House of Commons Hansard #196 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-15.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent to—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I am obliged to put the question to the House. Does the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso have the unanimous consent of the House?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do believe I am next on the speaking list for this. Would you mind checking?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
My apologies. It was not apparent to the Chair that there was an additional name in the Conservative slot for this time. We are resuming debate and going to the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for his work on this bill.
Before I begin, I will provide a quick recap of the bill. Bill C-377 would require public disclosure of the finances of labour organizations, including unions, as they would be required to file standard financial information, which would then be publicly posted on the Canada Revenue Agency website. This would be similar to registered charities that are already required to do so.
I think we can all agree that the fundamental issue at stake with this bill is the question of transparency. All across the country, workers part with approximately two weeks pay each year for the privilege of union membership, which Canadian taxpayers effectively pay for with foregone tax revenues.
I will read a few words from a recent letter to the editor on this very bill from an Air Canada flight attendant, a dues-paying CUPE member by the name of Marc Roumy. In his letter, Mr. Roumy stated:
For many of my colleagues and me, we 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 we should know what our union leaders earn and where our dues are being spent. If [my union] does not choose to change direction soon...then I fear there may come a day when many of my colleagues will choose to no longer be part of [the union].
Mr. Roumy and his fellow flight attendants, whether or not they are actually union members, have the right to know how their dues are being spent, especially when it comes to non-union activities. Several jurisdictions regulate such disclosure by providing some limited financial information but to members only. This bill's transparency is about what all Canadians get to know about their tax system with respect to labour organizations. Mr. Roumy addresses the risk of what unions decide to do or not to do independent of any legislation. The continued failure by unions to disclose their finances internally would result in greater numbers of Canadian workers becoming disillusioned with the value of union representation and membership.
The same letter from Mr. Roumy goes on to describe the process that he and other union members must currently undertake in order to view their union's financial statements. It states:
On...my union's website, there are no financial statements to be found. At our local union meetings, the budget is handed out and numbered and then returned once the meeting has ended. If a member cannot make a meeting, and then wishes to see this statement, they must make an appointment and meet with the secretary-treasurer at the local union office. Since most of my colleagues work just before or after local union business hours, this can be inconvenient to arrange. Yet, as a delegate for a national convention...one does receive an individual budget booklet to take home.
Clearly, that union member refutes the claims of other union leaders about what they do and do not do internally regarding what should be known by the rank and file, what their union bosses are doing and if they support them using their union dues in the way that they do.
In the most recent Quebec election, Canadians were shocked to learn that the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC, which represents Canada's more than 172,000 public servants from coast to coast to coast, supported the separatist Parti Québecois with its tax deductible, tax exempt revenues. The PQ's mission statement is to promote sovereignty, social progress and the promotion of French. In other words, the party's primary political objective is the breakup of Canada.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of a union representing federal employees supporting an unquestionably sovereignist political party, do Canadians, whether or not they pay PSAC dues, who believe in a united Canada not deserve to know that their hard-earned tax dollars, especially the ones not collected by unions, are being spent to fund the breakup of the country? We think they do.
When we consider that taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue from unions and trade organizations, it is important to consider more broadly the importance of financial transparency for all Canadians. If registered charities that benefit from similar deductions are required to post their financial statements online, why not unions? What, if anything, exempts unions from the same principle of fairness to taxpayers that we already expect from charities?
We all know the answer to that question, and Canadians agreed. In a 2011 survey conducted by Nanos Research, 83% of Canadians agreed with mandatory public financial disclosure for both public and private sector unions, with support numbers rising to an incredible 95% in Quebec. Not only that, but across the country 86% of unionized workers agreed, even higher than the national average. Yet, union leaders nearly universally opposed this bill and what both Canadians and the people represented by the union leaders want.
Public opinion on the premise of this bill is clear. An overwhelming number of Canadians believe it should be mandatory for unions to publicly disclose detailed financial information on a regular basis. If 86% of Canadian unionized workers agree, why are union bosses themselves so opposed to a proposal that appeals so widely to their funders, the dues-payers, whether or not they are actual union members? Why are the New Democrats opposed?
What is more, union financial disclosure requirements like those contained in Bill C-377 are already law in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Ireland, the U.K. and the United States—in fact, in the United States since 1959. Labour unions in those countries have continued to successfully advocate for their members in the workplace, while respecting the principle of financial transparency, as well as those members and taxpayers who fund them. If similar legislation in other countries has not imperiled unions abroad, why can Canadians not benefit from the same openness and transparency as in Germany or France?
Our government is deeply committed to public transparency, and we have taken many measures in proudly promoting this important value. When we came to office in 2006, we heard from Canadians that they wanted and needed to be able to trust their government and to be confident that their hard-earned tax dollars were being carefully managed. We understood that, to regain this trust, real and significant reform was necessary. Over the years, we have worked hard to gain the trust of the Canadian people. We believe that, through our actions, we have achieved that.
In 2006, our government ushered in the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. The goal of the Federal Accountability Act was to make everyone in government, from the Prime Minister on down, fully accountable to Canadians. The act was intended to restore confidence in government for all Canadians, by streamlining and simplifying how it works and making it more effective and accountable. The changes for Canadians included strengthening the powers of the Auditor General; banning corporate union and large personal political donations; providing real protection for whistleblowers; ensuring government contracting is proper, fair and open; preventing lobbying by former ministers and other public office holders for five years; and creating a more open government by improving access to information.
For example, with respect to political reform, we limited donations so that there is no longer undue influence on politicians because of funding. The Federal Accountability Act banned secret donations and trust funds to politicians. It prevented the immediate move from government to lobbying, and it enhanced the role of the Ethics Commissioner and transformed the Conflict of Interest Code into law, previously an unofficial guideline.
In that spirit, I call on all members to support Bill C-377 and its pro-worker message.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta, I will just let her know that there remain only about eight minutes in the time allocated for both report stage and third reading of the bill that is before the House.
The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and speak against very badly thought-out and very mean-spirited legislation. Once again we see the Conservative agenda at play. Through private members' bills, we see the government's true agenda and in this case we see an attack on working people and trade unions. It is totally unnecessary.
I have heard a lot from my colleagues across the way that this is about protecting workers. If I were not so upset by this whole legislation, I might even laugh out loud at such a ridiculous comment being made by my colleagues.
The trade union was given birth in the 19th century during the industrial revolution in order to give working people rights, in order to form a collective, a union, so they could take on the mistreatment, the horrible treatment of children in the labour force, people being killed in the mines, people being mangled in machines, people not being paid proper wages, with horrible working conditions. Unions were not given to working people. Working people came together and decided if they wanted to create a balance in this new industrial world, they needed to form a collective to be able to negotiate with the employer.
I believe that relationship has served us well. As one of my colleagues said previously, it has led to a reasonable work week, benefits, pensions, and I know these are things my colleagues across the way do not value. It has led to a lot of our social support systems that we all cherish. However, the union movement has also been one of the greatest elements in growing the middle class. It not only has grown the middle class, it has also been one of the key agents in bringing about positive social justice change and building a more equitable and inclusive Canada for everyone, whether they are newcomers or whether they were born here. It is the union that goes to bat for an employee when the employer is remiss in carrying out its responsibilities. Unions act as an advocate.
It is absolutely ludicrous for a government that has shown so little transparency, where we cannot even find out 90% of the information we need to be a real parliamentary democracy in order to carry out our role as parliamentarians. We need it and yet Conservatives in their spare time attack unions which represent working people. By the way, let me remind my colleagues across the way every time they talk about a union boss, every one of those union bosses has been elected through a democratic process, just as the Conservatives were elected to sit in Parliament.
Conservatives may behave like belligerent, sometimes aggressive bosses and display that behaviour in here, but they do not have to try to transplant that on others. Union bosses and union leadership are elected by the membership. The membership dues are voted on by the membership.
When I hear the kind of argument by one of my colleagues, who I have a great deal of respect for when we are on a TV panel, say that she has talked to one union member, I have some news for her. I talk to hundreds and hundreds of Canadians who tell me this is not the Canada they want, not what they voted for and not where they want to go.
We live in a country that respects parliamentary democracy and respects our democratic structures. I know there is no better example of a democracy than in a union. There are votes after votes. Because we are a democracy and unions work in a democratic way, that is how decisions are made. That is how we avoid anarchy. If everybody gets to do whatever they want whenever they want, that is a formula for anarchy.
Unions collect their union dues based on a membership vote. They do a report to the membership on a regular basis. Before any money can be spent on any of the different programs that the unions run there is a vote. Running an anti-poverty program should not be a sin. Running a program to fight racism should not be considered a sin by my colleagues across the way. Any time any kind of money is spent on programs that the membership wants and votes for, the membership also votes to allocate money to those programs. Is that not what democracy is all about?
My colleagues across the way try to shut down democracy in Parliament. Not only do the Conservatives want to create red tape galore, which would not only be a financial burden on the taxpayers but also on taxpayers who are union members, they want to add hours and hours of paperwork. For what, voyeurism, just for snooping? Is there no such a thing as privacy?
At the same time, I do not see in this legislation that the Conservatives want the same kind of transparency from banks. They say that it is because unions get tax breaks. Well, the amount of tax breaks that banks and corporations get is a thousand times greater than any tax breaks any union member gets on his or her fees.
What is the real issue? The real issue is that the government cannot stand criticism of the way it is doing business in the country. When it cannot take criticism, it does three things. First, in the House, it calls closure and time allocation and shuts down debate. It has found ways to attack charities and to scare them into submission in many cases. Now, through hours and hours of useless paperwork and attacks, it is trying to shut down the voices of people who are saying that they want a different kind of Canada, a kinder, gentler and more economically sound Canada that includes everybody, not just the banks and the big corporations.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) All those opposed will please say nay.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 2.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The question is on the Motion No. 3 . Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 4 and 5.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill; however, pursuant to Standing Order 98, the divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, December 12, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.