It's simple math. Look at the math.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 45% of the vote.
An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians September 27th, 2016
It's simple math. Look at the math.
Canada Labour Code September 23rd, 2016
Madam Speaker, the member started her question by indicating that she had listened to the speeches, but I find that hard to believe, because if she had listened to my speech, she would realize how transparently unions already operate in this country.
The act was not meant to promote transparency. Let us be real for a minute here. These acts were meant to crush unions. That is the political ideology on that side of the House. Make no bones about it. It was used as a fundraising mechanism as well. It was not an act about transparency.
That being said, I will debate that member and any member across the floor on which government is more transparent. Our Prime Minister is the reason people in your riding can see your expenses and why they are posted online.
Let us not debate transparency. For nine years the member's government was the most opaque, hidden government in the history of Canada, and they have the audacity to stand in the House today and complain about transparency. Give me a break.
Canada Labour Code September 23rd, 2016
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for the question. We always have good questions from this hon. member.
Our government is taking a tripartite approach to reviewing labour legislation across the country. Labour relations is an important issue that is fundamental to supporting the middle class in Canada. It is fundamental to making sure that Canadians have family-sustaining jobs. We are working toward that goal. However, the best way to do it is to work in consultation with all stakeholders, including all members of the House. I support our government in that effort. I know the hon. member does too, and we look forward to hearing his input in that process.
Canada Labour Code September 23rd, 2016
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk about Bill C-4.
Its purpose, of course, is to repeal the provisions enacted by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. In other words, Bill C-4 aims to restore fairness and balance to labour relations. Throughout this process, there are some who worried about transparency. In fact, they claim that Bill C-4 attacks the transparency to which our government has committed itself. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All in this House know that our government is a champion for transparency. We are a government that is transparent, honest, and accountable to Canadians. We adhere to the most stringent ethical standards.
If we are talking about transparency, it is because this issue is of particular concern with regard to Bill C-377. Some think that the legislation was necessary to improve the financial transparency of unions. They say that it was required to guarantee public access to information on union expenses.
However, our government strongly believes that they are mistaken. Rather than improving transparency, Bill C-377 created additional privacy issues. Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament by the previous government despite loud opposition from many different groups, including Conservative and Liberal senators, constitutional experts, and certain organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association.
The previous government refused to listen to anyone, which is precisely why they are the previous government. We do things differently. We listen, and our efforts to improve labour relations in Canada were applauded by key stakeholders. The Public Service Alliance of Canada was pleased that our government tabled legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which this union believed was designed to weaken unions, was unconstitutional, and was a violation of privacy rights.
Canada's Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has expressed concerns with Bill C-377. In his view, publicly listing specific individuals' political and lobbying activities, as well as education, training, and conference activities, in accordance with Bill C-377 is overreaching.
Recently, he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, also known as HUMA.
I will take this opportunity to advise the House that I am splitting my time with the hon. and learned member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
If I may quote Monsieur Therrien from that committee, he said:
My role is to advise parliamentarians on the consequences that legislative measures can have on privacy. I do not have an opinion on the activities of labour organizations, specifically, but, like my predecessor, I have maintained all along that the provisions contained in Bill C-377 and its previous incarnations, went too far by imposing a public disclosure requirement. They were unreasonable and infringed on privacy rights.
Mr. Therrien continued as follows:
....transparency is not an end unto itself; it cannot be an absolute objective to the exclusion of other considerations....Transparency efforts must be carefully balanced with the need to protect the personal information of individuals.
I could not agree more.
Protecting personal information is something that Bill C-377 simply does not do.
To provide my hon. colleagues with more context, this legislation amended the Income Tax Act to require unions to provide the Minister of National Revenue with detailed information on their finances. More specifically, Bill C-377 forces labour organizations and labour trusts, including those under provincial jurisdiction, to provide information returns. These returns would then be made publicly available on the Canada Revenue Agency's website.
Bill C-377 requires this information to include financial statements stating the total of all transactions, including certain transactions over $5,000 listed separately. These could include statements on their assets, debts, and expenses, and the salaries of certain individuals.
As if this were not enough, unions must also provide details on the time spent by certain individuals on political and lobbying activities and activities not related to labour relations. Worse still is that failure to comply with reporting requirements is considered an offence subject to a fine of $1,000 for each day of non-compliance, up to $25,000 per year.
Let me state clearly that Bill C-377 does nothing to add to the transparency of a union's affairs, and the former government knows this well.
To begin with, were this legislation to remain in place, employers would have access to a union's financial information, but the opposite would not be the case. In the collective bargaining process, unions would clearly be put at a disadvantage. For example, in the case of a work stoppage, an employer would know exactly how much money the union had in its strike fund, so it would know how long the union could hold out in the event of a strike. All the employer would have to do is wait until the strike fund was exhausted. That is unfair, unbalanced, and unreasonable. The union would be completely stripped of one of its key bargaining levers.
In addition, the strict disclosure requirements apply only to labour organizations and labour trusts and do not affect other groups that also receive beneficial tax treatment under the Income Tax Act.
This practice discriminates against unions and upsets the balance of labour relations across this country.
Lastly, provisions are already in place requiring unions to fulfill their financial reporting responsibilities. 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. There are similar provisions in most provincial labour relations legislation. Bill C-377 does nothing to add to this regulatory regime.
The reality is that the vast majority of unions already make their financial statements available to their members. These documents generally contain aggregated financial information and seem to meet the intended objective without it being necessary to name specific names. In other words, it protects privacy. Instead of promoting true transparency, Bill C-377 infringes on the right to privacy.
We should not force unions to provide detailed information on their finances. That is why steps have already been taken by the Minister of National Revenue to remove these obligations. As a result, during the repeal process, unions and other stakeholders affected by the bill are not required to submit detailed tracking of their activities for fiscal year 2016.
Balance is key. We need to be transparent, but we also need to respect privacy. Balance needs to be restored in relations between employees and employers. To that end, I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-4.
Canada Labour Code September 23rd, 2016
Food and Drugs Act September 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate when the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood gets to speak in the House. He is always very thrilling to listen to, and I am wondering if he might consider a career in broadcasting after this career. I am not suggesting he has a face made for radio. I am sure he would be a great TV personality in Saskatchewan, so we appreciate his comments.
I am on the trade committee and we had the privilege of travelling to Saskatoon when we were doing cross-country consultations. Hearing from the pulp producers, the pork farmers, and the beef farmers impressed me a lot, as well as the size of some of these Saskatchewan farms. Coming from Ontario, I did not get a chance to appreciate until I was out there how big these farms are and what big operations they are. The Saskatchewan market, frankly, is not big enough to sustain those farms, so they have to find other markets. I am all for helping Saskatchewan growers and producers and everyone involved in that supply chain make sure there are markets for their goods.
I am wondering if the hon. member has given any thought to other markets. If the TPP does not come to fruition, is he willing to work with the government to go into Vietnam and Japan? We are already in Korea. There is also Malaysia. These markets are literally begging for Saskatchewan products. Will he help us get his products to those markets?
Food and Drugs Act September 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we agree on many things in this debate. Obviously, every party is agreeing on Bill C-13. I also think we agree that free trade is good, but it has to be fair trade.
I appreciate the hon. member's comments in regard to the TPP.
I have the good fortune of sitting on the international trade committee. What we are doing is listening to Canadians. We have listened to a lot of Canadians, and there are a lot of Canadians who really want this ratified quickly, but there are just as many Canadians who have some concerns about it. We are trying to find that balance. However that plays out, it will play out, but I think we all know that if the U.S. does not ratify it, the deal will not be there.
I spoke with many food processors and hog producers from the hon. member's province, and they are excited, actually. One of the markets they are very excited about is Vietnam, because there is a growing middle class there, and they enjoy pork products, especially Canadian pork products.
I am wondering if the hon. member would be willing to work with our government, in light of the TPP not happening, in perhaps getting some unilateral trade agreements with countries like Vietnam and Japan to get those great goods to markets and create jobs here in Canada.
Food and Drugs Act September 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, like the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, I am also very close to the curtain, and I do not know where I will be in 14 years. Who knows where he will be in a couple of months, but we appreciate his comments today.
I would like to make something clear. I do not think that anyone on this side or anyone in the government is taking credit for this being a Liberal initiative. The Prime Minister was in Turkey last November saying that we were going to quickly ratify this agreement. Therefore, clearly in November we could not possibly take credit for something as we had just been elected.
I do acknowledge the good work that his friends on that side of the House have done, and the good work of the member for Prince Albert, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington who sit on the international trade committee with us. They have all contributed well to the international trade debate.
If Bill C-13 passes, could the member elaborate on what it will mean for the people of Calgary and how this will perhaps help the economy there and his constituents?
Food and Drugs Act September 19th, 2016
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Chatham-Kent—Leamington and welcome him back to the House. We have the pleasure of serving on the House trade committee together. I can be frank. He is a good contributor to that committee and brings a lot of insight and perspective that we all appreciate on that committee. We on this side of the House agree with him that free trade is good and is good for Canada. Of course, it has to be fair trade. I think he agrees with that as well.
I want to pick up on one of his closing comments on his support of the TPP. As he knows, we have heard a lot of Canadians speak about the TPP in our committee work. The auto industry is concerned about the effect the TPP might have. Coming from the part of Ontario he comes from, I wonder how he can reconcile some of the pressure the auto industry is facing with his support for the TPP.
Business of Supply June 14th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution to the debate here today.
Just as a point of clarification, he intimated in his comments as to whether or not I actually graduated from Dalhousie law school one year behind him. I can assure the hon. member I did. I think it was in no small part thanks to the notes he left behind from the year before. I will even admit, in the context of this debate, that I used his constitutional notes. I do appreciate his efforts.
It is clear from his speech that he has comprehension and understanding of the Constitution that many in this House do not. However, I think he will also agree with me that the Constitution, as important a tool as it is, as the backbone of our nation that it is, is certainly open to some interpretation and has proven to be, especially section 121, which he so eloquently discussed. The hon. member goes way back to the colour of margarine sold in Quebec or whether hay can cross the Alberta-B.C. border. There is much jurisprudence on these cases.
I just want the hon. member to answer one simple question. Does he think that if we do reference this case or this situation to the Supreme Court it is an absolute slam dunk that the court will rule on the side of there being no tariffs? Actually, there are no tariffs on beer, as it is now, but the provinces are not allowed to enact tax on their alcohol products. Does he think it is a slam dunk?