Debates of Sept. 21st, 2016

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a first step for the government to tell the world, either new employees or current public servants, that there is a different feeling in the workplace. That the government is looking to respect workers and their skills and treat them fairly and humanely is a very important first step in attracting younger people to public service. I think a lot of young people will want to work for the federal government, because its jobs help people and make a difference in people's lives.

There was one point in my speech where I perhaps sounded like I was sharing some disappointment. In terms of attracting younger workers, the government missed an opportunity. Actually it has not missed the opportunity, it could still do it. The government should take the opportunity to really boldly look at the legislation that the previous government brought in and get rid of all of the anti-union and anti-worker legislation that I spoke of. That type of legislation was telling people that there was a problem where there was not one. It said that too many people were taking sick days and it was costing a lot of money, all of which was not true.

We need to send a different message to young people saying that there is a new boss in town who respects them and wants to be partners with them. I guess I am asking the government to take a very bold step forward and repeal the legislation that I spoke of in my comments.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the labour critic in the NDP, for her fantastic speech and critique of where the government could potentially be going for working people in Canada. As a union member for 20 years, I know there is nothing more fundamentally important than the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike. Unfortunately, we do not see this being addressed in Bill C-5.

When we look at former Bill C-4, it is a direct threat to collective bargaining rights and the right to strike. Unions such as PSAC, PIPSC, and CAPE recognize this importance. It is the foundation of their ability to protect their rights in the workplace. We need to move collective bargaining back to where it was before the Conservative Harper government created Bill C-4 and essentially took that right away.

Could my hon. colleague give us her thoughts on why the government is not recognizing this and moving immediately to restore free and fair collective bargaining for public service workers in this country?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments, her passion, and for sharing what is important to her and our brothers and sisters in the union movement and those who work in our neighbourhoods.

It is important to me that we continue to believe in the government moving forward, being more supportive, and protecting the rights of working men and women. Sooner rather than later the government needs to do more walking than talking when it comes to the anti-worker, anti-union, and health and safety rights that were removed from public sector workers by the previous government. The government needs to talk about those issues and move forward quickly.

If we are going to go through all the things the previous government did to remove rights from working people and unions, we would be here until the cows come home as we continually look at one thing at a time. I would ask the government to look at it holistically, provide that leadership as a new, positive force in labour relations in the government, and move quickly to repeal those that are still on the books.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think all of us in the House today agree that we value the work of our public service workers.

Could my colleague name one small, medium, or large company in her riding that could continue to operate with the kind of sick leave benefit system we have today, which was implemented 70 years ago? Does she not agree that there needs to be positive change to make it more fair for workers in all sectors across Canada?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, a lot of times people create problems where they do not exist. I commented on the parliamentary budget officer's reports around sick leave and the cost to taxpayers. They were not, as the government suggested, out of control and costing us millions and billions. That is just not the case.

I brought up in my remarks a small, medium-sized business in my community that was attracting young, talented people by offering good benefits and a living wage. Sometimes we assume, because we are trying to create a problem in order to make decisions, such as cutting budgets and what not, which I do not always agree with them. However, we create a problem that really is not there.

We need a public sector that is supported, valued, and given the skills and resources to do a good job, and that includes good benefits. If we really want to see our government, our democracy, and our country grow, to attract people to those jobs, we need to make public sector jobs ones that people would strive for and want to make a career in.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I disagree with the member's assessment. Our government has established a new attitude in its approach with unions. It is one of mutual respect. Whether it is Bill C-4, Bill C-7, the current legislation, Bill C-5, or the Canada Post potential strike and the negotiations around that, I wonder if she could reflect on those initiatives and at the very least acknowledge that in a very short period of time we have come a long way in establishing that new relationship.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government has made a good start, but there has been more talk than action. I will give credit where credit due. I support the bill and I have supported other bills the government has brought forward if they are a step in the right direction. However, I do not want to deal with things on a one-off basis, over and over again, for a long time. I would like the government to be much more bold in its actions.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today in support of the government's Bill C-5, one of a number of actions that the government has taken to restore the trust and confidence in our collective bargaining system in our country.

The bill goes to the heart of what we, as a government, believe in, which is collaborative, constructive relations with bargaining agents. It is a bill that highlights our belief that a balanced system of labour relations is the best one in a fair democracy.

This bill will repeal Division 20 of Bill C-59, passed in 2015.

Bill C-59 was the last omnibus budget bill introduced by the former government. It gave the government the power to circumvent the collective bargaining process and to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants.

To be more precise, it gave the Treasury Board the legal authority to do the following in the core public administration: first, establish and modify the terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees despite the content of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was negotiated in good faith in bargaining agreements; second, establish a short-term disability plan; and third, modify the long-term disability programs.

In other words, it gave the government the authority to ignore the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to put in place a new sick leave and short-term disability program without the support or agreement of the bargaining agents representing public service employees. That is what we have been speaking about in this debate. It serves to undermine the good faith that government needs to earn in its bargaining with its public servants and their representatives.

As members may know, the Public Service Labour Relations Act was initially passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and to negotiate collective agreements.

It is vital that the parties work collaboratively and that the ability of the public service to serve and to protect the government be enhanced. That is obvious.

Bill C-59 sought to give the government the power to unilaterally impose a short-term disability plan if an agreement was not reached.

Unilateral measures are not collaborative measures. They do not foster good will or respect.

That is why we objected to these measures when they were introduced, and that is why we are here today repealing the legislation tabled by the previous government.

Federal employees are Canadians like us, who, each and every time they come to work, do so in service to Canada and Canadians, with the goal of improving or protecting the lives of their fellow citizens. They are the people who protect the integrity of our ecosystems by collecting the data and science that is needed to make the decisions, the people who issue our passports when we travel, who inspect high-risk foreign vehicles to ensure our ports stay safe and our waters clean, who work in the local post office, who ensure the safety of our food and the security of our borders.

However, in the past decade, a good number of fundamental labour rights that were hard won by workers and unions have been rolled back.

We need only look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which make union certification more difficult and decertification easier, and which would require unions to comply with demanding requirements for financial reporting.

These bills were passed without the usual consultation of employer, union and government when labour relations legislation is amended.

These are some of the measures the members opposite have been speaking about that we are committed to repealing.

The previous government did not follow the negotiation process and made it much more difficult for unions and employers to bargain collectively in good faith and work collaboratively in the interest of Canadians. In contrast, we believe in negotiations to achieve settlements that are both fair for public servants and for taxpayers. Threatening bargaining agents through a bill is not a basis for constructive negotiations.

We started by introducing a bill to repeal Bill C-377. That bill created unnecessary red tape for unions, requiring them to submit detailed financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency, including on non-labour relations activities. We also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-525, which made it more difficult for employees to organize and negotiate collective agreements.

The President of the Treasury Board also committed to repealing the unfavourable provisions of Bill C-4, another omnibus budget bill passed in 2013, which sought to limit the ability of unions to represent their employees.

These are the important measures we have taken to restore fairness and balance in Canada's labour laws.

Let me sum up our responsible reasons for introducing Bill C-5. The bill would repeal the law that gives the government the power to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system on federal employees without collaboration or consultation.

During the election campaign, we committed to restoring fair and balanced labour legislation that recognizes the important role of unions in Canada.

We respect the collective bargaining process and we will bargain in good faith. We will work to negotiate collective agreements that are fair and reasonable for both public service employees and Canadians.

We want to restore balance, so that neither the employer, who represents the public, nor the union, which bargains for employees, has an unfair advantage in labour negotiations.

That is the system that best serves a just society. That is the system that will attract young millennials into our public service. That is the system in which we all exercise our responsibilities to ourselves, our communities, and to others. That is the system that best serves Canadians.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a statement that my hon. colleague made earlier. She referred to “some useless measures” that were implemented by the previous government and then she went on to talk about measures such as giving union members the right to know how their union dues were being spent. In addition to that, she referred to the right of union members to have a secret ballot when they voted. To me, the secret ballot is one of the hallmarks of democracy.

I wonder what the member opposes in terms of creating an environment of democracy for our union members that is similar to what enables each one of us to serve here in this Parliament.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question by the member opposite, who was part of a government that did not see the value that workers bring to the table and the importance of unions that look after and champion workers across the country.

What his government did is buried in omnibus budget bills, critical pieces of legislation that reduce or undermine the fair power and opportunities of unions to bargain on behalf of government employees.

In terms of the specific point the member mentioned, the secret ballot, his government forced the secret ballot to be the only option by passing a law that took off the table other options that may be more appropriate in certain circumstances. The board was not able to have a choice. It was a matter of one option being shoved down their throats.

With new leadership in his party, I would really invite the member to join us in thinking about how we can have a positive, constructive collective bargaining atmosphere. Join the President of the Treasury Board in this effort to change the atmosphere and have a success rather than having the unions feel they have to walk out and not participate, particularly as so many things were done to undermine the rights of their members through these omnibus bills.

Join us. The member now has new leadership. He is now no longer obligated to participate in that kind of divisive, hurtful, and anti-worker change that was brought in by the previous government.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this talk about new approaches, but they have to walk the talk, of course, as one of my colleagues said.

What worries us is that, even if the government changes the law, the fact remains that the negotiator has not changed and the same offer may make its way back to the table. Ultimately, even if what the government says sounds good, can it truly guarantee that there will actually be an offer that is in keeping with its purported newfound respect for workers?

I like the expression “lip service”. It is all well and good for the federal government to say it respects workers, but if it presents public servants with an offer that does not reflect that respect, we are back to square one regardless of the legislation before us.

Can the parliamentary secretary guarantee that the forthcoming offer will truly reflect this new intention to negotiate in good faith and respect workers' rights and interests?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the work we are doing reflects the good faith of the bargaining process. We remain committed to working with the unions to reach agreements that are fair and reasonable, both for employees and for all Canadians. However, I would like to add that negotiations between the employer and public service bargaining agents are currently under way. We will not discuss the details of those negotiations anywhere but at the bargaining table.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by commending the parliamentary secretary. I have known the hon. member for quite a long time, since I was a federal minister and she was a provincial minister in B.C. We have worked together over the years. She has a lot of experience on key files of government. In her work, both provincially and federally, she has demonstrated great regard for our public servants.

The hon. member has referred to the importance of attracting millennials to our public service. One of the most important issues to millennials is the environment and Canada's response to climate change. One of the areas in which we can contribute to the efforts against climate change is what we do as a government in greening up government operations.

The hon. member, as parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, is helping to lead the charge within our government on the greening of government. I would like her to reflect on some of her ideas and some of what we are looking forward to doing as a government to lead as a national government in the fight against climate change within our country and globally.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the President of the Treasury Board for shining a spotlight on the critical nature of the challenges facing this country and our government.

Climate change is a global challenge and our government is stepping up to do its share. To do that we need the civil service, the scientists, and the members who are assisting with policy. We need the broad civil service to be on board and excited. I can assure the president that the clear commitment of our government to acting on climate change is very motivating to the civil service.

I recently attended a consultation with a hundred civil servants, including a panel on which there was an environmental leader. The purpose of the consultation was to allow the civil service to consult with the public and groups that represent the public, something they had not been asked to do for 10 years. How demoralizing is it when one has a personal conviction that something is important, but instead is just asked to do what one is told and not consult with the public? This whole event was about the civil service relearning how to consult the public.

It was very exciting and motivating for the young people in the room that they now had a government with leadership. They have a President of the Treasury Board who is committed not just to having a renewed public service, but also a public service with a renewed ability to do the job that Canadians need it to do.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up my colleague's statements about the ineffectiveness of a secret ballot and its undermining of workers' rights. She referred to possible more appropriate methods than a secret ballot. Could she outline what these more appropriate methods of electing their leaders could be than a secret ballot?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member giving me another opportunity to invite him to have a different approach. As I said, he was part of a leadership that had very little respect for unions and took many actions unilaterally changing the ground rules of collective bargaining.

As the member is well aware, the secret ballot remains an option. The government is not eliminating that option. It was his government that narrowed it down to a single option for collective bargaining. The Conservatives' own secret studies were put on a shelf and not publicized, studies that showed that a secret ballot would skew collective bargaining against civil servants and their representatives.

It is a new era and new opportunity to have a positive tone in negotiations with civil servants. It is one in which we show our respect for the job they do and our understanding of how critical they are to accomplishing the objectives of economic growth, a stable middle class, and making sure that the environment and economy go hand in hand.

Join us.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to talk to this particular bill, because labour legislation is not new to me. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian back in 1988, some of the most controversial pieces of legislation that we debated, with the possible exception of the Meech Lake constitutional reform package, was labour legislation, and the final offer selection in particular. I have a little bit of experience that I would like to share with the House and maybe give a different perspective on that.

First, I would like to acknowledge that we have seen a change in attitude toward labour and management, and the importance of having the freedom of collective bargaining and so forth. We have seen it right from the Prime Minister's Office and in the speech by the President of the Treasury Board and the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board on the public service.

I think it is very important that we recognize that our government wants to promote harmony and a better way of dealing with Canada's public service, and not only for our public service but also to encourage that same sort of goodwill and bargaining process even in the private sector, where we can carry some influence.

In my earlier question to the President of the Treasury Board about the importance of Canada's civil service overall, I referred to the perception of our civil service that goes far beyond the borders of Canada.

I have had the good opportunity, as I know many members have, to travel and meet politicians and bureaucrats abroad. They often cite Canada for the type of leadership we have provided and look to the professionalism of our civil servants. We often get groups from different levels of government from all around the world coming to Canada to get a better understanding of our system. I believe that is because of the fine work that our civil servants, thousands strong, perform day in and day out in providing a wide spectrum of services to all Canadians. I think we should all take immense pride in just how professional our civil service is and realize that it is not only recognized within Canada but also far beyond our borders.

I started by commenting on my experience. I have witnessed over the years that labour legislation issues are used as political fodder. I remember back in 1988 when we had a change in government in Manitoba, from the NDP administration of Howard Pawley to the Progressive Conservatives of Gary Filmon. The first thing on his agenda was to repeal what they called “final offer selection”. Final offer selection was widely respected and accepted by both the private and public sectors as a positive change to the labour laws in the province of Manitoba—but yes, it could have used some modification. The Conservatives at the time were determined to get rid of the legislation. They had no room whatsoever to accept the legislation. They made it very clear when they were in opposition that they would repeal it. To them it was one of those wedge issues.

It was an interesting debate that took place, and I say this because as we get into the discussions on Bill C-5, that is really what the bill is doing: it is rectifying some problems from the previous government. Indeed, I witnessed in committee a government that was determined not to improve legislation or the law, but rather to fulfill a political desire based, I would suggest, on a wedge issue.

We sat in committees until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning for endless presentations, and so forth, and ultimately the Liberal caucus at the time proposed a series of amendments. If the amendments had passed, ultimately the final offer selection would have remained in the province of Manitoba. We had support from both labour and management.

At the time, it was a minority situation, and unfortunately, the New Democrats and the Conservatives chose to defeat the amendments, choosing, in particular with the New Democrats, to kill final offer selection as opposed to saving it and, ultimately, I would have argued, improving it.

Why do I say that? When I look at the number of pieces of labour legislation that we have before us, there are a few thoughts that come to mind. One of them is with respect to a private member's bill that is being brought forward. That private member's bill is being sponsored by the New Democratic Party. It is a bill that I would encourage members not to support as it proposes anti-scab legislation. I remember that legislation when it was being talked about in the province of Manitoba. The NDP members said no, they did not want—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Beloeil—Chambly has a point of order.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a lot of flexibility here on the issue of relevance. The member is talking about the excellent bill sponsored by my colleague from Jonquière, but I do not think that is the bill currently before the House. I think he is probably more proud than that of his government's bill, so he should stick to that subject.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As the member mentioned, there is a lot of flexibility in these discussions. Accordingly, his intervention is not really a point of order, but rather part of the debate. I therefore encourage the member to rise and ask a question, if he so desires, during the question period on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely relevant and if the member stays tuned, he will find out why it is so relevant.

The legislation members are proposing, the opposite of this legislation, is trying to change ideas that came forward from the Conservative Harper government, that ultimately threw labour relations off balance. This is exactly what the New Democrats are proposing to do in the private member's bill. Like the Conservatives, they did not do their homework with respect to that private member's bill. There is a process which all of us should actually respect.

New Democrats would agree with me on the point that the labour legislation that the government has brought in, in many ways is repealing legislation that the Conservatives brought forward. We made reference, for example, to former private members' bills C-377 and C-525. Those were bills that, I would argue, were brought through the back door of the House of Commons through private member's where there was no due process, no real consultation that had taken place, but it met a political agenda. It was not sensitive in terms of the labour movement, in particular, but many different stakeholders were not properly or adequately surveyed and the question was not put to them.

It is the same thing with regard to both political parties. I believe we witnessed a new attitude toward the way in which government is treating labour laws and Canada's public service. All one needs to do is to take a look at some of the things we have done in a relatively short period of time.

Today we are talking about Bill C-5, which is a piece of legislation that would deal with a change that the former Conservative government brought in, in the form of an omnibus budget bill, where it changed sick leave requirements. There were no consultations. It was the government's position and it was interfering. It upset a great number of people.

When we were in opposition, we cited the reasons why we had a difficult time, let alone that the change was packaged in a budget bill. We believed, at the time, that it needed to be changed and voila, today we have Bill C-5. It is rectifying a mistake made by the Conservatives. I have made reference to the two private members' bills which dealt with issues such as the certification and other issues related to public disclosure. Again, we witnessed no consultation that actually had taken place. We had Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 brought in by this government in order to balance the scale.

I believe that this government has successfully portrayed that it is not only a government that wants to see a different attitude but has been very effective at implementing it. We hope things continue to go well with regard to Canada Post. I remember talking to postal carriers with respect to the former government, and saw an attitude of distrust in the government of the day in terms of having an arm's-length approach. That government was prepared to take certain actions even if it meant going against Canada Post workers. Our government brought forward legislation like Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 to deal with the issues of our RCMP, and allow collective bargaining in order to allow the RCMP to become unionized.

These are all very strong, positive measures that have been taken in a relatively short period of time. The morale of our civil servants is so very important. That is one of the reasons we are seeing that new shift in attitude, and we will see dividends coming from that.

I had an interesting discussion not that long ago with a constituent who was reflecting about how the morale is, in fact, changing within our civil service. They look to Bill C-5.

I see you are trying to stand up, Madam Speaker. I believe I will be allowed to continue when the debate next continues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have six-and-a-half minutes remaining in his speech, as well as 10 minutes of questions and comments.

The House resumed from June 15, consideration of the motion.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Friday, June 17, 2016, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 43 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am going to ask the hon. members for Richmond Hill and Calgary Skyview, one at a time, to indicate how they wish to vote because they appear to have voted both ways.

The hon. member for Richmond Hill.