Debates of Oct. 19th, 2016

Canada Labour Code

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his statements, but he keeps referring to people who want the right to know how their money, their dues, are being spent, and I am kind of taken aback by that.

I have been involved in unions for 34 and a half years, with three different locals over my career. In fact, in two of them, I was the president of the union, so I know how the system works. When that money is deposited from the company that the members are giving dues to, to its own local, there are positions, such as the financial officer and what they call trustees. On a monthly basis, there is a report that is given to its members, on a line-by-line basis, of where every penny went during that month.

I am having a hard time understanding what the member was saying when he said that people wanted to know. They have a right to know, and we give them that information. If a person does not want to attend a union meeting to find out where that money is going and then wants it mailed to them, that is a different subject.

I would ask the member, as it is transparent what the unions are doing, what he was referring to when he stated that the people did not know where the money is going.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I brought forward my bill, Bill C-525, in response to questions about financial transparency. I looked after the accountability part of it, which dealt with the mandatory secret ballot vote. The member should understand that the people that had come to talk to me in my own constituency had differences of opinions with their union leadership.

I have been a member of a union as well, several different times. I am not arguing against whether or not unions should or should not exist. The reality is, though, that certain members get offside with their union leadership. That union then has the entire wherewithal of all of the money from union dues to use in court litigation and action against members who disagree with the leadership of the union. When they ask for that information and try to get specific information about their case, about how much money is being spent on litigation against one poor union member, a union member, by the way, who is supposed to be looked after by the union leadership and not sued and litigated by the union membership, they cannot get that information.

Is the hon. member standing in his place here and accusing my constituents of lying?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, at one time I was the labour critic in the Province of Manitoba. I can tell members that whenever we dealt with labour legislation, it was almost like a general given if we were going to change a labour law, and one of the things that is fundamental to do, we always wanted to get a consensus between labour and management. When government wants to change legislation, typically it will enter into a consultation process and try to build that consensus. Canada works better when we have harmony within the labour force, and that means unions working along with business.

The member might be surprised, but I can assure him that unions have played a valuable role in society, and we have what we have today because, in good part, of our union movement.

As the sponsor of one of the bills that actually offended a great number of union organizers and, I would suggest, the management side, because of the manner in which the Harper government ultimately saw that bill pass, would the member not acknowledge, at the very least, that if we want to promote harmony within the labour and management communities, we need to build consensus before we introduce legislation?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we already had the polling information that I put out there that tells us there is already a broad consensus among the Canadian public about how they would like to see this particular piece of legislation.

Bill C-525 is no different from the laws that already exist in other jurisdictions outside of Canada and in our provinces within Canada. This is not some airy-fairy massive change. This is simply giving the Canada Labour Code, or whatever looks after the private sector, that ability. The legislation before Bill C-525 had “may” actually go to the union members and have a secret ballot vote. Changing the word “may” to “shall” is really all that Bill C-525 did. It took something that was optional and made it mandatory, at no extra cost, by the way. The bill did not need a royal recommendation or anything like that, because the labour council could simply absorb that. It is part of its mandate already. It is part of what it does.

No, I am not buying the member's argument. Is he saying that private members should not have the right to bring forward legislation to change labour laws or things like the wording of the national anthem?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until the expiry of the time provided for government orders this day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The vote is deferred.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Salaries Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech of last Friday on Bill C-24. It will give me the opportunity to highlight the key elements I talked about last Friday for the benefit of those people who are very interested in these legislative changes, which directly affect us in every region of the country.

First of all, we were presented with Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act. We must admit that the title of the bill does not tell us much, and that is exactly what I am going to talk about. What I want to try to point out today is that the Liberal government does more harm with what it does not say than with what it does say, and that is very obvious in Bill C-24.

For the benefit of anyone watching us, this bill could have been called “an act to abolish the ministers for the regional economic development agencies and to centralize all regional economic development decisions in one location in Canada”. That would have been a more accurate title for this bill. It would have indicated to Canadians, as well as my colleagues across the aisle, I think, that this move is completely unacceptable for the various regions of Quebec.

Getting back to Bill C-24, all bills have a summary that clearly states the purpose of the bill. The summary of Bill C-24 states:

This enactment amends the Salaries Act to authorize payment...of the salaries for eight new ministerial positions. It authorizes the Governor in Council to designate departments to support the ministers who occupy those positions and authorizes those ministers to delegate their powers, duties or functions to officers or employees of the designated departments.

That summarizes the bill.

The summary does not say much about subclause 2(1), which states that “Paragraphs 4.1(3)(s) to (t.4) of the Act are repealed”. Those sections have to do with the ministers responsible for the regional economic development agencies. We have this one very short subclause and suddenly, poof, the ministers are gone, ministers that this government could not even be bothered to name, I might add.

In this government's view, what is the point of having a presence in all of the regions of Quebec, Canada and the west? There is no point at all, when one person in Mississauga is authorized to make all the decisions on all economic development projects from coast to coast to coast. That is the real problem, although it is not expressly said.

Once again, we need to be wary of what this government is not saying, because the real problems lie in what it is not saying, and that is where Canadians will pay the highest price. It is no wonder this government has produced such poor results over the past year in terms of economic development and job creation.

We are wondering what is going on because there is no longer a minister for economic development for each region of Quebec. How are members from either side of the House supposed to talk to someone about the economic difficulties facing their ridings, regions, or municipalities? Who are we supposed to talk to?

The 338 members of the House will have to schedule a meeting with the one and only minister responsible for economic development to talk about their files, or if not, they must talk to someone in his cabinet. In any case, we are going to have a lot of difficulty finding someone to speak to about the problems our regions are experiencing, because they are of no interest to the Liberals.

The diafiltered milk issue is a prime example. We used to be able to go and see the minister responsible for economic development in our region and tell him about all the problems that this is causing for the region and its SMEs, which are dairy farms. It is important to understand that, in regions like mine, a farm is not just a farm. A dairy producer is a small business that supports the family, employees, the local convenience store, tractor and truck dealers, and others.

This will have a huge impact on local economies. We are not talking about just one farm. Any given riding can have 10, 12, 100, 200, or even 300 farms. The government is letting the problem drag on. Every now and then, the government says it will deal with the issue and that someone will take care of it at some point.

Today, the Minister of Agriculture announced plans for a new agricultural policy. The policy does not yet exist, but it will someday. Today, though, he did not say a word about diafiltered milk even though he was the one who told us back in May or June not to worry because there would be a meeting before the summer and a solution would be found.

Now here it is nearly November. The last day before November, October 31, is Halloween, a day for frightening people. In this case, the government could not wait for Halloween to frighten people about diafiltered milk. We have been raising the subject for a year and telling them that there is a problem and it is hurting dairy farms in our regions, our small and medium-sized businesses.

What is going to happen on Halloween night when kids go trick-or-treating? The dairy producers of my riding will not even be able to hand out Halloween candy to the kids. They cannot afford it; it is that simple. How sad.

Meanwhile, the softwood lumber issue is affecting thousands of jobs, including hundreds in my riding and hundreds in my colleagues' ridings. In the ridings of many of the members across the aisle, the current situation is having a direct impact on sawmills, since negotiations with the United States are not going well at all, because the government really does not care about resolving this matter. Why are the negotiations not working? Who in cabinet is going to stand up and speak on behalf of the various economic regions? We no longer have ministers responsible for regional economic development.

Not only does Bill C-24 abolish them, it abolishes them forever. It is really troubling.

Since this is a new government, those folks over there do not really realize what those regional minsters did. What does a minister responsible for an economic development agency do? I will refer directly to the the Canada Economic Development website to explain what an economic development agency does. There are six regional development agencies across Canada that each represent one of the country's various regions.

Regional Development Agencies across Canada help to address key economic challenges by providing regionally-tailored programs, services, knowledge and expertise that: build on regional and local economic assets and strengths; support business growth, productivity and innovation; help small- and medium-sized businesses effectively compete in the global marketplace; provide adjustment assistance in response to economic downturns and crises; and support communities.

Further, it explains that:

Each Regional Development Agency brings a regional policy perspective in support of the national agenda through: regional economic intelligence to support national decision-making.

I will repeat that because it is important, and I will add the words “minister responsible” to put this in the context of a cabinet minister. This gives us:

Each [minister responsible for a] Regional Development Agency brings a regional policy perspective in support of the national agenda through regional economic intelligence to support national decision-making.

That is the problem. There is no longer anyone in cabinet capable of bringing a regional perspective when it comes to making a national decision. What happens as a result? There will be consultations on just about everything because there is no minister who has taken the time to consult the people of their region. There is no minister who is aware of the economic development of their own region. There is no minister who is capable of talking to cabinet about the repercussions of bad national decisions, because this type of minister no longer exists.

I have a lot of respect for the current Minister of Economic Development. Imagine that. One man alone has to make decisions for the economic development of all the regions in Canada.

I was the mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years. Thetford Mines is small town with a population of 26,000.

There are eight wards in that town, and there were ten when I was mayor. Every municipal councillor had different priorities. As surprising as it may seem, we needed a representative in each ward so that when we were at the council table, he would give us his opinion on the development of our town. We had a population of 26,000. Canada's population is much greater than that. There are different regions, the economy is different, and yet we are left with only one person to stand up for all of Canada's regions around the cabinet table.

In closing, this kind of decision by the government is going to lead to these kinds of results. The economy is stagnating. Despite all the spending by this government, the Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the OECD have revised their forecasts for Canada downward for this year and the next. Good jobs are rare. The vast majority of new jobs created under the Liberals are part-time jobs. Meanwhile, the cost of living is increasing. It is difficult for Canadians to buy a house, and the new federal regulations will ensure that even fewer people will buy homes.

The economy relies on the regions, which in turn rely on their small and medium-sized businesses. Will the current government understand this? Will it change its position on Bill C-24 and once again give our regions a regional minister to stimulate employment and create real, sustainable jobs in the SMEs of our regions and Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member might actually be a little off base on this particular bill. Bill C-24 really equalizes. It makes all ministers equal. For example, with the Harper government, we had status of women being one level of cabinet minister, and the minister of finance being another level of cabinet minister.

It takes a two-tier system, and establishes one-tier for cabinet ministers. When they sit around the table, they speak from the same power base, and that is important.

The member made reference to regional ministers. Finance does an incredible job, and that minister represents the entire country. We have confidence the minister responsible for development will represent the entire country. That is an obligation of all federal ministers. It is not just one pocket but the entire country.

When we talk about the economic development of regions, we have FedDev, ACOA, CED, and the Western Diversification Fund. If we look at the Western Diversification Fund in particular, even with a majority Conservative government, the regional minister did squat in terms of developing that fund during the Harper years.

My question to the member is, would he not recognize that the real true value are those regional development funds?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe I am hearing comments like that.

The work done by the public servants at the economic development agencies is non-partisan. The government employees of these agencies work to advance the economy and create jobs in Canada. That is what those agencies do.

As I was saying earlier, it is the things that are not being said that are worrisome. The government is talking about economic development agencies, but if there are no more ministers, what guarantee do we have that those agencies will remain open?

The current government is a centralizing government that wants to do away with the economic development agencies across Canada and make all the decisions. That is what this government wants to do and that is the intent behind Bill C-24.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a basic math question for my esteemed colleague.

Is it not true that, regardless of how many responsibilities ministers have, they only have a certain number of hours in a day? If they are given more responsibilities, they have to divide their time by the number of responsibilities, not multiply it by that same number.

If I am right, how can just one minister do the work of six for Canada's economic regions?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague must have studied math, because it is obvious that one minister alone cannot do the work that took six ministers to do in the past. That is what is troubling.

Since this government was elected, it has been promising to do things differently, to be accessible, and to meet with everyone. I challenge the minister to do twice as much work and answer all of his constituents' questions regarding the economic situation, diafiltered milk, softwood lumber, and small and medium-sized businesses that are not getting their much-touted tax break. I invite all the members opposite to do that.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say, as well as the Liberals' response, or question rather, in which they accuse us of partisanship. I would like to point out that the ministers responsible for the regional economic development agencies from across Canada did a great job, without any partisanship.

Does my colleague think that this bill is transparent?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. This bill is no more transparent than the paper it is printed on. That much is clear.

The summary of this bill, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act, states that the government will appoint more ministers and give them authority to act. However, nowhere in the summary or the text is there anything about abolishing the positions of ministers responsible for Canada's regional economic development agencies. That is not transparency. Transparency means clearly stating the purpose of the bill.

My first concern is about the minister. What is going to happen? Hundreds of dedicated public servants in economic development agencies across Canada care deeply about their mission. When the new cabinet was announced, nobody was as disappointed as they were because they had set up a great office for their new minister. They were keen to work with a minister and show him or her all of the good things they were doing in the various regions of Canada. A few days later, they had to get used to the idea that the position would remain vacant.

A year has gone by, and now we know that the Liberal government's plan was to abolish regional ministerial positions. What will become of our economic development agencies?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is fairly straightforward. Three economic development agencies are budgeted a certain amount of money on an annual basis. If we look at the Western Diversification Fund, we find that the budget, which the minister is responsible for allocating the money, has not done well in western Canada. The minister representing western Canada did not get the job done in terms of delivering for western Canada. The argument is that a minister is responsible for the entire country, whether it is the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, or the Minister of Health. This legislation makes all ministers equal.

From the Conservative Party's perspective, is there anything wrong with having an equal cabinet?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague is not saying is that the ministers that he wants to be equal will not be because they will be allocated resources according to their roles. Thus, someone with a role that is less important than that of the finance minister will not have the same staff.

The government is reserving the right to say that they will be paid the same, but that they may perhaps have to work with the staff of the full minister's office. That is different from what my colleague is saying.

I do not believe that one man can do all that work because it is impossible. However, that is what the Liberals believe. One year later, we can see the results: growth has stalled and things are not improving. The government should learn its lesson, backtrack, and give each region a minister.