Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2016

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

Gentlemen, welcome to the House of Commons and this parliamentary committee. To say the least, we appreciate your speeches. They are quite different from what we have heard before. That's democracy, and this is the best place for democracy and for each of us to express our views.

Mr. Mortimer, I listened very closely to your remarks, and some of the things you said surprised me.

You can appreciate that many people have reservations about the risks surrounding the disclosure of personal and confidential information, such as union leader salaries. Six countries have nevertheless adopted the practice, France, for one, which can't be accused of being a right-wing country. It can be described as a country of rights, but not a right-wing country. Its left-leaning roots are firmly entrenched in history.

Just talk about President Mitterrand, to say the least, and the president we have now.

I'd like you to explain something to me, Mr. Mortimer.

How can you explain that here in Canada we are so afraid to be more public on this issue? We are less public on this issue than France, which has a very socialist history?

[John Mortimer]

It was both French unions and the government that came together to ensure disclosure. I would draw parallels back to what happened in America when you essentially had a left of centre party, the Democrats, who backed what then senator John F. Kennedy did, because, the equivalent of the day to Mr. Yussuff, the head of the American Federation of Labor, George Meany, advocated the goldfish bowl theory, which was that unions would be better in every respect if the light of day were shed on their activities.

There was a certain amount of support in that period of time in America amongst the most prominent union leaders for what John F. Kennedy did. That has not been here. We have learned from the American government website about illegal activities of Canada's unions involving other political parties in this country because we were able to read in there about donations they made to political parties. For example, when UFCW 1518 in Saskatchewan gave money to the New Democratic Party.

I think it's tragic what's happening here. The current Prime Minister, as a member of Parliament and as a party leader, spoke for pay at union executive meetings across this country before reaching the Prime Minister's Office. He made it clear to those union executives what he was going to do. Bill C-4 delivers.

During the hearings on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, there were plenty of submissions to read. When I was to appear here before, it was cancelled due to events in the House; there was no submission there other than mine.

I would ask the Minister of Labour, what consultation took place when you met shortly after you got your mandate letter with leaders in this country behind closed doors and told them in no uncertain terms that you would move one bill to take down Bill-525 and Bill-377, full stop, end of discussion? It was a very blunt meeting, I'm told, by people who attended it. This is not consultation. This is favours to Canada's union bosses plain and simple, and workers and taxpayers are the ones who lose.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mortimer.

I would like to ask Mr. Wudrick about the secret ballot because for us that is very important. We are democratic. We have been elected under a secret ballot, and we do respect that. To be very democratic, it is better to have a secret ballot.

We are not the only ones who say that, Mr. Chair.

There are six provinces in the country with mandatory secret ballot voting. In fact, the matter was brought before the courts in Saskatchewan.

As a side note, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again thank the people at the Conseil du patronat du Québec for their brief. Unfortunately, they aren't with us today. They won't be able to appear before the committee, but I do want to thank them for the brief they submitted.

In it, they point out that, in 2008, secret ballot voting was challenged before the courts. In his ruling, Saskatchewan Chief Justice Robert Richards had this to say:

The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of modern democracy. Surely, in and of itself, a secret ballot regime does no more than ensure that employees are able to make the choices they see as being best for themselves.

Mr. Wudrick, would you say that secret ballot voting enhances a union's freedom and relevance?

[Aaron Wudrick]

Thank you. That's not the part of the bill we were here to talk about, but I'm happy to comment.

I do think when we talk about transparency there's obviously a competing interest here. There's the issue of privacy, and the reason there's a tension between these two things is because they are both important, and it is difficult sometimes to offer one and the other. They run into each other.

The reason it is important to have a secret ballot is the same reason we have for electing our officials. If you know people are looking over your shoulder, you may behave differently, and so we think that unless there is a compelling reason to have to show that, they should not have to. We are definitely very supportive of secret ballots for ratifying unions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Now we're over to Mr. Long.

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

Thank you to the presenters. This is certainly interesting discussion.

Mr. Mortimer, former senator Hugh Segal says that Bill C-377 was an expression of contempt for the working men and women in trade unions. What are your comments on that?

[John Mortimer]

The only people who didn't like Bill C-377 were the people upstairs. As for the people downstairs, even from a survey done by the building trades unions, when you actually dig through the work they had Léger do for them, you can see that they too found that rank and file, dues-paying, unionized Canadians wanted disclosure.

That's what all the research showed we wanted. But what I saw at the Senate hearing I was at was a chummy relationship between the senator and a very prominent union leader who has been the subject of much controversy down at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, in terms of what goes on financially inside the labourers' union in Ontario.

I was deeply troubled as a taxpayer and as a Canadian to witness that type of thing and to read the statements of Senator Segal, which I thought were unfounded, not based in reality, and political theatre to serve a purpose.

He had an agenda against the Prime Minister's Office, which is what he was really up to, sir.

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

I'm from the riding of Saint John—Rothesay in southern New Brunswick. It's a blue-collar city, a labour city, a very industrial city. I can't find one union member or one union that supports Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Can you explain to me how it is that I can't find anybody in my city, if it's so popular?

[John Mortimer]

Well, I haven't been down there to talk to them. I don't know how it was positioned to them. I read a lot of union literature that went out, which was full of lies and misrepresentation, to the people who had to pay to have that stuff produced to mislead them.

When Jim Stanford, as the senior economist of the then CAW and later Unifor, wrote that, if you're scared of the big, bad, union bully-boss down the hall, just go to the labour board, because they warehouse the statements, Mr. Stanford was either a liar or he was incompetent. As I said earlier, there is no labour board in Canada today or ever in the history of this nation that warehouses financial statements. If he were the person communicating with your constituents, sir, then they were misled.

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

I have another question for you. Actually, I can't believe I'm asking this, but would you consider yourself an ally or an adversary of unions?

[John Mortimer]

I would consider myself an ally of them in improving the accountability in this country of the unions to the rank and file people. The Canadian Labour Congress's own research shows how dissatisfied people are.

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

I cannot believe, sir, that you would call yourself an ally of unions after what I've heard you say for the last 10 or 15 minutes.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't know that it's our job to badger the witnesses who were invited here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I understood. He's trying to ask a question.

[John Mortimer]

I'd like to finish answering it.

I'm going to encourage you to go to our website and review the 2003 Canadian Labour Congress research about the level of dissatisfaction they found and why people would not support voting for unions and why people would not support signing union cards—information they've never publicly released since then, because we've done such a good job of pointing out the truth of what's going on.

When Mr. Yussuff said—last year, I think it was—that his research showed that most Canadians thought Stephen Harper had done a good job on their behalf of running the economy, he then did a 32-city tour to run a campaign against him, even though he used their money to find out that they wanted him back.

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

Mr. Mortimer, speaking of your website, on your website you say: “LabourWatch advances employee rights in labour relations”. Is that correct?

[John Mortimer]

That's correct.

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

Okay. As an employee rights organization, you must represent workers in many causes against unfair discriminatory employer workplace practices. Is that true?

[John Mortimer]

The $4-billion to $5-billion labour movement in this country.... No, we deal with the persecution of unionized Canadians, and I've taken two federal civil servants—sir, I'm going to finish—all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

He's trying to answer the question.

[John Mortimer]

The PSAC sued two of its people for crossing a picket line in a civil service strike against the CRA, even though they had a legal opinion that then-president Nycole Turmel admitted said they could not take those people to court.

I helped those people win all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, sir. That is how I advance the rights of Canadian workers.

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

Can you tell us how many complaints against employers LabourWatch has helped with—of non-unionized workers? How have you helped—?

[John Mortimer]

We operate on $50,000 to $100,000 a year, and I have total confidence in the talented professionals and well-funded labour lawyers of Canada's labour movement to go after Canada's employers.

What is wrong in this country, sir, is that we're the only nation left on earth that allows forced union membership, the only nation left on earth that allows forced union dues, and the only nation in which workers are not protected from their union leaders by statute law. BillC-4 is about to remove those protections, which were a victory for them in the last Parliament.

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

Mr. Mortimer, as an employee rights organization, you must have many employee advocacy groups and employee rights champions on your board.

Can you tell me who's on your board, sir?