House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was union.

Topics

Proportional RepresentationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of fair electoral representation from Fair Vote Canada.

The petitioners prepared this petition to express their point of view on democratic reform.

ImmigrationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have numerous constituents who are concerned about visitor visas and how visitor visas are being issued. It is an issue which I believe many Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, understand and can appreciate. It deals with how visitor visas are being approved.

The petitioners are asking for special consideration to be given to those who have families, so that they can attend funerals, graduations, and important family events here in Canada. It is with pleasure that I table this petition today.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. Every time I speak in this place, as each of us does, I remind myself that I do so as the representative of the constituents of Mégantic—L'Érable.

As a newly elected member, I could easily get swept away by our magnificent nation's capital and its surroundings. It was with my constituents in mind that I prepared this speech.

If my colleagues do not mind, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that yesterday, the Eastern Townships public health department released its report on the health of the people of Lac-Mégantic, following the tragedy in that town. This report revealed that residents are still struggling and still need the support of members of the House. I think that all parliamentarians here would publicly agree to support the people of Lac-Mégantic, who have suffered as a result of this tragedy. I urge the government to work with all parliamentarians to help everyone get through this tragedy, which was, of course, a very difficult experience for the people of Lac-Mégantic. We will have to use the necessary resources, and we will all work together, across party lines, in a non-partisan and non-political manner, to ensure that the people of Lac-Mégantic get the services they need.

I want to start by saying that my speech on Bill C-4 is in no way an attack on unions or union leaders, and is certainly not an attack on the unionized workers who work hard to earn a living and support their families.

What I would like to talk about today is in fact the thousands of workers who have no corporate or partisan interests. They are happy in their jobs. They like being properly represented by their unions, and when they go home at night, they are just as happy to be with their families and forget about work until the next morning. That is the daily life of most workers, those whose voices we do not hear, those whom we tend to take for granted.

Here in the House and at the various levels of government, whether local, provincial, or federal, many people claim that they speak for those silent workers. Lobby groups and unions all claim that they speak on behalf of all of their members and in their place. It is easy to do so, because those individuals do not hear us. They do not attend meetings with the decision-makers and, at the risk of disappointing members, when they go home tonight, they probably will not read today's Hansard.

Why? Because they are busy. They work hard to earn their paycheques and take care of their families and their homes. They are also busy paying the bills. They expect us, their MPs, to do our work like they do theirs. They expect us to take care of business in our ridings and in our country, to manage their money as though it were our own, and to build a better future for Canada. That is what those thousands of workers expect from us.

They expect that from their union too. They expect their union representatives to deal with their working conditions and employer-employee relations and to be there when problems crop up. Like us, union representatives are elected. Like us, they do their best to represent their members, as we do for our constituents.

I would like to take a moment to thank the unions that have helped build the country we have now by improving the lives of all workers.

Bill C-4 repeals two statutes, the purpose of which was quite clear, namely to allow union members to vote for union certification by secret ballot without worrying about the pressure and corporate interests of the big unions.

We have all heard the questionable stories about people being pressured to sign union membership cards by three or four people who are not necessarily well intentioned. Often those people are not even co-workers.

I cannot see how a worker is supposed to refuse to sign when those three or four people threaten to stay at his apartment, home, or the restaurant where he is eating, until they get what they want.

The legislation gave that worker a way out by ensuring that his final decision would be made by secret ballot. In other words, when faced with two or three individuals insisting that they would not leave his home until he signs the card, he could always say yes, knowing that he had a way out.

That person would be able to vote by secret ballot, to make an informed decision, free from pressure from either the unions or those three or four people who wanted to force the person to sign the membership card.

With this bill, those three or four individuals would not have stuck around at the worker's front door long, trying to get a signature. That is the truth. I have to wonder why certain unions still use such methods to represent workers. Are they truly trying to defend the interests of their members or future members? Or are they simply acting in their corporate interest, to grow their own organization and to get the associated union dues?

What is really at stake with this old method is workers' money. Unfortunately, some unions are prepared to do anything to get the workers' money and do not care about what is good for them.

As the saying goes, the union wants what is good for you and wants your goods as well. That is the truth. Why are the Liberals, in one of their very first actions in government, going after Canadian workers and this democratic safeguard? I would truly like to understand.

Setting partisanship aside, how can this Liberal government, which from the beginning of the session has been spouting democratic principles, sabotage at the first opportunity a law that finally gave a voice to workers who work hard and want to avoid problems?

This law gave them a way out, a means to finally have their say, without fear of reprisal, on whether they want to be part of a union or not.

I listened to the comments of the members opposite, and since the beginning of the debate on this bill, I have not heard a clear answer. I heard the arguments of my colleague, who has done a fine job since the start.

He has a lot of experience as an opposition member. He highlighted the benefits of these two bills. I listened to the answers the minister gave him, but, unfortunately, I still do not understand.

I must therefore come to the conclusion that Bill C-4 has only one goal, namely to allow the unions to perpetuate their old ways of doing things. We tried to correct the situation in the interest of workers.

Why is the Liberal government doing this? You can find the answers if you look hard enough. If the other side does not provide the answers, you have to look a little harder and go back in time. You try to think about what happened before that could explain why the Liberal government absolutely wants to let the unions go back to their old ways. I think that I found part of the answer when I considered all that was said in the last federal election.

Last year, well before the election campaign began, the major unions ran a huge campaign against the Conservative Party using millions of dollars given to them by workers to represent them and negotiate their working conditions. The cat is out of the bag.

Here are a few examples of what was said in the union propaganda that was given to all unionized workers in my riding over the past year. Some of the key phrases were “the Conservative government's track record” and “what you need to know to vote for a better quality of life”. Those statements were then explained.

That is electioneering, and it was paid for with public funds. All Canadians paid for those documents through tax credits, and they were handed out to all unionized workers so that they could take a stand.

There was other fine rhetoric included in these pamphlets, such as “contempt for Parliament” and “actively anti-union”. On one page, the unions claimed to understand workers' values better than did the workers themselves. It read, “your values and vision for the future”. The unions were telling workers what to think. That is what they told unionized workers using Canadian taxpayers' money.

Later on, the unions told workers what they needed to know to vote for their safety and the safety of their loved ones. They said that transportation was less safe. They used the Lac-Mégantic tragedy to oppose what we had done. It is absolutely unbelievable.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, some people want to use tragedies to score political points and advance their cause. As we saw recently in the Quebec City region, people are talking about Lac-Mégantic just to promote themselves. We do not want that. I just wanted to mention that as an aside.

Here are some other excerpts: “many reasons to vote against Harper”, “the Conservative track record”, “what you need to know before voting“, and so on.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. I would like to inform the member that, when speaking in the House, he must not refer to another member by name.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, you are right, and I am sorry.

Let me get back to that question: “Why do we have to dump the Conservatives?” I found some quotes, and here is one of the best ones:

Get involved! Take the time to help make change happen! We are looking for volunteers in various ridings. Our goal is to talk to as many people as possible to tell them to vote for a change in government.

They were even offering training on how to vote. It is democratic, but I am skeptical about the reasons and motivations underlying our unions' big democratic push. That message was sent to all union members.

Here is another good quote I found when I listened to the debates and read some accounts of our debates.

In response to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who asked the minister to explain how it could be undemocratic to have a secret-ballot vote for unionization, this is what the minister said:

...it is undemocratic because the process used by the previous government did not include consultation. They did not go out into our community and apparently did not even consult with employers.

If I follow the minister's logic and understand what she said, Bill C-4 must be undemocratic.

When is the minister going to come to my riding, Mégantic—L'Érable, to consult the workers there? It is unbelievable. When is she going to come and consult the businesses in my region? Will she commit, here and now in the House, to visiting every riding in Canada to ask each and every worker their opinion on Bill C-4?

I invite the minister to come to my riding and I invite all of my colleagues across the aisle to do the same. I will arrange quite a visit for them.

Not only will the minister be able to consult each and every worker, explain her position, and hear the workers' opinions, but at the same time, she will also discover a very vibrant region full of motivated entrepreneurs and hard-working people.

However, she will also meet workers who do not agree with her on Bill C-4 and who cannot afford to make the trip here to the nation's capital to make the government hear what they have to say. Most of all, she will meet people who have absolutely no desire to come and listen to what we say here, because they are too busy earning a living and taking care of their families.

Between us, without mentioning anyone by name, since the vote was held by secret ballot, I will share a little secret with the House. I know that it will stay within these walls. When the minister comes to my riding, she will also meet unionized workers who voted for the Conservative Party. Indeed, she will.

A number of unionized workers voted for the Conservative Party and chose to support the party despite the millions of dollars that the big union bosses decided to spend to fight the big bad Conservatives, who asked them to be accountable to the workers.

She will hear that they are not at all pleased with how their boss spent their union dues during the election campaign. These people feel cheated because their money was used to fight their own democratic convictions. They are angry because their money was not used to defend their working conditions, but to promote a partisan political ideology that they do not share.

What 86% of unionized workers want is for their hard-earned money to be used properly and not for campaigning for or against a party.

Unions are the only organizations to receive so much public money without having to be transparent. Why is the Liberal government against that?

For all these reasons, I will be voting against Bill C-4.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Madam Speaker, I have to say in all transparency that I am absolutely shocked by the comments made by members opposite today in debate on this legislation.

My riding is Saint John—Rothesay and it has a deep and historic labour movement, a very strong labour history. I had the pleasure two weeks ago to visit the Frank & Ella Hatheway labour exhibit and was given a tour by George Vair and Chuck Hickey.

The party opposite's agenda over the last 10 years has been nothing short of degrading and demoralizing union workers and its own union workers in the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I have many friends in that union. Over 10 years they have been demoralized and degraded.

Let us be clear. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were designed for one reason and that was to weaken unions.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I will ask myself a question since no one else has asked me one.

Do I think that unions are the only organizations that should be publicly accountable? The answer is no. We would not want a charitable organization to invest in the stock market, for example, and then give half of what it makes to its directors as bonuses. We do not want that. Why does that not happen? That does not happen because these organizations are publicly accountable. It would be embarrassing for them to do so. I answered my question.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments and ask a question.

I heard comments about things such as perpetuating the old union ways. My question is this. Why are the unions always characterized as being crooked? Why this negative image of unions?

I was the treasurer of my union for 19 years. I had to bring my ledgers to every general meeting and show them to everyone. At the meeting we would talk about our expenses all together. Everything was open and transparent. Why are people saying that all unions are bands of crooks and that everything they do is bad? I do not understand that logic.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I truly do not remember saying in my speech that unions are crooks. I think that perhaps the member misinterpreted what I was saying. I did not say that at all.

I spoke about the unions' old ways of doing things. We received complaints about that, and some workers approached our party to ask if it was possible to put an end to those methods in order to improve democracy in unions. Not all unions were doing things that way. I was the vice-president of my union, and we also had very good methods and ways of doing things.

I therefore do not see any reason for calling these people names, as the NDP just did, just because I said that people want to change the old ways of doing things.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Madam Speaker, I myself was a union member, a CAW worker, a union steward at one time many years ago.

Unifor has its resort on the lake in my riding. It built a million-dollar wind turbine on its property. These are the types of things that need to be uncovered. Locals keep the books and do a great job. The workers who pay their dues are great, hard-working people.

We need to shine the light on the excesses of the national executives. I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are on that.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, that is exactly right. We hope that people will speak out against all such action taken by the major unions, perhaps with good intentions, but not with the intention of using workers' funds appropriately.

Why do workers give money to their unions? It is so that the union will represent them, get them better working conditions, resolve disputes with their employer, and help to improve their lot. Those are the reasons why people pay union dues. There are no other reasons.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

February 5th, 2016 / 12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been talking about transparency and democracy. I think we have a two-tiered system. Let me explain. During a vote on union certification, as he is proposing, the union would have to collect more than 50% of the votes of all the employees in question. All of the employees who do not vote will be deemed to have voted against unionization.

Let us now talk about our democracy. With this type of rule, no member in this House would have been elected in the last election or any other election, since no one here received more than 50% of the total votes in their riding.

I have a question for my colleague. Are there two different types of transparency? Is there one sort of transparency and democracy for unions and another one for parliamentarians?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her question.

I must say that some of our colleagues in the House did receive 50% plus one of the votes in their riding. Some of them managed to do so, but it is true that this is not the case for everyone in the House. I do want to congratulate those members on their excellent results. We are proud of their results and what they managed to accomplish in their ridings as they proudly represented unionized workers in their ridings. These people work hard and believe that the Conservative Party's decisions were good ones.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the reason we are debating this bill today is because the former Conservative government introduced two private members' bills through the backdoor of the private member's hour without working or consulting with unions, businesses, or the many different stakeholders, and it changed the law through that back door. If the Conservatives believed it was necessary, they did not have the political courage to do it in the form of a government bill.

Lo and behold, as the new government we recognize that we have to rectify a past mistake of the Conservative government. There are many past mistakes, and this is one that we are rectifying today.

My question to the member is this. Why does he believe that his former government used the back door to change labour laws through private member's legislation that should be based on the consensus of the different stakeholders?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I am a bit disappointed by my colleague's comments. The reason is quite simple. Why is he belittling the work that members do in the House? That is unbelievable. All members have the right to introduce bills. In the past, we allowed our members to speak and introduce bills. That is part of the democratic process.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and his answers with rapt attention. I participated in the debates on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which are now law.

Many of the aspects of these bills that we discussed and voted on were clearly designed not to address a specific problem but to undermine unions' ability to do their work. One of those aspects is the mandatory disclosure of expenses in excess of $5,000, initially, and salaries over $100,000.

I would like to know why the government of the day, which is now in opposition, wanted to create that kind of bureaucracy to monitor small expenses, which are transparent for all unions anyway?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, why is my colleague opposed to people knowing those things? This is about public money. Do unionized workers have the right to know what is being done with their money or do they not? We think they do.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

I am proud to stand today to speak in support of Bill C-4. The war on organized labour is over. This legislation would reverse the legacy of the previous government, which rushed through two anti-union measures, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, just prior to the last election. Those measures put in place redundant reporting requirements and made it harder to certify and easier to decertify a union. With Bill C-4, our government would repeal both of these punitive pieces of legislation.

The reasons we are doing this are threefold. The old combination of legislation under Bills C-377 and C-525 was unnecessary, impeded collective bargaining, and was ideologically driven.

Argument number one is that the old legislation is unnecessary. No one asked for Bills C-377 and C-525. Employees did not ask for them, unions did not ask for them, and even employers were not clamouring for this legislation. These bills constituted a solution to a problem that did not even exist. The only champions of Bills C-377 and C-525 were the members of the previous government. The ostensible reason they asserted was that they were trying to promote increased financial transparency and accountability for unions and to inject democratic principles into their processes. This rationale was defective then, and it remains defective now. First, to the idea that unions are not transparent and that members do not get to see the financial statements or expenditures, this information was and has always been made available to union members. Unions are member-based organizations that release information to their members, information that is confidential.

My colleagues across the way keep harping on about how unions are undemocratic organizations. Once again, that is incorrect.

Unions meet regularly, and all members are welcome to participate. At meetings, members are empowered to hold their leaders accountable. Discussions and debate take place during the meetings, differences of opinion are aired, and solutions are put forward. Taken together, those aspects are features of a democratic system.

Unions also hold membership votes. Decisions are made by the members themselves. The members are the ones who make decisions and issue instructions. Leaders are elected by union members and can be removed from their positions. That is another key principle of a democratic system.

I say this with some experience. I am the product of an organized workplace. For the past 12 years, before being elected, I served as a civil servant with the Ontario public service, practising law as a crown attorney. I have first-hand knowledge of the transparency and accountability parameters by which unions abide.

Yet another argument offered by the previous government in support of the old package of legislation was that it represented a modest increase in the financial disclosure obligations for unions. Again, this is incorrect. The reporting requirement in old Bill C-377 calls for at least 24 detailed statements to be submitted by unions of any size, from the smallest groups to the largest national bodies. The collection and managing of these submissions would cost the government millions of dollars, $11 million to start the oversight mechanism and $2 million every year thereafter. Those are not my figures. They come from the Canada Revenue Agency and the parliamentary budget officer. Just so we are clear, under Bills C-377 and C-525, the previous Conservative government increased the size and scope of government and government regulation, adding to the amount of red tape and, more important, adding to the amount that Canadian taxpayers would be required to shell out for such additional bureaucracy. The irony is palpable.

Argument number two is that the old legislation impeded collective bargaining. As I said at the outset, Bill C-525 made it harder to certify and easier to decertify a union. With the new Bill C-4, we would repeal those provisions. Our government recognizes that certification of a union is an important part of the collective bargaining process.

As I mentioned, I spent 12 years as a crown attorney specializing in the area of constitutional law. Section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of association. That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include “the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining”. Why is collective bargaining so important as to warrant constitutional protection? The Supreme Court has explained that, in paragraph 58 of a decision called MPAO.

The Supreme Court said:

The guarantee functions to protect individuals against more powerful entities. By banding together in the pursuit of common goals, individuals are able to prevent more powerful entities from thwarting their legitimate goals and desires. In this way, the guarantee of freedom of association empowers vulnerable groups and helps them work to right imbalances in society. It protects marginalized groups and makes possible a more equal society.

Collective bargaining is important because it helps to promote fairness and equality. We get that and we are not going to waste more taxpayer dollars litigating these types of cases in the courts. On that point, I would simply note that the charter challenge launched by the Alberta Union of Public Employees against the old Bill C-377 was suspended immediately upon our government's announcement that we would be repealing the government's punitive legislation.

However, it is not just me who understands the utility of collective bargaining as a vehicle for addressing inequality, it is also my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. It is people like Mr. Hassan Yussuff, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is my neighbour in Roncesvalles Village and a tireless advocate for workers' rights. It is people like Wyatt Bilger, a hard-working carpenter and resident of my riding and a member of Carpenters Union Local 27. It is people like the countless artists, filmmakers, performers, and television producers in my riding who contribute so much culturally to our community, who are also proud members of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. It is people like the hard-working tradespeople and manufacturing employees in Parkdale—High Park who are members of LiUNA, Unifor, and the CAW.

All of these individuals and groups appreciate what this newly elected government recognizes, that workplaces that include collective bargaining are a net positive, not a net negative for our communities.

Argument number three is that the old legislation was ideologically driven. There was no rationale whatsoever that informed the passage of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 other than rigid, anti-union sentiment. To illustrate this point, let us look no further than the rushed passage of the bills through Parliament. Bill C-377 was one of the four bills to get to the Senate just before the writ was issued for the last election. It was expedited to the Senate and was made made into law. But one of the four bills that received support from all parties in this chamber was left to die on the Senate order paper in place of passing Bill C-377.

What I am talking about is Bill C-279 that had been introduced as private members' legislation by my NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Bill C-279 was going to amend the Canada Human Rights Act to include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination. All parties supported and passed that private member's bill in the House in the 41st Parliament. However, instead of championing that bill in the Senate, the previous Conservative government decided to promote the passage of Bill C-377. Conservatives chose to attack organized labour rather than back Bill C-279, which would have protected the rights and freedoms of gender and gender variant Canadians who deserve the same treatment and rights as every other Canadian.

Not only did the Conservatives attack unions, they told trans and gender variant Canadians that their rights were not a priority. Thankfully that was yet another mistake of the Conservatives that our government has pledged to rectify. The commitment to amend the Canada Human Rights Act to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination is in the mandate letter for the Attorney General of Canada.

We have seen this ideological pattern before in terms of the old war on the environment, the war on the civil service, and the war on evidence-based policy. We have taken stands to reverse all of those previous battles. Now with Bill C-4, our government brings to an end the war on organized labour.

The role of this government, of any government, is to create jobs, but it is not just about creating any jobs, it is about creating good quality, secure, well-paying jobs. We recognize that unions help to do this. They ensure fair compensation for workers, promote safety for individuals, and protect workers' job security and their well-being.

A secure worker is a more productive worker and productive workers are good for the economy. We understand this. The previous government did not. As I said, the war on organized labour is over. Unions are not the enemy of progress, they are a partner in that progress. Our government is committed to working with them, not against them, to further the economic development of this country.

For these reasons, I urge members in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his good speech. I really appreciate the fact that he worked hard on that and it was clear. I do not agree, but it was clear.

There was one point that I strongly disagree with. At the beginning of his speech he said clearly that in this part of the House we always say that unions are undemocratic. I never say that. If so, please give me the time, the date, and the place where we said that. If not, please retract it.

Here is what I think: our bills always meant to strengthen union democracy by giving more authority and ensuring greater transparency, and above all, by making sure that secret ballots would give unassailable authority to decisions made by unions and union members.

How can any member duly elected to the House of Commons, elected by secret ballot, be against secret ballot voting?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Madam Speaker, I will respond to both questions.

First, the only inference that can be drawn by tactically deciding to promote this legislation, which was a private member's bill, on the eve of an election call is that it was ideologically motivated and democracy, or lack thereof, within the union processes was at the heart of the motivations of the Conservatives.

With regard to the second point, we have heard a lot during the course of the debate, even today, about the voting processes within the unions. I find it a bit ironic, to say the least, that members opposite are championing this point while, at the same time, completely sacrificing other important interests, such as the privacy interests of individuals involved in the unions.

According to the Conservatives' legislation, which we are taking off the books, there would be things like whether someone was entering a substance abuse program or what kind of prescription medication a person or his or her spouse was using that would be made public pursuant to the reporting requirements. This is a blatant attack on individuals' rights and on unions, and that is why we seek to oppose it.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In response to the question I just heard, clearly, we do not need to talk specifically about an attack on unions. However, the inference is there. Obviously, it has been implied, not only in this debate but also in the debate that took place in the previous Parliament on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

When you look at the contents of the debates here in the House and the discussions that took place in the relevant committees, it is clear that the legislation was not meant to unshackle the workers, but rather to attack unions' ability to properly represent them.

The provisions in the bills, which later became law, not only undermined unions' ability to do their jobs properly, but also created a very specific and massive bureaucracy to manage minor situations, which is very surprising from a government that always claimed to prefer less bureaucracy.

How will repealing those bills, which is what Bill C-4 proposes, affect the bureaucracy that was proposed by the Conservative government of the day?