Finance Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Your issue has been addressed. Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Is there further discussion, or are we proceeding to a vote?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Could I make one other point?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I got into the detail of the amendments we're proposing, I neglected to mention this point. Given that this is a new model being proposed by the government, I want to say that our amendments are based on a concern we have that the government is rushing into these changes without adequate consultation and without the necessary checks and balances.

We've seen really the mess the government has made with the temporary foreign workers program. There were concerns raised by employers, by communities, and by workers who were concerned about their rights not being respected, about taking Canadian jobs. There were concerns expressed, and then the government had to amend what they had brought into place.

Our concern is based on the experience that when you rush into a new system and you don't have proper checks and balances, that's where you get into difficulties. Because we don't really have the information from the government about why they're making these changes, and based on what recommendation, and we don't see the transparency of monitoring the changes once they are made, we're concerned about what that's going to mean.

That's why we've proposed these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We will move to the vote on PV-20.

I think I have your consent to apply it to PV-21, PV-22, PV-23, PV-24, PV-25, and—

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No, I'm sorry, we need to take them separately.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All of them?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We could group the first two together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Maybe separately is easier.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Can I just clarify something?

I just want to flag that we're going to be voting against these first couple of amendments, because we think it's important, if there is going to be a new system, that it has to be allowed to work. We don't want to pre-empt it altogether.

That's our rationale.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We will vote on PV-20.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will vote on L-7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will vote on PV-21.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on PV-22.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on PV-23.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on PV-24.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on NDP-17.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment PV-20 applies to PV-25, so there is no vote required on PV-25.

The next vote is on PV-26.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on NDP-18.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on NDP-18.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All those in favour of clause 290?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

On division.

(Clause 290 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can I group clauses 291 to 293 together?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Shall they carry?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

On division.

(Clause 291 to 293 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 294)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have one amendment, NDP-19. This is dealing with division 17, public service labour relations.

We'll have Ms. Nash speak to NDP-19.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, here we are dealing with yet another Conservative omnibus budget implementation act, and a very significant portion of this act includes changes to public service labour relations. You have to ask yourself what the heck does that have to do with the budget bill, and why would a labour relations bill be dealt with in our committee. It's once again problematic that so much is crammed into this one bill with very diverse content.

Later on we'll be dealing with appointments to the Supreme Court, and we've just dealt with a section on immigration. The ridiculousness of this is very frustrating.

These changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act are very troubling, and I have to ask the government if they really want to prompt a deterioration of labour relations in the public sector. That's what's being provoked with these changes. I don't know, maybe the government thinks it's good politics to poke its finger in the eye of hard-working public sector workers, people who are paid with our tax dollars but who work very hard and do an excellent job on behalf of Canadians.

The government's belt-tightening has already seen the layoff of more than 20,000 public sector workers. Many are working very hard. We have heard a lot of complaints, whether it's from veterans, from seniors, from people trying to get access to EI, or from people concerned about cuts to search and rescue, services that have been cut and in some parts of the country are simply impossible for Canadians to get access to. These are public services. This is the work of the public sector and those are the jobs we are talking about.

This first change is about the definition of “essential service”. What the government is proposing with Bill C-4 is to give the minister sweeping powers to designate groups of workers as essential. That may sound like a good thing. We can all imagine essential workers. If your house is on fire, you don't want the firefighter to say, “I can't come right now because there is a labour issue that I'm dealing with”. There are some situations where it makes sense for there to be a designation of an essential service, but there is no definition provided here, or list of criteria that objectively one can point to, to say what would make some services essential and some not.

There is real concern that these powers will be used by the minister to designate groups of workers as essential, strictly for the purpose of undermining the ability of that bargaining unit to bargain collectively and defend their workers' rights. The definition of “essential service” that does appear seems to run contrary to the conventions of the ILO, the International Labour Organization.

This amendment would change the definition of “essential service” to reflect the definition from the ILO. The ILO provides an internationally recognized definition, and that's what is provided in this amendment.

We believe the important status of essential workers should be based on actual criteria rather than a loose definition that leaves the minister the power to designate people at will and strip them of their full collective bargaining rights. We think this is fundamentally undemocratic. It runs contrary to conventions that have been internationally agreed upon, and it is a dangerous slippery path that this government is going down.

It would give the minister incredible arbitrary powers, and as one of the witnesses said to us, it's like giving Coca-Cola, which is one of two parties in collective bargaining, in labour relations, the power to say that whole groups of employees in their workplace are designated essential and unable to exercise their full collective bargaining rights, their full labour rights, because it suits the employer, and it's convenient and perhaps advantageous for the employer. That is the power the minister is giving himself with these changes.

We think that's fundamentally wrong. We've had several labour experts testify here and tell us why that is wrong and why it's an affront to the practice of labour relations and to all of our experience in Canada and internationally.

On this particular clause, we're proposing an alternative, which is an agreed-upon international definition, which would give some clarity and some balance to the collective bargaining relationship, rather than really tipping the scales to the side of the employer, which in this case is the government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We will go to debate beginning with Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The proposed amendment by the NDP is inconsistent with the objective of making the essential services designation process more efficient and effective. The definition of what constitutes an essential service is not the problem; rather, the process itself and its ability to deliver results that ensure the safety and security of the public are protected where a strike may take place.

Let me give you some statistics, Mr. Chair.

Only six out of fourteen groups on the strike route have been able to negotiate an essential service agreement, an ESA. These six ESAs cover less than 20,000 public servants. The ESAs for 91,000 public servants have not been included, even after more than seven years of negotiations. The average time to reach an ESA for the six groups is two years and five months. For seven years, for example, we have been unable to negotiate an ESA with border guards. You can only imagine the chaos and the security risk to our country if border guards were to go on strike.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Côté, you have the floor.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's pretty funny to hear that. I'm sorry for laughing, but it's pretty hard to keep a straight face.

First, I'd like to thank the officials for being here. And Mr. Duggan was able to answer some of my questions about the possible impact of not having a definition for “essential services”, that is, the ability to arbitrate that the government was conferring upon itself. I submitted the answers that we have received to the expertise of jurists from the Association canadienne des juristes, including a jurist specializing in labour law. They told me that it was absolutely arbitrary, given that no section or category of employees would be excluded right off the bat from being considered an essential service. They also felt that it would open the door to costly court action that would be harmful to the public interest. According to them, it also went against good and sound workplace relations. They stated that it would open the door to increased court action to determine, at the end of the day, what an essential service is, instead of resolving it using a perfectly valid bargaining process.

It is very difficult to determine what the government is trying to achieve, aside from imposing its capricious will on every situation in its labour relations with public service employees. It's quite appalling. In the end, all the government is doing is throwing oil in the frying pan. And I certainly hope things don't blow up in our face, but I do expect to see a marked increase in the likelihood of labour disputes because of this kind of arbitration. I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to challenge that kind of arbitrary measure to opt out.

I won't go on any longer. I think I've been fairly clear. In any event, the testimony was so dense and it's unbelievable that the government party is still turning a blind eye to reason, especially to the expertise that was really convincing and eloquent.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Nash again.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

You know it takes two parties to negotiate, and if the government—and I'm not saying it's totally the government—is throwing roadblocks in the way of finding a solution, they can't point fingers at the other guy and scream “fire”. All I know is in a negotiation with two parties you really do have to find solutions, and if one party is intransigent, that may pre-empt finding a solution.

Having said that, I'm not saying the situation as it exists today is perfect and that's the only way it can operate. We're proposing something that would look at an internationally recognized standard and try to find an alternative way of getting to the same point. It seems to me that if there are objective criteria that make sense, that are reasonable, that people around the world have agreed to, then that makes sense, but to say, “Wait a minute; none of that matters. None of what the rest of the world has agreed to matters. We know this one minister is going to make the best decision and everyone should just trust this one person”, that makes no sense.

We always believe that if one side has a problem with something, then these are issues that need to be addressed, but they should be addressed in a fair way.

My sense is what's happening here is the government has some issues, some irritations, some problems with the public sector in some areas and they've lost their cool. They're overreacting rather than acting reasonably. There are internationally agreed upon reasonable ways of approaching the issue of essential services that will protect Canadians, make sure that the services are there when they need them. Nobody wants our borders undefended. We had the head of the public sector union say that on 9/11 all kinds of people voluntarily came in to work, and the union led that.

We think there are ways to be reasonable here that would solve a concern the government has and not offend people's basic rights.