Finance Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

(Amendment NDP-19 negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 294 to 295 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 296)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-20.

Ms. Nash.

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

This amendment seeks to preserve the compensation analysis and research service, which the government is eliminating under Bill C-4 .

We believe that informed decisions tend to be better decisions. We think it's important that there be independent research and support for arbitration decisions. We think this clause makes no sense. I suppose if you're operating in the dark you can make whatever decision you want, but it's probably not going to be the best decision. We think the more information the better, and that's what this amendment speaks to.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there further debate on this?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 296 and 297 agreed to)

(On clause 298)

We have amendment NDP-21.

Ms. Nash.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is similar to the amendment in NDP-20, so I won't repeat myself. The same arguments apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 298 agreed to)

Can I group clauses 299 to 301?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 299 to 301 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 302)

We have amendment NDP-22.

Ms. Nash.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is key in this whole section. It speaks to maintaining dispute mechanisms in collective bargaining. It allows unions to choose whether they want to go to binding arbitration or whether they want conciliation. These kinds of services have been established in our labour relations process for decades. They've served us well. They provide checks and balances, and the goal is always to foster a negotiated agreement and prevent labour disputes. Generally in our federal jurisdiction, it has been pretty successful in performing that function. It's not perfect; every so often, there is a dispute, but it provides every opportunity to try to resolve problems, freely negotiated between the two parties.

Eliminating binding arbitration will provoke more labour disputes. One could argue that's why the government wants to be able to designate vast swatches of workers as essential services. They don't have to sit down and reasonably negotiate, find compromise, find solutions that will actually work well in people's lives. They can be more dictatorial and suppress opposition by using the essential worker designation. I hope that's not the case, but it begs the question, otherwise, why all these changes? What will the outcome be?

We think there are a number of changes here, whether it's altering the information people can use, denying them information, extending the notice to bargain to one year. We are concerned that a longer timeframe may, in fact, provoke more disputes. We think that by undermining this process, really, without good reasons that we've heard, it's ultimately going to lead to more labour disputes. We don't think that's good for Canadians, and we don't think that undermining people's rights is good for Canadians.

Public servants work hard. They go to work every day. They pay their taxes. They do a good job for Canadians. We don’t think they should be denied the rights that are available to other people.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to the vote on NDP-22.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 302 agreed to)

Can I group clauses 303 and 304?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 303 and 304 agreed to)

(On clause 305)

We have amendment NDP-23.

Ms. Nash, go ahead on this one.

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

Mr. Chair, this also speaks to the essential worker designation without any objective criteria. Again, we think it's inappropriate. Limiting the essential service designation to cases that are consistent with the ILO definition of essential services makes a lot more sense. That's what this amendment speaks to.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

(Clause 305 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I don't have an amendment until clause 470. Can we group clauses 306 to 470?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On division?

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

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Agreed?

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

No, no, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On division?

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

No, we'll vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll vote. Okay.

(Clauses 306 to 470 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 471)

We have two amendments, BQ-4 and L-8.

First, Monsieur Plamondon.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll also speak to clause 472 because it's the same thing the Bloc Québécois is proposing. We recommend removing those sections because they would stop the federal government from having obligations to appoint Supreme Court justices. We aren't fools: these two sections are the federal government's answer to challenges to Justice Nadon's appointment to the Supreme Court.

Let's keep in mind that three seats are set aside for Quebec. A list of candidates is provided by the Government of Quebec, and the federal government chooses from that list. This time, the government did not, and it did not meet the usual selection criteria. Therefore, these sections should not be in the bill. That's why we suggest they be removed.

Mr. Chair, I know that you will reject the two amendments because we can't remove sections in committee, but only propose amendments to the sections.

Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That is some wonderful foreshadowing on your part, Monsieur Plamondon, because the ruling of the chair is dealing with both BQ-4 and BQ-5, as both of these amendments deal with the deletion of clauses.

BQ-4 states:That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 471.

BQ-5 states:That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 472.

Because they are deletion of clauses at committee stage, the chair is going to rule both of these amendments as inadmissible.

Therefore, we shall move to amendment L-8.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's Liberal-9, is it not?