Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2016

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

That brings me to the next question about accountability.

During the last election, the party across the way talked about accountability as being paramount. This is a bill that makes unions accountable for the union dues that are collected from union members, a bill that brings back accountability to its members. Why would you immediately reverse such legislation that encourages such accountability?

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

Unions are one of the most democratic institutions that I know of. They often have regular membership meetings with financial disclosure available at any time. This exceeds the norm, for instance, for small business or the business community. I think being accountable has been a principle of the unions since they were established. They are a members organization and believe in being open and accountable. I think that the system works well.

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

I have one last question.

I refer to a document that we received from the Library of Parliament talking about Bill C-377, etc., which states, “Countries like the United States and Germany have had cases of union corruption. Disclosure schemes have led to the recovery of massive amounts of money, and forced individuals who had committed offences out of the offending unions.”

It seems to be a choice of choosing accountability to combat corruption or choosing corruption, or that's what seems to be the choice for me, so my question for you as minister is, if given the choice between accountability and corruption, what would be your choice?

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

I find the example enlightening, and you're definitely trying to suggest that unions are corrupt, but we haven't had this situation in Canada. You're picking jurisdictions in Germany, and I believe you said the U.S.A. or United Kingdom. I'm sorry—

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

Minister, this is precisely why we had the legislation in the first place, to combat corruption at these levels. By making the accounts public, we're able to address corruption. That's exactly what the legislation was meant to do. It strikes me as in contrast to accountability when a government that talks about accountability does something where the appearance is to hide something.

It brings me back to my question. If the choice is between accountability and corruption, what would be your choice?

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

I think if the member has some idea of corruption in the trade union movement, he is required, or I would encourage him to report such activities—

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

I didn't say “trade unions”. I don't know if you know something I don't, but I didn't say “trade unions“.

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

That's the norm in the Canadian government. In fact, if there are allegations of some kind of corruption, it should be clearly reported, and action would be taken.

I think that this hypothetical case, where you're trying to bring in a bill to stem something that doesn't exist, is clearly a political objective, rather than one based on the facts.

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

On the contrary, Minister. The document actually states, “Countries like the United States and Germany have had cases of union corruption. Disclosure schemes have led to the recovery of massive amounts of money...”.

These are facts. We're talking about accountability legislation being able to combat corruption. My question for you is, do you support accountability or corruption?

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

If the member is suggesting that unions in Canada are corrupt, I recommend that he name them.

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

What about the Charbonneau commission? It took a commission to bring this up, to make it accountable so that we saw it publicly.

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

[Technical difficulty—Editor] corruption. In that case, not only were there individuals who were charged, there were also political individuals involved. If there's any law-breaking, I think it must be reported, and action would be taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a comment.

My Conservative colleagues remind me of generals fighting the last war. In the last election Canadians spoke overwhelmingly against the politics of division of the previous government. There were major flashpoints, including the way in which working people and their leaders in the union movement spoke out against anti-democratic bills that were being imposed on them. It was an approach that was, I would say, profoundly un-Canadian, given that we are in a country where people benefit from the struggles that the labour movement has waged. To hear the reference that this is somehow disrespectful of private members' bills is absurd. I was here, and we saw the way in which the government touted this: yes, it was a private member's bill but it was in accord with the government agenda.

I believe it is time to move on. Like my colleague Ms. Benson, I want to signal our support for this action by the government. I want to acknowledge the struggle that was waged by many in the labour movement, from the Canadian Labour Congress to the firefighters unions, to associations representing people in sectors where they can't unionize. People overwhelmingly spoke out against this horrifying, undemocratic assault on their rights.

As we go forward, I would hope we continue to support the demands being made by many in the labour movement. While we applaud this action from the government, we realize that it's not just about repealing bad bills put forward by the previous government, but it's also about making progress.

What we are hearing about from members of the labour movement is the need to make progress when it comes to employment insurance and expanding pensions, including the Canada pension plan, when it comes to supporting the federal minimum wage, and when it comes to investing in programming, like a national child care plan. Those are things we're hearing about from the labour movement. We support them in these matters, and we hope that the government will see fit to support them as well.

I want to touch on a theme raised by my colleague and reflected on by the minister, namely, the rise in part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers in our country. We know that this is changing the nature of work and the workplace. What we're talking about is a rise in precarious work. We know that precarious work, certainly at the rate we're seeing it, leads to growing inequality and threatens the future of an entire generation. We're seeing that the trend is particularly acute in my generation, the millennial generation.

There are major barriers to people claiming what they deserve, whether it's the recognition of independent contractors or the way in which EI is currently set up. I'm wondering what the minister can tell us about her plans to address the situation that many young people and many Canadians are facing when it comes to the rise of precarious work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Before we hear from the minister, that's actually all your time, I'm afraid. It was a three-minute question, but that was impressive.

If the minister wishes to answer the question, that's fine. I was going to give you a moment, if you wish, to close, and to bring anything forward that you feel is necessary.

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

Member Ashton's comments are true and illustrate the challenges that we face when we look at changing massive structures like employment insurance.

I look forward to working with all of you on making the system more responsive to Canadians. I encourage you to look to passing Bill C-4. I look for your support, because we do want to re-establish positive, harmonious relationships between our business groups and our union groups through a mutually respectful relationship. Bill C-4 would do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Minister, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for attending today. We went quite a bit beyond the time that we had. I really do appreciate your sticking around for all the questions.

We do have some department officials who will be taking your seat in just a moment. Thank you again, and we really do appreciate your attendance today.

We're going to suspend while we play musical chairs.

We'll be back for the next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I want to welcome the department officials. You're not sitting in the order that I have written down here, but that's okay.

From ESDC, we have Chantale Clarke, policy officer, strategic policy and legislative reform, labour law analysis, labour program. You must have a very large business card. We also have Anthony Giles, assistant deputy minister, policy, dispute resolution, and international affairs, labour program.

From CRA, we have Costa Dimitrakopoulos, director general, legislative policy directorate, legislative policy and regulatory affairs branch.

From the Department of Finance, we have Blaine Langdon, chief, charities, personal income tax division, tax policy branch.

Thank you all for joining us today. We have you for only about 20 or 25 minutes because we have some other business that we have to attend to before the end of the day.

I believe our first question goes to Mr. Deltell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome the witnesses and their contribution to the work of this parliamentary committee.

Let's look at the bill clause-by-clause. In the notes we were given, we find very relevant explanations concerning certain sections. I want you to look at three sections among others, and especially at verbs and the terms that are used.

I direct your attention to clause 4. It states that “the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) would have the discretion to inquire into the application, either by way of a representation vote or in other way considered appropriate [...]”

I would like you to describe what is meant, technically, by the term “discretion”?

[Anthony Giles, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Technically, discretion signifies that the board must consider all of the circumstances surrounding the situation at issue and decide, given the circumstances, which method will reflect the views of the workers.

It is up to the board to determine its own rules. I cannot answer more specifically in their stead.

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

Fine.

Let's go further. Let's look at clause 5.

Claude 5 deals with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. A new paragraph would also be added to give the PSLREB the discretion to order that a representation vote be held. Once again we see the same discretionary power. This is a very subjective power for a body made up of unelected people, who can decide what is right or wrong.

Is that correct?

[Anthony Giles]

Yes, if memory serves, that provision has been a part of the law for decades and has worked very well.

The federal public sector is slightly different from the federal private sector, in that it involves important organizations and very complex negotiation units. At the time, legislators had decided to give this board, which is made up of experts, the discretion of deciding on the appropriate method.

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

We could continue a long time like this.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 discuss matters that are left to the discretion of the board. Clause 11 states that the board would have discretionary powers. We can see that a lot of subjective powers are being given to an independent organization. We cannot really oppose that as such, but we want to highlight the fact that decisions which may be the object of a secret consultation by the members of a union using secret ballots could be subject to the discretion of unelected people who may decide if a provision is advantageous for the members or not.

Let's go back to clause 12, which was discussed earlier in the questions addressed to the minister. The minister has said repeatedly that this makes no sense, that this is red tape, and that a lot of research has to be done.

Clause 12 refers to the assets, liabilities, income and expenditures of the organization. I would like the officials to tell me whether the unions must disclose that information to their members.

Is this information already in the public domain?

[Anthony Giles]

There is a long-standing provision in the Canada Labour Code that entitles members to ask for free copies of the financial statements of their union. The form and content of these statements are not described in detail.

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

However, that can include the assets, liabilities and income and expenses of the organization, correct?