Rodger Cuzner

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member across has tried to dismiss what Bill C-377 was about. He tried to say that we ask the same of charities, so why can we not ask this of organized labour?

The highest degree of revenue by any charity in the country is a hospital in Toronto. They file a form of about 24 pages. One of the smallest filings we are going to see, if we let Bill C-377 go forward for organized labour, will be about 400 pages. The member should try not to mislead the Canadian public, saying that it is looking for the same. Everything over $5,000, every salary over $5,000, will have to be shown.

My hon. colleague said that members of Parliament would have to do this. I would ask the member if he posts the individual salaries of his staff on his website.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

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 practise law in Ontario, one has to be a member of 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.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

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?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate joining the debate with my friend and colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I have a great deal of respect for his ability to step dance and I know first-hand the opposition he posed to both Bills C-377 and C-525 and the work that he does within the labour movement in this country.

He is very supportive of the bill, but in the last exchange, he brought up the anti-scab legislation that his party is proposing in the private member's bill that it is putting forward now. He would know that when Bills C-377 and C-525 were in committee, witness after witness said private members' bills are not the way to change the Canada Labour Code. That is not the way to change labour law in this country. We need a tripartite system where employers, employees, and government can sit down to find a way forward through consultation and consensus.

Does he know that one of the gurus of labour relations in this country, Andrews Sims, said not to change the labour code through private member's legislation, that it is the wrong way to go, and to do it through a tripartite approach by making amendments to the code?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have to commend the member for Hamilton Centre for the use of the word “majoritarianist”. That is the first time I have heard that one in the House. It was a good word, and well used I thought.

I very much respected the way my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle wove into his remarks about unions' contribution to this country, the building of the middle class in its fight for fair wages, benefits, and working conditions.

I asked this question earlier. If we are not going to be the party that is the cheerleader for either labour or business, we need to be respectful of the tripartite process. Is that the way to go forward here, with employers, employees, and the government sitting down in a tripartite fashion? Is that the way to keep labour peace in this country?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler for his speech, because he was able to identify the key aggravations in Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These two bills stood out to me when they were debated here in the House.

On Bill C-525, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin said at the time that the legislation was put forward to deal with the mountain of grievances that arose year after year against union organizers. However, when the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee, we asked her just how high that mountain was. How many grievances had come in against union leaders over the past 10 years? There were two grievances against union organizers. It was not quite a mountain, but a misnomer from the get-go.

There was another thing that came forward, if we are going to change the labour code in this country. Does my colleague believe it has to be done through a tripartite process, through consultation and consensus with government, employers, and employees? We as a country have embraced that tripartite process. Does the member not agree that rather than using private members' legislation, we should do it through a tripartite process?

[Canada Labour Code, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments today. Certainly she has a great deal of equity in her opinion. I know that her career background before coming to the House was in working on behalf of Canadian workers and ensuring the concerns of those who face day-to-day challenges are being heard. As the member brought forward in her speech, those are numerous, and certainly as a government we will try to work at it. It is a daunting challenge and a daunting task, but hopefully month after month we will be able to address many of the changes that the member talked about today, and some of the improvements that she talked about today.

However, in particular on Bill C-4, because I know the member has been involved in the labour movement, with the past legislation that would be repealed I fail to see where any of that legislation would have improved the life of any Canadian. I do not know how those pieces of legislation would have created a job in this country. It appears to many, and certainly to me, that it was just an affront to organized labour.

Could the member share her thoughts? Obviously, our take on it was that it was just an attack on organized labour.

[Canada Labour Code, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the interventions and speeches by my friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent, which are always done with a great deal of enthusiasm and passion, no matter how misguided his position might be. I always enjoy his position.

I know him to be a reasonable guy, a fair and reasonable member. With that sort of understanding, when Bill C-377 came through the House, the member would understand that in order to practise law in Ontario, lawyers have to be a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. There is a mandatory fee and that fee is tax deductible. Likewise, in order to practise medicine in this country, doctors have to be a member of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The fee is fair and it is all tax deductible. These are professional organizations that receive that tax benefit.

When the Liberals put forward an amendment to Bill C-377 that if the disclosure of the accounts of organized labour in this country were a good measure, being about openness and accountability, then it should apply to everybody.

What did the Conservative Party do at the time? It voted against that amendment. It voted against openness and transparency. Why would organized labour not then think this were a target placed on them?

Would the member not see it as reasonable and that if it is good for the goose, then it has to be good for the gander?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair and to see all the friendly faces back in the confines. I am happy to be back.

I am more than happy to help the member with his history lesson as he takes us down memory lane from deficits past. If we are going to reach back, I think we should reach all the way back.

Let us go back to 1984, when the Conservatives led by the Prime Minister Mulroney took over and inherited a national debt of $120 billion. By the time he left in 1993, the national debt had gone up to $560 billion. Enter Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin in 1993, who were able to take on the tough questions, balance the books, and have successive surplus budgets. They brought the national debt down to $460 billion.

In came another Conservative government, and where did we end up? We ended up with $612 billion of accrued national debt under the Conservatives.

I think we have to be fair with Canadians. Successive Conservative governments have collected this huge amount of national debt and the Liberals have come in try to fix the mess they were left with. I think that is probably where we are now. We are going to give relief to many Canadians and we are going to attack the deficit.

Does he not agree that again it is left to the Liberals to mop up the mess?

[Labour, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Geneva, the minister announced our government's ratification of the International Labour Organization's convention on minimum age. This convention requires ratifying countries to set a minimum age for employment of at least 15 years and to prohibit hazardous work for young workers. This sends a clear message about Canada's values and shows children that children's rights are not only a moral, but a legal obligation as well.

We stand together with countries around the world, denouncing child labour, exploitation, and abuse. We continue working toward the full international respect for fundamental rights for workers.