Robert Sopuck

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleague for a typical recitation of left-wing philosophy, nothing but spend, spend, spend and class warfare, just the two things this country simply does not need.

I remember that, in our first term, I would question the NDP members over and over again about why they would never talk about how to actually create wealth. For them it is all about spending. By the way, in terms of our government's economic record, we will take a back seat to nobody. There were 1.3 million net new jobs, with the surplus noted in the “Fiscal Monitor” up to $3 billion now, soon to be spent.

I would like to ask my NDP friend why he thinks Canada can spend itself rich and why the NDP never, ever offers any ideas on actually how to create wealth in a free-market, capitalistic economy.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Liberals' discomfort with our motion. It is a motion about principle. The definition of a Liberal is someone who turns opportunism to the level of a principle.

One of the reasons I am so proud to be a Conservative is that we have principles, we defend them, we work for them, and we advocate for those principles.

On the other hand, we have the NDP. Let us not forget their founder, J. S. Woodsworth, who opposed Canada's participation in the Second World War. Where would western society be had we followed what the NDP's founder wanted?

This is a matter of principle. For those who say we are attacking Canadians, that is absolutely false. What is being discussed here is an idea. Debating ideas is obviously something the two other parties are very much afraid of. In this particular case, we are right in standing up for democracy and opposing racism in this situation.

I would like to ask my hon. friend why it is important to have a principled foreign policy and a principled policy regarding the BDS movement.

[The Environment, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in December I asked the Minister of Environment why she chose to violate section 36 of the Fisheries Act and allow Montreal to dump eight billions litres of sewage into the St. Lawrence. The government had no answer.

A consultant's report described this discharge, but it was clearly not a formal environmental assessment. An Environment Canada's disclaimer said in this report, “These results might not reflect the Department of the Environment's views”.

The Liberals are always claiming the moral high ground on the environment, so why did the minister authorize this illegal discharge of toxic material in violation of section 36 of the Fisheries Act?

[Elgin Red McConnell, February 5th, 2016]

On Monday of this week, we buried Elgin “Red” McConnell of Hamiota, Manitoba. Father, grandfather, and beloved husband to Ruth, Red McConnell was a farmer and in many ways epitomized great Canadians. He recognized and lived by the mantra that life is not measured by words or things, but rather by actions and kind deeds. Red was a good farmer, a progressive farmer, and a man who was proud to be a farmer. Red was not someone who sought awards or recognition. Instead, he was a community pillar, and willing to do his part to make his community grow, thrive, and prosper.

It is farmers and people like Red McConnell of Hamiota, Manitoba who make Canada stronger and Canadians the respected people we are.

Today, I am pleased to recognize and honour Red McConnell. He was a credit to his community, province, and country.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a fundamental mistake in assuming that this party is anti-union. We are not. I come from a proud union family. My father was a union organizer in the 1930s when people had to be really tough to organize unions. Unions absolutely have their place, to ensure workers' rights in terms of compensation and so on.

In this particular case, we are dealing with the special privileges that are allocated to unions by law. As for the transparency legislation, both bills we had were eminently fair, to ensure the rights of citizens and also to ensure that unions operate as they should.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question because he has given me the opportunity to point out that union membership is forced. A person has no choice in certain workplaces whether to join the union or not. One has to pay the union dues.

Professional associations are regulatory bodies that deal with the technical capabilities of the individual members involved. They are technical and scientific organizations, where members have to have the skill sets to practice the professions of law, medicine, or so on. Unions are very different. Not only are union dues tax deductible, members are forced to pay those union dues or they will not be able to have that job. This is the difference.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the public sector unions are so adept at determining, in many cases, who forms the government, and that they worked very hard for the Liberal Party in the last election campaigns, tells me that our bills provided the true rebalancing between the rights of Canadians citizens at large, Canadian society, and the democratic rights of voters.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my esteemed colleague regarding the Liberals' intent to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Both of these bills were about transparency. As my colleague talked about earlier, the first bills we introduced as a government were about increasing transparency, and one of the first acts of the Liberal government is to introduce bills to reduce transparency.

Bill C-377 had an important purpose. The purpose was to extend the principle of public disclosure to a group of institutions that enjoy substantial public benefit: labour organizations. This is key. Public disclosure would increase the confidence of Canadians that unions spend their money wisely and effectively.

Regarding Bill C-525, which dealt with the issue of voting rights, it replaced a system called “card check”. The card-check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without allowing all employees to express their opinions. In fact, the unionization of a workplace could occur without a significant portion of the bargaining unit having been made aware of it.

Again, both of these bills dealt with improving transparency. In our strong view, Canadian union workers have the right to know how their mandatory union dues are spent. That is why our government passed Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Repealing these laws sends a very clear message: the Liberal government cares more about thanking union bosses, who did everything in their power to help them get elected, rather than the thousands of hard-working union members whose dues were spent without consultation. Union leaders need to be held accountable and tell their members and the public how their tax-advantaged income is spent.

The Conservative Party will continue to support union transparency and stand up for union workers. As I have said in a couple of my other speeches, it is becoming quite clear that the only party that cares about Canadian workers and workers' families is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Even some labour organizations are very strongly in favour of our bill. The Christian Labour Association, Dick Heinen, the executive director, in February 2014, said:

Now fundamentally, CLAC believes in competition in the labour relations environment in Canada. We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all.

As well, John Farrell, executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, in his testimony to the Senate committee, said:

FETCO members prefer a secret ballot vote to a card-check system for the purpose of determining if a union is to become a certified bargaining agent for employees. A secret ballot vote is the essence of a true democratic choice and is entirely consistent with Canadian democratic principles. It allows each and every employee to express their true wishes without undue influence or disclosure of how they cast their ballot. This is the mechanism that is used for the electoral process in Canada, and it is the fairest process.

It is no coincidence that the public sector union bosses worked hard to get the Liberal government elected, and now, quite frankly, it is payback time. The first thing that the Liberal government is doing is repealing these two very important bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

In addition, the President of the Treasury Board made a point of announcing that he is restoring the sick leave benefit to the public sector. That is a cost of $900 million a year. That is $900 million that is not available for health care, the environment, agriculture, and infrastructure. However, again we can see it is definitely payback time. Now we have a government that is beholden to public sector union bosses.

Quite interestingly, what I am seeing in the House and in government is a merging of the ideology of the Liberals and the NDP. We have the champagne socialists riding with the limousine Liberals. Quite frankly, the NDP has not changed. It is still the party of bad ideas and toxic policies. What is changing is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is moving very quickly to the left, and their alliance with public sector union bosses against the interest of Canadians in general is proof of that.

I actually would like to call up a committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada so that we can list a species called the “blue Liberal”, which is now in danger. They are the Liberals who actually cared about business. They were the prominent blue Liberals who were talking in favour of pipelines, economic development, and free trade. However, they are being completely ignored. I think the Species at Risk Act needs to look at the blue Liberal.

Given that it is payback time, let us imagine what is going on in the negotiation room between the government and the public sector unions. Do members not think for a minute that the public sector unions do not point their finger at the relevant Liberal negotiators and say, “Look, we got you elected and you better deliver”? The Liberal Party is bargaining with the same group that helped bring it into power.

The President of the Treasury Board is making a sham trying to talk tough, but we know what will really go on behind closed doors. These negotiations are fundamentally flawed. There is another word I could use, but it is quite unparliamentary. The negotiations will be all about how much they can fleece the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, the public sector unions have become an entity unto themselves. We see the evolution of public sector unions as powerful political entities that in some cases can determine who forms a government. The public sector unions will always remind the Liberals who got them elected, and the public interest itself will be left behind.

This is bad for democracy and it is bad for our country. The public service is supposed to be neutral and carry out the wishes of the duly elected government of the day, but the trends I am seeing make me very uneasy.

Again, I want to reiterate that as this session evolves and the legislation evolves, it is becoming quite clear that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that stands up for the workers of Canada. We defend the natural resource industries. We defend the oil sands. We encourage the growth of pipelines. We are the only people who care about working families in this country.

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, our financial plan worked perfectly. In 2008, we did what we had to do, with the concurrence of the other parties. We spent on infrastructure. The plan by the late Jim Flaherty, the finance minister at the time, was at that point to gradually reduce the deficit. In 2014-15, the deficit was to be at zero or we were going to be in a small surplus. That plan worked to perfection. That is exactly what happened. The member could look at the graph and at the “Fiscal Monitor” from the Department of Finance today, in black and white. We left the Liberal government a surplus.

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's sentiments, but I do not appreciate his lack of understanding of economics.

Study after study has shown that as minimum wages rise, jobs are lost. All one has to do these days is go to a supermarket and see the automated checkouts that are in place. They are there for a reason.

A government needs to put in place policies and programs that would enhance the natural resources sector and create those high-paying jobs that under the Liberal government are sadly being lost by the thousands.