Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, colleagues, for being on time.
I apologize in advance to the interpreters because I'm now going to condense 10 minutes into eight.
It's a pleasure to be here today with you to discuss the employees' voting rights act.
The employees' voting rights act proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The employees' voting rights act is all about ensuring that employees in a workplace have the absolute right to cast a secret ballot in order to determine if a union should either be created or be disbanded. The bill uses a threshold of 45% of employees indicating that they wish to call a vote and sets a threshold of 50% plus one of the employees voting in favour to either create or maintain the existence of a bargaining agent on their behalf. Critics of the employees' voting rights act claim that the bill is unfair, unbalanced, and undemocratic.
I say nothing could be further from the truth. The employees' voting rights act simply takes what is optional right now in current legislation and makes it mandatory. If you look at the current regime, if a union signs up 50% plus one of employees in the workplace through a card check system, the union automatically becomes certified. What about the other 49% and change of the employees in the workplace? They may not even be aware that a union certification drive is in progress. They may not be in favour of that particular union as their representative. Is it fair for them to not even be consulted? They wouldn't even need to be consulted and would then be subject to paying union dues and to being a member of that bargaining unit. Do we really know for sure in the current process that the employee signed the union card free from intimidation?
Justice Richards, in his Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling, stated that a secret ballot is a hallmark of a modern democracy. So why isn't it in place when it comes to the creation or decertification of a union? How can anyone say it's unfair and undemocratic for employees to have a secret ballot vote if we as parliamentarians face a secret ballot vote during general elections?
I would say to all of you, colleagues, that this is the great equalizer. It's what keeps us all honest in the deliberation of our duties. If it's democratic to elect members of Parliament with a secret ballot, why is it then undemocratic for workers to have a secret ballot vote in the determination of either certifying or decertifying a union?
Balance has also been an issue I've heard about from critics and people in the opposition. The allegations are about whether it is fair and balanced to have a framework that tips the scale in favour of one party. That is what we currently have. The regime currently employed to certify a union makes the process to certify a union easier than the process to decertify one. The employees' voting rights act seeks to harmonize these regimes so they strike a balance. The process is the same to either create a union or to decertify a union, should the workers choose to do so.
This current imbalance is in favour of unions, and, in my opinion, it's time to put the boots over the suits when it comes to making these kinds of decisions, and to put the power exactly where it belongs, in the hands of the workers. Some union leaders have also forgotten that their representation is contingent upon workers placing their trust in them to act in their best interests. The employees' voting rights act ensures that workers have the final say on who they want to have represent their interests.
The bill, the employees' voting rights act, is centred on the will of workers. Contrary to claims, this legislation does not trample on the rights of Canadian workers at all. The right to associate is protected under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has been affirmed in various Supreme Court of Canada decisions related to labour organization. The Supreme Court of Canada, though, has never stated that any government must make the framework to certify or decertify a union as easy as possible. It is the domain of parliaments and legislative assemblies to decide what the process actually should be.
Currently, five out of ten provinces have a secret ballot vote regime and at least a mandatory secret ballot vote regime. Two provinces—B.C. and Saskatchewan—have a threshold to trigger that vote at 45%. It's also a fact that three out of ten provinces—Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick—have similar thresholds related to the concept of a majority support of workers voting in favour of the union when a vote is called in those provinces.
What the employees' voting rights act proposes is not undemocratic or trampling on the rights of workers as some would have us believe. It simply places the democratic choice of a worker squarely in the hands of that worker where it should be, free from intimidation by the employer or the union leaders.
Some critics have attacked the majority threshold, saying that if it applied to general elections, no member of Parliament or prime minister would ever be elected. This is simply a red herring. First it's important to note that union certification and decertification require a referendum vote, a yes-or-no vote. It's 50-50.
Second, general elections are multi-party, multi-option ballots, conducted by way of a secret ballot vote. The ballot in a general election does not say, “Do you want Party X to lead the country, yes or no?” It has the list of all candidates, sometimes five, six, seven candidates, and it's a first past the post system. So comparing the two doesn't make any sense at all. But from the principle of actually having a secret ballot vote, the effect is still the same. To my knowledge, no member of Parliament or prime minister has ever been elected by way of referendum vote in Canadian history in a general election. So, like I say, it's a red herring put in place by the detractors of the bill.
I firmly believe that it is not unreasonable to expect that a union seeking to represent workers should have to achieve and maintain the support of the majority of the employees that it claims to represent. Some have complained that the employees' voting rights act will lead to increased worker intimidation by the employer, or harassment and even threats. This is unfortunately an over-simplistic view, and, frankly one that is very biased in my opinion.
The choice to organize is a workers' choice, not a union's choice, nor is it the employers' choice. If you were to believe that the employers are the only party to intimidate, threaten, or harass workers, then unions would be beyond reproach and they would be so pure that everyone would want to be in a union, which we know is simply not the case. But we know the reality is, for whatever reason, and those reasons are personal to a worker, some workers don't want to be part of a union or they don't want to be part of a particular union seeking to certify in their workplace. But “to deny that they should not have access to a pillar of our democracy”, again quoted by Justice Richards in Saskatchewan, “that a secret ballot vote makes me question the motives of those who are posing it”.
I have listened to my constituents and they tell me their fears. They are hesitant to give me their names because they're afraid, all because they challenged the decisions of their union representation at one point or another. The concerns I have heard from my constituents and the polling information that is out there and broadly available in the public domain all led me to realize that this is a very reasonable change that I'm proposing.
Just think about this, because this is what happens in a union certification. All of us have been in a general election. If we walked up to the door of somebody and knocked on the door, and when they answered we put a ballot in front of their face and said, “I want you to vote here. Right now, right in front of me, cast your ballot, and, by the way, it might be in your best interests if you actually vote for me”, this is exactly the same process that can be used in a card check in the workplace. The person is not free from intimidation. They don't have the privacy of a secret ballot vote. There's that intimidation factor that's actually there forcing you to sign that card. It's not a true and realistic representation of the will of that worker.
Imagine, just imagine, if you or I, or anybody else running for a federal election, were to go up to a doorstep and put a ballot in front of somebody and demand that they vote right there for us. The howls of outrage across this country would be coming from all four corners. It would never ever pass muster. It would never pass muster in a general election, so why does it pass muster in the workplace when trying to determine whether a union is wanted or not?
There is nothing to fear by providing workers with a secret ballot vote. If anything, it actually solidifies the voice of the workers and an argument can be made that it strengthens the position of the union at the bargaining time knowing that they have the support of the majority. If you are actually truly elected in a secret ballot vote, like all of us at this table are.... We have no hesitation or qualms about the legitimacy of the fact that we're here today representing our constituents. It would be no different for a certification vote in a union certification drive.
There's been a lot of rhetoric in this direction on this bill. As a member of Parliament I'd like all members here today to take a look at this legislation seriously. As members of Parliament, we may only get one chance to put this legislation forward. I brought this forward after calls from my constituents, concerns that they've had. I researched the options that were available to me. What they're looking for is accountability from their union leadership. They want to be actively engaged in the process of deciding what's in their best interests.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
