Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2016

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved 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 concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here once again to speak to the House about this legislative package, which would help all Canadians, businesses, and workers. That is really the ultimate purpose of the bill, to reduce conflict and ensure that our economy will be working as harmoniously as possible so that we can create jobs and have a healthy, strong economy, which is what every single member of the House is working toward.

This is the final reading of Bill C-4.

Our relations with the labour movement are not based on conflict, and should not be. Rather, the solution and the best approach is collaboration. We believe in co-operation with the labour movement because it benefits all Canadians. This was a promise that our leader made last year during the election campaign and introduced through the legislation known as Bill C-4. We believe that our system of open negotiations serves in the interests of both the employer and the employee, as was clearly evident in the recent negotiations between Canada Post and CUPW.

The bill not only is a significant step forward, it also has a strong symbolic value. It sends the message that a partnership, rather than adversity, is now the basis of our relationship. Our government takes an approach to labour relations that is based on collaboration, respect, and engagement, not the Conservative approach. We believe in fairness and justice for Canadians.

Truth be told, the labour movement has been an essential building block for a stable and strong economy, which we have now in our country, as well as a fair and inclusive society. The labour movement provides a collective voice for workers in their negotiations with employers. Unions have had a historical concern for the interests of the middle class, whether they are members or not, and strive for fair wages for all workers. They have been instrumental, in fact they have been central, in the movement to achieve fairness for women in the workplace, for indigenous workers, for workers with disabilities, and for all workers across this land.

This is in harmony with our values and our thinking as a government. This is also in harmony with our values and thinking as Canadians. This is why we believe our labour laws should be balanced and fair. Why have we put so much effort into this piece of legislation? Simply stated, we wanted to restore fairness and balance in labour relations because it has been missing for the previous 10 years.

The objective of Bill C-4 is to repeal the legislative changes brought in by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and supported by the previous government and delivered via a backdoor, sneaky approach to governing. The situation is very straightforward. These two bills upset the balance that has been carefully maintained for years. They upset a balance that ensured fair treatment for employers and workers, and that served as a solid foundation for collective bargaining and for our economy.

I do not mind calling this what it is. Those bills were anti-union legislation, and we would now correct the state of affairs.

During the committee hearings, we heard from a number of key stakeholders who provided specifics about the serious flaws in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. For example, we consider the fact that Bill C-377 forces labour organizations and labour trusts to provide very detailed financial information such as expenses, assets, debts, salaries of certain individuals, and other information to CRA. This private information would then be publicly available on that website.

They would also have to provide details on the time spent on political and lobbying activities, as well as any activities not directly related to labour relations. Thankfully, the Minister of National Revenue has already taken steps to suspend these obligations in 2016, while Parliament has been examining Bill C-4.

We must all understand that if this key financial information, including strike funds, were made public, these measures would put unions at a huge disadvantage, because employers are not required to publicly disclose similar financial information. It is totally unfair and unbalanced.

As well, Bill C-377 imposes a large financial and administrative burden on labour organizations and labour trusts, information that is not required from others. Why would unions be the only ones forced to comply with these requirements while other organizations, including professional organizations, would be exempt? Frankly, it is difficult to see how that legislation could actually benefit hard-working Canadians.

Some think that Bill C-377 was necessary to improve fiscal transparency. They say that it was necessary to guarantee public access to information. I fail to see the link between Bill C-377 and transparency. The rules contained in Bill C-377 are one-sided and discriminate against unions, and they upset the balance in labour relations. They add nothing to the current regime.

We already have legislation in place to ensure that unions are financially accountable to their members at both the federal and provincial levels. For example, section 110 of the Canada Labour Code requires unions and employer organizations to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge. This is more than sufficient to ensure that both parties can negotiate in balanced conditions.

We knew from the onset that Bill C-377 was unnecessary and redundant. Not only does it disadvantage unions during collective bargaining, it is also an impediment to the bargaining process itself.

This brings me to Bill C-525. This bill has made changes to the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and affects how unions are certified and decertified. It replaces the previous card check system with a mandatory vote system, despite the fact that the traditional system worked well for decades and there was little pressure to change it. In fact, the Conservatives hide the evidence in a labour department report that showed the success of the card check approach. It is shameful.

Bill C-525 makes it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents and makes it easier for bargaining agents to be decertified. However, it is not just a problem for unions. Consider the implications to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. These boards are responsible for the full cost and logistic responsibilities involved in holding representation votes.

Under these changes, the Canada Industrial Relations Board is required to hold a vote to certify a union, not just in roughly 20% of the cases where less than a majority of workers have signed union cards but in all cases. That translates into roughly five times the board's current workload. Unions now have to obtain support from 40% of workers before a mandatory secret ballot vote can be held. That is a great way to ensure that the unionization process is as complicated as possible.

Perhaps more alarmingly, the changes would also mean that the process is more susceptible to employer interference. During our committee hearings, Dr. Sara Slinn, associate professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, agreed.

She stated:

Employees require greater protection from employer interference under a vote system. These include access to expedited unfair labour practice procedures and more substantial interim remedies, but such necessary protections were not provided by Bill C-525.

It is evident that Bill C-525 does not represent a positive contribution to labour relations in Canada, not to mention that it is simply not necessary. The card check certification process that had been in place in the federal jurisdiction for decades worked well. We see no need to change that.

Bill C-4 represents the kind of positive contribution we want to see and that Canadians deserve. This action to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 is part of a larger effort to repair damaged relationships with those who are producing prosperity and quality of life for Canadians.

Our premise is simple on this side: we know that working people are not the enemy. We also know that a backdrop of conflict and mistrust cannot be productive for either side when it comes to reaching agreements.

I am not implying that all is perfectly smooth and that there are not points of contention between us and the labour movement. The point is that discussions must take place on a level playing field and in a setting of respect and transparency.

Canada watched as recent negotiations stalled between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. We were asked if we would get involved and introduce back-to-work legislation. However, we did not go there. We respected the process, and alone, together, Canada Post and CUPW came to a tentative agreement.

We are also seeing this in provincial jurisdictions. Earlier this week, General Motors Canada and Unifor came to their own tentative agreement without any work stoppage.

Our conviction in the collective bargaining process is not misplaced. We are seeing real problems turn into real results through respect at all levels. When we give a little, we get a little.

We know that the labour movement deserves fairness from the federal government, and we have delivered in Bill C-4. This is only one of a number of initiatives we are undertaking to improve the workplace in this country, and we are just getting started.

Not only do we have a focus on fairness, but the fact is that in many respects, we have to get with the times. In this respect, we have pledged to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow workers the right to formally request flex work arrangements from their employers. This will help federally regulated workers balance their professional and personal responsibilities.

We are also working on reforms to facilitate flex parental leave, which will allow parents to create a plan that makes sense for their unique families and workplace circumstances as they expand their families. Both those initiatives are good for the middle class and good for our economy.

We are also putting forward many other measures that will benefit hard-working Canadians and their families. I hope that in both our actions and our words members can see that our government is committed to achieving real results for Canadians.

When it comes to dealings with the labour movement, I am the first to admit that we might not always agree on everything, but it is essential that our larger relationship be based on trust. Our rapport is built on the bedrock of common goals, goals like helping the middle class and those working hard to join it and creating good jobs for hard-working Canadians.

However, there is more to do on many other fronts, including ensuring fair and equitable conditions for workers and building a sustainable economy. Let me remind my hon. colleagues that we can only achieve these goals by having frank and honest discussions about the things that matter, by sticking to our values, and by never forgetting just who we are here to represent.

As I have said before, sound labour relations are essential for protecting the rights of Canadian workers and for helping the middle class grow and prosper.

I thank members for their time and attention and for the ability to put these comments on the record.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity to make my case shortly, but for now, I want to pick up on something the minister said.

All we know is that Bill C-4 was tabled to kill two former bills that were adopted by the previous legislature, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. The minister referred to those as “backdoor” bills. As far as I am concerned, every bill and every member is a front-door bill and a front-door member. There is no back door here.

I offer the hon. minister the opportunity to rise up and recognize that she has made a mistake. If she will not, would she rise up and recognize that the bill tabled a few weeks ago by the Hon. Mauril Bélanger concerning the national anthem was also a backdoor bill?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reference to a backdoor bill is of course with respect to the way the bill was introduced by the previous government, which was not by the government itself but by a private member and through special negotiations. When it comes to something as significant as a labour relations bill, it is important, for a government position, for it to have brought forward the legislation. That is the point.

We are here to say that our Liberal government is supporting Bill C-4.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, having fought hard against the Conservative anti-union bills, we on this side of the House welcome the changes tabled by the government today.

I agree with the minister when she mentioned that the rights of working people have been under attack for too long, and the repeal of the Conservative bill is a good first step. Of course, I would remind the government that there is so much more to do. The minister mentioned the need for more reform and that it will be coming.

As the government plans to move forward with labour policy reform, I am wondering why we would review bad legislation that is contentious and unconstitutional. I would ask the minister to immediately repeal all the provisions of the previous government's bill and restore balance and fair collective bargaining for the public service.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the previous government had a political agenda to attack the labour movement, which I think was quite unwarranted. It took positions that went well beyond being fair and reasonable; they were ideological and based on political rhetoric rather than on the facts.

We have seen many organizations that have harmonious employer-employee relationships, which results in the company growing. There is no reason to fear the labour movement. In fact, a better way to achieve economic development is to work in partnership with workers, who often have very innovative entrepreneurial ideas that can benefit all companies, including their own.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for her hard work and the committee's hard work on Bill C-4 to restore fairness and balance to the collective bargaining process.

I am wondering if the minister can offer some insight or analysis as to how important fairness and balance is, given the Canada Post negotiations over the last few months. I am wondering if the minister would offer some insight into how important fairness and balance is for labour relations in this country.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canada Post negotiations are a good example of how collective bargaining can work. There was suspicion and resentment at the table, and in fact, for months there had not been any significant movement on finding a deal.

Both sides, I think, in fairness, thought that the government would rush in with back-to-work legislation, as happened under the Conservatives in the last round of negotiating. Once they realized that the government would not be heavy-handed, and indeed that they had to get down to the business of finding a solution, they were able, right to actually past the last minute, with an extension and help from a mediator we brought in, to find a deal.

Those deals are never easy. They are deals of compromise. They are deals where both sides have to give. It proves that collective bargaining works.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Employment and Unifor for her wonderful speech.

We have seen in the House this week the despicable, shameful actions of the Liberal Party paying off its political friends, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

When we look at Elections Canada, the top 10 third-party spenders were unions supporting this party. How does the minister sit there and not accept that this is just more political payback by Liberals to their friends for supporting them?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a little bit of historic reflection might indicate that maybe unions are actually supporting the third party, called the New Democratic Party, much more in terms of their political donations. I am hoping to convince them to start investing in the progressive Liberal Party.

In effect, each and every Canadian can support the political party they choose. We, as our Prime Minister has indicated, want to establish a fair and balanced relationship with the labour movement. Hopefully, we will gain their confidence in the next election.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly working people need access to collective bargaining in the workplace, but they also need access to employment insurance when they are laid off.

Yesterday, Statistics Canada reported EI figures for July, the first month in which extended benefits took effect. As one would expect, that led to an overall increase in the number of beneficiaries across Saskatchewan, except in Regina, which the government excluded from extended benefits, where the number of recipients went down as laid-off workers ran out of benefits.

I did an adjournment debate on this question on Monday. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and her parliamentary secretary did not show up, so instead I got a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which really did not explain the decision to exclude Regina from extended EI benefits. I am wondering if the minister could let us known why the government is continuing to keep Regina out of extended EI benefits.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we were very proud to provide extra benefits to those communities and areas that were hit the hardest by the commodities downturn. Both hard rock and soft rock were hit in the last four years.

Regina is an outstanding example of a diversified economy that has resisted some of the most challenging economic situations. Because of its innovative and hard-working prairie spirit, it has done better than most cities. We are all very proud of Regina.

There will always be cases where there is a certain area that is next door to an area that is more impacted that does not get included. I understand that. However, we must celebrate the success Regina has had in terms of a very strong, robust economy.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her speech and for correcting the balance that is necessary in this country as it relates to the labour movement and the business community.

I want to remind my colleagues on the opposite side that there is a big discussion going on in different countries around the world, one being Brexit and the other the U.S., as it relates to the benefits of certain kinds of agreements vis-à-vis the working person in those countries. The whole objective, from a larger value issue, is the ability of the working man and woman to be able to get good benefits for their labour. Therefore, I commend the minister for doing that, and for the beginnings of a process of making sure that the labour movement plays its historical role here in Canada.

Now, with the structure changing, as the economy shifts and things change, the importance of changing the Canada Labour Code is extremely important. Could the minister maybe give us some insight as to what those changes can be to improve the abilities of working men and women to be in the labour force?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we will be making changes to the Labour Code. We have been consulting on a tripartite basis with labour, employers, and with the people of Canada and this House to make those changes to the Labour Code.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak, but I would rather not have to do so on the subject of Bill C-4. Today is not a good day for Canadian democracy.

This is the final stage of debate on Bill C-4, a bill that takes aim at union democracy, the transparency that must be present in certain unions, and the accountability that is so vital not only within unions, but everywhere. People are becoming increasingly aware, particularly this week, that the government is no no position to lecture anyone on accountability.

Bill C-4 seeks to literally kill two bills that passed during the previous Parliament, two private bills that we, the Conservative Party, fully respected. We fully respect private bills, because we believe that all members of the House are equal, and all bills introduced here are equal. There is no such thing as front-door bills and backdoor bills. Every bill is voted on by members who all enter through the front door. Why? Because we are all accountable to our constituents. Regardless of whether a member is a government member, a cabinet minister, an opposition member, or an independent member, we are all members of the House of Commons. We all have the same authority to introduce bills. Shame on this government for referring to private bills as backdoor bills.

I want to repeat what I said earlier. I offered the minister the opportunity, the possibility, the chance, and the privilege to recognize that she has made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. Referring to the private bills we passed during the previous Parliament as backdoor bills is insulting to the House of Commons, and it is insulting to the 338 people duly elected by Canadians, our constituents.

I did not want to have to say this, but unfortunately I have to repeat that when a private member's bills is introduced, it is a front-door bill, not a backdoor bill. If we apply the Liberals' logic to the bill that was passed a few weeks ago, the one introduced by the Hon. Mauril Bélanger on the national anthem, are the Liberals prepared to say that that was a backdoor bill?

Are the Liberals ready to say that Mauril Bélanger's bill was a backdoor bill, yes or no? If they are ready to say that, they can rise up and say it.

It is impossible. We cannot say that a bill tabled by a minister or by an opposition member, or any member, is a two-tier bill. We are all members.

Bill C-4 seeks to kill Bill C-377 on accountability, and Bill C-525 on transparency. Let us look at them one at a time.

In our opinion, one of the fundamental principles in any organization is democracy. We want people who operate in a democracy to be accountable to their constituents, and also to earn that mandate. That is why when it comes to forming a union, we think all potential employees should have the opportunity to express themselves freely by secret ballot.

We were elected here, to the House of Commons, by secret ballot. Did we go to people's homes asking them to vote for us and sign a document? Of course not because we respect the voters' secret ballot.

However, this government prefers to uphold the old union ways, which require people to sign an application for union certification. We think that people would be more comfortable forming a union by secret ballot. For that matter, we think that would put the unions on a stronger footing.

A union formed by secret ballot proves that a majority of the workers really want it and that no one was subjected to undue pressure, whether from people wanting to unionize or from the company's executives who do not want the union.

We often think that unions are the only ones putting pressure on the workers by telling them they have to sign a certification application, but the opposite is true as well.

A business owner could go see new employees and tell them that they just got hired and that it would not be a good idea to sign. That would make employees think twice about doing so. However, allowing employees to vote by secret ballot on forming a union would respect the fundamental principle of democracy. That is why Bill C-4 is no good. It seeks to do away with this notion of democracy.

Let us also remember that union democracy is based on Canada's fundamental principles, and the best way to establish that democracy is to ensure accountability. On that note, I would like to mention another bill that will be killed by Bill C-4, and that is Bill C-525.

Bill C-525 sought to increase transparency and accountability. We believe that, when a union receives nearly $500 million in tax refunds, it needs to be accountable. That is not just peanuts. It is half a billion dollars. That is a lot of taxpayer money that is being given out in the form of tax refunds. That is why we believe that the salaries of executives, the way they manage their money, and the choices they make when it comes time to support political parties must be made public. However, Bill C-4 seeks to eliminate the transparency that we Conservatives think is critical.

My NDP colleague was saying that she organized and presided over a postal workers' union where all financial information was made available, but only to members. If that information is available to members, why not make it available to all Canadians, who contribute to unions through tax refunds? If that information is so public, why not make it really public? What do they have to hide? Making the information public would not bother anyone who did not have anything to hide. Why then are some members opposed to accountability and transparency?

That is why I am saying that Bill C-4 is a bad bill and that this is a bad day for democracy, because this legislation undermines the fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.

When it comes to accountability, this government has a long way to go, and that is putting it mildly. Day after day, we discover situations that embarrass the government. It is not a good sign when the Minister of Health uses a limousine service and gives out contracts to a Liberal friend but only apologizes and promises to repay the bill after she is caught.

Over the past few days we have learned that the Prime Minister's advisors expensed $200,000 in moving costs. At first, the Liberals said that this is no big deal. Then, they said these expenses would be repaid. That is definitely proof that the Liberals are not very proud of their record on accountability. However, accountability is vital.

MPs file a quarterly expense report, which includes travel expenses. It is very public. Woe to anyone with an ineligible expense, because they will be taken to task very quickly. Clearly, these are fundamental principles that we all support. However, when the time comes to make unions accountable, the Liberals, and I assume the NDP as well, do not want to have anything to do with it. That is unfortunate. Democracy, accountability, and transparency are fundamental principles in this place, and they must also apply to labour organizations.

The truth, as everyone knows, is that the Liberals wanted to thank the big union bosses who helped them out so handsomely during the election campaign. Let us not forget that PSAC was prepared to spend $5 million in August alone to attack the former government before the writ was even dropped. The former prime minister had to call the election in August so that unions spending massive amounts of money to attack a political party—spending that was not approved by all union members—would not completely destabilize our democracy.

That is why we had the longest election campaign in history. Unions wanted to spend millions attacking one party without even getting their members' approval.

I know what I am talking about. In my Quebec City riding, which many federal and provincial employees call home, I met a woman who told me that she actively opposed her union's choice, that she strongly condemned it, and that she was not even given the right to vote on whether the union should spend the money. That is what has been happening. The unions spent millions helping the Liberal Party rise to power, so the party is thanking its union friends by introducing a bill that will destroy everything we did for democracy, accountability, and transparency.

Maybe the government could have paid more attention to what union members and even some union leaders are saying. Not everyone is comfortable with Bill C-4. In fact, some union leaders are very comfortable with the principles of transparency, democracy, and accountability. People have spoken out about this a number of times.

For example, PSAC's Robyn Benson said:

PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples.

That is not a Conservative or a right-wing group talking. That was Mr. Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I have other quotations, too.

Dick Heinen of the Christian Labour Association of Canada said:

We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all.

Brendan Kooy, Christian Labour Association of Canada, said, “To be clear, CLAC would support a secret ballot vote where possible.”

Here is another quotation, this one from John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications:

Members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card check system for the purpose of determining if a union is to become a certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles.

I agree with him.

Also, Paul Moist, national president, Canadian Union of Public Employees, said, “Asking Canadians a question about voting — most Canadians, me included, would say voting is good.”

Chris Aylward, national executive vice-president and executive officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that there was not issue with voting by secret ballot. He said:

But we're not sitting here saying that secret ballots are bad. As a matter of fact, in my submission I said that we have nothing against secret ballots. We use secret ballots at our own organization....So it's not that a secret ballot is now going to be imposed on employees and we're opposed to that. We're not.

It is hard to argue against a secret ballot vote as this is the basis of democracy.

Those are the foundations of democracy. Secret ballot voting is one of the foundations of democracy. Accountability is one of the foundations of democracy. Transparency in how union leaders spend union dues is one of the foundations of democracy. That is what we established, and that is what Bill C-4 seeks to destroy, specifically the foundations of democracy in the labour movement. That is troubling.

This is being done elsewhere. We did not invent anything new when we introduced this bill two or three years ago. On the contrary, we were inspired by what we saw being done elsewhere. Secret ballot voting exists in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Why can it be done at the provincial level, but not federally? Does that mean that the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia are against unions and against freedom of expression? Quite the contrary. If it can be done at the provincial level, why not at the federal level? So much for democracy.

The same goes when it comes to transparency and accountability. This exists in certain provinces, but also in certain countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and even France. If there is a country that leans more to the left than Canada, it is France. If there is a country that has been led by the left for years, it is France. If there is a country where unions are fully free to be active and have a very powerful presence in the economy and society, it is France. France has provisions to ensure transparency. Who are they to say that France would not be open to the unions when we know how powerful and strong the unions are in France? It is absolutely false.

I invite the government to look at what is is being done in Canada and in the provinces, as well as what is happening in countries that are more to left than we are, where unions are more powerful than ours and have room for transparency, accountability, and democracy.

There have been court challenges, which is absolutely legitimate in our system. People brought challenges before the courts over certain legislation that was adopted by the provinces. Look at what was said in Saskatchewan by the court of appeal that ruled on whether changes like those the Conservatives made two or three years ago should or should not be made to the employment legislation of that province.

Let us look at the statement made by Justice Richards of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan, who says on page 38:

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

He also says, “The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of modern democracy.”

This is not coming from a Conservative, but from a judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. We know that Saskatchewan is not a right-wing province. Was it not in Saskatchewan that Canada's major social movements were born? Was it not in Saskatchewan that T. C. Douglas founded the party that would later become the NDP? Saskatchewan, which is not recognized as being the most right-wing province in Canada on the basis of its history, has acknowledged through an appeal court judge that the secret ballot is a good thing.

To summarize, Bill C-4 is not a good bill. It seeks to kill two bills that were duly debated and passed by the former Parliament, two private bills, which, for the Conservatives, are not backdoor bills, as touted by the minister and other Liberal members in such a mean, petty, aggressive, and haughty manner.

In our opinion, all bills are equal, starting with the bill Introduced by the Hon. Mauril Bélanger on the national anthem. It is exactly the same thing. It is not a backdoor bill, but a bill that was duly introduced by a member, a bill that came in the front door, and not the back door.

Unfortunately, Bill C-4 will likely soon be passed, even though it undermines principles that are fundamental to Canada and so important to Canadians. It undermines the principles of democracy. People should be allowed to vote by secret ballot rather than be asked to sign a sheet of paper. We want to protect the secret ballot. That is how everyone here was elected.

Bill C-4 seeks to attack a bill that would increase the transparency and accountability of unions. The government is sending the wrong signal to unions and all organizations because when it is time for accountability, they all need to do their part, to be accountable.

The bills that we passed under our government improved democracy, accountability, and transparency, while Bill C-4 undermines those principles. That is why today is a sad day for Canadian democracy.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Quebec colleague for his speech.

He said that the government has a long way to go. I think that members on this side of the House would agree with me that the reason why there is a long way to go is that the previous government went to great lengths to undermine the labour movement, the environmental movement, and other movements in this country, for example by conducting audits of environmental groups in Canada. There is a long way to go because the previous government relentlessly attacked civil groups and longstanding principles, such as collective bargaining and the Rand formula. It also attacked our country's labour institutions. If the government has a long way to go, the fault lies with the members on the other side of the House.

Perhaps the member would like to reconsider the relentless attacks made by the Conservative Party and the previous government. Would he like to reconsider how that government relentlessly attacked our country's civil and democratic groups and institutions?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a member of a political party that fought hard for the principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability when we were in government.

Why? Because we imposed those same principles on ourselves. As members will recall, when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper first became prime minister, transparency and accountability measures were introduced right away. Since the Right Hon. Stephen Harper came to power, members now have to make all their expenses public.

That was our signature achievement. That is what we did. Yes, I can say that I am very proud that our political party fought hard for democracy, accountability, and transparency.

This government's spending has been scandalous and appalling, day after day, and as soon as the Liberals are called out on it, they apologize and say they will pay back the money. The Liberals are the ones who have a lot to learn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was here during the previous Parliament and I was very involved in the debates on Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, but his speech was extremely simplistic. All throughout his speech, he talked about secret ballot voting, but the scope of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 went much further. These bills were clearly an attack on unions in general.

My colleague failed to mention two specific points. The first has to do with the fact that unions had to disclose all expenditures over $5,000. Never mind the red tape and possible delays in the labour process, this would have also created a clear imbalance. Of course, management would be aware of the amount of a union's strike funds, for instance. Even that was unfair to the unions.

The second, which is even more interesting, has to do with the vote my colleague was talking about when he said it was totally anti-democratic. Under the bill that was passed and that will be repealed, union certification or decertification required the consent of 50% of the members plus one, including abstentions, which is absolutely anti-democratic.

Can my colleague comment on the anti-democratic nature of these two points?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the first time I have ever heard someone say that the 50% plus one rule is anti-democratic. Very few of the people here were elected by 50% of the voters plus one. I know I was not and that many other members were not either. Nevertheless, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the 50% plus one rule is anti-democratic.

I would point out that these measures apply to all workers, which is why the threshold has to be so high. I will not get into the Clarity Act, but it is clear that the 50% plus one rule is the gold standard for democracy. We must act accordingly.

As to whether asking unions to report expenses over $5,000 constitutes a massive administrative burden, all of the union members told us they had access to that information. If they have access to the information, they should make it public.

We think making expenses public is totally legitimate. Yes, democracy and accountability come at a price, but that is the price of democracy.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent debunk some of the gross mischaracterizations that had been made about the bills of the previous government, which this bill would replace. I thank him for doing so.

I am particularly struck by my hon. colleague's defence of the role of private members in the House. Could he comment on how the private members on the other side of the House must surely feel when told a private member's bill is a backdoor bill?