Debates of March 26th, 2014

Motions in amendment

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am proud to be rising today to speak in opposition to this private member's bill. It is unprecedented in that it changes the Canada Labour Code in ways that only a government should. The Canada Labour Code is one of the crown jewels in the legislative mix the government has at its disposal in that it regulates how labour unions and their employers in the federal sphere do business with one another.

We in Canada have an almost unique system of labour relations. If we look at Europe or other parts of the world, the system of labour relations is not governed the way it is in Canada, and to a certain extent, in the United States. However, what drives that is the balancing act that goes on between employees and employers. It is that balance that is being tampered with here by the member's private member's bill. The balance is such that employers and employees have relatively equal weight, particularly in a unionized workplace, to afford themselves the ability to make sure that their working conditions, their level of pay, and the system by which they are hired, fired, kept on, and moved ahead is fair, reasonable, and acceptable to both sides.

Tampering with the Canada Labour Code through a private member's bill sends a bit of a shock wave through the whole labour and management community in our country.

It is not just labour that is opposed to this. We heard the name Mr. George Smith. I sat opposite Mr. Smith in bargaining on a considerable number of occasions. He was on the opposite side of the fence from us. He too is concerned that this is a backdoor way of making changes that have nothing to do with a problem that has developed in the way Canada's labour relations have been conducted. Instead, it is part of an ideological anti-worker drive that has been carried on by the government since at least I have been here, since at least it has had a majority government.

In my first few days as a member of Parliament, we spent quite a few hours here debating whether the government should force an end to a lockout at Canada Post. The government took the position that it should set the wages of Canada Post workers and should return them to the job with a lower wage than the company had already offered. That in itself is an anti-worker position. However, just Monday of this week, the member for Essex told me that Canada Post is an arm's-length agency and the government has nothing to do with it.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that Canada Post has nothing to do with the government and is therefore isolated and untouchable and at the same time, two short years ago, force those workers to take a lower wage increase than they had been offered by their employer.

It is part of the government's ideological bent to be anti-worker in our country. I say ideological, because there is no reason to it. Those workers are workers both in union and non-union workplaces.

Following hard on the heels of the Canada Post debacle, we then had the government ordering Air Canada workers, who had not even started a strike, back to work. There was no strike, yet we had a piece of legislation to order them back and to tamper with their collective agreement as well.

Then we had the Canadian Pacific workers. Canadian Pacific is a private corporation. We had the government interfering in that round of bargaining as well.

The government takes a position over and over again that is anti-workers in this country.

Then we had the spectre of the two of the three omnibus bills we have dealt with so far making changes to how workers and their employers manage their relations with one another. In one case, the government changed the holiday provisions of the labour code in an omnibus bill, which was never referred to in the budget but was in the budget implementation act. All of a sudden we find things appearing that are anti-worker and that change the terms and conditions of how they are to deal with employers. It is done in a sneaky way, with a few lines stuck in an omnibus bill that were never signalled, nor was there any complaint from any employers that there was a problem.

Then we had a reduction in the health and safety provisions of federally regulated workers in the next omnibus bill last year. Was there a big hue and cry from employers that they needed this change? There was none. The government just went ahead and did it. And the Conservatives did it because they are ideologically opposed to workers in this country, which is very dangerous.

We had the President of the Treasury Board trying to create some kind of crisis in the workforce that he represents and is the boss of, with his suggestion that the use of sick leave was somehow out of control. It turned out, when the real data came out, that it was not out of control and that there was not a massive problem of dozens of days of sick leave being used. In fact, his so-called averages had included time not paid for and time on long-term disability. So it made no sense, but it was part of the ideological spectrum that we have seen across the aisle.

Today, he gleefully announced that he had managed to wrest $1.7 billion out of these same workers, who will now have less money in their pockets. The Conservatives somehow have now reduced not just the workers', but also the retirees' future expectations of how much money they will have. It is part of the government's agenda to attack workers, to lower their standard of living, to lower their ability to pay for their heating bill of this winter, to pay for their drugs. All of the things that we expect to be able to pay for, the Conservatives have just said we cannot pay for as much as we used to be able to.

In the EI system, the current government has taken another ideological bent against workers. Already we are aware that only 40% of workers in this country can qualify for EI at any given moment. In addition, with the changes the Conservatives brought forward last year to the EI regulations, workers on EI will now have to accept a job paying 30% less than the job they were fired or laid off from. So we are driving down wages yet again with the EI regulations.

It does not have to be this way. We know that unions in this country contribute immensely to the gross domestic product of this country. If we compare unionized and non-unionized workplaces, generally across the country unionized workplaces pay about $5 an hour more than non-unionized ones, which results in about $730 million, nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars, a week extra into the economy. Where does that money go? It generally goes to purchases, to keeping a family with heat and light and clothing, to managing children's day care. All of these things that ordinary Canadians expect to be able to do, they are better able to do in a unionized workplace than a non-unionized one. Women do even better than that, having an average wage of $6 an hour more as a result of being in a unionized workplace.

So what is this bill attempting to do? It is attempting to make it more difficult to be in a unionized workplace. We have seen lots of statistics showing that is exactly what these changes would do. They would make it more difficult to start a union in the first place, and in workplaces where the unionized workforce decides to remove the union, it would make it easier to remove the union by lowering the threshold at which a vote must be taken.

Those of us who have done this work in the past know that once a vote is taken and that process is commenced, the employer starts to put pressure on the employees. The employer starts to use unfair and illegal intimidation tactics, which I have experienced, pressuring employees to vote against a union. That is precisely why we have card-check certification in this country, to avoid those intimidation and other pressure tactics by employers to force people to turn away from a union. Why do employers not like unions? It is because they know that unions do better for their workers, not because they hurt the workplaces themselves.

I look forward to voting against this bill when it comes up for a vote.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of many people who would have liked to speak to this bill. I will try to use my time wisely tonight to share with the House both my point of view and that of a union that is close to my heart. I am fortunate to be the NDP deputy critic for public safety. It being such a large file, one that includes police services, the RCMP and federal penitentiaries, I have the opportunity to meet exceptional people who work day in and day out to keep us safe. I salute them.

I salute the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, the UCCO-SACC, which does outstanding work every day to protect us and to make our communities, our cities and our towns safe. Their work is incredibly important for public safety because they ensure that we are safe and that those detained in our prisons are as well. These people put their lives on the line every day. I work closely with them to ensure that their voices are heard in Parliament and that we understand what they face on a daily basis.

Until recently, there were three federal penitentiaries in my riding of Laval: the Leclerc Institution, the Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre. Unfortunately, as a result of a Conservative government decision, the Leclerc Institution was shut down last year. We still do not understand why, though, because there was a need for it, especially in light of the implications of Bill C-10, the omnibus bill implemented by that same Conservative government.

These people are incredible workers. I worked closely with Diderot at the Leclerc Institution, who is now at the Federal Training Centre. I often work with Michel and Manon, the union representatives at the Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre. I know that they work hard to keep us safe. A lot happens inside our prisons that goes unmentioned. No one talks about double-bunking, which puts the work and lives of our correctional officers in danger every day. No one talks about workers' safety, the new workload resulting from the implementation of Bill C-10, the restrictive measures or the budget cuts in our federal penitentiaries. That affects them greatly.

I would like to point out that “federal penitentiaries” means “federal employees”. Bill C-525 affects them directly. I would like to quote their position on Bill C-525:

Bill C-525: an attack on union democracy. Bill C-525 is the [Conservative] government's attack on the very existence of unions in job sectors governed by the Canada Labour Code, including the federal public service, which governs the job rules for 800,000 Canadian workers. Dressed up as a way to increase union democracy by the party that brought us robocalls, voter suppression, election-expense violations and the Senate scandal, the bill in fact does exactly the opposite.

I could not agree more with the UCCO-SACC. They go on to say:

[The] Conservative MP [for] Wetaskiwin introduced the so-called Employee’s Voting Rights Act as a private member’s bill...

Important to note is the fact that private member’s bills are not subject to constitutional verification by Justice department lawyers—as are government bills—to see if they conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is no doubt one reason why the [Conservative] government prefers to introduce oppressive legislation of this sort via private member’s bills.

In the case of Bill C-525, [the Conservative government] is attacking our fundamental right of association by making certification of new unions much more difficult, and conversely, the decertification of existing unions much easier.

The bill does so by adding another, unnecessary, step to the tried-and-true method of the card-check system, which opens the process up to employer intimidation. The government’s anti-democratic habits come to the fore in this part of Bill C-525. It will only require a minority of members (45%) to initiate a decertification vote overseen by the Canada Labour Board, which, you will recall from a previous tract, will now be politicized under Bill C-4.

Incredibly, Bill C-525 flies in the face of basic democratic principles by requiring that 50% plus one of all employees [and I would like to add that the principle of 50% plus one forms the very foundation of our society in our electoral system], not just those who participate in the ballot, vote in favour of the union. In other words, those who choose not to vote, or who are unable to vote, would be counted as votes against the union in certification or decertification votes.

It is incredible to think that a piece of legislation would determine the meaning of the votes of people who do not vote or who cannot be present to vote for some reason or another. In a federal, provincial or municipal election, when someone does not vote, it does not mean that he or she is voting for someone; it simply means that he or she did not vote. This decision is appalling. My quote continues:

Those who are ill, vacationing or have family emergencies may be in favour of having a union, but will be considered as No votes.

This legislation is only one part of a series of attacks by the [Conservative] government intended to weaken the labour movement and the ability of workers to organize themselves in their workplace. The process of signing membership cards is the best way to protect workers from the pressure tactics of some employers. To impose a vote is to open the door to threats and intimidation. Studies have demonstrated that the government’s proposed process leads to a 10% to 20% decrease in union membership where it has been adopted.

I would like to thank all UCCO-SACC members across Canada. I would especially like to thank the Laval members, whom I know very well: union representatives Manon and Michel. They are doing an incredible job of standing up for workers' rights and the safety of their workplace.

All three of us talked about this at length. I know that they strongly oppose this bill. I am proud to be their voice in the House today. It is incredible to think that a government like the one opposite, which constantly says it wants to protect our communities, is not helping the workers in federal penitentiaries. That is ridiculous.

I am going to talk about more than just the fact that this is going to affect conditions for unions in federal detention centres. Bill C-525 touches on other aspects. I would like to cite some statistics for my colleagues opposite that might change their minds. Perhaps they will vote against Bill C-525.

Better wages negotiated by unions inject approximately $786 million into the Canadian economy every week. That is a lot of money. If we have so much money pouring into the economy, it is because of workers who got together and decided to form a union. I would like to thank them today.

Furthermore, as a woman, I am proud to say that unionized women make $6.65 more per hour than non-unionized women. That is huge.

I know that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wanted to talk about the World Bank, but unfortunately did not have the time to do so in his speech. Therefore, in closing, I will talk briefly about the World Bank and its views on unions.

The World Bank has pointed out the positive role unions play in domestic economies. In a 2002 document based on more than 1,000 studies of the impact of unions on domestic economies, the World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and a quicker response to economic downturns.

We should all vote against Bill C-525, which is clearly an insult to workers' rights.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am not particularly pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-525, but it is an honour to do so.

I want to start by paying tribute to the wonderful work done by my three colleagues: the member for Newton—North Delta, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. They put in a valiant effort under some particularly unfavourable conditions.

Fortunately, though, this out-of-touch bill was so flawed that all of the members of the committee had to listen to reason, make some logical changes and eliminate some obvious absurdities.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would like to inform the member that he will have only approximately five minutes this evening.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing about this bill that I am somewhat satisfied with is the title. For once, the title actually reflects the content of the bill. Indeed, this bill seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

However, although I derive a small amount of satisfaction from the bill's title, the rest of the bill is unacceptable, particularly since it is completely hypocritical for the government to try to pass this legislation in the form of a private member's bill. This is comparable to what we saw in 2010, when some little-known Conservative member from western Canada sought to exclude long guns from the firearms registry by introducing a bogus private member's bill. Once the government got its majority, it used a government bill to make this sort of amendment.

At the time, to me that was a great cause for indignation. I had even written an op-ed piece in the media as an NDP candidate in the previous two elections. I was upset that analysts, who are supposed to know a thing or two about politics, were pushing the late Jack Layton to take a stand and have someone force people to vote along party lines on a private member's bill, in complete disregard for the traditions of this House and the parliamentary system we have inherited.

Fortunately, my former leader, Jack, showed leadership and allowed a free vote. He also managed to convince a number of my colleagues to change the way they had voted at previous stages in order to defeat that bill. I have such a great memory of that and, in fact, I would like to pay tribute to my late leader in that regard.

I would like to talk about something else that this bill affects. The changes to the rules that apply to the Labour Code, union membership and how unions operate are going to skew the rules and even give an undue advantage to certain players in our economic environment.

I had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade and the Standing Committee on Finance. I can attest to the fact that the market always works. It is important to understand the conditions under which it works and how the usual market trends shift when there are no rules and we allow the players to act as they see fit. This usual trend was easy to see in the past. The multi-billionaire, John D. Rockefeller, is a prime example. He almost had a monopoly, the ultimate accomplishment for any economic player who wants to achieve real security.

Unions, governed by fair rules, act as a counterbalance to this concentration of power and the undue influence of a handful of individuals who, even alone, can shift the rules of the game in their favour. In the next five minutes I have, I will talk about my personal experience as a former unionized worker, and a non-unionized worker, in both the public and private sectors.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Budget

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question that I originally put to the Prime Minister in the wake of the February 11 budget.

It is particularly timely and nothing short of an unbelievable coincidence that I rise to pursue the question of why this particular administration has chosen to go after retired civil servants, veterans, and retired members of the RCMP and change the terms on which they retired. I am speaking of their health benefits, which were part of their remuneration package when they were working in the federal government, working for us, defending Canada, sacrificing for this country. Now in their retirement the terms of their medical benefit package are being renegotiated.

I asked the Prime Minister, given that the government is trying to recoup approximately $7 billion over a six-year period, why it went after retired Canadians, people living on fixed incomes for whom this would be a real hardship when there are other alternatives. I will mention one of the alternatives that I put to the Prime Minister.

There is over $600 billion currently sloshing around in the bank accounts of corporations. The former minister of finance told us that these corporations are not merely large, wealthy corporations but are the “job creators”. We were given the fiction that by reducing Canada's corporate tax rates, the lowest in the industrialized world, we would be liberating corporations that out of the goodness of their hearts would continue to create as many jobs as possible with the monies they now had on hand.

Instead, far in excess of the proportion of such monies held in the United States by corporations there, Canada's corporations now have, as I said, over $600 billion, which former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney has described as “dead money”. We have the former minister of finance telling us that these guys are job creators while the former governor of the Bank of Canada is telling us the reality. These corporations have accumulated so much cash but they are not using it. That cash described as “dead money” is not doing a single useful thing for the Canadian economy.

In question period I asked the Prime Minister why he chose to go after pensioners instead of making a modest change to the taxation rate of corporations, because this $600 billion is a staggering 32% of Canadian GDP. This is an amazing opportunity.

The reason I say it is an incredible coincidence that today of all days I am pursing this question is that earlier today the President of the Treasury Board held a press conference to announce that an agreement had been reached. This agreement is virtually the same thing that was announced in the budget, with some modifications. Retired members of the Canadian civil service, veterans, and so on will still move to a 50:50 cost-sharing instead of the current 75:25. There are a number of other minor changes, but these again are egregious and will create hardship.

The press release says it will not affect anyone considered a low-income senior, but low income is described as anyone making less than $16,728 as an individual or less than $22,000 as a couple. This is not enough to protect people living on fixed income. People living in dire poverty are the only ones who will be protected from these changes.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if Canada could not do better for those who have served us so well.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss our government's ongoing actions to return to balanced budgets and respect Canadian taxpayers' dollars. This includes the important announcement made earlier today, as my colleague mentioned, by my hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, on the modernization of the public service health care plan.

The President of the Treasury Board announced that our government has approved a joint recommendation from the public service health care plan Partners Committee regarding contribution rates and eligibility requirements for retired federal employees. This also applies to benefit enhancements for all plan members under the public service health care plan. The details are as follows.

Beginning April 1, 2015, retired member cost-sharing will gradually increase over a four-year period to attain equal cost-sharing between the employer and retired members. As promised, there will also be a low-income provision for current retired members.

With respect to eligibility, a total of six years or more of pensionable service will be required to be eligible under the plan as a retired member effective April 1, 2015.

This announcement is in keeping with the provisions in economic action plan 2013 that committed our government to ensuring that the public service is affordable, modern, and high-performing. In that budget, the government confirmed that it would be examining overall employee compensation, including pensioner benefits, to ensure their affordability, sustainability, and comparability with other private and public sector employers. The settlement announced today is indeed fiscally responsible as well as fair and reasonable to all members of the plan.

As members know, our government is committed to reducing Canada's deficit and to balancing the budget in 2015. I am pleased to say that this agreement will result in $6.7 billion in overall savings.

We recognize the importance of offering a supplementary health care plan to retired members while at the same time ensuring our plan remains affordable and sustainable, given increasing cost pressures. This plan, with its new enhancements, continues to support the health and wellness of all public servants and retired members.

I would reiterate that our government is pleased that we were able to arrive at a new agreement that is fair to both plan members and taxpayers. Not only do these measures fulfill our government's saving commitments from economic action plan 2013, but they also minimize the impact on employees and the Canadian public.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his presentation, but it does nothing to ease the pain and suffering of the people of Canada who worked for this government, which is the people of Canada, under a contract.

I have received over 800 letters from people who will be affected by this heartless change. I will read snippets of these letters into the record today without mentioning names.

Here is a letter from someone who writes:

I have attached a copy of my prescription records so you can see how much I have to deal with to keep relatively healthy. My wife has three prescriptions to fill as well. I am offended that a negotiated package and cost that was part of my remuneration while I was working could be taken away while I don't have the recourse to withdraw services. This is another indication that the government of our country has lost its humanity in dealing with its former employees in a drive to cut costs.

Another person writes:

I served the Canadian Forces for 37 years and kept the faith. If I had been called upon to die for Canada, I would have done so, assuming the government would also keep its contracts with me. Please do what you can to stop the Conservatives from making this change.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that this is a voluntary plan, and it will remain extremely generous.

Allow me to provide some more details on this settlement announced today.

With respect to eligibility, some exemptions will apply for such people as disabled retired members, survivors, the Veterans Affairs Canada client group, and those affected by workforce adjustment. The settlement also provides benefit enhancement for all plan members. In addition, the annual deductible will be eliminated, starting in 2015. As such, plan members will no longer have to pay the first $60 for single coverage or $100 for family coverage per calendar year.

These benefits are of real value to our public servants and to our retired members. They are all part of an ongoing work to modernize the public service. They reflect our commitment to strong financial management as well as to spending restraint.

I commend the employee, retiree, and employer representatives on the public service health care plan Partners Committee for arriving at this constructive and collaborative solution.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:20 p.m.)