Cathy McLeod

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech and perspective on this issue, but I think, as a nurse, she has probably had many patients over the years who were absolutely desperate to get into detoxification services and rehabilitation services. To be quite frank, those services were not available. People who were ready to make changes in their lives were unable to get the help they needed.

As a nurse, how can the member support putting finances and funding into something when she has told many patients, “I'm sorry. I know you were looking for rehabilitation services and you would really like to have the opportunity to have a life free of drugs”.

How can she support that position without having the money spent where people really need it, on those who are looking for true changes in their lives?

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-504, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

First of all, I, too, like many people in this House, want to not only salute our volunteer firefighters, but our search and rescue folks, and the many people throughout our country who work in our rural and remote communities and ensure that we have a sense of safety. We know that when we have trouble they will be there for us. Again, I think all of us agree, and we salute the very important work that they do.

The bill claims to protect the employment of volunteer firefighters working in a federally regulated business. I think it is important to note that according to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs an estimated 4.9%, or 4,200, of the 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada are hired by federally regulated businesses. We are talking about a very small portion of the workforce.

There are 3,200 volunteer fire departments throughout Canada, with most of them serving small communities with less than 10,000 residents. In many communities, they are often the only local emergency first responders. As I said, if one has ever travelled through a community that is rural or remote, knowing they are there is critically important.

I know that the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue tabled this private member's bill with the best of intentions. That said, I do have a number of concerns that I would like to raise.

First of all, I think the changes proposed in the bill would actually create more problems than solutions. The sponsor of the bill claims it would help volunteer fire departments with recruitment and retention in smaller-sized communities. However, according to a survey conducted by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the biggest challenge that fire departments face is a lack of employment rather than unsupportive employers.

Having a strong rural Canada and natural resource development is what we spent all day talking about. We talked about it impeding the ability for our rural and remote communities to enjoy the resources that would provide them with employment opportunities and the prosperity they deserve and want.

It is also important to note that in the Red Tape Reduction Commission it was clear that in imposing additional regulations on employers, such as this bill would do, it would not only be counterproductive, but harmful. The costs of red tape and regulations have gone into the billions of dollars. It is a very onerous burden on our communities. Of course, that is why we are working to reduce the regulatory burden on Canadian businesses and provide them with the required flexibility to grow, create jobs and contribute to our recovering economy.

Many may recall, in 2008, that we amended the Canada Labour Code to provide an unpaid leave for members of the reserve force. Some people might ask why we are not willing to do the same for the volunteer firefighter. However, I think there is an important distinction.

Reservists are deployed for a longer but determined period of time, which makes a formal approach to managing their absences from work the best policy decision. Having the time to recruit, train and allow reservists to go for six months, a year, or whatever time of deployment, is a lot different from saying that someone must be allowed to walk out the door immediately, which is what is needed for our emergency response.

Volunteer firefighters are frequently absent from work for short, but indeterminate periods of time. As such, the goodwill agreement between the volunteer firefighters and their employers is best suited to meet the needs.

I noted a question earlier about the relationship with municipalities. As a former mayor, we had a volunteer firefighter department. There was generosity by the employers in terms of letting their employees go on these responses because they knew it could be them or a family member. The communities and the employers were incredibly generous, especially when it did not unduly disrupt what was happening.

In some ways, Bill C-504 is a proposed legislative fix to a non-existent problem. Across Canada, only two provinces have adopted this legislation, and they are Quebec and Nova Scotia. Collective agreements are telling us the same story. When reviewing a sample of more than 3,000 collective agreements, only two contained provisions related to volunteer firefighter duties.

Therefore, in the absence of a problem, the right approach to this is the status quo. We can trust employers and employees to come to an agreement which satisfies both the call of duty and local business needs.

Furthermore, there are many questions that have been left unanswered with this proposed legislation. It fails to clearly define certain concepts and conditions. For example, when would an employer have good cause to prevent an employee from leaving work? It is very unclear. Does that mean that with good cause, an employer could dismiss, suspend, lay off, demote, or discipline an employee for serving as a volunteer firefighter?

Also, when and how would an employee be required to inform the employer of his or her obligations as a volunteer firefighter?

Bill C-504 also fails to specify for which volunteer tasks an employee could leave work. There are a large number of responsibilities for volunteer firefighters.

My son is currently a volunteer firefighter, but they know he has to work it around his work schedule. He is a nurse in the intensive care unit and would have to travel 30 minutes to respond, so it would be very impractical in that case to have legislation that would compel his employer to allow him to go.

We know that there are a variety of tasks. Our volunteer firefighters have emergency responses, of course, but there is training, equipment and fire hall maintenance, fire prevention and education, inspections, fundraising, administration, and so on. There are many tasks, and we have not really clarified what they could respond to.

In conclusion, Bill C-504 is far too ambiguous. For these reasons, the government simply cannot support it.

I ask members to please not get me wrong. We recognize the very crucial role that our volunteer firefighters play in our communities and have taken action through such things as the provision of the volunteer firefighter tax credit. As the House may remember, that provision is available for firefighters who provide at least 200 hours of eligible service per calendar year at one or more fire departments. I am very proud to say that it benefited more than 30,000 firefighters in 2011.

The chiefs, firefighters, and volunteer firefighters in my communities have been asking for this volunteer firefighter tax credit for many years, but I have never had one of them approach me with the suggestion that there was any issue with their ability to come and go from work, especially in terms of the goodwill relationship.

In short, we have taken measurable action to support the men and women who bravely serve as our volunteer firefighters. They absolutely deserve our respect. They respond to emergency calls. They rescue people in distress and often save lives. Bill C-504 would not provide genuine protection, but would create confusion and inequity while putting an unnecessary burden on businesses across Canada.

We are certainly committed to ensuring that workplaces remain safe and productive and contribute to a prosperous Canadian economy. We will continue to work towards this commitment, but for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, our Conservative government cannot support this legislation.

Again, I do appreciate the member's reasons for bringing this bill forward. Her intentions were very honourable, but the best thing to say in summary is that this is a legislative solution in search of a non-existent problem.

[Employees' Voting Rights Act, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today about the member for Wetaskiwin's private member's bill, the employees' voting rights act. This bill aims to amend the rules for union certification and decertification in federally-regulated workplaces, to ensure that all individuals have access to secret ballot voting. I commend my hon. colleague for raising and pursuing this issue.

Democracy is fundamental to Canadian society and all employees should have the right to vote on whether they wish to form a union or not. Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers, while ensuring a fair and productive workplace environment for businesses to maximize Canada's economic potential. One of these rights is, again, to join or not join a union and participate, or not, in the collective bargaining process.

In Canada, including provincial and federal jurisdictions, about 30% of the workforce is unionized. This includes occupations like transportation workers, manufacturers, miners, electricians and workers in other construction trades. It also includes professionals, such as engineers, nurses and employees in federal, provincial and municipal public administrations, schools and hospitals. All in all, there are about 4 million unionized workers in over 100 different unions.

Some workers are of the view that unions help them to negotiate collective agreements with their employers, protecting them against what they feel are arbitrary changes in work rules, discrimination, unfair treatment and unequal pay for similar work. Obviously, others are flat out opposed to unionization. What both of these groups of workers have in common is that they do have the right and the freedom to choose to be, or not be, part of a union. This bill is designed to extend that principle. It would help to ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express their wishes about forming or decertifying a union.

Currently, a card check system can be used to form a union. If the majority of employees sign membership cards, they can automatically be certified as a union. When the level of employee support is insufficient for automatic certification but meets a minimum threshold, for example, 35% under the Canada Labour Code, the labour board conducts a vote to determine employee support for a union. If the majority of employees casting ballots supports a union in this vote, the union can be certified.

For example, under our current system, if 11 out of 20 employees sign the union membership card, the remaining 9 individuals may not be asked to sign and may not even be aware that their colleagues want to form a union, yet they could automatically be unionized. This means that in many cases, unions can be certified without giving all employees the opportunity to express their wishes.

The bill proposes to eliminate automatic certification and use mandatory secret ballot votes to certify or decertify a union in all cases. This will make votes no longer the exception, but the rule for certifying or decertifying unions. The employees' voting rights act would ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express themselves by a secret ballot vote when considering whether to certify or decertify.

We have heard a lot about employers and intimidation and the unions and intimidation, but what no one has talked about, and what was my own individual experience. It was a good workplace that had been in operation for many years. The situation was changing in terms of reorganization and there was a debate going on. There were people who felt very strongly. It was a small group of about 25 employees. It had nothing to do with the employer or any kind of intimidation. It had to do with the employee wanting the ability to have a secret ballot so that not all the members, colleagues and co-workers, who felt strongly on one side or the other of the issue, would know how he or she voted. What we have lost in this debate today is the simple ability for workers to exercise their votes in secrecy, like we do every day in every election in Canada.

Our Conservative government supports the right of every employee to a secret ballot.

It would provide every employee with the ability to voice his or her opinion and would allow time to fully consider his or her decision before voting for or against the union. That is why we support the intent behind Bill C-525 and will vote in favour of it at second reading.

That said, there are areas of the bill that we believe could be amended, and we would like to hear from and consult with our stakeholders, both employer and union, in committee. The House committee will have an opportunity to carefully study the bill. It will consult with stakeholders and carefully consider their input and views.

We support the intent of Bill C-525. It must find the right balance between the needs of employees, unions, and employers, and I am confident that the bill could do just that.

I would like to encourage my hon. colleagues to support this bill at second reading and defend the democratic rights of the workers of our country. This legislation would ensure that every federally regulated employee had access to a secret ballot vote when considering union representation. Again, I ask members to look back to the example of the small, tight-knit workplace. Workers had a difficult decision because of changing circumstances, and they wanted to exercise that right with privacy, even from their colleagues, in terms of what decision they made.

The legislation would ensure that employees would determine for themselves whether they wished to be represented by a union, and they could have their voices heard.

With any legislation, of course, it is important to hear the views and feedback of those who would be most impacted and to take them into careful consideration. I have no doubt that the members of the House committee would carefully consider the principles behind the bill and would examine the unique perspectives of employees, unions, and employer groups that would provide needed perspective on the bill.

Again, I congratulate and thank the hon. member for working to support the rights of employees by raising this issue and I would like to encourage hon. colleagues to stand in support of this bill at second reading. We can have a great discussion.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely senior citizens are critical to this country and they have contributed so much over the years.

That is why I have constituents in my riding who have said to me that splitting their pension plan has made all the difference in the world to them. There have been many measures we have taken, the biggest raise to the guaranteed income supplement in years, the decrease in the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, the working income tax benefit, that have made the lives of seniors much easier in terms of them being able to afford their senior years.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously all have the same goal, and that is that workers are safe, workers are protected.

Truly, I do not know how the member could stand up and say that when he looks at the statistics, which say that 80% of those who went forward on appeal were found to be not dangerous situations.

Does he not agree that we need to focus our resources on those miners who are in dangerous situations, on those forestry workers, and on those pipeline providers? Then we have mechanisms that deal with the 80% of issues that are important issues, absolutely, but not life-threatening, not imminent, and we allow our officers the opportunity to really do the job they are trained, hired and very effective at doing.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that delegation of responsibility is very common in statute after statute. I go back to my previous world where I had delegation as a licensing officer for community care facilities. Delegation allows for consistency across the country. It allows for the minister to mobilize important resources as she needs them.

This will greatly improve both the ability to respond and the consistency of response, and will provide a framework for national improvement.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak to BIA 2 and, more specific, to the government amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

I want to be clear. The focus of our government and the purpose of these amendments is to improve the health and safety of Canadian workers. We have said it before and I will say it again, Canadians have been very clear that what they want are jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have listened to Canadians and delivered. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the beginning of the recession and we have the lowest debt to GDP ratio among the G7 countries.

We are all very proud of the very recent and historical trade agreement that was announced with the European Union, which will create an additional 80,000 jobs for Canadians.

In short, there is a lot of which we can be proud.

However, in order to improve upon this record and maximize Canada's economic potential, it is vital that we continue to work together to create safe, fair and productive workplaces.

The proposed BIA amendments to the Canada Labour Code are good examples of how we are streamlining operations to achieve better outcomes for workers, businesses and all Canadians. The result would be safer workplaces, which is something we all should be supporting.

A number of media sources and opposition members have misreported on these amendments. For the record, I want to ensure all Canadians no rights will be restricted or limited as a result of these proposed amendments. The right for a worker to refuse dangerous work remains absolute.

Workers and employers will continue to have access to recourse mechanisms if they disagree with a decision. Employers remain accountable for providing workplaces that are safe and healthy, whether the danger is imminent, serious or a future risk. There is no reduction or elimination of health and safety officers.

I want to underline again that our government is dedicated to creating safe, healthy, fair and productive working environments. A safe and healthy workplace is not only good for a business' competitiveness and productivity, it is good for workers, good for families and good for Canada.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code are designed to improve the prevention of accidents and injuries to workers in the course of employment. They are based upon the principle that employers and employees are best placed to prevent injuries, identify health and safety issues and resolve them in an effective and timely manner. This is called the “internal responsibility system”. This means employers and employees are jointly responsible for the health and safety of all workers. However, since employers have the most control over working conditions, they have the greatest responsibility.

Employees are also responsible for ensuring their own health and safety. They are responsible for following procedures when handling equipment, hazardous substances and other materials, wearing protective clothing provided by the employer, complying with the employer's instructions concerning health and safety and reporting any possible hazards to their employer.

Employees have three fundamental rights: the right to know about hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in identifying work-related health and safety concerns; and the right to refuse dangerous work. All these rights will remain enshrined in the Canada Labour Code.

Our government's role is to support employees and employers in meeting their obligation and to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. We are doing this by responding to complaints and incidents, conducting inspections and providing tools, information and assistance to employers to help them fulfill their responsibilities.

The numbers actually speak for themselves. Disabling injuries in federally-regulated industries have declined by 22%, from 2007 to 2011. In 2000, there were 2.51 disabling injuries per 100 workers, compared with 1.73 in 2011. However, there is always room to improve.

In Canada, occupational injuries and illness cost the economy about $19 billion a year and an average of 1,000 Canadian workers lose their lives every year. Health and safety is a priority for our government. That is why, again, we are introducing amendments that allow us to focus on critical issues affecting health and safety of workers in the workplace, respond to imminent or serious situations of danger in a more timely manner and reinforce the internal responsibility system.

There has been a lot of discussion about one important amendment, the definition of “danger”. We are clarifying the definition because more than 80% of refusals to work in the last 10 years have been determined to be situations of no danger, and that is even after appeals. That is really important and I want to repeat it because it is so important. Eighty per cent of refusals to work in the last 10 years have been determined to be situations of no danger after appeals.

These proposed amendments emphasize that requests should be dealt with in the workplace bringing together employers and employees who are best positioned to work co-operatively to identify health and safety hazards. It would ensure that health and safety officers use their time more effectively to enforce the regulations and to focus more on preventing workplace accidents through increased awareness, education and proactive interventions. These proposed changes would not lead to fewer health and safety officers but would ensure that their time is used more effectively to improve the enforcement of the regulations.

I want to go back in my history. As many people might know, I worked in a rural emergency room for a number of years and there are images that will remain seared in my mind forever. It was a fall day like this when, in the early morning, a gentleman went off to work. His wife got their three children up and fed them breakfast. The children went off to school and she was baking bread when we had to go over to tell her that her husband had been killed in a tragic workplace accident. I remember that day that Debbie's life changed forever. To be honest, this was a preventable accident.

I would like to contrast that situation where there could have perhaps been more intervention. It was a provincial example, but it speaks well to the issue at hand. There was also a well-reported issue in the media about a year ago regarding name tags. Certainly, it was a legitimate issue for employers and employees to maybe have a discussion about, but where do Canadians want their resources focused as taxpayers? Do they want to make sure Debbie and her children have their husband and father forever, or do they want us to intervene in what should be a simple, reasoned discussion between employers and employees? This, again, illustrates very effectively how we need to spend our time and resources.

I want to reassure my colleagues in the House and all Canadians that health and safety officers will be there to help when employers and employees cannot come to an agreement on a workplace hazard or how to resolve it. They will be there 24-7 to respond to urgent situations that require intervention. Again, I want to emphasize that these new amendments will not affect the investigative capacity of the labour program and will not lead to fewer health and safety officers, as it has been erroneously reported in the media. Health and safety officers have been, are, and will remain the key to enforcing the Canada Labour Code.

As the hon. Minister of Labour has stated, the right of employees to refuse dangerous work remains absolute. The definition still provides protection from all hazards, imminent, serious or long term. Employees will continue to have the right to refuse all forms of dangerous work. Employers will still be responsible for ensuring their workplaces are safe and are required to take action if they are not. Employees and employers continue to have access to recourse mechanisms if they disagree with a decision. These proposed changes will not lead to fewer health and safety officers, but will ensure their time is used more effectively to improve the enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations.

Our government remains focused on the economy, jobs and long-term prosperity. A healthy and safe workplace goes absolutely hand in hand with those goals and we are continuing to move forward.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest and noted that she said she studied occupational health and safety in school.

In looking at the changes to the Canada Labour Code, it is important to note that in 80% of the appeals in the last 10 years, it has been found that there was no danger. Therefore, if we are looking at changes to the Canadian Labour Code and we note that in 80% of the cases that have been brought forward there was no danger, would she not agree that we need to have a system that would allow our health and safety officers to focus on that 20% where there is true danger?

I think it is an absolutely phenomenal number and it speaks to the fact that the system, as it currently exists, is not working, so I would like to ask the member why she would not look positively at a change that would focus on the true and imminent dangers to workers' health.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is suggesting that the NDP is opposing this bill because of legislation that would provide a minister with the power to bring first nations into the first nations elections act in the event of a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of the first nation after reasonable efforts have been made to reach a community-based solution.

These are very rare and extenuating circumstances. In fact, it has only been used once since our government came into power in 2006, and two times before that under the previous Liberal government.

The fact is that the minister has the power to bring first nations under the Indian Act in such a protracted situation. However, this is exactly what we are trying to move away from. The legislation would provide the minister with the necessary power to order a new election under Bill S-6.

The NDP is saying, “No. Let's give them the option to be brought under the Indian Act”. To me this is paternalistic on the part of the NDP.

Why would the member not want first nations to have the same options in these serious and extenuating circumstances?

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for again clearly articulating our position on moving forward with Senate reform. It has certainly been a long-standing commitment. No one ever said it would be an easy task. I suppose that if it were an easy task, it would be done.

We have talked about the NDP and what was really a very gimmicky approach. I cannot think it was a very serious approach.

However, as a westerner, I have to say I was most offended by the comments of the Liberal leader on why we should maintain the status quo.

I would ask the minister to contrast the Liberal approach to the Senate versus our plan to move forward. It is not an easy task, but we are moving forward.