House of Commons Hansard #81 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was unions.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleagues agree that the previous bill, which this bill is trying to repeal, could ensure the security of police officers, because a lot of them are unionized. The ones who work in unions could have their names and addresses published. They really worry about that.
Would the previous bill, which this bill would repeal, secure police officers in their work?
Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was.
Repealing this bill now is a very important step to make sure that all rights are protected and that nobody is treated unfairly.
Prior to 1977, everyone used a card. The majority of members signed up for a card, and that is how it was presented. There was a union if the majority of the members wanted it.
Going to a ballot system was done only after 1977, by a few provinces, and I hate to say it, but they were all Conservatives that actually put this stuff in. They were trying to lower the number of unions that could be formed. There was intimidation by the companies. There were threats of jobs being lost. They were going to close the shops.
That is why it is in front of us today. We are repealing something that was just bad legislation. There was actually great progress made going to the cards.
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House in support of Bill C-4, which was tabled last January by my colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.
As members know, improving labour relations is one of our government's priorities. I therefore ask all hon. members to support this bill.
The purpose of Bill C-4 is to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act by repealing the provisions enacted by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.
These bills force unions to produce useless financial statements and make it harder for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to unionize. Basically, Bill C-4 is a matter of justice and fairness for the workers affected.
Members know as well as I do that good labour relations are essential in ensuring Canada's economic growth and prosperity. Labour relation legislation ensures some balance between employer, employees, and unions. Our government understands this.
When the previous government supported Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, we opposed them and tried to make the government understand that these legislative measures was unjust and unfair. However, our efforts were in vain. The previous government refused to listen to reason and chose to move ahead, even if it meant jeopardizing the fragile balance that had been achieved in employer-employee relations. We were not the only ones who raised the red flag on those bills.
Bill C-4 is the right thing to do. The purpose of the bill is to essentially remedy this by restoring justice and fairness to Canadian labour relations. Many stakeholders expressed their concern. Overwhelming evidence has been heard on Bill C-4.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada supported Bill C-4, saying that Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were flawed, were introduced without proper consultation, and were detrimental to the rights of workers.
Further, Bill C-4 is hailed by the Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario for restoring the labour relations in Canada.
Bill C-377 would force unions and labour trusts to declare their expenses, assets, debts, and the salaries of certain individuals. That information would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website. They would also have to provide details on 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 lift these obligations while Parliament examines Bill C-4.
We have to understand that if this information was made public, these measures would put unions at a huge disadvantage to employers.
Bill C-377 unfortunately upset the balance that had existed. However, provisions were already in place to ensure that unions met their financial responsibilities. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code and many provincial labour relations laws already require unions and employers to provide financial statements.
Bill C-525 would also create a major advantage for management. The bill amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to change the union certification system.
The traditional card verification system was replaced by a mandatory voting system. Unions are no longer certified automatically, even if the majority of workers have signed a membership card. The rule in existence was clear and well understood. Private sector workers with federally regulated employers could obtain union certification by signing a union membership card.
For example, under the Canada Labour Code, if the majority of employees' signatures were recorded on union membership cards, those cards were sent to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to obtain certification. Even if 35% of the workers were in favour of unionization, a formal vote was taken. However, unions now have to obtain support from 40% of workers before mandatory secret ballot votes can be held.
This system had a proven track record, however, the previous government chose to change things for purely ideological reasons. This double standard is grossly unfair because it makes unionization much more difficult.
We recognize the essential role unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping the middle class grow and prosper. The prosperity of the middle class and of the Canadian economy depend upon harmonious and balanced labour relations. Bill C-4 has been tabled to redress the imbalances in labour relations created by the previous government.
I sincerely hope that other hon. members will see the benefits of Bill C-4, which would re-establish a balance between the rights and responsibilities of the employers and those of employees. We have a duty to intervene, and we are proud to do so today.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it wants to enhance labour rights with Bill C-4. It claims to respect unions and says it is listening to them.
I was speaking earlier about anti-scab legislation. The response to my colleague was that there must be some reason for the lack of provincial legislation on the matter. However, the Quebec Labour Code has included robust anti-scab provisions for 40 years now.
On Wednesday, the House will be voting on a bill introduced by me colleague from Jonquière that deals specifically with anti-scab legislation. It is about improving working conditions for Canadians and about respecting unions.
In the spirit of respect for Canadian workers and unions, on Wednesday, does my colleague opposite plan to vote in favour of the bill introduced by my colleague from Jonquière?
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the bigger role being played by the unions in our economy and helping the middle class to prosper. The prosperity of the middle class and the Canadian economy depend upon the harmonious balance of that relationship. However, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 created imbalances in the relationship between the unions, employers, and employees, which would be corrected by Bill C-4. We suggest that Bill C-4 is the only bill that can remedy the problems created by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, does the Liberal government support the Rand Formula?
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bills have created imbalances in the labour relationships and have not served any purpose in creating better unionization. There was no possibility of getting unionized properly. At this time, we think Bill C-4 would bring those changes and improve the relationship between unions and employers.
Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, we saw where the Rand Formula got Tim Hudak last time around.
People who follow the labour movement and issues related to it would know what Andrew Sims, probably the foremost authority on labour relations in our country, has said. The member for Hochelaga talked about the anti-scab legislation. During his last review of the Canada Labour Code, Andrew Sims said that there was an issue that employers and employees could not agree on, which was back-to-work legislation, that the way the current system worked was fine, and that it was not perfect, but it was the best it could be.
There was one thing that came out loud and clear during the hearings on Bills C-377 and C-525. Hassan Yussuff, Jerry Dias, AFL-CIO, and all those who gave presentations from the labour movement and labour relations across the country said that it should be done in a tripartite manner, with employers, employees, and government, not by single one-off private member's legislation. There was a consistency in that testimony.
Does my colleague believe that this is one of the main reasons for repealing these two bad bills? There was no need for these bills. They were a solution in search of a problem. Does he agree that is part of the reason these bills should be repealed?
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 would repeal Bills C-377 and C-525, which totally restrict unions from working and having relationships with labour unions and employers. Until Bill C-4 is passed, the relationship between the unions and the employers will not be solid and will not benefit workers. They are not going to work properly. The Liberals feel the relationship should be restored. The balance among unions, employers, and employees must be restored, and Bill C-4 would do that.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the diatribe from the parliamentary secretary, I want to ask the hon. member if he ever actually had one single constituent tell him during the last election campaign that he or she did not want the right to vote and did not want any transparency about any financial information ever?
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it did not happen only once; it happened many times during my election campaign. The card check system was in existence for a long time and it was not flawed. It was a proper system and it was working. The new system, where 40% of members have a secret ballot vote, gives more power to fewer people, those who can influence the unions and cause the disintegration of them. That will cause an imbalance in the entire system. That imbalance needs to removed by Bill C-4.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier if the hon. member supported the Rand Formula and he did not answer clearly Therefore, I will give him another opportunity. The Rand Formula is the entire basis for the exclusive majority representation model of bargaining in a workplace, which we have in all 10 Canadian provinces and the federal jurisdiction.
I want to confirm that in fact his government supports the Rand Formula.
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the actual process, which was already in existence with the labour relationship, was to maintain better unions and give prosperity to the Canadian middle class. However, the total system was disturbed by the creation of new laws which were unnecessary. Both of the bills created a total imbalance in the labour relationship. They were not required. They were unnecessary paperwork. On the order for the financial statements to be given by unions, a system already exists under the Canada Labour Code, which says that unions have to provide financial statements. The provincial laws are there, and unions themselves have their own constitution to provide financial statements. These laws were unnecessary, and Bill C-4 is the only bill which can make the changes to set the situation right and bring a balance to these relationships.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to underline that what we have heard from the other side was a need to bring more balance and fairness to the relationship between unionized employees and their employer. One thing we need to point out is that the Canada Labour Code review is best done by a tripartite, but that process is not always going to be able to arrive at a consensus. That is exactly what happened the last time that we reviewed replacement workers, or anti-scab legislation.
Would my colleague agree that sometimes it is important for the government to lead? When one process does not come to consensus, although there is evidence for both sides, does the government not sometimes have to lead a process, and would he agree that this might be the place to do it around anti-scab legislation?
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, intervention by the government is not the remedy for a better solution. The better solution is independent unions, independent employee and employer relationships. That can bring the variables out at the bargaining table, and that is where it needs to be done.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Foothills.
Whenever we debate labour law in this country, we have to start by recognizing the extraordinary and unmatched powers that unions enjoy under labour legislation in all 10 provinces and in the federal jurisdiction. There is no other organization in this country, other than governments, that can compel any individual to pay dues or to be exclusively represented by that organization under the law as a condition of employment. No other organization has that power.
Some will say that that power exists because when a union negotiates on behalf of a workplace, those workers who may not otherwise wish to pay dues or be represented are indirect beneficiaries of that negotiating work. Some will say that that when a union grieves on behalf of members of a workplace, those beneficiaries of that grieving would be free riders if they were not also compelled to pay mandatory dues to cover the cost of grieving. In other words, the union acts on behalf of all workers, even those workers within the bargaining unit who do not want to be part of it, and therefore all should pay into it.
This is an interesting piece of logic to defend the model. It is a piece of logic that does not extend to other private organizations, of course. For example, no one would deny that every cancer patient benefits from the advocacy of the Canadian Cancer Society. There are plenty of small businesses that benefit from the advocacy of, say, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. There are organizations that fight for research and better treatment for those who are suffering with diabetes. Yet, we do not force people who fall into any of those categories to pay dues to those same organizations. It is true that they do benefit from the work and the advocacy of those organizations, but they are not required by any law to pay mandatory dues. Imagine if we had extended that logic to those organizations, if we said that a cancer patient must, under law, pay dues to the Canadian Cancer Society. I am sure that no one in the House would propose laws requiring such payments, nor would they call a cancer patient who is unwilling or unable to pay such dues a “free rider”.
We recognize that there are private associations that promote different causes across society and that people decide whether or not they are going to contribute to them. That is the case. That is freedom of association as defined and as defended in subsection 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is freedom of association, as distinct from forced association, that is, being a requirement to be part of an organization or to pay into it against one's will.
Nevertheless, we have something unique and entirely different for unions as a private association, and that is based on the principle of exclusive majority representation. Exclusive majority representation means that with any bargaining unit, that is to say a cluster of employees, when a majority decides that unit should be represented by a single agent, then that agent exclusively represents everybody in that unit. Let us take an automotive plant with 100 workers as an example. When 51 of those workers want to be represented by the ABC union, all of them are represented by the ABC union, even those who are not part of the 51 out of 100. That is because of exclusive majority representation. A majority equals 100% even if it really only equals 51%.
Such has been the case since 1946 with the famous arbitration ruling of Justice Ivan Rand, hence the question earlier to the hon. member about the Rand formula.
I will read from the introduction to that award, which states:
His award denies [a] union shop, which has been asked [for] by the union, but provides for a new form of union security and the compulsory check-off of union dues from the wages of all workers under the agreement whether union members or not.
If I could add my own commentary, what that means is that even if one is not a member of the union, under this formula he or she would pay dues. Therefore, membership was not compulsory under the Rand formula, but dues were.
It continues:
The award also provides for penalties against individuals in the case of “wildcat” strikes and against the union in the case of a strike called without a secret ballot of all employees.
Here in the introduction, prior to even getting into the formal text of the award, we see the principle of a secret ballot as it applies to strike votes. However, we will return to that concept in a moment.
Therefore, the principle was that where a union had the support of a majority of workers in a unit, every single worker had to pay into the union and be represented by the union in all matters related to relations with the employer. That included the formation of a contract, a single contract that applies to all workers within the union, and furthermore to grievances. That is why, in many unionized workplaces today, workers cannot actually grieve for themselves. If they have a problem with the employer or with the way they have been treated, they have to go through the union. They are required to be represented by the organization, whether they choose to be or not.
I go back into all of this history because this is the legal foundation for our entire labour relations system in unionized environments right to the present day, in all 13 provinces and territories, plus the federal jurisdiction. This arrangement is extraordinary. It gives an incredible amount of power to organizations known as unions. They effectively have the power of taxation. They can force people to pay dues just for the privilege of working. They can force people to be represented by them. There is no other organization or agent, other than governments, that have the power to do that. Think of the agents we deal with in our daily life. Real estate agents cannot force someone to be represented by them, nor can sports agents force hockey players to be represented by them. Only bargaining agents have that legal authority. No organization has the authority to force people to pay dues, except for a union.
However, with that power comes responsibility. I quote further from the Rand decision, which gave us that structure. It states:
The preservation of the individual as a centre of thought and action and its reconciliation with the general security is the end of...government. But unguarded power cannot be trusted and the maintenance of social balance demands that the use or exercise of power be subject to controls. Politically this resides in alert public opinion and the secret ballot.
That is what is at stake in this legislation. The previous government, through a private member's bill, enacted the requirement that no organization could take over a workplace. It could not force people to be represented by and pay dues to a union without, at the very least, giving those workers the chance to vote on the question. They would not be intimidated either by the employer or by the proposed bargaining agent, and no one could show up at their home late at night and intimidate them into signing a card, or refusing to sign a card, for that matter. No one could know their true views, because in a truly democratic system, people are able to express themselves without fear of any form of retribution or enticement.
As a result, we have secret ballot elections that elect 100% of the members of Parliament in this place. I submit that people ought to have the basic right to determine their destiny within a bargaining unit by freeing themselves from that form of intimidation, and by casting their ballot yea or nay for one bargaining unit or another. That is the basic premise of a democratic system. It is how we choose governments. It is how we pass referenda. It should be how workers decide if and by whom they are represented.
Therefore, I stand here today to ask the government to reconsider what I think is a very extreme piece of legislation, which the Liberals have introduced. It is out of touch with all 50 American states and the majority of Canadian provinces. They should reinstate the basic principle of a secret ballot so that our men and women who go to work every day can determine their own destiny based on the fundamentally basic method of decision-making, and that is secret ballot democracy.
Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the speech by my colleague across, although I may not agree with much of it.
It is essential to know, for people who follow this debate and these issues, that during the course of Bill C-377, the government said that there is a benefit to unions, because one has to join a union to work on particular sites, and there is a tax benefit, a tax deduction. However, we know that if one wants to practice law in Ontario, one has to be a member of the the Ontario Bar Association and pay to be a member, and that membership is tax deductible. We have a number of lawyers here who are nodding.
If this is about openness and transparency, then let it be open and transparent for everybody. However, when we put forward the amendment to include lawyers and medical professionals, the Conservatives at the time voted against it. Does my colleague not see the contradiction in that? If it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the amendment of which the hon. member speaks, but the basic principle of Bill C-377 was that union dues are tax deductible. Therefore, there is an implication for the treasury, which comes with requirements for transparency. Hence, there is the basic requirement in Bill C-377, supported by the overwhelming majority of unionized workers, that the finances of labour organizations be made public.
However, the member did not address the other half of this debate, which is whether or not a union should be able to take over a workplace without holding a vote to determine that in fact the will of the majority of workers in that unit is represented. I regret that he did not address that point, because I think on that ground the government is in an indefensible position.
If the Liberals feel strongly about Bill C-377, fine, they can introduce a bill to reverse it alone. However, they do not have to eliminate the right of workers to vote at the same time. Therefore, I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to revisit that second issue, because I know that privately he supports the principle of secret ballots. I think he would win a lot of praise if he and his government amended the bill to preserve that principle.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who gave a very learned speech in the House today and is representing his constituents admirably in this place by doing what is right.
In this place today I have heard a lot of arguments from the other side about a tripartite approach to dealing with labour, yet I have heard nothing from the government about consultations on Bill C-4. Bill C-4, right out of the gate, was presented in Parliament. It is the third bill that was presented before the House. I have not heard of any committee being struck to consult across the country. There is basically just a giant eraser coming out to erase legislation that came from the previous Parliament.
Other than a few news articles about union-paid workers showing up as so-called volunteers on campaigns and not disclosing those costs during campaign expenses and a secret meeting between some union leaders and the Prime Minister just after the election, I have not heard of any consultations. Has the hon. member heard of any tripartite approach that led to the tabling of Bill C-4?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that was the member who gave federally regulated workers the right to vote in matters of union certification, so I congratulate him for doing that.
I have not heard of any such consultations. However, I object to this notion of tripartite consultations. The three are big corporations, big unions, and big government. We forget that the people who really matter in this debate are the workers themselves. It is really important that we talk to the big corporate CEOs, the union bosses, and the top politicians and bureaucrats. They all have to be in the room, but the actual people who will be paying the union dues and represented in the workplace, they do not need to be anywhere near the debate. Do not let them close because we would not want them to make their own decision, would we? That is the basic premise of the government's approach to consultation and to law in fact. It does not want workers to decide.
Earlier, we heard the Minister of Employment come out and say, “I found this document showing that the Conservatives were briefed that if workers were given a chance to vote they don't unionize in as high numbers. Aha, now we know the real motive.” That only proves that when workers are given the democratic choice, they do not make the decision the Liberals want. That is why this bill seeks to silence the voices of workers by stripping them of the right to vote.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4. I have been really discouraged as I have listened to the debate over the past eight or nine months. One of the themes that keeps coming up is that somehow private members' bills are illegitimate and that this is something that we were bringing through the back door.
We did a lot of consultation. Again, I would like to commend my colleague, the member from Red Deer—Lacombe, who put a lot of work into crafting this private member's bill that was passed in the House in a democratic process, through a vote, which I think is a fundamental part of this, that gave workers the opportunity to a secret ballot. It is disappointing that I have heard from my colleagues across the floor that these bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, do nothing more than force unions to bring forward useless financial information and that it is unfair to have a secret ballot.
For a government that campaigned on a foundation of openness and transparency, I find it very ironic that it is now, today, and has been for the last eight months, on Bill C-4, talking about how unfair it is to have a secret ballot and how unfair it is to ask unions to make public their financial information, financial information consisting of a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money that is tax exempt. I think the Canadian people have a right to know how those dollars are being spent, but most important, it is important that the workers themselves know how those dollars are being spent.
My colleague, the member for Carleton, did a phenomenal job of talking about the history of secret ballots and our labour relations program, but what I want to talk about today is what I find frustrating in terms of the priorities of the Liberal government.
Obviously, I come from the province of Alberta. Things are very difficult right now. It is difficult to see that one of the first things the Minister of Employment did when she came into government was to try to repeal legislation that we put forward to ensure that unions had open and transparent government and employees had the opportunity to a secret ballot. Things have only gotten worse in Alberta over that time and I have not seen our employment minister speak once about what is going on in Alberta and some of the things that the government could be doing to try to turn the situation around.
One part of the employment minister's title that has not been stripped from her role is “workforce development”. I think she has an opportunity to change her priorities from repealing what is good legislation to talking about getting Albertans and Canadians back to work. There are probably more than 100,000 energy workers now unemployed and looking for work. These are families who are having a tough time paying their mortgages, putting food on the table, putting their kids in sports, in hockey, and it is only getting worse. Employment insurance claims in Alberta are up 90% over the past year. The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors has said that employment will be down 60%, from 2014 numbers. This is something that is going on across the country. I know we talk about the employment situation in Alberta being dire, that there is an 8.6% unemployment rate, which is the highest it has been in decades, but this is something that impacts Canadians from coast to coast.
It is very unfortunate that we have a Liberal government and an employment minister, specifically, who has really been missing in action on this. Her number one priority is repealing these pieces of legislation. I think that her priority and her focus right now should actually be on workforce development, which is one of her roles. One of those things that we could be doing in terms of workforce development is advocating for shovel-ready projects, things like the northern gateway pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, things that will actually develop a workforce and get these unemployed Canadians, especially, Albertans in the energy sector, back to work.
When the Trans Mountain pipeline comes to cabinet, perhaps next month, will the minister be in that cabinet room? Will she be a voice for Canadian workers? Will she be a voice for Canada's energy sector? Will she be a voice for investment in Canada, or will she be just standing there, missing in action? Will she be a voice for and support the trans-Canada pipeline and get Canadians back to work rather than spending her time advocating for, what I feel, is a very low priority, which is Bill C-4?
I hope she has an opportunity to answer that today on how she will be advocating for the Trans Mountain pipeline when it comes before cabinet next month.
I look at Bill C-4 as a real step backward. Bill C-525 gave Canadian workers a chance for a secret ballot, which is I believe in vehemently. It is a cornerstone, a foundation, of our Canadian democracy. I am surprised that the Liberal government wants to repeal this.
Quite regularly now, the Liberal government is trying arbitrarily to make a change to a fundamental piece of our democracy, including now how we elect our parliamentarians. The Liberals are doing this with, we will say, consultations. They want to make a change to a fundamental part of our democracy without really consulting Canadians through a referendum. Why should we be surprised they would want to make a change to how unions could have a secret-ballot vote when they are going to make that same change to how Canadians elect their government? I find it ironic that the Liberals, piece by piece, are taking away the voice of Canadians.
It also shows, in my opinion, that when we spoke to Bills C-525 and C-377, we had very strong support from union workers. Some of our polling across Canada showed that as many as 86% of those polled supported this kind of legislation. To repeal that with very little if any consultation, I find very disingenuous. I do not think the Liberals have taken the opportunity to speak to union members and to get their feedback on that.
During the election last fall, I spoke to tens of thousands of my residents, and not once did this issue come up as a priority for the people in the riding of Foothills—not once. Certainly I had people talking about creating jobs and ensuring that our economy is strong, but I never had a single person at a door say to me that he or she would like us to repeal bills that encourage openness and transparency and give Canadian workers the opportunity for a secret-ballot vote. I would encourage the members opposite to tell me how often they had that answer at doors.
Bill C-4 is really about eliminating openness and transparency and removing the opportunity for Canadian workers to have a secret-ballot vote, which is a fundamental part of our democracy. To me, it is a cornerstone of what Canada was built on. It just seems backward for us to be taking away that right from Canadian workers.
Parliament is also discussing Bill C-7, which is a similar process for the RCMP. Are my Liberal colleagues on the other side of the floor also saying that they want to deny RCMP members the right to a secret-ballot vote when it comes to their opportunity to form or not form a union? I find this extremely disingenuous.
Looking through some data, what I find the most frustrating about this is that we are taking up some very important time in the House when we could be dealing with more important issues, such as employment and the economy. When we ask Canadians, we hear they support openness and transparency. When we ask Canadian workers, they say they support openness and transparency. However, it seems the only ones who do not are the members of the current Liberal government, which flies against everything they have talked about as we go through this.
The Liberals talked about consultation, which I do not believe has happened with Bill C-4. The more we sit here and talk about this, the more they delay a decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline; the more they delay a decision on the hearings on energy east; and the more they delay a decision on northern gateway, the ratification of the trans-Pacific partnership, and a softwood lumber agreement. On the really important things that the current government should be getting at and doing, it is not acting. The Liberals are spending their time pandering to big union bosses rather than pounding the pavement and helping to create jobs for Canadians who are struggling woefully right now.
In conclusion, I want to assure the residents of my constituency of Foothills that the Conservatives are fighting hard to ensure that they have a voice and an advocate for what they feel are most important: jobs, a strong economy, and their family.
Unlike the Liberals, who seem to think that workforce development is a bit of an oxymoron, we will be a champion for the energy sector, for small business, for Canadian investors, and for our farmers and our ranchers. These are the people who are creating growth. These are the groups and the folks who are creating jobs. It is not the union bosses. That should be the priority.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the express need of Albertans to get infrastructure investments to get people back to work in very troubling times. I wonder if the member opposite would care to reflect on the fact that his government failed to sign an infrastructure agreement with Alberta in its last two years in office. That resulted in zero dollars in new infrastructure money being delivered to the major city of Edmonton, Alberta. Also, if they are truly concerned about getting Alberta back to work, why was the government so inept in delivering infrastructure dollars to a province that quite clearly needed it?
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here today. Again, it just goes to show that the Liberals are not taking seriously these very important issues to all Canadians. Rather than talk about the issue we are addressing today, secret ballots and financial transparency, he wants to talk about something else because they do not want to talk about these important issues.
Just so he knows, if he has ever actually left downtown Toronto, I can speak for Albertans. I know how Albertans are feeling right now. They are feeling very frustrated that they have a government that does not care what they are going through, that is not doing anything about it, but would rather have some rhetorical discussions about issues that take two to tango, by the way.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we continue with questions and comments, just on the issue of relevance that does come up from time to time during questions and comments, generally speaking, hon. members realize that the questions posed during that 5 or 10-minute period should be relevant to the topic that is before the House. However, in addition, if the hon. member in the course of his or her remarks or speech enters a topic area that might be related or indirectly related to the topic that is before the House, a question or comment on the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke would also be in order. That is something to keep in mind when hon. members are thinking about how to pose their questions during this 5 or 10-minute period for questions and comments.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.