Cathy McLeod

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the bill could easily have added a nursing association or a bar association.

I think it is absolutely absurd. We had a private member's bill that was presented. We looked at it. If we recall the rules of private members' business, we cannot make dramatic changes. We can make amendments, but we cannot make dramatic changes.

Again, if that was important to the Liberals, they should have added it. They should not have taken it away.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this debate today; I do think this is very interesting. It has been mentioned by a few of my other colleagues that we have a critical situation in terms of Alberta and the issue around oil and the prices of energy. We have issues in Quebec in terms of Bombardier.

As a country, we have many important things that we need to be dealing with, so it is absolutely ironic that of the two first bills that the current government brings forward, one is “oops” a mistake. The Liberals made a promise about income tax. It was supposed to be revenue neutral, but it is a $1.4 billion oops. However, they are going to bring it forward anyway and add to the deficit by $1.4 billion. Then, of course, the next bill that the Liberals brought forward is a bill that would detract from accountability. It does speak to the priorities of the current government that the first two bills it brings forward are oops and lack of transparency.

I have an interesting history with these two bills, which might be a bit unique in this Parliament. I sat on the finance committee when Bill C-377 was going through committee. Then I also sat on the human resources committee as the parliamentary secretary for the minister of labour, as we dealt with Bill C-525. I had the benefit of hearing and really watching the progress of these bills as they went through the legislative process. I heard the opposition members stand up and talk about how this violated safety and privacy, and that people with their private health care information were going to be identified, or RCMP were going to be identified.

We did our jobs as legislators at that time, and we made a number of amendments. We heard some concerns from committees, and we did make amendments that dealt with those specific concerns. It really is a bit disingenuous when the members of the government stand up and say that this was going to violate health concerns, that information was going to be public. That was looked at and the bill was amended. I ask that they not go back to the original version when they are criticizing this bill. They need to go to the amended version, the one that was actually passed. I think that was certainly a fair point.

The Liberals talked about other professional organizations not being included. I think that is a fair point. I am a nurse by background. I was a member of the nurses' union and a member of the nursing association, so that is a fair enough point. Lawyers' associations and nurses' associations were excluded from the bill, and perhaps they should also be accountable for the same level of transparency.

The Liberals questioned why they were not included. Instead of gutting the bill, if that was their issue, why did they not just add those professional associations to the bill to create the same level of transparency for everyone? If the Liberals had some concerns, there were ways that they could have added things.

There were concerns mentioned in terms of the red tape. I am sorry, but in this age of computers, the ability to generate and submit reports has become very easy. I challenge anyone in this House to go to a special site on the website for the United States Internal Revenue Service, where people can see the information they need to see. This is not something that was dreamed up out of the blue. This has been in the United States for many years, and I do not think it created the big challenges and problems that people were speaking to.

I do recognize that some unions are very good about sharing information. I talked to people at the International Union of Operating Engineers, and they shared with me the reports that they publish annually. It was very comprehensive, fulsome, and available to all their members. Certainly there is no question that there are some great practices among our unions in terms of what they share.

However, I also think that this is important to point out, and this aligns with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. For a government that claims it is concerned about transparency, why does it insist that people have to ask for the information? First nations transparency is such that first nations have to go to the band office, or they have to go begging to the government for basic information, if it is not provided willingly, and it is not always provided willingly.

For the union members, many organizations, but not all, are good about sharing that information. We can imagine how intimidating it would be for a member of a union to go in to ask for that information. This should be disclosed to union members.

If the Liberals care about transparency and do not want this going through the Canada Revenue Agency, why did they not amend it to say that it had to be made available online or make some other changes? Obviously, this is not about transparency, but about a promise they made to get support in the last election. If they had concerns with respect to the bill, they could have made changes to deal with those.

Bill C-525 is really about the right to a secret vote. We have had examples given here today, and I would like to provide an example.

I worked in a very small facility where there were 20 employees in total. Under the old system, if one of those 20 employees were interested in certifying a union, which was perfectly within his or her right to do, he or she could have talked to his or her 10 friends, they could have had a card check and hit their 51% and would have automatically been unionized without the other nine people even having a voice in that conversation. It is totally outrageous that 11 people could certify a union without the nine others having the ability to even have a say.

The secret ballot is not for the unions or the employer, but the employee. Members can imagine how divisive the whole idea of certification would be in this small setting of 20 people. The people who worked there did not want their name on the list among the 11 who wanted certification or among the nine who would ask for decertification. They wanted to have a secret ballot because they did not want the union to know and did not want their boss to know. Therefore, having a secret ballot is a fundamental democratic right.

I would again ask the members of the government how they can suggest not having a secret ballot on something that is so profound and so personal, and leaves people open to all sorts of difficult circumstances. I think that to move away from the secret ballot was an incredible mistake.

I look at British Columbia. It has had the secret ballot there for many years, which has not led to any catastrophic results, but to comfort for the worker. This was not about the employer or about the union, it was about the worker.

The government also likes to say that it made it harder to certify and easier to decertify. What it did was create an even threshold so that 50 plus one will certify or decertify a union. I do not think that is a very outrageous thing to do.

In conclusion, we have heard that one of the top priorities of the current government is to move away from transparency and whether to do so formally. I must give the Liberals their due, because right now it is being done formally as we have this chance to debate the bill and hold the government to account, whereas on the First Nations Transparency Act we heard them talk in question period about how a law is a law is a law. However, to them a law is only a law if they like it. If they do not like it, as was the case with the First Nations Transparency Act, they will not enforce it. Therefore, I think they have put themselves in a really difficult position.

I am delighted to stand up and talk to this, but I am disappointed that if the Liberals had concerns, they did not just make this better but are instead choosing to gut it.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the secret ballot component, because that is one of the most egregious changes in this bill. A secret ballot protects the employee. It is not in favour of the union. It is not in favour of the employer. It is something that would allow the member employee to exercise his or her democratic rights in private.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about the importance of that component of the legislation that we are moving back from.

[Petitions, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as we engage in the conversation on democratic reform, there are certainly a number of people in my riding who have decided that their preferred option is proportional representation. I am presenting this petition on their behalf today.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question.

Our provincial counterparts, British Columbia and many others, have a system wherein there is a right to a secret ballot. Does the member believe that they are wrong and they need to repeal the legislation because after all these years it has been terribly unfair to the system? That is part A.

Part B is this. Does the member feel it is fair to go back to a system where, for example, in a workplace of 20 people, 11 people sign the card for automatic certification and there are nine people who might not know what is happening? Can the member say that is fair to the workers?

I would like to hear the answer, both with respect to the provinces and the individuals.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have stated regularly that we do support the humanitarian efforts, the efforts on the ground, that the government has talked about. We do support that.

However, I have yet to hear anyone say that these air missions are no longer needed. Did the allies say they have enough capacity and can do it without us?

What we are missing, and I have not heard a good explanation for this, is the still critical role of air strikes. How can the parliamentary secretary justify stepping back from combat when it is perhaps needed the most?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, is the member indicating that air strikes are no longer necessary and that we are not leaving a gap by not participating in the air strikes?

[Indigenous Affairs, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled with what I heard from the member in terms of transparency.

The prior situation was that band members would have to go pleading to a band office for information, which they may or may not get. I appreciate that this information gets taken and delivered to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs where it is looked at. That is not about transparency and accountability. This is basic, simple legislation. As a member of Parliament, my constituents know what my expenses are and what I make. The constituents of MLAs know what their expenses are and what they make. The shareholders of a company are very aware of what a company makes.

This is basic transparency. It is appalling that the government is backtracking on a piece of legislation that allowed band members for the first time to easily access important information about how the money was being spent in their communities.

[Indigenous Affairs, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at this—

[Indigenous Affairs, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today and follow up on my questions of January 29 and February 2.

During question period on those days, I asked the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs why her government had decided to ignore the compliance measures of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The minister and the parliamentary secretary both failed to answer my question.

As the opposition critic for indigenous affairs, I continue to be appalled by the Liberal government's decision to abandon transparency when it comes to financial matters for indigenous Canadians.

The Conservatives supported this legislation because it is based on the premise that all Canadians deserve accountability and transparency from their leadership.

For all practical purposes, on a dark day right before Christmas, on a Friday, when no one was watching, before the holidays, the Liberal government effectively repealed the act without bothering to give members of Parliament a chance to debate it. It is ironic that a law about transparency was gutted in such a non-transparent way. The government is functionally abandoning the transparency act without repealing it.

Furthermore, the act was working. Nearly 94% of first nations chiefs and councils complied, and 543 bands made their expenses and salaries public to their band members. For many of them, it was the first time they ever had that kind of information. Now, with no compliance measures in effect, it is a safe prediction that compliance rates will collapse and financial information will again be shrouded in secrecy from band members. Transparency means having readily available, accessible information. As I said, it does not mean having a report sitting in a basement in Ottawa.

On December 21, an editorial in the Toronto Star asked the right questions. Without compliance measures:

...how will the rights of band members to see fiscal statements and salaries be guaranteed, going forward? How this will result in “real accountability....

These are questions the minister needs to answer. Band members should not be left in the dark.

I ask the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs how she can explain to indigenous Canadians that the Liberal government's commitment to transparency is empty rhetoric. Why are the Liberals telling band members that they have to go to court to get basic information that is available to all other levels of government?