressure from union leaders. That is completely unacceptable. I am being polite in using the word “pressure”. “Returning the favour” would be a more accurate way of putting it.

Unions do have a role to play. Union members have chosen to pay dues so that the unions will stand up for their rights and negotiate working conditions that are acceptable to and benefit both parties. They did not choose to pay dues to be involved in horror stories, such as the ones we have all heard about from friends who were victims or the ones we were personally involved in.

I would like to talk about one of my uncles, Laurendeau, God rest his soul. In the early 1970s, he chose to vote, by show of hands, against a strike, because he thought it was fair and just that he should work to feed his family. Even for the company he worked for, it was more important to get the job done and deliver the boats they were building on time, to ensure that the company would survive.

In the middle of January, when it was -35^o, someone sent him a gift of bricks. The bricks did not come through the chimney or the front door, but through the window. Two windows were broken, in the middle of the winter, at two o'clock in the morning. Imagine the trauma to my uncle, my aunt, and my cousin, who was seven years old at the time.

That is just one example. As everyone knows, such situations have some similarities, such as intimidation, harassment, bigotry, exclusion, and abuse of power, which can lead to occupational and psychological burnout that is sometimes irreversible.

In this day and age, at a time when the values of freedom and transparency are attainable, it makes no sense and it is completely unacceptable to take away rights from unionized workers.

Imagine if Canadians were asked to vote by show of hands in a general election, at a community centre, at a pre-set time, with the pressure of the candidates looking on or staring at them. That is what the Liberal government is going to do to union members, in addition to whipping the vote. The party line for moral issues—how shameful. In addition, this is rather simplistic for us as legislators.

My concerns reflect those of thousands, even millions, of Canadians who are outraged that the Liberal government wants to let union bosses help themselves to the money and have their palms greased. We recognize a Liberal way of doing things that is nothing new. I believe, as do Canadians who are concerned about the politics of avoidance, that centralizing power in the hands of the minority and using fear tactics to serve one's own interests is highly unethical. I hope that my colleagues opposite will understand what I mean by the politics of avoidance without a photo to illustrate.

I am talking about how they are failing to defend democracy, failing to be accountable, failing to commit, failing to protect everyone no matter their status, failing to step up to their responsibilities as a government, and choosing to benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.

I am afraid that this Liberal government's politics of avoidance is just the beginning. To date, it has excelled in just one area: social activities that involve selfies and extras.

Our Prime Minister is a national joke. Transparent for the smart phone cameras he might be, but stand up for transparency in democratic institutions and organizations he cannot. He is an embarrassment.

Not long ago, he was a leader who promised to stand up for the middle class, but he hoodwinked millions of Canadians with his grand promises. As citizens, workers, retirees, parents, individuals, and a country, we all stand to lose so much in the end.

This plan serves merely to enhance the image and serve the interests of an egotistical individual who is running away. Yes, this Prime Minister is running away from making real decisions for a strong, prosperous, and safe society and economy like the ones we bequeathed to him just 100 days ago.

I would like to list just some of the so-called changes introduced by this government: tax hikes, an end to income splitting, cuts for families earning less than $60,000 a year that use tax-free savings accounts to put money aside, a threat to the child care tax credit, an end to the air strikes against ISIS, along with never-ending deficits that will cripple the economic future of our country, our children and our grandchildren.

As though that were not enough for the first 100 days of this regressive agenda, now the Liberals are coddling union leaders instead of standing up for dues-paying members, our noble workers who have a right to vote according to their convictions and in complete secrecy.

It is high time that whoever is pulling the strings within the Liberal government did something to ensure that its actions reflect the values of a responsible government that promotes transparency and the right to exercise one's right to vote in a respectful manner. Is anyone running that giant Liberal ship? There is still time to prevent our country from sinking.

It is both completely ironic and worthy of a soap opera to see this Prime Minister everywhere except at work, to see him flippantly reveal a security plan to foreigners, in another country altogether, with no regard for his own citizens, without the consent of the House and without consulting duly elected parliamentarians. This is a Prime Minister who is asking his own party members to ignore their moral values and toe the party line on an issue as delicate and fraught with consequences as the one currently under debate.

In closing, I am very sorry to say that the coziness between the Liberal Party and big union bosses definitely flies in the face of democracy and violates the rights not only of union members, but of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from across the way and was reminded of a parliamentary secretary who ended up in leg irons. I do not think I ever covered an election campaign as a journalist where there were not allegations of cheating. In fact, court cases proved that. In fact, young people from that party who were sent to the courts as adults did not face justice. Now we are being lectured on what transparency and ethics should be adhered to in this House.

However, what really confused me in the speech we just heard was the member's own rhetoric. On the one hand, it is a Conservative bill that is to be repealed; on the other hand it is a private member's bill. Which is it? Was the bill that is to be repealed introduced by the Conservative Party through the back doors of private members' bills? Or, was it government legislation masquerading as private members' business?

When they introduce a private member's bill, they do so knowing that it will not be subjected to the full scrutiny of this House because that is the process. That is the process that a private member's bill goes through that a government bill does not.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the bill from my colleague opposite, unionized workers will no longer have access to a secret ballot or financial transparency. This bill had teeth and was truly democratic. The bill introduced by the Liberals is a step backwards for Canadian society.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prior to being elected I was fortunate to work for 16 years with a major Canadian union, the teamsters union, and I represented workers and went to many union meetings. In fact, I went to monthly meetings for 16 years. I represented workers in many certification drives when they tried to get organized before the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The practice of the board when we had card check was that if a union signed up a majority of people, the union submitted that to the board. The board had the ability to certify without a vote, and the advantage was that it often happened before the employer found out. When an employer found out that a union drive was going on, that is when there were massive unfair labour practices.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I hear the Conservatives laughing. I spent 16 years at the labour board fighting those very complaints where workers would get fired. They would get intimidated. Families would lose pay cheques because employers tried to intimidate workers against unionizing.

My question is this. The board could always order a vote, in any circumstance. Why is it that the Conservatives want to take away from the board the discretion to certify without a vote, when to do so is simply respecting the right of Canadian workers to organize, as is their right under international convention and treaty?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My speech today had to do with the fundamental rights that unionized Canadians will lose: the right to know where their union dues are going, through transparency of financial statements, and the right to a secret ballot if they so choose. It is always easier to vote one's conscience by secret ballot than voting in front of a bunch of thugs.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues on this side of the House for the clarity they have brought to this debate.

It is clear that Bill C-4 goes against the principles of transparency and accountability and against the wishes of many union members themselves. I am wondering if my hon. colleague would comment further on this.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I would like the Liberal party opposite to allow each Liberal member in the House to vote freely, based on their own beliefs, on this bill. We will see whether the bill that was introduced in the last Parliament truly represented Canadian values.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to represent the thousands of unionized workers in my riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle, thousands of members of unions who work at EVRAZ steel, making steel for pipelines, members of unions that represent workers who work in electrical, pipefitting, all different types of industries, who rely upon their employment through our energy sector.

I know the bill is about the internal workings of unions and not about the job-killing practices that we have seen over the past few weeks, such as opposition to energy east, opposition to pipelines that would help keep those unionized workers working. The bill is more about the internal mechanisms of how the unions conduct themselves.

I want to touch upon a few things.

I do not know that the questions and comments we have heard from other parties are even relevant. Whether or not it was a government bill or a private member's bill should not matter. This is now a Liberal bill that we are looking at, a Liberal bill to repeal certain provisions of the act. That is what we should be talking about. It does not matter how they got in there. We are now talking about whether or not we should remove them. I hope that if my colleagues do have questions or comments for me, they worry less about the process from the last Parliament and more about the effect of the bill that is actually before the House.

Let us talk about disclosure, first and foremost.

Where do unions get their money? They get their money from forced union dues. They get their money from workers in a company, in a place of business, who have absolutely no choice. Whether or not they want to support that union, that money is taken right off their paycheque. It is taken off their paycheque in much the same way that Revenue Canada works with employers to take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians. It is the exact same way. It is held at source.

In a lot of ways, the union has the same kind of taxing authority that the federal government has. The workers have just as much choice as to whether they want to pay their taxes as to whether or not they want to pay their union dues. If they do not pay their union dues, they are out of the union, and they are out of a job.

Where does that money go? We do not know.

Well, we do know kind of know because we hear the ads on the radio and we see the ads on TV during elections. We know the big unions get together and put a lot of money to engage in political partisan electioneering. It has nothing to do with helping the workers they represent. It has nothing to do with getting them a better deal, a better collective bargaining agreement. However, it does have a lot to do with whether or not their favourite political party does better or worse in an election. We heard a lot of those ads and saw a lot of those flyers go out.

I am accountable for everything I put out under my name. If I put a ten percenter or a householder out to my constituents and they do not like it, they can do something about it in the next election. If I put out a campaign flyer that touches a wrong note, that angers some people, I might lose votes over it.

Those unions can put those flyers out. They can make all kinds of outrageous allegations of no truth whatsoever to the types of things that they accuse us of doing and there is no accountability for it. When Canadians go to the ballot box, they do not have a right to effect change in the union representatives who decided to spend that money, but they have a right to elect or not elect members of political parties.

They have all the powers of the federal government with none of the accountability when it comes to that type of taxation power through union dues.

We have heard some of the counter-arguments about why unions should not be held to the same standard on disclosure. If I was to say that other types of charities are not held to that account, I believe my colleague made the point, when he introduced the bill, those charities do not have the power to compel people to donate to them. The unions do.

If I am in a steelworkers' union, that money comes out of my cheque. I have no choice. I have more of a right to know what they are doing with my money than the charities that I can make a choice to give to or not. If a charity publishes its books or has good spending practices, I can say I will support that charity because I think it is spending that money effectively. If it does not, if its spending practices are questionable, if there are allegations that it might be paying executives exorbitant salaries and not actually helping the people it claims to help, I can keep that money in my own pocket and give it to a different charity. However, I cannot with my union. If I do not make my union dues payment, and there is no mechanism not to, but if I found a way not to, I would be out of the union and out of a job.

That is why the threshold for disclosure needs to be just as high as for the federal government.

The other big part of the bill is the secret ballot.

This is when I thought that I know the Liberals have to reward their friends who helped them during the election. It happens a lot in politics; political parties make promises maybe without even expecting to win, then they do, and now they have to follow through on it, but I thought the one thing they might resist the temptation for is the secret ballot. What is wrong with the secret ballot?

This bill will likely get to committee and I hope that our friends across the way, even the New Democrats, will surely agree on this. What is the democratic problem with the secret ballot? Say there is a union resolution to boycott Israel, for example, as several big Canadian unions have done. Maybe some union members would like to vote against that union resolution, but they know that some of the people encouraging them to vote for it may be the ones who are tasked to defend them in a grievance, so they are a little afraid to do so if it is a vote by show of hands. Why not a secret ballot when it comes to certification or decertification? What is wrong with a secret ballot? Every one of us here was elected by secret ballot, as well as town councils, municipalities, and provincial governments. This has been the fundamental practice in our democratic system for such a long time that it has become part of our democratic way of life.

I have not yet heard one compelling argument against the secret ballot. It makes me suspicious. I hate to attribute motive, because I know we are all supposed to take each other at our word, but it makes me suspicious about why the Liberals are doing this. What do the union bosses have a problem with, and why are they telling the Liberals that they have to ride roughshod over a democratic principle of secret ballots, that they have to include it in this bill. I hope we can isolate this at committee and, at the very least, agree that when it comes to votes on these types of things, unions should have secret ballots so that workers have the same protections that they have when they go to the ballot box to elect their government.

I have always found the mentality of big labour in Canada confusing. For full disclosure, my father was heavily involved in his union during his working career, so I heard his perspective of it. I know why unions came about and what the need was for unions at a time in Canada when many workers did not have basic protections that now so many of us enjoy, both workers in unionized fields and non-unionized fields. However, the degree to which unions will sacrifice jobs for its members versus jobs for its union executives is what I cannot understand.

Over the Christmas break, many of us heard the news that Goodwill in Toronto closed its doors. Why did it close its doors? The economy is tough all over, which is part of it, and part of it had to do with a lease issue, but a big part of it was its union not recognizing the financial difficulties that this particular store was in. It was holding out for 100% of the benefits and 100% of the entitlements, but it was willing to lose 100% of the jobs, and that is, in fact, what happened. In order to try to preserve every last bit of what the workers had in their agreement, the whole store closed. Are those workers better off because their union executive went to the wall, went to court, spent probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in this dispute, and now it has closed the doors?

I do not know if my colleagues from Toronto have spoken to any members of the union. Are they happy with the way their union ran the show? Do they have a great victory as they sit at home without jobs, knowing that their union fought the fight, lost the war, but won that battle and are now out of business? We see this all over the place in the Canadian economy, whether it is the auto workers or other types of big unions. They are willing to sacrifice the jobs of all to protect the jobs of the union executive.

Here in Ottawa, quite a few years ago, there was a transit strike over the issue of scheduling. The Goodwill article is the same type of thing. The issue was over scheduling and who would get the most hours. Does anyone know who the number one victim is when it comes to these types of union actions? It is young workers. It is newly hired workers. The entire fight was that the union wanted to lay off the most recent hires and protect the jobs of those who had been around longer. It is new entrants into the workforce. These are the actions of unions. Time and time again across the country, the very people who they claim to help, the young workers, people entering the workforce, people trying to start a living and raise a family, are the ones who lose first when these types of actions come about.

I want to go back to the main point just before I wrap up. I think this bill is wrong because it takes away disclosure, makes unions less accountable, and most important, it takes away one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian democracy, and that is the secret ballot.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's comments. Let us put it into the perspective of these Conservative private members' bills that were introduced a little while ago. Let me remind the House that no one was calling for the legislation. Businesses, management, and unions were not coming to the Conservative government stating that they wanted this legislation. In fact, it was a Conservative-driven bill.

If we want to have good labour relations in the country, we should be promoting harmony, consensus-building, and so forth. If we want to come up with a way not to develop legislation, we should look at the way in which the Conservative government brought in this unfair labour legislation over a year ago.

My question to the member is this. Would he at least acknowledge that, by the Conservative government bringing in this legislation in the manner it did, a lot of the normal procedures that minsters are obligated to follow were foregone, not the procedures with respect to the House? Also, does he recognize that this bill rectifies a wrong that the government brought against labour prior to the last election?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague, as I know that having an opportunity to speak in the House was not something he was often able to do. However, I was always happy to be graced with one of his interventions.

I will say that the member is again getting trapped in this process argument. He is living in the past. He must live in the now. We are looking at a bill that would have an effect on our legislation right now. It would have an effect on unions right now. How we got here is irrelevant to me, whether through private member's bills or a government bill, but what is relevant is what this bill would do right now.

The member talked about who was asking for it. I know lots of members of unions. My mother was a member of the nurses union. She would get all kinds of garbage in the quarterly newsletter about what the union was up to. Some unions spend time and union dues on anti-Israel boycotts and all kinds of political posturing, or they make political statements on things that have nothing to do with labour relations. My mom and many of the steelworkers in Regina, who do not want to see their union dues go to those types of things, supported our legislation in the previous Parliament.

[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.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day and I am curious in trying to understand a few things. I think of the constituents in my riding of Prince Albert, and I ask the member for Durham why now? Why would the Liberal government in this scenario, in our environment of unemployment, job losses, ISIS, security issues in Canada and abroad, and Syrian refugee issues, say that this is going to be one of their marquee first bills? Why now? What is so important?

When I talk to union members, they are glad to have this piece of legislation in place to protect them. So why now does the Liberal Party want to remove it? Obviously the answer is that there were some backroom deals made between the Liberal Party and some union bosses. The reality is that we can go back to two weeks ago and the Elections Canada finding that union bosses were putting people into the Liberal campaign to make sure that he looked good for his pictures, the photo ops. They were convicted, tried, done. So why now?

Obviously there is something in that legislation that really bothers the union bosses. What would that be? What do they not like? Is it accountability? What is wrong with accountability? I have to be accountable. We all have to be accountable as members of Parliament. We have to tell our constituents what we are doing. They get to see my expenses and how I vote in public, as they should, because I am a public representative for them. Who benefits? The members do not benefit. Absolutely not. They lose all sorts of ability to see exactly what their union bosses are up to. They do not get to scrutinize the balance sheets to see what is going on. They did with our piece of legislation, but with what the Liberals are proposing they will not have that opportunity. Who benefits? It is obvious that it is the union bosses. Why do they benefit? What is their rationale behind that?

The other thing in the background with the union bosses is their known support for the NDP. If we go back to the previous convention of the NDP, it was the union bosses who funded a good chunk of that convention. Again, there was no transparency there. It was not until Elections Canada became involved and it was settled out of court. We never did see how many thousands of dollars were spent on that convention by the union bosses for their NDP colleagues. Here are parties that have a vested interest in seeing this legislation go forward, both the Liberals, because of what they have done with the Prime Minister and the way the unions have been supporting them, and the NDP, because of previous actions and commitments they made to their union bosses. We can see exactly what is happening here and why there is an urgency to covering up what is going on with the unions.

My other question is about the secret ballot, which is a no-brainer. When we elect different presidents and vice-presidents for parliamentary associations, we do it by secret ballot. When the Speaker is voted into this office, it is done by secret ballot. Why would the union bosses not want a secret ballot? I have heard from different members of unions that they want the ability to intimidate the outcome of the vote. They want to be able to shame a person into voting a certain way. They want the membership to follow the party line. If someone is an NDP member, that is what they do; they follow the party line or the union line. If members are there to question it, which has happened in the past, they are not represented in a dispute with their bosses. All of a sudden the union does not show up or provide the service and support that they should be providing as their representatives.

What else is done? We have heard of intimidation tactics where unions have gone into workplaces at lunchtime and told members to vote for a party because the party is the union's party. Is that appropriate? Is that an appropriate use of their power as union bosses? A union boss is supposed to be there to represent the members of that union. If there is a dispute over a work condition or labour standard or wage, that is what union bosses are there for. They are not there to put on political activity regarding what is going on in Israel or to go to a junket in Brazil or South America to look at some labour congress issues. They are there to represent that member.

What are unions doing with that money? We do not know because we do not have transparency, and we will never know because of this legislation that the Liberals are bringing forward. It is a cover-up. First of all, the Liberals do not want the union members to understand how their money is being spent, so that the union bosses can spend it as they see fit, whether it supports the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party.

The Liberals want to make sure union bosses stay in place, so they want to make sure that the secret ballot stays in place. Again, that group is tightly knit. If we look at all the options and what is going on here, there are obviously some other things going on in the background—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Prince Albert will have four and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

We know we are in trouble when we hear what respected labour leaders, like the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, have to say about Bill C-525 and C-377. He said that the bills “...were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.”

The northern Ontario area manager of the carpenters' union said, “Our membership and staff are incredibly happy to hear the Federal Government has followed through with its campaign promise to repeal these [two bills]. The introduction of these Bills were self-serving and posed no benefits to our members who rely on [protecting the rights of the union workers].”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question.

Our provincial counterparts, British Columbia and many others, have a system wherein there is a right to a secret ballot. Does the member believe that they are wrong and they need to repeal the legislation because after all these years it has been terribly unfair to the system? That is part A.

Part B is this. Does the member feel it is fair to go back to a system where, for example, in a workplace of 20 people, 11 people sign the card for automatic certification and there are nine people who might not know what is happening? Can the member say that is fair to the workers?

I would like to hear the answer, both with respect to the provinces and the individuals.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard, and I have heard, from many unions across the country, and in my riding. Many of their members look at these laws, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, as very different from some of the other provincial legislation that is in place. We have to repeal these bills to restore fairness and balance in the labour movement.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP support this bill. It is a good first step. However, as the member mentioned in his speech, more needs to be done to protect hard-working Canadians in their workplaces. I would ask him to expand on his comments about health and safety concerns and when the government will enhance these provisions for our public sector employees.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, health and safety committees have been in place across the country and in my riding, especially in the mining industry, and a lot of the natural resource industries, for decades now.

They have been established because of the labour movements, because of the unions protecting the workers in the workforce. It is very important, and we have to look at strengthening the laws. I agree with that. It is something that the government will look at and bring forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his interesting speech, which he delivered in both official languages, so I especially appreciated that.

How can we, as MPs who were all elected by secret ballot, oppose voting by secret ballot? That is a mystery to me.

I would remind the House that our legislation requires that secret ballot voting be used in very specific situations, including establishing or dissolving a union. That is part of the democratic process. In fact, nothing is more democratic than voting by secret ballot. It could lend even greater legitimacy to the creation of a union.

I ask, then, how can a member who was elected by secret ballot oppose the principle of secret ballots?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, here is an example of the Conservative Party twisting the reality to benefit its ideological view. This is not shared by the Canadian public.

Labour has long been supporting workers across the country, and honourable members know that. I can mention other associations, like the police association, the firefighters, the teachers union, bricklayers, and other unions, that are supporting the repeal of the acts.

The Conservatives not only brought in this legislation, they also focused on the workers in the federal government. The workers within the federal government are precious assets. We need to protect them. We need to look at this. The Conservatives are opposed because of some of the changes that have been made.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a convention in place of respecting the Speaker's neutrality, and the implication by the member that the Speaker would have a bias on this particular issue is totally inappropriate. I think it should be withdrawn.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am not sure that the point of order is one where I can require the member to withdraw the comment. However, I do wish to say that I appreciate the intervention and the help of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and I think he has a point.

The member for Nickel Belt.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we spoke with many of the labour movements, the unions, repealing the acts is the right thing to do to restore fairness and balance in the workplace.

I am proud to be part of the Liberal government that is taking action immediately to repeal these two acts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives have failed to understand is the importance of labour and management in relationships and harmony within the workforce, and how much healthier it is when government works with organized labour and business to ensure harmony. The member needs to recognize that the legislation that we are debating today is to rectify a wrong when the government brought in two private members' bills without going through a process that allowed for that harmony to continue. There are many individuals and groups who really believe in the value of organized labour and how it has contributed so much to Canadian society over the years and it does have a fabulous role to play into the future.

Why does the member feel that the Conservative Party tends to want to use labour legislation as a wedge issue, as opposed to recognizing the true value of having harmony within our workforce?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is evident when we have this discussion about these issues that the Liberals want to speak in broad strokes about harmony, about the value of organized labour. These are things that we agree with on this side of the House. We agree with the importance of harmony. We believe that organized labour has value.

However, the member did not address, and most of the speeches I have heard from the side opposite do not address, the specific provisions in the bill. Yes, it is all well and good to talk about these nice words, like “harmony” and “working together”, but let us talk about what is actually in the bill. This bill would take away the assurance of a secret ballot. It would take away the assurance that working men and women could vote in the privacy of a secret ballot and not be subject to undue pressure that is associated with a public ballot. Instead of just relying on nice words, I wish the members would actually look at the substance of the bill and consider the arguments that have been made.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for a very eloquent speech and a very interesting history lesson. It is great to have a fellow alumnus of the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate in this House.

I would ask the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, given his enthusiasm for secret ballots, whether he would support a system whereby we have votes in every Canadian workplace periodically on whether the employees want a union. It seems that the Conservatives' supposed concern for workplace democracy only starts after employees have indicated by signing membership cards that they want a union.

The member suggested that this period between signing cards and the vote is a good opportunity for debate and deliberation. However, would he not acknowledge the fact that whereas unions have essentially no access to the employees they are trying to organize, the employer has continual access to those employees during work hours and the employer has authority over those workers, and that this creates a massive imbalance during this period of hoped-for deliberation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is indeed an alumnus of the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate along with me. I understand the Prime Minister was part of that society at one time as well, but he dropped out after the society could no longer afford his speaking fees.

I want to respond to the member's question in terms of a potential imbalance. Of course, employers have regular access to employees, and employees have regular access to one another. Both of these are different dynamics in a certification discussion. That is why we think, though, that a secret ballot makes sense. One could imagine pressure exerted by an employer. One could imagine cases in which pressure is exerted by fellow employees as well. We could imagine cases where an employee is reluctant to express opposition to a union because if certification happened anyway, then in some sense his or her situation would be significantly affected by the union. I say, why not a secret ballot?

The member talked about having regular secret ballots. We would have to agree that it would be relatively impractical if the state were to say that we have to have votes on certification on a regular basis in every workplace even if there had not been any kind of expression of interest. Let workers express interest, and then let us have a secret ballot in cases where they have interest. That seems like the most reasonable, practical way to proceed.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his informative speech.

The key to developing our organizations is co-operation and partnership between unions and employers. How will this new bill ensure fairer and more balanced protections for employer-union relations?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia—Lambton talks about union members possibly not wanting their dues spent to support political parties. I have good news for the member, which is that neither corporate nor union contributions are allowed to federal political parties. I certainly support that change to our democracy.

What the member for Sarnia—Lambton might be getting at is that, in some provinces at the provincial level, corporate and union donations to political parties are allowed. I think the solution to that is for provincial governments to follow the fine federal example and ban both corporate and union donations.

However, if we are in a jurisdiction where those sorts of contributions are allowed, then the important thing is to just have a democratic process within the union to determine how funds are spent and whether and how they are contributed. That is the appropriate way for workers to be able to defend their interests in the democratic process.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will refresh the memory of the member for Regina—Lewvan. Three times during the federal election we saw union members line up behind the leader of the Liberal Party for selfies. Many of them were paid—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there may be a problem with the French interpretation. Could someone check on that?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think it is working now.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan that the House has been notified that, three times during the election, the Liberal Party had union members line up behind the Liberal leader; not once, not twice, but three times, all for $100, to get a selfie with the leader of the Liberal Party. What does the member say about that? We would like to hear the member's comments about union members being used for political operations as we just saw in the federal election.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it would be inappropriate for a union to contribute money to a political party or to pay staff to work on a federal political campaign. If that happened in the last election, certainly it would need to be investigated, and enforcement action would need to be taken.

Having said that, union members obviously need to be free, like other citizens, to participate in the democratic process. I suspect that some of those union members who were taking selfies behind the Prime Minister might soon be regretting that decision when they discover that the Liberals are not moving to implement a federal minimum wage, may not vote in anti-scab legislation, and may be voting against the NDP motion to improve employment insurance. I suspect next time they will be taking selfies behind NDP candidates.

[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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Conservatives in this House. They comment that some members are attacking the sanctity of private members' legislation. On the contrary, what we are attacking is when government legislation masquerades as a private member's bill.

My hon. colleague sat in the previous Parliament and knows full well that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), private member's legislation gets up to two hours of debate before the question is put. It does not get the scrutiny that government legislation does. Therefore, I would like to hear his comments with respect to when he sees government legislation masquerading as a private member's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, since today's theme seems to be to talk about new members, I want to congratulate my newly elected colleagues behind me who represent a nice breakthrough in the Prairies and western Canada. I would add that these members are proud defenders of the great founding principles that helped establish the party back home.

I hear the comments from our new colleagues and everyone now acknowledges that we went through a decade of darkness. As for the number of votes that were held here and bills that were passed, everyone knows that there were catch-all bills and massive omnibus bills consistently containing a series of measures to establish a right-wing agenda, with little to no concern for helping the people and workers' associations who built the middle class that is the very identity of our West, our North America, and our Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about this legislation that is coming forward to overturn some of our private members' bills in the past, I must speak to some of the questions and comments that have been made about it, that the way it went through this place was somehow anti-democratic. I was here and knew the members who brought them forward. I knew the consultative process that specifically Bill C-377 went through, the back and forth with caucus, with myself. There was a long process to seek honest feedback and that is why changes were made to that legislation.

The firefighters union and other unions wanted a higher threshold of expenditure. It went from a lower amount to the $5,000 amount, so that particular individuals would not be mentioned and privacy issues, medical expenses, and that kind of thing would not be caught in this kind of legislation. That was received by the proponent of the bill and supported. The legislation was changed.

To hear a Liberal say a private member's bill somehow passed through the back door is absolutely ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous that he would say that about something as foundational as a private member's bill, a bill that we can bring as private members to this place, to see enacted into law. I do not just represent myself in this place. I represent 107,000 people from my riding. To say that my representation of 107,000 people is in some way the back door is ridiculous. The member needs to reflect on the private members' business that has come through the House over the last 100-plus years. I would like to challenge the member on the other side.

I want also to reflect on the secret ballot and how foundational it is to our modern democracy here in Canada. When we go to the polls, provincial, municipal, or federal, we have a little cubicle and nobody sees how we vote. Eventually the ballots are cast, the ballots are counted, and we have a winner in the election.

In this process a secret ballot is absolutely foundational in our freedom to express ourselves, which party we want to vote for, and maybe which ones we do not want to vote for. My curiosity is intrigued when I see the Liberals would want to see that kind of democratic foundation changed. Is their talk of changing the way we vote in Canada for our representatives on the horizon too now, where we are going to have to vote in a public forum and people are going to know how we vote? The Liberals seem to support that in the House with this overturning of the legislation. The next thought would lead me to believe that it may be on the horizon. If it is not, then why are they supporting something that foundational in the House?

It is purely meant to service big unions. We know that Unifor and other unions completely supported different parties in the House and the concern is that this simply is payback for what was done during the election in October. That concerns me. It concerns me that democracy is not more important than that.

I also want to talk about my experience in a union. I have been a part of a few unions, one as a carpenter for about six months. For a longer period of time I had to become part of the union as a teacher in British Columbia. I was forced, I did not have a choice. If I wanted to become a teacher in B.C., I had to be part of the BC Teachers' Federation. I did not really want to, but I did not have any other choice and that to me is somewhat undemocratic as well. Because I wanted to be a teacher in B.C., I was forced to be part of something, rather than given the choice to be part of the union.

Fair enough. I joined the union and got my teaching job. After the first six months or year I went to a union meeting. It was a challenge. I knew the leader of the president of the BCTF, a former member of this House, was going to be there. I thought I had better show up and see what was going on with unions, especially my own, the one I had paid dues to monthly. I wanted to know how it was going to spend my hard-earned dues money.

At that meeting, I was told by the union president which way I was to vote in the next provincial election, and I also discovered that my union dues were funding NDP candidates in that provincial election.

There are a couple of problems with being told how to vote in a provincial election, to me, especially, as a teacher. If there is any group that should understand impartiality, it should be the teachers. I understand that. I never brought up politics in my classroom. To be told by a BCTF president how to vote in a provincial election was really beyond democratic.

I actually brought it up to her in the meeting. I put up my hand and asked if she was suggesting that this non-partisan association, the BCTF, was supposed to vote one way or the other. She looked at me strangely, as if to say, “Who is this guy?”. She did not give me an answer, but she moved on to the next topic quickly. It still troubled me that she was trying to tell us how to vote in that place, regardless of which party. I did not care if she was going to tell us to vote Conservative.

I do not think it is the place for unions, to do that. Unions should be impartially representing their members, because their members represent all parties. Certainly, I was a Conservative teacher. There were NDP teachers. There were Liberal teachers. The union represented us all. We all have to pay dues to this organization. The fact that the president was trying to tell me to vote in one particular direction troubled me greatly.

However, the next point that was brought out at the meeting was a teachers' newspaper. It boasted that a local NDP candidate was being sponsored by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The local union body in that particular town was sponsoring an NDP candidate in that provincial election, donating to this candidate.

I had huge trouble with that, considering the fact that we are supposed to be impartial. The fact is that most members—and this is what we are getting to with this legislation—did not know that those local federation representatives were funding campaigns. To me, that was very troubling, to say the least: the fact that a group that was supposed to be non-partisan was sponsoring NDP candidates with my money, because as a member I had to pay dues to the BCTF; I did not have a choice. Confronted about this, the president of the BCTF at that time did not seem to have an answer for that either.

I will bring this back to the conversation we are having today about Bill C-377 and the accountability that is supposed to be there with this bill. Most members do not know where the money goes, with union expenditures. It can be argued that the information can be found. Yes, it can be obtained, but it is a very arduous process. It takes a long time to get all the information back. It is information that the union records—make no mistake: the union does record where the money goes. The union knows where it is, but it is not something that can be easily obtained by members.

That is what Bill C-377 was meant to do. It means to make accountable the expenditures of that fund, which is tax free, I might add—and it still does. The money that goes into these organizations is not taxed. What I said before in debate, in support of Bill C-377, is that, if we are not against accountability, why would we be against Bill C-377.

What we are asking for are measures by which unions have to show where the expenditures are, to their members and to the public, just as I do as a member of Parliament, just as the members of the NDP have to do to their constituents. Why would we ask for anything less from a group that collects funds from its members who have to contribute? It is not voluntary. Why would we not ask for accountability from these organizations? To me, if there is nothing to hide, why not do it?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the story of hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies about being required to join the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I would note that it is no way unique to unions. If the member had wished to practise medicine, he would have had to join the medical association. If he had wished to practise law, he would have had to join the bar association. This is a common practice in many professions, not just teaching.

The member also noted that he disapproved of his union making political donations. I wonder if the member would agree that the solution to this is for the Government of British Columbia to ban both corporate and union political donations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question in two ways.

Yes, I agree, because it was our government that brought in that legislation and basically made corporations and unions ineligible to be part of the political process federally, and so I absolutely agree to that particular part of the member's question.

The interesting part of it is that we are in a federal institution in this place and we are responsible for the laws that are brought in for this, and so we are debating Bill C-377 here on this floor. However, I cannot affect the floor in the province of B.C. or any other floor in the different provinces across this country.

The key point of it for me is the accountability in the particular bill, the democracy that it protects in the secret ballot, but also the accountability of unions to their members and the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member standing up to address the legislation. Having said that, primarily because of his role in terms of the private member's bill itself, I am sure he would recognize that, when we bring in a private member's bill versus a government bill, there is a substantial difference.

If one is the minister of labour, there is a process one has to go through in order to introduce legislation. As a private member, yes, one might have done some consultations and so forth, but I would argue that there is a big difference between what a private member might do and what a department does through consultation.

My question to the member is this. Will he not at the very least recognize that what the bill would really do is try to rectify a wrong? When legislation of this nature comes through the House of Commons, it should be brought through by the minister of labour, which would assist in providing more harmony within the industry, and that is, in fact, a good thing for all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, to me, this is the Liberal Party trying to make it something that it is not.

The member is trying to say that the former government somehow coaxed this particular member into putting forth a bill that really should have gone through another process. The fact that he calls this in some way a back door is ridiculous, as I have said twice before.

I know the member who introduced this. It was a heavy topic for him. He wanted to bring it forward because of the accountability that needed to come forward, not to mention the many people he consulted within our caucus who had certain questions on the bill. He met those concerns and brought his bill forward anyway.

Therefore, to paint the picture that it is not part of the democratic process for a private member to bring something forward that is a concern for his constituency and his constituents, to me, is lacking respect at best and just ridiculous at most.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his presentation this afternoon.

I think Canadians want a choice. They want the secret ballot. They also want to know that unions do not have a blank cheque. Canadians want to know where their unions dues are going. Where are they going? Are they going for excessive travel and entertainment for just a select few? We have seen that. Yes, during the federal campaign, we have seen that. As I said earlier in the House, not once, twice, but three times, union members took selfies, for money.

Could the member give us his thoughts on how the bill would have major ramifications if it is approved in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that great question.

What I just presented as my story is evidence of why we need the bill. The evidence that I submitted is exactly why we need to expose this kind of practice where union bosses try to pressure their members and use their money in political campaigns.

I would not have seen it had I not attended the meeting. There were only 12 of us in this particular room, out of thousands. This is exactly why we need a bill like Bill C-377 to expose these kinds of practices. I think members would be upset, at the very least, if they knew their money was going toward these political parties that they do not necessarily support.

To me, we need to keep Bill C-377 and the secret ballot for votes within unions, and make sure that we care about our people first and much less about fancy pictures for social media.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.

As members of Parliament, it is important that we all have our finger on the pulse of the priorities of our constituents, and it is imperative that we set out to meet those needs on their behalf. For me, it has been the absolute honour of a lifetime to be able to serve the constituency of Wild Rose first and now Banff—Airdrie as member of Parliament. I want my constituents to know that I will always continue to fight for them and to stand up for their priorities and our great province of Alberta.

When I pursued public life, I did so because I wanted to give back to my community. My objective was to bring people together, whether in my riding or here in Ottawa, to help move great ideas from concepts into action, listen to Canadians, and deliver results. However, today I am here to talk about Bill C-4, one of the Liberal government's first priorities.

As an Alberta MP, my priority is to give a voice to a riding and a province that are severely impacted by falling oil prices, mass layoffs, and collapsing businesses. In addition to the Liberal mismanagement that we are seeing with a ballooning federal deficit, I was shocked to see the government put forward a bill, as one of its top priorities, aimed not at supporting workers or the more than 100,000 people who have lost their jobs as a result of the struggling oil and gas sector but, rather, a bill to please union bosses, which would reverse key transparency measures that our previous Conservative government put in place.

Specifically, the Liberal government is introducing, as one of its first priorities, legislation that seeks to reduce transparency for union bosses by removing a requirement that the leadership share how it spends its members' union dues and removing the secret ballot provision for trade union formation and abolition. I firmly believe that this bill is critically flawed. It is flawed in that it reduces the transparency that Canadians are demanding in all areas of public administration, and it does this at a time when the government should be focused on workers, not union bosses.

I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House what it is like at home in my riding and my province right now. We are living through one of the most significant downturns of our generation. More than 100,000 people have lost their jobs in Canada, with many now risking the loss of their homes and the lives they have worked so hard to build. Almost 40,000 of those job losses are in my province of Alberta. Alberta's unemployment rate has surged to 7.4%, surpassing the national average for the first time in nearly three decades. It is a very difficult time.

In the midst of this downturn, Albertans are feeling absolutely and utterly abandoned by the Liberal government. Instead of helping the people of my province, the government has, instead, turned to kneecapping the energy industry. The Liberals are adding further uncertainty to the energy industry through their new temporary, endless regulatory processes, raising the spectre of a new carbon tax, and imposing more and more obstacles for critical market access infrastructure that, I might add, would not cost the government a single dime.

Instead, the Liberal Party has taken the stance that, if it calls a sum of money “stimulus”, Albertans will keep quiet about the Liberals completely thumbing their noses at the energy industry with their new job-killing policies. I will say this: we are not going to stay quiet. I hear time and time again from my constituents and from the thousands of Albertans who work in the oil and gas sector that a plan for jobs and a strong economy is what we need right now, not a temporary, uncertain, and endless regulatory regime, and definitely not a new job-killing carbon tax.

The government should be focused on creating jobs. What we have seen from the Liberals so far is added uncertainty for pipeline development and certainly an unwillingness to stand up for our citizens who are in need of support. More taxes will not create jobs or help Albertans get back to work. Unfortunately, what we have seen, instead, from the Liberal government is that it is certainly a government that is fond of taking misguided approaches, which is what we are seeing demonstrated in Bill C-4.

The legislation is not focused on workers at all. In fact, it would do more harm to them. It is simply a step back for democracy, transparency, and accountability. There are so many reasons why it demonstrates how the government is going in exactly the wrong direction.

The legislation violates the fundamental principle of transparency. If the Liberals are truly trying to pride themselves on being more open, it boggles the mind as to why one of the first pieces of legislation they have introduced totally and absolutely contradicts that principle.

Bill C-377 saw the requirement for public disclosure of a non-profit organization. Requiring public disclosure by organizations receiving substantial public benefits is not a new concept. Canadian charities have been publicly reporting their spending for at least 35 years. Nonetheless, the legislation blocks the public from seeing how any benefits the government provides to unions are being leveraged. Why are the Liberals removing this level of transparency when public disclosure creates greater credibility and support for the legitimately representative work that unions do?

Bill C-4 would enable union bosses to direct their members' fees without having any accountability to their members. They would make decisions of advocacy and conscience under a shroud of secrecy without any accountability at all to their members.

If shielding the books from the membership, the actual workers, is not enough, with Bill C-4, the Liberals are also standing against a worker's right not to join a union.

The legislation would eliminate Bill C-525 and its provisions which support Canadians free choice of whether they want to be a part of a union free from intimidation. This is what Canadians should expect in our democracy. This legislation was put in place by our previous Conservative government to further support workers.

Bill C-525 also required union organizers to get expressions of support from a very reasonable 45% of workers in federally regulated sectors in order to force a vote on union certification. Bill C-525 also ensured that the subsequent vote would then be held by a secret ballot. If a majority of workers in that collective bargaining support joining a union, then certification would proceed. The same logical process would apply in reverse should workers seek to decertify a union.

We just came through a federal election. I would have been happier with a different result, but we again experienced one of the most surreal traditions of life in a democracy, a peaceful and orderly transition of power. We use a secret ballot in our democratic system. Although the government may be looking to change the electoral system, we surely do not hear it talking about changing the critical democratic piece of a secret ballot anywhere but in the labour movement. Five provinces already employ this method of union certification. Bill C-525 would simply apply it to federally regulated sectors. Abolishing the secret ballot would be an attack on the democratic process. All members of Parliament are elected by secret ballot, so why take that away from everyday workers?

Bill C-4 is a fatally flawed piece of legislation. If the Liberals really want to help workers and their families, they should consider some facts.

Commodity prices have contributed to massive layoffs across the country and our dollar continues to drop in value. In 2015, Canada's oil and gas industry lost $60 billion in revenue. That is equivalent to wiping out the Canadian auto sector in just one year. The IMF has downgraded its economic outlook for Canada. The household debt to income ratio of Canadians is now the highest in the G7. Canadians are suffering the consequences of these real challenges.

Unemployed Canadians are out there with no prospect of finding jobs. Working families are living with the fear every day that they will lose their jobs. Seniors are watching their retirement savings drop as the markets struggle.

These are the challenges that should shape and drive policy that we set here. Canadians expect their government to take action. We should be seeing initiatives to keep taxes lower so Canadians have more money in their pockets to make ends meet. Instead, we see a proposed carbon tax and we see measures to increase EI premiums and taxes, measures that would add further uncertainty on our natural resources regulatory processes, a ballooning deficit, and now we have a bill today focused on union bosses rather than their workers.

These are the priorities of the Liberal government and that just demonstrates that the government has its priorities all wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, constitutional experts have said that these bills are unconstitutional. Privacy experts have said that they breach the privacy of millions of Canadians. Seven out of ten provinces, representing 80% of the citizens of our country, have said that the responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces.

Hugh Segal, the former Conservative senator, said that it was the most insipid piece of legislation he has ever come across. Sixteen Conservative senators stood down and would not support the bill.

My colleague has said that it is all about openness and transparency. An amendment was put forward to include employer bodies; chambers of commerce; the barristers' society, which lawyers have to join if they want to practice law; and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which doctors have to join if they want to practice medicine. If it was about transparency, why did the Conservatives vote against that amendment?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about openness and transparency. We have a government that has made this one of its top priorities, to take away transparency in terms of unions. That is on top of what it has done with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act as well. It is removing transparency for first nations people to have transparency from their leaders as well. Those are the priorities of the government, to take away transparency.

People in the country are losing their jobs. People are afraid they will lose their homes. It is a difficult situation. It is a very difficult situation in my province of Alberta, and it is causing problems all across the country. What does the government do about it? I do not seeing them doing anything about it. In fact, it is doing everything it can to pile on and make that situation worse.

At the same time, rather than trying to do something for the workers who are hurting and trying to do something to help the energy sector recover, it is trying to remove transparency from unions and first nations.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the response to the parliamentary secretary's question, but I did not hear an answer. Therefore, I will pose it again. Why did the previous bill not include chambers of commerce, religious organizations, and professional associations? Why did it only single out unions? It is a very simple question. I would like to hear a response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here talking about Bill C-4 today, so what I will do is talk about Bill C-4 and the government's priorities. That is what we are here to address. Clearly, its priorities are all wrong.

There are 100,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs in the last little while. We are seeing massive, ballooning deficits in just a few months under the government. It took it from a surplus to a massive deficit. Instead of trying to do something about that, it is talking about bringing in new carbon taxes. It is trying to create further uncertainty in our regulatory processes. The priority should be trying to deal with that, not trying to remove accountability and transparency from our unions.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrible day. This will be the last day of debate on this legislation, which will all but assure the end of my private member's bill, Bill C-525, which I was very pleased to have passed. It brought accountability to a process. It empowered every worker in the country currently in a union, or thinking about being in a union, or leaving a union the right to have a secret ballot vote and do what is best for them.

I was pleased to stand in this place and do this as a private member. Could my colleague talk about how important it is for members of Parliament to be empowered to do the job on behalf of their constituents and not be subjected to attacks and pointless debate about what members of Parliament should or should not be allowed to do in this chamber?

[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.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, which is an exciting first step towards restoring the balance of power between unionized workers and employers.

The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act. The NDP supports all stages of this bill, which will repeal the bad Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. By the way, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Saskatoon West, for her work on this bill. She demonstrated how important it is to repeal these two bad bills.

We had mentioned that these two Conservative bills were unconstitutional and constituted an invasion of privacy, among other things. Nevertheless, the Conservatives pushed these bills, which offered nothing good for Canadian workers.

Bill C-377 amended the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations and labour trusts provide information returns to the minister for public disclosure. This bill required all union organizations to submit detailed annual financial reports on salaries, revenues, and spending.

The Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said that Bill C-377 went too far and constituted an invasion of privacy. The Canadian Bar Association also questioned whether the bill was constitutional and even said that this bill would infringe on freedom of expression and freedom of association provisions. It was, therefore, a very bad bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continued to push this bill, even though almost everyone agreed that it was a very bad piece of legislation.

This reminds us of the need to protect collective bargaining and the right of unions to strike. We need to believe in the rights of unions and the important role they play in striking a balance of power between employers and workers. When unions are valued, workers have more rights and there is less pay disparity. A strong union presence has its benefits in a society.

That being said, the Conservatives introduced another bad bill, Bill C-525, which sought to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. In short, this bad Conservative bill was based on bad American laws that are increasingly geared at doing away with unions.

Under the bill, workers in the same union would be allowed to be members without making a financial contribution to the union's activities and without losing the benefits afforded to them under the collective agreement. That does not make any sense. It goes against union promotion. If fewer people paid union dues, it would upset the balance of power that allows workers to assert their rights.

The purpose of these legislative initiatives is to limit unions' financial capacity by making it easier for workers to opt out of union membership while continuing to take advantage of the benefits afforded to them under their collective agreement. This was yet another bad decision by the Conservatives.

I am truly very happy because the NDP worked so hard that the Liberals followed its lead. I am very proud of my party and our leadership in that regard. I am pleased that the Liberals are on the same page.

In Drummond, I regularly meet people who belong to a union. I recently met two members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Many workers in my riding are protected by this union. These people told me that they were concerned about what we have seen in recent years, and that is the erosion of workers' rights. They also shared with me what they would like to see happen. For example, they would like workers to continue to have the right to collective bargaining. Unfortunately, the Conservatives imposed working conditions by passing legislation rather than by negotiating with workers.

I believe that the Liberals understand that it is important to negotiate instead. I will come back to that.

Occupational health and safety under the Canada Labour Code has been eroded. Workers are very concerned about occupational health and safety problems and would like to prevent them. We are very proud to see that the Liberals have begun to look at this issue. They are tackling Bill C-59, which was introduced by the Conservatives. We want to repeal the bill, and the Liberal government is going to submit a proposal to the union.

Bill C-59 contained a provision that would abolish employees' right to good faith bargaining by authorizing the employer to unilaterally establish all sick leave conditions. There was a problem related to sick leave, and instead of negotiating the Conservatives imposed a law. Fortunately, the Liberals will negotiate instead. However, they have unfortunately brought forward the same proposal the Conservatives did. We are somewhat disappointed with that.

I also attended several general annual meetings of the union representing workers at the Drummondville penitentiary. I salute all the workers of the Drummondville penitentiary, who do an excellent job. I had the opportunity to visit the institution a number of times. The penitentiary's needs in terms of the rehabilitation of inmates, who want to eventually leave and return to society, are incredible. I am sure that this is the case for all other penitentiaries in Canada. I visited a continuing education class and there were other initiatives as well. I was very pleased to be able to visit them, and I would like to thank them for welcoming me.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie worked very hard in committee in the last Parliament to fight Bill C-377. I think that it is very important to acknowledge his contribution, because he did an incredible job.

Of course we are pleased and delighted that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 are being repealed. However, we in the NDP will continue to pressure the government to enhance the right to collective bargaining and make working conditions more equitable for all Canadians. We will continue to pressure the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, reinstate the federal minimum wage, and pass the anti-scab legislation introduced yesterday by my colleague from Jonquière. That is a fantastic initiative, and we are all really proud of the collective work done by the NDP when it comes to protecting workers' rights.

I hope the bill passes unanimously in this Parliament, because it will restore the balance of power between workers and employers. I commend the NDP for the collective work it has done, which inspired the Liberal government, and I congratulate the Liberal government for moving in the right direction on this, although there is still work to be done.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is probably my last opportunity to speak on the bill at second reading, so I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. In his joy to undo my private member's bill, C-525, does he think that as a member of Parliament in the next federal election, if he chooses to run again, he should be able to go to the doorstep of a Canadian household, have the voters come out and be able to demand that they sign or vote or cast their ballot on that doorstep, right in front of him, right when he wants them to?

Does he think that is democracy, because that is exactly what Bill C-4 would do. He is going to undo the right to a secret ballot vote, which is what Bill C-525 enabled. Does he think that is an improvement to democracy, because that what he is advocating?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a bit of context for what has been happening over the past few years and what has been confirmed by a number of economic stakeholders. I am referring to the increase in inequality throughout North America and here in Canada in particular.

Inequality continues to grow, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain union certification. There needs to be a balance of power. The current way of doing things is working quite well. There have not been any major complaints.

We therefore need to ensure that when bills are introduced, they are constitutional and they respect privacy. Bill C-377, for example, was a total failure on both counts. I am very proud that my party initiated the fight against these two terrible bills that upset the balance of power and violate workers' rights.

We need strong unions to be able to continue to promote better protection for workers' rights and better access to decent wages. As a result, I am very proud that the Liberals introduced these two measures to repeal these two terrible bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. My colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe asked a very important and simple question, then we had a response that just completely ignored the question, as if it had never been asked.

Maybe I will try again, as the member perhaps did not hear. Given that members of the House of Commons are elected through a secret ballot, given that elections occur at every level via secret ballot, does the member not believe it is sensible that working men and women who are considering certification of union have the same rights in that context as everyone else has?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question my hon. colleague asked earlier, namely whether I was prepared to go door-to-door in my riding. I will keep going door-to-door and not just during the next election campaign. I will go door-to-door in the coming months because it is very important to hear what our constituents have to say.

When I knock on doors and I welcome workers at home, they all tell me that these two bills are harmful to workers and the fight against inequality, and that they put up roadblocks to improving conditions for the middle class, while preventing people from joining the middle class.

I will very proudly go knocking on doors again to see my constituents and tell them that we worked very hard to ensure that these two bills were repealed. Again, I congratulate the Liberals for the work they have done on this.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard a lot of questions from the Conservative side about Bill C-525 and how we are not supporting secret ballots and all that, but what I do not hear from that side of House is discussion of Bill C-377. In my mind that was the more onerous piece of legislation. The way it tied up unions in knots, it really did seek to kneecap them and their ability to organize workers.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that particular piece of legislation and how it was a direct attack on the labour movement.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I would like to say that I received a lot of mail and email when Bill C-377 was introduced. People told me what a terrible bill it was and said that it violated not only privacy, but also constitutional rights, in several ways.

That is why we are so proud of what is happening. I want to reiterate this because I know that my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie did excellent work not only in committee, but also in consulting people across Canada. He fought very hard and represented the rights of workers everywhere. We are very pleased that our work is paying off. That is really something we want to emphasize again.

Congratulations to the Liberals for recognizing the importance of repealing these two bills.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Since no more members wish to speak, pursuant to order made Thursday, February 25, 2016, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading of Bill C-4 are deemed put, and a recorded division is deemed requested and deferred until Monday, March 7, 2016, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, I am sure you would find consent to see the clock at 2:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 7 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:08 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The next question is on the amendment to the motion of the second reading of Bill C-4.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #16

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #17

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)