House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 74% of the vote.
Labour February 19th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is right to state that the previous Conservative government had organized labour in its crosshairs. We saw that time and again, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 for example, which I am very pleased that our minister's first piece of legislation, Bill C-4, will repeal.
We will continue to work on labour issues, fair wages, and the definition of danger. Those are important issues and we will continue to pursue them as we go forward.
Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from the NDP to the chamber. I am sure, as he starts his career here in the House of Commons, there will be many issues on which we will disagree, but certainly on this one we are very much like-minded.
As we went through the study on Bill C-377, there were a number of comments made regarding the legislation, saying this was the same legislation, for the most part, as George Bush brought in as Republican legislation in the United States. We were able to witness one of the standard claims that was filed in the United States, and it was around 745 pages. It was a pretty impressive document.
The charity in Canada that records the highest amount of revenue is a hospital in Toronto. When it files, it has one of the most comprehensive, detailed filings for a charity in the country. It is 24 pages. It is pretty impressive when they are stacked up beside each other. The Conservatives contended that this was just about openness and clarity, and that we ask charities to do that. Does he see the difference between what is asked of charities and what was being asked of organized labour? Does he see that there was something else behind the motivation, other than openness and transparency?
Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my friend and colleague back in the chamber, speaking so passionately and well-informed about this and many other topics.
He took a bit of a hiatus from the chamber. I have a question about some of the testimony that was presented both in the House hearings and in the Senate hearings and about part of a study that was undertaken?
The province of British Columbia has flip-flopped back and forth between card check and secret ballot a number of times. For the past 18 years, it has studied the impact of the card check over the secret ballot. Ms. Sara Slinn, associate professor from Osgoode Hall law school, has been researching this for a number of years. She said that it was intimidation on the part of the employer that skewed the vote in favour of the employer, of non-certification, in the case of the secret ballot. I will read into the record her comments. She said:
In sum, the research evidence shows that there is no support for the notion that votes are necessarily a superior mechanism to cards for determining union representation. Nor does it support the notion that union intimidation or pressure is a substantial phenomenon in certification. What it does demonstrate is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference, is a real phenomenon. It's effective, and it's more effective under votes than card-based mechanisms.
Is my colleague familiar with the research done by Ms. Slinn?
Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfair to ask me to look inside the mind of the past government to figure out why the Conservatives wanted to do what they did.
However, it is great to have my colleague back in the House, and she has summed it up. There has been no government in this country that has had organized labour in its crosshairs like the past Conservative government.
We have seen record use of back-to-work legislation. We have seen changes to labour legislation, with the labour laws of this country being changed within 400-page omnibus bills. We saw the change to the definition of “danger” being slid into an omnibus bill. Practices that have long served this country, such as a tripartite consultative consensus-building process, which is to the benefit of Canadian workers, were run over roughshod, and these two pieces of legislation are just two examples.
We saw an obvious attack on organized labour over the tenure of the last government. Why? I do not know if it was part of that divide and conquer, with one group against another in the bigger scheme of things. However, obviously it was one that did not work out well for that Conservative government.
Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment and the question.
To suggest that we as a party do not believe in private members' bills would be very dishonest. However, to pretend that these bills were private members' bills is wrong. The members who presented them were like the Milli Vanilli of legislators. They lip-synched the bills.
Check the lobby registry. See how many times the Merit contractors were in and out of the Prime Minister's Office. The PMO's fingerprints were all over both pieces of legislation. To even disguise them as private members' bills is a disservice to private members' legislation.
Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today.
Governing is all about seeking a balance between things like the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and another, between social and economic values, and between labour and business.
I do not believe there has been any government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance, allowing ideology to trump evidence and political expediency to replace due process, than the previous Conservative government. Such has been the case in its actions towards labour relations and workers' rights in this country.
After years of attacks on fundamental labour rights, it is very gratifying that one of the first acts our government is doing is restoring fair and balanced labour laws that respect the integral role played by unions and their importance to a strong middle class and a fair and prosperous society.
Labour law systems are very complex. The ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of labour and management that must be respected if and when reforms are made. The federal labour relations system is well regarded and supported by both labour and employers, as the result of a genuine and proven consultative and consensus process that has been followed for decades in amending labour laws.
One of the most comprehensive changes in recent history to part I of the Canada Labour Code was the result of a full consultative process. It was chaired by the well-respected labour neutral, Andrew Sims, who produced a report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. Mr. Sims said that if labour law is to be changed, it should be because of two things. It should be because there is a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public's interest, or done on a consensus basis.
There are perhaps no greater examples of how the previous government showed contempt for these principles and upset the labour relations balance than the two private members' bills that Bill C-4 seeks to repeal. Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were deeply ideological and highly partisan pieces of legislation that served no public good or policy objective. Their sole purpose was to diminish and weaken the labour movement in this country.
These types of labour policies, based on ideology rather than evidence, produce unstable labour laws that hurt, not help, the interests of employers, employees, and the economy in the long term.
Bill C-377 was badly crafted and is fundamentally flawed legislation that made unprecedented and unwarranted disclosure about unions and their members, as well as other organizations that do business with unions, based on no demonstrated need for this law.
Constitutional experts have said it was unconstitutional. Privacy experts believe it will violate privacy rights of millions of Canadians. Seven provinces, representing more than 80% of Canada's population, opposed it, as it interferes with provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.
Even well-respected Conservatives such as retired Senator Hugh Segal said it was “badly drafted legislation, flawed, unconstitutional and technically incompetent”.
Both the current and previous Privacy Commissioners said that the bill was a serious breach of privacy in their testimony at the House and at Senate committees. Past privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, said quite clearly that Bill C-377 was a “a serious breach of privacy.”
The current Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said more bluntly that he thought the bill goes too far. In his words, a balance should be struck between transparency, which is an important value, and privacy, which is a value that is also just as important, something Bill C-377 failed to do.
To prove how unfair and unbalanced this bill is, let me share a short story. In 2012, I wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency and asked if they could provide the same information on its employees that Bill C-377 was asking of labour organizations. Its response was that it could not provide the information. The information I received from CRA is that the Privacy Act precludes the CRA from disclosing personal information about its employees. Therefore, CRA, the agency that was set to enforce this law, could not comply with exactly what was being asked of organized labour, of unions, though the passage of Bill C-377.
The second piece of legislation that Bill C-4 will repeal is Bill C-525, the Employees' Voting Rights Act. Like Bill C-377, there was never any evidence provided in support of its need. It was simply another solution in search of a problem. Politically motivated and ideologically based, its sole goal was to make it harder for unions to certify and easier for unions to decertify.
The sponsor of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, claimed that the bill was needed because of the “mountain of complaints” regarding union coercion of workers during union certification campaigns.
He said the following in Hansard:
When we hear one person complain about the actions of union organizers, that can be dismissed as a one-off situation. However when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.
That is a serious claim.
Many members might be surprised that when the chair of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee during study of the bill, she said that out of 4,000 decisions rendered by the CIRB in the previous 10 years, there were only two complaints of unfair labour practices by unions. That is quite a mountain. She said there were actually more founded unfair labour practice complaints against employers rather than unions.
Bill C-525 made a significant change to the fundamental rights of workers in how they organize themselves, without evidence for its need, bypassing the established consultative process that is critical to maintaining balance in labour relations. Does anyone believe that this is a responsible and fair way for government to make laws that affect the fundamental rights of Canadians?
The previous government was intent on injecting political ideology into labour relations, to a degree that has never been witnessed before at the federal level. I believe both employers and labour would agree that this does nothing to promote harmonious labour relations and is not in the best interests of the economy or our society. Governments must always seek a balance in how they govern, and perhaps no greater place is this required than in labour relations.
The stakeholders in the federal labour sector long ago developed a proven consultative process to amend federal labour legislation. Past Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments supported such a process because it provided legislative stabilities for all stakeholders, and it worked. As a result, there existed a delicate balance that served fairly the interests of employers, unions, workers, and the Canadian economy.
Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 politicized that process and undermined the balance in our labour relations system. They were short-sighted labour reforms made without a legitimate consultative process, driven by ideology rather than evidence.
That is why our government is repealing Bills C-377 and C-525. We are committed to the tripartite consultative process, and it is our hope that Bill C-4 will help to re-establish what Andrew Sims said was so important to our modern labour relations regime, and that is balance.
Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by my colleague. Much of it focused on openness, transparency, and disclosure. He posed the rhetorical question of why the government would be against openness and transparency and, of course, it is not. This bill has nothing to do with openness and transparency.
Liberals put forward an amendment. If this was not an attack on labour, if this was about openness and transparency, if it is a good thing, it should be good for them. Everybody benefits from a tax deduction of dues paid, such as professional organizations, lawyers, doctors, chambers of commerce, CFIB members. They are all tax-deductible.
However, the member's Conservative government voted against that amendment, against openness and transparency. How can he square that with the whole charade about openness and transparency when it was only unions that would fall under this legislation?
Canada Labour Code February 5th, 2016
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' comments are that this is all about accountability, openness, and transparency.
We made an amendment to the bill, that we should go beyond organized labour to the employers' groups, chambers of commerce, bar associations, and anyone who gets a tax deduction. We wanted to open it up, because if it is good for organized labour, then it would be good for everyone. We put forward that amendment to the bill, and the Conservatives voted against it.
I want the member to know that we stand with the NDP. We recognize that those two pieces of legislation were nothing but a deliberate attack on organized labour. Could my colleague comment on that?
Canada Labour Code February 5th, 2016
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and welcome her to the House. I wish her the very best as she starts her new career.
The member had some very good points in her speech. However, so that she is aware as we debate, the rationale the Conservative government used at the time to put forward these two pieces of legislation, the reason the member for Red Deer—Lacombe cited for putting forward Bill C-525, was that it was to address the mountain of grievances against big union bosses and their strong-arm tactics to organize labour sites.
When the president of the Canada Industrial Relations Board appeared before committee, I asked specifically about this mountain of grievances. In over 10 years, she had dealt with 4,000 grievances. The number of grievances against the big union bosses was two in 10 years. Would the member see that as a mountain of grievances? Does she believe that would be justification enough to go forward with this punitive anti-union legislation?
Canada Labour Code February 5th, 2016
Madam Speaker, my colleague identified the fact that constitutional experts had said the legislation went against the Constitution. Privacy experts have said it exposes millions of Canadians and their privacy. Also, seven out of ten provinces have spoken against it.
Would my colleague agree that this was a solution for a problem that did not exist? There were ulterior motives. This was about trying to find something to solve a problem that did not exist.