Debates of April 8th, 2014

Employees' Voting Rights Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my last opportunity to speak to my bill. I want to acknowledge all the support I have received for my bill, not only from my caucus colleagues but from across the country where workers have reached out to me and expressed their appreciation for this.

I want to use my time to bust the myths that some of the people on the other side of the House have put forward insofar as claiming that my bill is not doing any service to the country.

I would first like to highlight that I will be talking about the claims that the employees' voting rights act is undemocratic, according to the New Democratic Party. Its members are saying that the rights of employees to vote in a secret ballot is somehow undemocratic. I will address that. There are claims that the employees' voting rights act is unfair, even though it has the exact same process for certification and decertification, whereas in the current legislation it is skewed heavily one way.

Some have complained about the process of using private members' bills to address these kinds of issues, which I would be happy to address, as well as the so-called lack of consultation. Even though we all know that it is a private member's bill, we consult with our constituents all the time. I will discuss that and some of the allegations that the legislative changes I am proposing are unconstitutional. I am more than happy to address some of these concerns.

Let us talk about the allegations that my bill on employees' voting rights is somehow undemocratic. I ask how it can be undemocratic to provide workers with a secret ballot vote. We know PSAC stated at committee that it uses secret ballot votes for internal elections and for collective bargaining agreement ratifications. Every member in this House was elected by a secret ballot vote. Members have not provided an answer to me as to why they think such a process would be considered undemocratic.

If we look at Justice Richards' ruling in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, where the same type of legislation was brought forward, on page 38 he stated:

...a secret ballot regime does no more than ensure that employees are able to make the choices they see as being best for themselves.

Apparently, in NDP logic, that is undemocratic.

He further stated that, “The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of modern democracy”.

I would argue that if it is good enough to serve in this House for members of Parliament to be elected by a secret ballot vote, would anybody not want the same kind of backup in his or her arguments and legitimacy to claim that he or she was put in place through a truly democratic process?

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has mentioned in his comments on March 26 that employers engage in bullying, threats, and blackmail tactics. Anyone who operates under the belief that bullying, threats, or even blackmail is a mutually exclusive act operates under complete and wilful blindness.

If I were to shove a ballot in the face of a voter while I am campaigning, while I am out on the hustings during an election campaign, and say to him or her, “I think it's in your best interest to vote right here, right now, in front of me, and sign this ballot”, the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada would be absolutely outraged, and the Canadian public would be outraged at that kind of intimidation and electoral process. Yet that is exactly what they are defending on the other side of the House when it comes to union certification.

This process results in the creation of collective bargaining units whereby the union is able to collect union dues, a massive taxation power on the backs of workers. That is how it gets its funds to conduct its business. It is no different from any other process whereby we have taxation and representation. The difference is that there is no mandatory secret ballot. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous that the NDP thinks that a card-check system and the power of taxation, of union dues, is completely fine without any check or balance in the interests of workers.

My friend from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie also mentioned that signing a card was an important gesture. I submit that marking an x on a ballot is a more important gesture. I think of Castro, Stalin, and these kinds of people who would say that having one option on a ballot is an important gesture for democracy. I disagree. I think that a yes or no answer in a referendum question as to whether or not one wants to have a collective bargaining agent is a more important gesture than what is being proposed over there.

I would like to move on and talk about the allegations that it is unfair. What I proposed was 50% plus one. It is the same as what is currently there in the card check process, but has been amended at committee. I appreciate the committee's hard work on this, the thoughtful amendments being brought forward by Conservative members of Parliament, amending the bill and amending the current laws so that it will be the same process to enter as to exit a union.

Right now, under the current legislation, a 35% threshold is all that is needed to create a union in the federal jurisdiction. Yet a 50% threshold is what is needed to decertify a collective bargaining regime. Somehow the other side thinks that is fair, 35% to get in and 50% to get out, whereas my legislation would actually make it 45%. I proposed 45%. It has been amended to 40%, so it is 40% to trigger a vote either way, in the certification process and in the decertification process.

That seems fair to me. It is the same way in and out. I do not understand how that could possibly be construed as unfair.

I should note that it is not the job of any government to ensure that union certification is as easy as possible. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that paragraph 2(d) does not mandate any particular model of labour relations. This has been referred to by Justice Richards on page 37 of his ruling.

Currently in Canada, five provinces employ a secret ballot regime and the entire federal jurisdiction in the United States uses secret ballot voting. I am not convinced that using a secret ballot vote makes things unfair; in fact, I believe it solidifies the message of the employee group and actually provides a mandate for the collective bargaining agent, one that is unquestionable.

I would like now to move on to talk about some of the complaints about the process. Some members have complained about the labour laws being changed by private members' bills and that extensive consultation is required with stakeholders.

We are all members of Parliament and our stakeholders are the constituents we represent. What is being proposed by the member for Cape Breton—Canso is apparently to have Unifor and PSAC and FETCO and other big organizations coming to the table, completely bypassing the workers whose fate is actually determined in those kinds of negotiations.

I think it is completely acceptable that private members be able to use their private members' hour. There are already great restrictions on what private members can do. I am hoping that the member for Cape Breton—Canso is not suggesting that somehow private members' business be further restricted from areas of federal jurisdiction or federal legislation. We are all elected as legislators to come here to change, amend, put forth or remove laws that affect Canadians. To suggest somehow that we cannot use the private members' process is simply ridiculous.

When the member for Cape Breton—Canso was at committee, he went after me in his remarks for that process, and quoted FETCO to that effect, as FETCO did suggest that it did not like the process. However, what the member for Cape Breton—Canso conveniently left out was that when Mr. Farrell from FETCO was at committee, he stated his and FETCO's support for a secret ballot vote, and that FETCO would prefer to see a threshold to trigger a vote between 40% and 45%, which is exactly where the amendments are, conveniently left out in the other members' remarks.

There are limited opportunities for a member to bring forward legislation, and I would hope that the member across the way is not advocating limiting the scope of private members' legislation any further than it already is.

I can assure the House that virtually every one of us has received a complaint at some point in time from a constituent regarding labour issues. It is not unreasonable to think that a private member would bring forward these kinds of issues, using their private member's time.

I would like to talk about consultation. The member for Newton—North Delta spoke about the lack of consultation. My private member's bill was tabled on June 5 last year.

A number of unions came to the Hill. They had their lobby days. We did not even start debating my bill until later into the fall. After I tabled my bill, not one of these organizations picked up the phone, knocked on my door, or made any effort to contact me whatsoever. In fact, even during their lobby time here on the Hill, none of them even bothered to come to make their case to me.

I have not been able to address all concerns, but I would like to say before closing that the members of the House ought to know or should know that their task here is to represent their constituents. Poll after poll indicates that since 2003, support across Canada for secret ballot voting has rated between 83% and 89%, with some of the highest results coming from unionized or formerly unionized employees.

The bill is good legislation. It is good public policy. The other side should stand up for democracy and vote in favour of it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak briefly to Bill C-525.

I have to say that if the mover of the private member's bill believes that this is so important and is worthwhile, then why does the government not introduce legislation to do what is clearly trying to be done through the backdoor? It is because the government does not have the courage to take its own action and clearly stand up to introduce legislation if it wants to see changes.

Previously we had Bill C-377. Now we have Bill C-525. If government members have some concerns and think that changes need to happen, they should do it the proper way and introduce legislation as a government.

I am happy to have a chance to speak to a bill that according to the government's sponsors is to help empower workers.

Specifically, Bill C-525 would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent under these acts must be achieved by a vote-based majority through a secret ballot.

Members will forgive my apprehension, but as this bill does come on the heels of the government's last union-busting bill, Bill C-377, I have to wonder again about the real motivations behind it.

Bill C-525 would affect more than 1.2 million employees working as public servants or for an employer under federal jurisdiction. This would include everyone from my own staff to their own staff to the local postmaster to the teller at my local bank or credit union. This means we need to ensure that we get this right, because the bill would impact on real people every day.

The Conservatives have made it clear from the beginning of their term that they are prepared to smash unions at all costs, even when the cost would hurt middle-class workers. Liberals see this as unacceptable. We will be casting our votes in favour of middle-class workers and their families and in favour of fairness and full consultation. If the Conservatives want to change the Labour Code or anything in it, then they should sit down with the partners and discuss those things and make the changes.

My first concern with Bill C-525 is that it proposes to fundamentally change how a union can be formed and dissolved in the federal jurisdiction, yet the evidence shows there is no need, and the major stakeholders have neither asked for this change nor even agreed with it.

Despite the fact that the federal labour relations system is respected and supported by both labour and employers as a result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades for amending the Labour Code, the bill clearly ignores all the good work that has been done over the years through discussions between labour and the employer as to what changes need to be made. It seems Bill C-525 is again rooted in ideology rather than in sound policy based upon need.

There has been no proven need for the legislation. Those supporting the bill suggest that the rationale for Bill C-525 was a mountain of complaints regarding union coercion of workers. However, according to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have only been two founded complaints against unions out of 4,000 decisions in 10 years, so all of this is about just two serious complaints. Even the chairperson of CIRB stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem”.

For labour relations legislation to be effective, it must be developed and implemented by the stakeholders through pre-legislative consultation based upon evidence, not by backdoor government manoeuvring of private members' bills that are, again, based solely upon ideology. This is not the first time we have seen bills that are clearly based upon the ideology of the Conservatives rather than upon substance or science.

Bill C-525 ignores long-established processes and like its sister legislation, Bill C-377, would impose radical changes that are not supported by the stakeholders or by the facts. The result of the legislation would not be labour harmony or efficiency; it would be an upsetting of the balance and stability in labour relations in Canada. This may be what the government is attempting to spark, but it is not in the best interests of employers, workers, or the Canadian economy in the long term.

However, I am not here just to poke holes today. In fact, as someone who has a strong union base in my own constituency, I have seen the positive contributions made to my communities by organized labour over many years. Indeed, this kind of social benevolence is something that has long underscored the labour movement in Canada, and those of us in the Liberal caucus continue to support these middle-class workers and their families very proudly.

Kicking labour around is tantamount to an attack on our communities, and the government should be ashamed of the approach it is taking. Bill C-377 was bad enough, and now Bill C-525 has appeared on the scene. When will it stop?

The bill is neither about union democracy, nor balanced labour relations. Bill C-525 fundamentally changes the way that workers can unionize, without any consultation or support of the stakeholders, and based on zero evidence for its need.

Rather than this kind of knee-jerk approach, the Liberal Party has called for a certification process that, one, allows workers to make free and informed decisions about whether they want to join a union or not, and, two, that has been created through a fair and balanced consensus tripartite process that is based on fact, whereby the changes to be made come from the stakeholders themselves.

Bill C-525 is yet another example of the Conservative government abusing the private members' bill process as backdoor government legislation to promote its ideology, not the views and wishes of the stakeholders or their constituents that would be affected or when the facts at hand show it is not needed.

What are the Conservatives so afraid of? When they tried this very same thing with Bill C-377, their own senators admonished them for doing it. They stymie debate, curtail committee study, and act like their fingerprints are not all over the document.

For example, the human resources committee only studied this for two and a half hours, and almost every witness, including government witnesses, spoke out against the bill. Somehow it sounds a bit like Bill C-23. Specifically, the witnesses that were heard expressed concern over the bill.

George Smith, a labour relations expert, said:

...we are dealing with a private member's bill to amend a significant section of the Canada Labour Code without any view of how this change will impact overall labour relations policy in the federal sector, without any of the necessary due process and public consultation to examine the intended and unintended consequences to such amendments.

Dick Heinen, executive director, Christian Labour Association of Canada, a union that is often viewed as employer friendly, said this about the current card-check system, “It has worked, and I don't know what the problem is. I don't know why we need to change that”.

Elizabeth MacPherson, chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, with respect to the effectiveness of the current card-check system, said, “In our opinion, it is working well. With the board having the discretion to decide when a vote must be held, it works”. Why do we need to change it? Why is the government refusing to listen? Is it anything else but clear ideology?

Conservative abuse of this process has been so terrible in the past that the Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert resigned from the caucus in disgust. I see that they have learned nothing from the past.

It has already been said that power over a person's wallet is power over their will. That is what Bill C-525 is really all about. As just one example, research has clearly shown that moving from a card-check-based system to a mandatory vote system reduces unionization rates. This is the true motivation behind the bill. Bill C-525 proposes to abolish the card-check model in favour of a mandatory representation vote in all certification applications. It is no more complex than that.

Labour unions have been defenders of employee rights, and they have a long-standing track record of helping our communities in many ways. Of course, unions are not perfect, and there have been many occasions when I have differed with them. However, I do believe in due process. Bill C-525, like its sister bill, Bill C-377, is a partisan attack on middle-class workers and their families. It is wrong, and as the Liberal industry critic, I will be voting for workers and against this sneaky backdoor legislation.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of all the members who have risen in the House to speak to this bill, whether they are in favour of it or not. It is another show of democracy.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-525, which would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, specifically with regard to the certification and decertification of the bargaining agent or, more simply put, the union.

This bill would amend the Canada Labour Code and other legislation to provide that the certification and decertification of the union as a bargaining agent under these acts must be achieved by a secret ballot vole-based majority.

However, that already happens. That already happens when the authorities, in other words the Canada Industrial Relations Board, call for it. It seems that is not enough this time. The government does not trust the members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Allow me to say a few words as someone who studied at Laval University in Quebec. To sit on the Canada Industrial Relations Board, one has to have certain qualifications, some experience in labour relations, in negotiating collective agreements, and in certification and decertification.

The secret ballot will be mandatory. This is a repudiation of the men and women who have spent most of their working lives maintaining good labour relations and ensuring that there is industrial peace in Canada. Does the government know what it means to have industrial peace in an industrialized country like ours? It means people who go to work, who represent all workers in Canada and ensure that the economy prospers. They co-operate with their employer and with the public service and Parliament. They ensure that we have healthy labour relations and a safe working environment where people are not afraid to get up and go to work in the morning.

I would like to point out that unfortunate actions are often the result of abuse. That is unacceptable in a modern society like ours.

This government seems to be saying that the system that was working before is no longer working. We have been hearing this for some time now. However, the government wants to act undemocratically and violate fundamental human rights and labour rights. As I was saying, a modern society that has respect for the role workers play in its economy must recognize collective bargaining rights and give democracy and protection of labour rights the weight they deserve.

I would remind members that the short title of this bill is the Employees' Voting Rights Act. These rights came out of the evolution of labour law and industrial relations in Canada. Generation after generation of workers fought to give the workforce a greater say and to create a balance of power, in response to employers and working conditions that were often abusive—and sometimes even deadly—as one of our colleagues pointed out recently. I repeat, this is unacceptable in a modern society.

You can bet that my colleagues and I will oppose this bill at report stage and at third reading.

This private member's bill is the sequel to Bill C-377, also a private member's bill. Its purpose is to severely undermine unions by fundamentally changing the certification and decertification process for unions under federal jurisdiction. I want to emphasize that we are talking about unions under federal jurisdiction.

That is where the Canada Labour Code applies. The CLC has been modernized and updated by generations of legislators. This bill goes against that tradition. It attacks a basic human right, the right to freedom of association and expression as embodied by unions. They are the ones who choose it.

This bill will make it harder for workers to unionize and will probably result in more unions being decertified. It will be easier to shut a union down than to start one up. It does not work, it is not fair, it is unacceptable, it is undemocratic, and above all, it is disrespectful.

This Conservative government is in power even though 60% of Canadians voted against it, and the Conservatives govern in what is sometimes a shameful and insolent manner. We can see that today with Bill C-525. It is highly unusual to use a private member's bill to address an issue as important to the exercise of democratic rights as this one.

At present, when a group of employees wants to be represented by a union and decides to form its own union or join an existing union, this union must file an application for certification with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. If the application meets the requirements of the Canada Labour Code, which is rather tedious, complex and demanding, and 50% of the members have signed a card indicating that they want to belong to the union, the union is automatically certified after the cards are checked.

It does not just happen. It takes a lot of hard work and discussions between the group of workers and the bargaining agent, who together decide to create a unit to improve the chances that these workers will have a healthier environment and can enter into agreements with their boss. Collective bargaining allows workers to represent a workforce that contributes to the prosperity of our country. It is a fundamental right in our modern society.

In many workplaces where there is a union, there are lots of projects to improve working conditions, whether in the automotive sector or the textile sector of the past. I say “textile sector of the past” because free trade agreements have unfortunately practically destroyed Canada's textile industry. However, it was because of the economic circumstances, and not because of unions. It is up to the government to put in place laws and infrastructure that allow companies to grow and develop and that encourage economic prosperity.

Thanks to the hard work of the NDP, particularly that of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the member for Newton—North Delta, we managed to get the Conservatives to back down and listen to reason on the most harmful part of this bill. They agreed to amend the worst parts of the bill in committee. At first, the rules put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin stated that anyone who did not participate in the certification vote would be counted as a vote against the creation of the union. However, if it were a question of decertification, anyone absent would be counted as a vote in favour of decertification. That was a brazen and appalling abuse.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-525, employees' voting rights act.

In bringing this bill forward, the member for Wetaskiwin has focused our attention on an important aspect of labour relations in Canada, and that is the process of governing the certification and decertification of unions.

The amendments our government proposed to the bill, after consulting with key stakeholders in committee, would help ensure that unions remain relevant in today's evolving workforce by legitimizing union certification and decertification in federally regulated workplaces.

As members know, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities had the chance to study the bill clause by clause, and of course, we heard from a number of stakeholders, union members, employers, and academics. I think we can all agree that given the fragility of our national economy, it is important that we get this right for employees who are under federal jurisdiction.

After hearing from Canadians who will be affected by the bill, we have proposed a number of common sense changes that strengthen its democratic value and fairness. We have carefully reviewed them, and I believe that the bill is, overall, the better for it.

It is simple. These changes improve the bill's fairness and democratic values while they maintain the principle of the bill that all federally regulated workers should have a democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot vote when deciding whether or not to unionize.

I argue regularly that this is not about the employer and the employee and the union. It is really about the relationships among the employees. This is a very personal decision, and I think they have the right to have that very personal decision reflected through a secret ballot process.

I think it is important to note that the NDP members put forward an amendment at report stage to gut the short title, employees' voting rights act. Why have they done this? They do not want Canadians and the workers they claim to represent to learn that the purpose of the bill is simply to give them the democratic right to a secret ballot vote. Again, we have talked about how important that is for employee relations. There is the union and the employer, but we have to remember the individual relations.

The facts are the facts. We strongly oppose the NDP amendment, because we believe that the short title is exactly what this bill represents, an act that delivers voting rights to employees in federally regulated workplaces.

I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the common sense changes we have proposed in this bill.

The employee's voting rights bill would give all employees the opportunity to have their say about certifying or decertifying a union. As things stand today for federally regulated employees, this is not always the case. Again, that is very much undemocratic. Instead, if at least 50% plus one of the employees in a bargaining unit sign membership cards, an application for union certification can be filed automatically. This means that a significant percentage of the people in the bargaining unit may find themselves in a union, whether they like it or not and without the opportunity to have had their views heard.

I fundamentally believe that all employees should have the democratic right to have a free and fair secret ballot when considering whether they want union representation in their workplace. I would like to ask my fellow members if this is too much for workers to ask. Are free and democratic elections not a foundation of Canadian society?

In my humble opinion, not only would it appear to be a reasonable request, it is a basic right. This is exactly what the employees' voting rights bill proposes. It proposes to eliminate automatic certification and would require that a secret ballot vote be held before certifying or decertifying a union.

For a union to be certified or decertified, the bill originally required a majority of employees in the bargaining unit to vote in favour. In cases where members did not vote, for one reason or another, their unused vote would essentially be considered a vote against a union.

We propose instead that the majority be based on the number of ballots actually cast, like in most elections. With this method, uncast ballots would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Canadians take a great deal of pride in the democratic process. The right to vote and the right to be heard go right to the very core of what it means to be Canadian. When we vote, whether it is at the federal, provincial, and municipal level, we do so by secret ballot.

A secret ballot means the freedom to vote the way we want to, to vote for what we think is best for ourselves, our families, and our country. This is the essence of what it means to live in a democratic society.

A decision as important as whether to form a union should represent the employees real intentions. The only way to guarantee that employees are free from pressure and that they can express their honest opinions the way they wish is to give them a free and fair secret ballot voting system. I think I can safely say that just like there are some Canadians who do not wish to reveal who they voted for in an election, there may be some workers who are not comfortable expressing their views on unionization publicly. Their reason for wanting privacy is their own and none of our business. It is as simple as that.

Subtle and sometimes not so subtle forces can come into play in these situations. The opinions and actions of colleagues and others have an effect on how someone might make a choice. If employees do not have the opportunity to vote freely for any reason, the results of a vote cannot truly reflect how the employees feel about union representation, and that is not fair. The concept is one that our government fully supports.

We also suggest lowering the minimum level of employee support required to trigger a certification and decertification from 45% to 40%. This number is much more in line with international conventions and the majority of provincial statutes. This approach is fair and will ultimately establish a level playing field for both supporters and opponents of the union.

I would like to take the opportunity to address the amendments proposed by the NDP during report stage. They propose to raise the card-check threshold required to trigger a vote for decertification from 40% to 50%. In short, the NDP is proposing to undermine one of the basic principles of the bill, which is to ensure that certification and decertification rules are the same so that supporters and opponents of unionization are placed on the same level playing field. These amendments would give a clear and unfair advantage to supporters, and although we are not surprised by this bias, the government simply cannot support such a blatantly unfair proposal by the NDP.

Our government has also proposed amending the date on which the new bill would come into effect. Our amendment states that this bill would come into force six months after receiving royal assent. This would give labour boards sufficient time to make the necessary changes to the regulations and procedures. I believe these amendments have resulted in a stronger bill, one that is more democratic and fair, and one that serves the needs of Canadian workers.

With these amendments, we are pleased to fully back the employees' voting rights act. I would like to encourage all of my hon. colleagues to support the bill, and in doing so they would be showing respect for hard-working Canadians and the principle of democracy. Again, to me, this is an issue about employer relationships and what happens in terms of their workplaces. Being able to have a secret ballot vote is absolutely fundamental.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for raising this issue and acting as a champion for the democratic rights of hard-working Canadians.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on what my colleague said. One of the things she said was that the government is going to support this bill, which just goes to prove what my other colleagues have been saying about this bill. It is a private members' bill coming in through the back door. That is pretty obvious.

When he was giving his speech, the sponsor of this bill mentioned Castro and Stalin. What I thought of right away was the Prime Minister. Why did I think of him? It was because of what he is trying to do with the unfair elections act. He is trying to turn Canada into countries like Castro's and Stalin's. That is really shameful.

Let me tell the House a little bit about why I want to speak on this bill. I am going to tell members a little of my personal story. I started working at 18-years of age in a mine called Frood Mine. It was not the place where I really wanted to work. I wanted to get closer to home and go to Levack Mine.

I started as an apprentice machinist at 18. Because I started as an apprentice, it was not a job that paid very well. It was as low as it could go. Back in 1968, that was pretty low, so thank God for the union leadership.

The reason I am mentioning this is that when I had been at Frood Mine for about two years, it was scheduled to close. So I said to the guys I was working with that I was going to try to go to Levack. It was closer to my place. The guys said that I did not want to go there. When I asked why, they said that the supervisor there was a supervisor from hell and that I would get fired. I could not believe it.

Eventually, six months later, I ended up in Levack Mine. True enough, I ran into the supervisor from hell. I say that because he treated people in a very special manner. Back then, I was 20 years old. I had quite a bit more hair than I do now, but it was not very long. It was just a little bit long, like it was back in the 1960s. It was not shoulder length. As soon as I ran into this guy, the first minute I met him, he asked where I had been. He said he had been waiting for me all morning. Of course, I was in the first aid room getting my locker, and people were showing me around, where I had to go and what I had to do.

He asked where I had been and said that he had been waiting for me all morning. It surprised me, but I knew that he was the supervisor from hell. He said that my hair was pretty long and that I had to get a haircut if I wanted to work there. I did not think that my hair was very long, but he said to come back the next day with a haircut.

Back in those days, a person could be fired on Friday and be working on Monday. It did not really matter. I said okay. I finished my shift, went home, and went back the next day. I did not have a haircut. I went home that night and washed my hair. I combed everything really nicely because I wanted to impress him.

He said that I had not cut my hair. I said no, so he said I would have to and see the superintendent. I went to see the superintendent. I walked into his office and he asked what I wanted. What was I there for? I told him that my supervisor had sent me because I did not get a haircut and he thought my hair was too long. The superintendent looked at me and said there was nothing wrong with my hair, that I was to go back to work and tell my supervisor to see him.

I went back to the shop and told my supervisor that the superintendent wanted to see him. He was gone for several minutes. From the reports that I got back from the people who worked in that office, it was not pretty.

When he came back to the shop, where I was told to wait for him, if members think our member for Acadie—Bathurst is red when he speaks, they should have seen this guy. He was red. He just could not believe that he had been raked over the coals by the superintendent because of an apprentice. If I did not have a union back then, I would have been fired probably on the first day.

However, this bill is trying to prevent unions from organizing. I belong to the United Steelworkers, local 6500, a great union. It is the same union as the president of the international steelworkers, Leo Gerard, belongs to. He and I grew up in that union. We are just about the same age, and we were stewards together and committee men together. He became the president of the United Steelworkers international. He is a great guy. He gets to work with other steelworkers and unionized people. I became the MP for Nickel Belt, and I have to work with the current government. I cannot believe how lucky that man got.

Union workers do have well-paying jobs and they do contribute to the communities. For example, in Sudbury, if it had not been for the steelworkers, the CAW, and all the good unions, we would not have a cancer centre. It was because of the desire and drive of the union movement that we have a cancer centre in Sudbury. Everybody can use that cancer centre; it is not just for union people. It is just that the union workers helped pay for it. The union workers also support the food bank. Every year, they collect thousands and thousands of dollars for the food bank. They can do that because they have well-paying union jobs.

The goal of the current Conservative government is to drive all the wages as low as possible, to the lowest denominator, so we can all have Walmart salaries and the companies can profit more.

I just want to reiterate the importance of unions. They supply well-paying jobs. They spend their money in the community. They buy in the community. They help people in need. Why would we want to drive their wages down? It just does not make sense. We should encourage more unions in this country, not discourage them. People discouraged unions in the place where Castro was president, and Stalin certainly did not encourage unions.

As the previous member said, the Conservatives are going to support this bill, obviously. It is a private member's bill and they have already decided they are going to support it. So it is just a back-door way of bringing this bill to the House of Commons.

I am going to stop right there. I am not going to support this bill, obviously. I am really proud to be a steelworker and a union member.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mississauga South will have approximately six minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand to support my colleagues regarding our Conservative members' common-sense amendments to the employees' voting rights act. We believe that the employees' voting rights act deals with important issues that need to be addressed.

As mentioned in budget 2014, our government's top priorities continue to be creating jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. We know the most important way to foster a prosperous economy is through investment in Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. That means supporting businesses that have worldwide recognition, but also the smaller businesses that contribute more than five million Canadian jobs.

The formula for success also includes helping Canadian workers to achieve their greatest potential in the labour market. We made it through the global recession and continue to lead the G7 in job creation and economic growth, and we are on the road to a balanced budget in 2015.

The Canadian economy has more than recouped all the jobs lost during the last recession. Indeed, our government's policies have helped to create one million new jobs in the private sector, jobs that are full time and well paying. I am happy to say we are on the right track, and the future for Canadians looks good.

For example, a study released a few months ago by the employment website monster.ca shows that Canadian workers are among the happiest in the world, and that is something we can be proud of. Our government wants this trend to continue.

This employees' voting rights act is another step in the right direction. It would ensure fair, honest, and democratic workplaces.

Consider this: an online study released a few years ago by Workopolis found that a positive office culture was the most important aspect of a job for Canadians. A key element to creating a positive work environment and job satisfaction is adhering to the rights of workers that are currently in place in Canada.

Freedom of association, which includes the right to form or not form a union, is a fundamental right guaranteed by federal, provincial, and territorial labour laws as well as by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To help maintain high levels of jobs satisfaction among employees now and in the future, it is important that we all vote today to support the employees' voting rights act and the proposed common sense Conservative amendments.

The amendments would strengthen the democratic values and fairness of the bill, balancing and better protecting the democratic rights of federally regulated employees while maintaining the principle of the bill by ensuring that all federally regulated workers have the right to a free and fair secret ballot vote.

The employees' voting rights act would ensure that employees have the freedom to vote for or against a union, without feeling pressured either way. We have heard from the sponsor of the bill of a number of workers who are not comfortable with the informal card-check certification system for unions, because they do not have the protection of privacy when expressing their opinions.

We need to recognize that not every employee wants to be a part of a union and that it is a choice. We support the equal treatment of voters through a process that is fair and democratic, one that reflects our Canadian values.

The bill originally required a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit to vote for the union to be certified, whether or not all the employees in the unit actually voted. To fix this, we proposed amendments that a decision on union certification or decertification should be based only on a majority of the secret ballot votes that are actually cast.

We also suggest lowering the minimum level of employee support required to trigger a certification vote, from 45% to 40%. This number is more in line with international conventions and the majority of provincial statutes. This approach would establish a fair and level playing field for both supporters and opponents of unions.

The NDP has also put forward amendments that would defeat the purpose of the bill by creating two different criteria: one for supporters of unions and one for those who oppose. Of course, the NDP have not surprised anyone by giving the advantage to supporters of unionization by proposing to raise the card-check threshold to trigger a decertification vote, from 40% to 50%. This proposal by the NDP is blatantly unfair and undemocratic, and would undermine the principle of the bill to create a fair and equal playing field for all parties.

Lastly, if the bill is passed in its original version, the legislation would come into force immediately after receiving royal assent. We feel it is important to allow more time for labour boards to adjust their policies and procedures to reflect the new system. Specifically, we would amend the bill to provide a six-month transitional phase after the date of royal assent.

We know that Canadian workers deserve a fair and honest democratic voting process that allows them to privately choose whether they want to support or oppose a union. Canadians believe in freedom of choice and freedom of association. These values are part of our Constitution and we should honour them in our workplaces.

To conclude, I am proud to support the member for Wetaskiwin and his bill, the employees' voting rights act, with the common sense amendments proposed by our Conservative colleague whom I just mentioned.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 7:11 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 to 6.

The House should now proceed with the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, April 9, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Aboriginal Affairs

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 28, 2003, I raised a concern with the government that despite the fact that only 9% of Alberta children are aboriginal, since 1999, aboriginal children have accounted for a staggering 75% of children dying in care in my province. Similarly, high rates are reported for maltreatment of aboriginal children, including in welfare systems in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Increasingly higher rates of child deaths are occurring in first nation-run agencies.

Among the reasons given for this rate is that these federally funded agencies receive substantially less money than provincial agencies and consequently struggle to deliver adequate child protection services.

An Alberta judge has recommended that Alberta request the federal government to end this disparity. A complaint was filed with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on the issue of lack of comparable services provided for aboriginal children. Sadly, the process of this complaint has been fraught with delays and obstructions.

The federal government spent $3 million opposing a request to provide information to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to assist in its examination of a complaint that aboriginal families and children are being denied comparable family services. The courts eventually ordered release of the documents to the tribunal. The monies wasted in fighting this review alone could have supported a number of first nation family service centres.

On any given day, 30,000 aboriginal children are placed in foster care. It has been pointed out, sadly, that more aboriginal children are being removed from their families now than during the time of the residential schools.

In 2008, the federal Auditor General called upon the federal government to work with the provinces, territories, and first nations to resolve these inequities to ensure that services essential to aboriginal children are provided.

The Conference Board of Canada this week called on the federal government to make addressing this inequity a priority and lead strategic action, saying that the issue is not new and that progress is slow.

For the sake of the children, will the government finally end its battle with the very individuals and organizations attempting to resolve this inequity, and will it finally grant the money needed to provide comparable care?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question from the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

The health, safety, and well-being of all children, including first nation children, is a priority for our government. The loss of a child is very tragic in any circumstances, and is even more alarming when a child has died while in protective care. It will take the ongoing and coordinated efforts of governments at all levels, as well as first nations governments, to make long-term progress.

That is why, since 2006, we have introduced a prevention-based approach to delivering child and family services on reserve. We have increased our investments through the family violence prevention program by 38%, and we have passed the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

Child welfare is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction whereby the provinces and territories have legislative authority over all child welfare and protection activities. Over the past 20 years, provincial and territorial welfare authorities have delegated program delivery on reserve to a growing number of first nation child and family services agencies. Currently there are over 100 first nations with this authority.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada does not deliver child and family services. All children are protected by provincial or territorial child welfare legislation. Our government provides $627 million in funding to support first nation service providers and provinces and territories in delivering services to families on reserve, in accordance with provincial and territorial laws and standards.

We know that the numbers of aboriginal children in care across the country are very high. The latest figures are around 40,000. Over 9,000 of those children are first nations living on reserve, with funding provided under the first nations child and family services program. This means that over 30,000 children are receiving services directly from the provincial and territorial governments. Any and all solutions must be undertaken jointly with provincial and territorial governments, as well as first nations.

Our government began the reform to an enhanced prevention-focused approach for first nation child and family services in Alberta, in 2007. Our government announced an additional investment of $98.1 million over five years, and ongoing, for first nation agencies in Alberta. Early indications from across the country show an increase in families who are accessing prevention-focused services, a rise in permanent placements of children, and an increase in the use of kinship care.

We will continue to work with willing partners to implement the enhanced prevention-focused approach to improve outcomes for first nations children and their families.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this year the University of Alberta, my alma mater, is awarding its Community Scholar Award to Dr. Cindy Blackstock, in recognition of her long-standing work with communities, organizations, and governments to ensure culturally appropriate and equitable services for first nations children in child welfare, health care, and education.

Is it not time that the government stopped wasting taxpayer dollars opposing efforts to ensure the extension of comparable social and educational services to aboriginal children, as our country has committed to deliver under the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Is it not time to finally recognize the dedicated and constructive efforts by Dr. Blackstock and the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society on behalf of aboriginal children, to respect their experience and advice, and to start implementing the programs all and sundry have endorsed?