House of Commons Hansard #36 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was union.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-525.
Earlier, in question period today, the Minister of Labour made a statement that I would not mind having attributed to myself. She called the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie the MP for CUPW.
Where I come from, we stand up for all the people in our community, whether they happen to be in CUPW or any other union. I want to commend that member for the good work he is doing.
I am reminded, when I look at this—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please.
The member for Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was present during question period today, as were most of the members in the House. I do not remember the Minister of Labour getting up once to answer a question. The hon. member may wish to correct the record.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate, a matter of the facts of a previous part of the day's proceedings.
The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. It was the former minister of labour, now the Minister of Transport. I thank the member for pointing that out to me.
When I look at the bill, I am reminded of part of an old labour song, Solidarity Forever, that nothing is weaker than the feeble strength of one. That is one of the reasons that in the 1940s in Canada, we started down the road to unionization. Many of the fathers of the good veterans we have in this place today were probably part of that union movement when they came home from the war and did not like the imbalance in labour relations in this country.
To be clear for the record, I was the president of a communication workers local for Bell Canada. For a number of years, I was president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council. I was very proud to serve in those positions. For the record as well, those were non-paid positions.
Some people in this place like to refer to labour unions in a variety of disparaging ways, but I want to be clear tonight about Bill C-525. It is nothing less than a back-door attempt to weaken those organizations that protect workers every day in the workplace, the labour unions. Bill C-525 would do so by fundamentally changing the processes for certifying or decertifying a union under federal jurisdiction. I believe the sole purpose of Bill C-525 is to bring union organizing in the federal jurisdiction to a complete halt. It is nothing short of a very sly way to create a situation that the Conservative government hopes will lead to a drastic increase in union decertification. The Conservatives hope to succeed by bringing about a low turnout of members, and just as voter suppression has been taking place in federal voting, they plan on dealing with that same issue in the same manner of allowing fewer people to decertify a union.
Decades, or some 70 years, of business, government, and labour unions working together, have gone into the processes that we have today, and the government tends to leave out the fact that when a backbencher puts forward such a bill, it is adding to its own efforts. Another bill before this House is Bill C-377. Between the two bills, the goal is obvious: to set back labour relations in Canada to the bad old days of the 1940s.
Hamilton was one of those places in Canada where former veterans and workers banded together to get union representation. It was Justice Rand in his wisdom in 1946 who said that if a person was part of a union, they did not have to join it but had to pay for the free collective bargaining, which was not free. They had to contribute their union dues. Again, they did not have to be a member, but they were sharing the cost.
Where are the consultations, the due diligence, required for such a change? With Bill C-525 that simply has not happened. It was crafted without any consultation with the key stakeholders from either the union or employers' side.
I believe it is irresponsible on the part of the Conservative government to allow a private member's bill to amend Canada's labour relations legislation. If there were any case at all for changes to our labour relations legislation, then there must be consultations with all the stakeholders, and a full study before proceeding to draft any such bill. It should absolutely be done by a government bill, not a private member's bill.
These changes, as set out in Bill C-525, would weaken the ability of workers to seek union representation for collective bargaining, as well as advocacy on their behalf when disputes arise with their employers.
The bill would increase the number of membership cards needed to trigger union certification or decertification. It would eliminate the option to form a union through a majority card check, which would leave workers vulnerable to intimidation by employers, or worse, to those third parties hired.
I have stood before those third parties. I have been on picket lines many times where the third parties were hired and were standing on the other side of the picket line with baseball bats in their hands.
I am not sure, but I hope the member proposing this change simply does not understand or appreciate the risks that some workers face. It is their fundamental right to withdraw their services after a due vote, and when they do so they should not be put at risk.
Currently, if a majority of workers vote in favour of forming a union, then that union is certified. Under the new rules, a majority of the entire bargaining unit, not just those who turn out for the vote, must vote in favour of forming a union. Non-unions would essentially be counted, under this new proposal, as voting against a union simply if they are not in attendance.
Under the decertification process proposed in Bill C-525, the new rules would require a majority of the membership to vote in favour of continuing representation, to prevent decertification. In other words, it would make it almost automatic if there is no participation.
If we look at how low the voting patterns are in our elections and if rules like that applied, then MPs would wind up not sitting in these seats because the assumption would be against their being elected. It is the same thing.
For workers covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the bill would require 55% of members to vote for continued representation, to prevent decertification. That stacks the cards against people's rights. It is their right to make this determination.
As I indicated earlier, Bill C-525 would throw the Canada Labour Code out the back door. It would forego the dialogue and the consultative processes developed over seventy years that have made changing labour legislation a progressive practice where the rights of workers are always a major aspect involved in any discussion with employers and workers.
It is clear to even a casual observer that this private member's bill is gerrymandered for union busting. It would make it nearly impossible for Canadian workers in the federal jurisdiction to form a union. Like Bill C-377 last year, the Conservative government is using the back door by way of a private member's bill to open the labour code instead of admitting that it is simply a Trojan Horse piece of government legislation.
If the government truly feels that legislative change is necessary—and that is a possibility—the Minister of Labour should bring it before the stakeholders in the business and labour community and consult with them and then do due diligence by way of a study before drafting changes to our labour relations act.
Failing that, the government needs to understand that the opposition now sees this legislation for what it truly is. Soon all Canadians will understand it is yet another example of the Conservatives' agenda to drive down the wages of the middle class and make Canadian workers work for less.
Bill C-525 is a reckless and radical piece of legislation taken straight from the Republican playbook in the United States.
Contrary to the rhetoric of the extreme political right, attacks on collective bargaining do not promote economic growth, but rather they drive income inequality and create toxic work environments that turn Canadians against each other.
Organized workers in Canada have delivered results: better wages, more rights for workers and a more secure future, not just for union members but for all Canadians.
There is a bumper sticker that says, “Unions: the people who brought you the weekend”. That is a bit light for this occasion but it is a fact. If it were not for unions in this country, people would be working six days a week, twelve hours a day, for next to nothing.
Some people work very hard in this country and they happen to be members of a union. They are proud of the work they do, and I am proud of them.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House to speak today to the employees' voting rights act, Bill C-525, put forward by my colleague. The bill aims to amend the rules for union certification and decertification in federally regulated workplaces to ensure that individuals have access to a secret ballot system.
I commend my hon. colleague for raising this issue. Democracy is fundamental to Canadian society, and all employees should have the right to express whether they wish to be part of a union. Why would the NDP and the Liberals want to remove this right, which they would do if they did not vote for Bill C-525?
Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers while ensuring a productive environment for businesses. The Canada Labour Code guarantees employees a set of rights, including safe working conditions and minimum labour standards. One of those rights is the right to join or not join a union.
In Canada about 30% of all workers belong to unions, which include the more traditional unionized occupations. They include manufacturing workers, miners, electricians, and workers in other construction trades. They also include professionals, such as engineers and nurses, and employees in federal, provincial, and municipal public administrations, schools, and hospitals.
Unions are for the most part very democratic organizations. The employees' voting rights act would extend that principle. It would help to ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express their wishes about certifying or decertifying a union.
Currently, under federal labour legislation, a card check system can be used to form a union. If the majority of the employees sign membership cards, the relevant labour board can automatically certify a union. For example, under the current system, if 11 out of 20 employees sign a union membership card, the remaining nine individuals may not even be asked to sign. They may not even be aware that their colleagues want to form a union, yet they would automatically be unionized.
It is like in Manitoba. We all know how unaccountable the NDP members are in Manitoba, with the premier now the lowest in popularity of all the premiers in Canada. I am sure today's byelections in Arthur-Virden and Morris will prove the lack of accountability and democratic accountability even more.
This means that in many cases, unions can be certified without giving all employees the fair opportunity to truly express their wishes.
The employees' voting rights act proposes to eliminate automatic certification and to use mandatory secret ballot votes to certify or decertify unions in all cases. Voting, which was once the exception, would now be the rule for certifying or decertifying unions at the federal level. It would ensure that all employees would have an equal opportunity to express themselves through a secret ballot vote when considering whether to certify or decertify a union.
I absolutely support the right of every employee to a secret ballot vote. It would provide every employee with the ability to voice an opinion and would give people time to fully consider their options. That is why I support the principle of the employees' voting rights act and will vote in favour at second reading.
I have been hearing from stakeholders, and I understand that there may be some concerns about certain provisions of the bill. Mr. Speaker, with your support, the House committee will have an opportunity to carefully study the bill and consult with key stakeholders to consider their input and views. As I said, I support the principle of the employees' voting rights act. The bill must find the right balance between the needs of employees, unions, and employers. I am confident that the bill could do just that.
I would like to encourage my hon. colleagues to support the bill at second reading and to defend the democratic rights of the workers of our country. This legislation would ensure that every federally regulated employee would have access to a secret ballot vote when considering union representation. It would ensure that employees would determine for themselves whether they wished to be represented by a union, and they could have their voices heard.
With any legislation, it is always important to hear the views and feedback of those who would be most impacted and to take these into careful consideration. I have no doubt that the members of this House committee will carefully consider the principles behind this bill and examine the unique perspectives of the employees, unions, and employer groups that will provide needed perspective on this bill.
I would like to again take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for working to support the rights of employees by raising this issue and I encourage my hon. colleagues to stand in support of this bill at second reading.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to comment on private member's Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent), I cannot help but feel a little angry.
Actually, that is an understatement. I am very angry. When someone tries to amend the Canada Labour Code, we expect the proposed measures to improve problematic situations at least a little. In this case, the bill is yet another attack on an institution that has proven its worth and has made a significant contribution to ensuring quality of life for its members and, by extension, many workers in our society. That institution is the union movement.
I do not know what the unions can possibly have done for the government to treat them like this, but as a former president of a teachers' union in my riding, I will always stand up to fight for the fundamental rights of workers.
This private member's bill is clearly part of the government's agenda. There is no way this just happened by accident.
If this bill passes, it would be a first. As far as I know, changes to labour relations legislation have never been introduced via a private member's bill. Governments that do things properly and truly want to improve labour relations do not feel the need to slip changes in through the back door. They stand up in the House, introduce a bill and put it through the legislative process.
In the past, changes to the Canada Labour Code have come about following discussions between employers and workers, not when an MP stands up to say that he has made the discovery of the century.
That being said, what makes me most angry is the fact that I cannot pretend I am surprised. Since its inception, the union movement has come under constant attack, and that is still happening today.
Worse still, the changes this bill proposes are a direct attack on our democratic rules because they would establish a separate system that applies only to unions. Let us take a closer look at the changes proposed in this work of genius, Bill C-525.
Two processes would be undermined: the certification and decertification of unions in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. For now, this applies only to workplaces under federal jurisdiction.
Let us start with the process of union certification. Normally, when employees in a workplace decide to organize in order to establish a union, they discuss things with their colleagues with a view to presenting the benefits of association when the time comes to negotiate working conditions, for example, or a first collective agreement. They then invite them to sign a membership card if the union's objectives are in line with their expectations.
The union then files an application for certification with the Canada Labour Relations Board. If the application fulfills the requirements of the Canada Labour Code and if 50% of the members have signed a card, the union is automatically certified.
However, there is a second possibility. If between 35% and 50% of the members have signed a card, the Canada Labour Relations Board organizes a vote of the employees to determine the future of the potential union. A majority vote means that a union organization can be formed in that workplace.
Now here is the low point of the evening, the appalling proposal in Bill C-525. First, for the Canada Labour Relations Board to hold a vote, it will now require a minimum of 45%, not 35%, of the workers in the company. It gets even worse. When the vote is held, a majority of the entire bargaining unit—not 50% + 1 of the members at the meeting—must vote for the creation of the union. In other words, all those who do not vote would be deemed to have voted against a union being formed. Now we are playing with people's heads and telling them what to think when they are absent. If this is not vote-rigging, I really wonder what it is.
For a moment, let us imagine that, in the 2011 federal election, we had counted the votes of everyone who did not get out to vote as a vote against the re-election of the Conservative government. I am sure that the Conservative ranks would be up in arms. However, in this case, since it is about organizing a union, to hell with democracy; let us go for it.
If that were not enough, the process works in reverse for decertifying a union. The new rules would require a majority of the members of the certified unit to vote in favour of keeping their union representation. They would also require that everyone who did not vote be deemed to have voted for revocation. That effectively means that we are forging the signatures of people who are not there.
The bill would also require that 55% of members vote in favour of union representation in order to prevent decertification. Clearly, the concept of 50% plus one is light years away from Conservative thinking. That might explain why this government has such a hard time taking a position on the Quebec issue.
To continue with my analogy, this new directive would mean that all those who did not vote during the last federal election in 2011 would be added to those who voted for an opposition party, and therefore the Conservative government would be required to clear the government benches. In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but that does not seem to be the case here.
I know very few MPs in the House who would be able to meet such pseudo-democratic standards under this approach. The purpose of Bill C-525 is to manipulate union elections and make it practically impossible for workers to form a union.
To add insult to injury, this attack comes in addition to the one in Bill C-377. That is the real story behind this anti-democratic bill that reflects a Conservative, even Republican, ideology that has nothing to do with Canadian and Quebec values.
This bill is also economically counterproductive because it helps widen the income inequality gap, accelerates the downward spiral of middle-class wages, and creates work environments fostering conflict between managers and workers.
Unions have always contributed to improving working conditions, wages, and health and safety standards, not just for unionized employees but also for all other workers, by extension. However, it is no secret that this government is resolutely anti-union.
I remember one of my first debate experiences in the House, when we were discussing the Canada Post dispute. With the support of the current government, Canada Post locked out its employees, but the government kept saying that the employees were striking.
If the government truly wanted to reflect greater neutrality when it comes to employer-employee relations, it could have proposed something much better. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to expand on that.
In closing, the House can count on my presence to firmly oppose this bill. I urge all members of the House to review the bill very carefully and ask themselves whether this is the kind of democracy they want for our country. By the way, there are not multiple kinds of democracy—one for politics, one for unions and one for community organizations. The “Code Morin” and the 50% plus one rule exist for everyone, and the rules work.
While we await that day in October 2015 when Canadians will choose a new government, every worker in this country can count on the NDP to defend their interests. We are the only party that can embody the “working together” slogan, which so many people can identify with, and we embody it for the simple reason that it is part of our DNA in the NDP.
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-525, the employees' voting rights act. This bill is about a very simple principle in Canadian democracy, the right for people to vote freely, in this case on whether they wish to belong to a union. I would like to thank my colleague and the very hard-working hon. member for Wetaskiwin for raising such an important issue in this House.
What is the employees' voting rights act all about? It is about ensuring free choice for employees to decide whether they wish to be represented by a union. We use secret ballots when people vote during federal, provincial or municipal elections. Why should we not apply the same principle when employees have to decide if they want to belong or cease to belong to a union? Furthermore, if a major union chooses its own leaders through a secret ballot, why should the same principle not apply to its membership? This is the purpose of the employees' voting rights act. It would amend the union certification and decertification voting rules in federally regulated workplaces to ensure secret ballot votes in all cases.
Why is it necessary to change these rules? The current card check system does not guarantee that employees' intentions are reflected, nor does it ensure that all employees have the ability to express their own views. Employees should have the right to a fair process that is fully democratic. These voting rules need to be modernized accordingly. A secret ballot would afford employees the important opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of joining a union. No one can disagree with the fundamental principle that secrecy is vital when it comes to any kind of voting. It protects the voters' freedom. It protects employees from the scrutiny of fellow colleagues, union organizers and employers. Is that not what democracy is all about?
I hear members on the opposite side claiming that this bill would not be fair to workers, so let us talk about fairness. How fair is the current process? In some cases under the existing system, unions can obtain certification despite a sizable portion of their membership not expressing themselves at all. In short, their opinion does not matter. For example, if 52% of employees sign a union card, the union certification is automatically granted. This means that the remaining 48% may not have been consulted or expressed themselves on such an important issue. The decision to form or decertify a collective bargaining unit is far too important an issue to be taken lightly. The employees' voting rights act would put an end to automatic certification.
Bill C-525 would not take away any rights from employees; on the contrary, it would empower employees. They would still have the right to be unionized if the majority of workers in their workplace want to be unionized. To ensure this decision is taken in a fair and democratic fashion, this bill would establish mandatory secret ballots in all federally regulated workplaces in regard to union certification or decertification. With this system, co-workers would not know how other workers voted, union representatives would not know how they voted, and the employer would not know how they voted. That would give employees the freedom to vote the way they want to and have their opinion heard, while maintaining their privacy.
I am sure everyone in this House would agree that privacy in voting is paramount in the democratic process. A secret ballot would simply guarantee that workers would cast their vote away from the pressures of others, and after the needed time, to consider their options. Let us face it: a secret ballot is the only way to ensure that the views of all employees are taken into consideration. If unions have the support of the majority of workers, they should have no concerns whatsoever about confirming this support through a secret vote.
Our government will continue working to ensure that federally regulated workplaces in Canada remain productive, safe, and fair. We will continue our quest to create jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.
I truly hope that my fellow MPs will understand that the employees' voting rights act serves both workers and employers. This is why I strongly urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-525, so that we can receive input from key stakeholders in committee.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to stand accurately in my place and give the right of reply to the debate at second hour reading of my bill, the employees' voting rights act.
First of all, allow me to thank all of my colleagues, not only from this side of the House, but throughout the House, for their valuable input into this legislation.
It is absolutely crucial that we have a discussion about this. As I said in my previous speech, constituents have brought concerns about the fairness of the process to my attention, and they were the reason for me bringing this legislation forward. I would like to thank them for their courage in coming forward and telling me about this, understanding the kinds of repercussions that they would face from their union leaders if it were ever found out that they had spoken to me about these kinds of things.
Notwithstanding that, I would like to dismiss some of the allegations that we have heard in the House. I have heard opposition members say that no member of Parliament would ever get elected at the thresholds that were set for this.
I would like to remind all hon. members that the threshold for union certification is 50% plus 1 in a card check system. My legislation proposes the very same threshold, but through a secret ballot vote. If it can be done through card check certification, why could it not be done through a secret ballot vote? That is a question that nobody arguing against my bill is prepared to answer. They do not want to answer the question because they know that the fear, intimidation, and the other tactics employed in a union certification drive will come to light and that is something to which they simply do not want to expose themselves.
I have heard from other members over here, saying that the same threshold does not apply to members of Parliament, as it does in this particular case. Well, at least I face a secret ballot vote, as all of my colleagues do in the House, when it comes to making the determination.
The red herring in the mix is the fact that a yes/no question is a referendum question, which is what my bill is actually dealing with, not a first past the post system, which we currently have when we vote for members of Parliament. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that someone in a 5- or 6-way race would get 50% plus 1 of the votes. It is a complete red herring and, quite frankly, it is an illogical argument being prepared by the other side. However, I am happy to report that in one of my elections, I did get 50% plus 1, notwithstanding the votes for the opposition and the folks who refrained from voting. I owe that to the good common sense of the people back home in the riding of Wetaskiwin.
In closing, I would also like to draw out some of the other misinformation that was here. I have heard it said that this bill is not in line with Quebec values. We know from polling results that when we ask Canadians across the country whether they would like to have a secret ballot vote during the certification and decertification process of a union, the answer is overwhelmingly always in the 80% range. I have not seen a poll at less than 80% or 82%. In fact, the numbers are actually higher in Quebec, and when we ask current or former union members, that percentage is even higher.
My legislation, as it is proposed in principle, is completely onside with the values that Canadians hold dear. They want a secret ballot vote. These workers deserve an opportunity to determine what is in their best interests. Whether or not the union can make the pitch, whether or not they can provide better services for those workers, and whether or not the employer can make that pitch, the workers have every right to decide what is in their best interests, and the best interests of their families, insofar as what they choose to do and where they want to work.
I would encourage all members to stand in this place at the second reading vote on this bill and show, through their democratic right in this House, whether they actually believe in democracy.
Does the New Democratic Party actually mean the “No Democratic Party”, with no democracy unless it suits the party's needs? We will find out.
I know that my colleagues on this side of the House will support my legislation, or I am at least very hopeful that they will. Let us get this bill to committee and hear from the stakeholders at the committee stage. The government has indicated that it is looking at amendments to the bill. I am okay with that as long as we keep the true spirit and intention of the bill, which is to ensure that we have a democratic and mandatory secret ballot vote during the certification and decertification process.
That is in the best interests of Canadians. It is in the best interests of our society. It is in the best interests from a public policy perspective.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order. The time provided for debate has expired.
The question is on the motion. 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 yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 29, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Official LanguagesAdjournment ProceedingsPrivate Members' Business
January 28th, 2014 / 6:55 p.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to revisit a question I raised on November 7, 2013, regarding the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk some more about one of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his 2012-13 annual report. To begin, however, I would first like to report on the implementation of some of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages since 2006.
According to a table prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, from 2006-07 to 2010-11, the Conservative government implemented only 10% of the 39 recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages. The table shows that the government failed to implement 20% of the Commissioner's recommendations and that it did not follow up on 31% of the recommendations. This makes no sense. Clearly, the Conservative government does not take its obligations under the Official Languages Act very seriously.
As for the recommendations in the most recent annual report issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, I would like to focus on those dealing with access to justice. This was recommendation no. 5:
The Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario and the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick joined forces to conduct a study on the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary and recommend solutions to encourage Canadians to exercise their right to justice in the official language of their choice. Implementing these solutions depends on a collaborative approach between Canada’s Minister of Justice and his provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as the superior court chief justices. The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that, by September 1, 2014, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada implement a collaborative approach with his provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that the bilingual capacity of Canada’s superior court judiciary is consistent and appropriate at all times.
In his study of the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary, the Commissioner of Official Languages points out that obstacles to justice in both official languages have been known for some time, but despite several interventions on this front, progress in appointing bilingual judges has stalled.
For many Canadians, access to justice continues to be a challenge, and for many members of minority language communities, language remains one of several barriers. The commissioner's findings show that much work remains to be done to ensure that a sufficient number of bilingual superior court judges are appointed.
My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Official Languages to ask the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to report on measures he intended to take in response to this study. Unfortunately, the Conservative government opposed that motion.
Even though the Conservative government is using every trick in the book to delay the official languages file, my NDP colleagues and I will continue to stand up for language rights and support the development of our official language communities. To that end, Bill C-208, which was introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, is about the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges and will be debated at second reading at the end of February. Bill C-208 would amend the Supreme Court Act to create a new requirement for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
My question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is simple. What will she do to reverse the decline of official languages that has occurred under her government?
Official LanguagesAdjournment ProceedingsPrivate Members' Business
Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Québec
Conservative
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, our government is a strong supporter of our country's linguistic duality. It is a critical part of who we are as a country, and we will continue to support minority language communities.
We recognize that francophone and anglophone communities make our society more culturally, socially and economically vibrant.
The 2008-13 roadmap resulted in significant progress in a variety of areas, including the economic development of official language communities and the promotion of linguistic duality.
The commissioner acknowledged the success of the 2008-13 roadmap in his 2012-13 annual report. He said the following in his report:
...the 2008-2013 Roadmap resulted in significant progress in a variety of areas, such as health care, justice, the economic development of official language communities, immigration in French-speaking minority communities and the promotion of linguistic duality.
Following extensive consultations across Canada, our government introduced the new roadmap, which focuses on education, immigration and community support.
The $1.1 billion being invested in the new roadmap is the most comprehensive investment in official languages in Canadian history. Those funds will strengthen existing francophone communities in Canada and will bring the French language and culture to new communities across the country.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, acknowledged the importance of our government's historic investment in support of our two official languages. Mr. Fraser said this:
These initiatives have enabled a number of English-speaking and French-speaking communities to gain momentum over the years, giving them reason to be optimistic about the future.
Our government also recognizes the importance of a bilingual education. Each year, our government invests $86 million to support immersion programs in every province and territory in Canada.
The commissioner recognized the success of that investment during his presentation to the Standing Committee on Official Languages on December 2, 2013. I would like to share his comments with my colleagues.
Investments in immersion programs across the country have resulted in a new generation of bilingual Canadians, many of whom are now in post-secondary institutions.
Our government's commitment to protecting, celebrating and strengthening our two official languages has never been clearer.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the damning report on the government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I would like to point out that, in addition to this very disappointing record, the Conservative government has repeatedly shown its contempt for our official languages. Let me list some examples.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs had unilingual business cards. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages. In his report, the commissioner asked the minister to destroy his unilingual cards. There has still been no public follow-up on the matter.
Another example is the closure of French-language and bilingual scientific libraries. In 2012, the Conservative government announced the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, Quebec, and the Gulf Fisheries Centre in Moncton, New Brunswick. Those two Fisheries and Oceans Canada libraries were serving French-speaking scientists. No compensating measure has been announced to offset the obvious negative consequences of those closures for francophones. We are still waiting for a definitive answer on the Maurice Lamontagne Institute. Those are just a few examples in a very long list.
This step backwards in terms of official languages is unacceptable. The minister must show leadership and must do everything in her power to promote linguistic duality in Canada.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, the tremendous investment of $1.1 billion in the 2008-13 roadmap has been maintained for the new 2013-18 roadmap.
The funding for the roadmap has been renewed and is now permanent. In fact, although three-quarters of the funding for the 2008-13 roadmap had permanent support, from now on, all the initiatives in the 2013-18 roadmap will be permanently funded, as we announced in budget 2013.
Our support for official languages is the most significant investment ever made by any federal government.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, last December the issues of confidentiality of private health information being shared by Canadian authorities with the U.S. border service was raised by me and my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The incident that causes me and others such great concern over the security of our private health information stemmed from the treatment that Ellen Richardson, a paraplegic and a constituent of mine, received on her way through the United States to take a Caribbean vacation with the March of Dimes.
She was stopped at the U.S. border by a security agent who questioned her about a hospitalization episode that she had experienced in 2012 for depression. As a result, she was denied entrance into the U.S. for her mental illness episode, and unfortunately lost her cruise. The U.S. authority had detailed information about her hospitalization.
Last December 2, we asked the minister to explain to the House how a U.S. border agent would know about a Canadian's private medical history. The answer we got was less than satisfactory. It was simply that the government was committed to ensuring the privacy of Canadian health files and that health information was a provincial responsibility.
However, that did not explain how Mrs. Richardson's private health information got into the hands of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I followed up on December 3 with a more direct question: What was the government going to do to ensure that the private medical records of Canadians would be protected?
The answer I received from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was less than helpful, but it was revealing. He said, “I can tell the member that we have the Canadian Police Information Centre, but his question should be addressed to the U.S. authority.”
The Canadian Police Information Centre is a database maintained by the RCMP, a federal agency that collects data shared by police forces across Canada. It has data on wanted persons by legal authorities, people accused of crimes, people under criminal surveillance, people on probation or parole, missing persons, wandering persons registered under the wandering persons registry, and stolen property. It is a database that is shared, apparently without any fetter, with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
When the minister said “we have the Canadian Police Information Centre, but his question should be addressed to the U.S. authority”, he is essentially telling us that Mrs. Richardson's information was in CPIC and that we should question the U.S. policy that led to refusing Mrs. Richardson transit through the U.S. to her cruise.
However, he misses the point. Mrs. Richardson is not a person who has a criminal record. She is not wanted by the police or under surveillance, and she is not on probation or parole. Her medical information is there due to a 9-1-1 call involving her hospitalization episode, which is hardly a criminal activity. This is not information that needed to be shared with anybody, let alone the U.S.
Again, what is the government doing about protecting the private medical information of Canadians? The RCMP is a federal agency. It is responsible for the Canadian Police Information Centre. It controls what is held in it and what can or ought to be released to non-Canadian agencies. Clearly, non-criminal information and private health information of Canadian citizens ought not to be shared.
The government claims to respect the privacy of the medical records of Canadians, so what steps will it take to ensure this is done with respect to the Canadian Police Information Centre?
PrivacyAdjournment ProceedingsPrivate Members' Business
Scarborough Centre Ontario
Conservative
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member for York South—Weston regarding the access and use of Canadian Police Information Centre information by U.S. authorities. For the information of the member and those who may be watching at home, the Canadian Police Information Centre is also known as CPIC.
The CPIC system is Canadian law enforcement's primary conduit for exchanging police information. I would like to take this opportunity to assure all members of the House that personal medical information is not stored in the CPIC system. What is stored, however, is investigative and intelligence information that is important for the administration or enforcement of the law in the detention, prevention or suppression of crime generally and for national security purposes. In the interests of public safety, the information may include observed behaviours and detention under provincial mental health legislation. Knowledge of such information is intended to protect individuals from harming themselves, the general public or law enforcement members. It allows law enforcement to be better equipped to respond to immediate and future incidents.
In a law enforcement and public safety context, information sharing between Canada and the United States is needed to address border threats at the very earliest possible stages. The RCMP and the FBI have a memorandum of co-operation for the electronic exchange of information contained in the CPIC system and the U.S. national crime information system. This exchange of information, which is vital for public safety and national security reasons, is reciprocal. U.S. law enforcement agencies have access to CPIC information, as Canadian law enforcement agencies have access to the American information. It goes both ways. Under the terms of this memorandum, customs and border protection are permitted to access CPIC.
I would like to remind members of the House that entry into a foreign country is governed by that country's laws and policies, and Canada has absolutely no authority to direct the U.S. with respect to allowing individuals entry into that country.
Lastly, should any individuals have concerns with their treatment by American border officials, I would encourage them to contact the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member has failed to answer the fundamental question, which is this. How is it that the CPIC data, which apparently included her medical information, was then shared with the U.S. authorities?
If, as the member says, medical information is not shared, then there should be a fetter. There should be some kind of way of restricting what information is in fact shared with the U.S. However, as she later said, U.S. agents have complete and unfettered access to the information in the database and, therefore, it would appear that is how the medical information got shared with the U.S. agents.
The question still remains. What will the government do to ensure that this does not happen again, that medical information, which may be placed in this database for whatever reason the local police service decides to put the medical information in, should never be shared with U.S. authorities or with any other foreign body or agency?
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate one point from my initial remarks. I want to make it very clear that in the interests of public safety, this information may include observed behaviours and detention under provincial mental health legislation. Therefore, my answer has been quite clear.
When it comes to border security, the NDP has voted against every single measure that this Conservative government has tried to pass and, thankfully, we have passed. For example, our government increased front-line border guards by 26%, and the NDP voted against it. Our government passed tough legislation to crack down on human smugglers, and the NDP voted against it. Our government passed legislation to ensure that foreign criminals are removed from Canada quickly, and—guess what—the NDP voted against it.
In closing, I would like to assure Canadians that they can count on this government to keep our communities safe.