Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

—or to speak to 230?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

We were only addressing the amendment, I think. Is that correct, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

To clause 230.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I am finding it remarkable. We had witnesses here today who could cite no precedent for this. We have an independent officer of Parliament who has termed this a “dangerous precedent”. We have Conservative talking points saying that all this is doing is closing a loophole and following the will of Parliament, and we have a statute that the Supreme Court of Canada has called “quasi-constitutional”. It's called the Access to Information Act.

She wants to do her job. The government is taking away her ability to do the job and it could, as she has pointed out, set up a possibility for cover-ups of future scandals. We might never have known some of the scandals in the past that have been unearthed if the government can just go back and erase them, put them down the legislative black hole, the memory hole—all gone now, no records, no problem, and we move on.

This is astounding in a democracy and what's even more outrageous is it's being snuck into the end of another omnibus budget bill. I am absolutely outraged. My constituents are outraged. This is anti-democratic in the extreme.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Monsieur Côté.

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

Mr. Chair, I am looking at my colleagues. They don't have to act like those who followed Reverend Jones and drank his Kool-Aid. The government is speed-walking into a wall, head first. It is nurturing the seeds of its own self-destruction. I cannot prevent them from blindly following the wishes of the Prime Minister's Office, but what we are observing right now is absolutely incredible. That is the only simple warning I wanted to give them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll do the vote on clause 230.

Do you want a recorded vote?

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

Yes, I want a recorded vote.

(Clause 230 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 231)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll move to the vote on PV-52.

Mr. Hyer spoke to it already.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll vote on LIB-7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On clause 231, do you want a recorded vote?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 231 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

We have a new clause 231.1. That's LIB-8. We'll do the vote on that.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I thank our officials from Public Safety.

Colleagues, I'm going to take a health break here and we'll come back in five minutes.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. We will return to our consideration of Bill C-59.

We will move to division 19.

(On clause 232)

We have one amendment for this division. I'm sure it will not be a surprise, but I have a ruling on that amendment.

We have NDP-15. We'll let Mr. Rankin speak briefly to that, and then I will have a ruling.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

No, that's fine. I think it was Mr. Caron who was going to do that, sorry.

If you have a ruling that it's out of order, why don't you just give us that ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure. The ruling is that this amendment seeks to amend section 440 of the Bank Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766-7, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.” Since section 440 of the Bank Act is not being amended by Bill C-59, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

That deals with NDP-15.

Shall clauses 232 to 252 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 232 to 252 agreed to on division)

Thank you so much for being with us. I hope you enjoyed the proceedings.

We'll ask the officials from Treasury Board to come forward to deal with division 20. This deals with sick leave and disability programs. This is the final division in the bill. We'll welcome our officials back to the committee.

(On clause 253—Definitions)

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

This morning, we heard witnesses make a presentation. It is clear to us that the provisions contained in clause 20 of part 3 constitute another formal attack by the government against workers' access to free and fair collective bargaining.

After a series of legal decisions that confirmed that access to free and equitable collective bargaining is guaranteed by the charter, it seems unlikely that these legislative measures will survive a legal challenge, just like the retroactive changes to the long-gun registry provisions that were recently the object of a decision.

And this is not the first time. I remember that when I used to sit on this committee, there was another provision we felt was contrary to the Constitution, that had to do with a retroactive amendment to the rules governing the appointment of Quebec judges to the Supreme Court. We had warned the government that that provision was unconstitutional, and it was deemed to be so by the Supreme Court. So we have been here before.

Once again, this decision will clearly be the object of a court challenge, since it really runs counter to the spirit of the legislation and the Constitution. The decision by several unions to leave the negotiating table following the introduction of this legislation is symptomatic of the toxic approach Conservatives have to collective bargaining.

This matter is important. I think that the witnesses from the unions recognized that as well. However, it has to be negotiated in good faith in the framework of a collective bargaining process. That is clearly not the case at this time. The government is attempting to force the adoption of provisions that should be freely negotiated. So there is no way we are going to support this provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

We're still dealing generally with the division.

On clause 253, we'll go to Mr. Brison.

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

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we share Mr. Caron's concern that measures in this division may in fact be unconstitutional.

The federal government and its unions for public servants ought always to be looking for ways to improve the sick leave and disability plans for mutual benefit. We know, the Liberals know, that sick leave is a benefit that was actually negotiated at the bargaining table with public service unions. If the government or a union wants to change that benefit, there's a way to do that. It's through consultation and negotiation at the bargaining table. This is the only way to ensure the resulting sick leave system will be fair to both employers and to taxpayers.

Instead of doing that, the government is circumventing the established collective bargaining process to unilaterally impose changes to sick leave and disability. What they're doing is purely politics. They're trying to pick a fight with the public service unions like Mike Harris did when he was in Ontario, and they're pitting the general public against the public service unions.

When I was minister of public works, we had 14,000 employees and there were certain issues that were of contention between our department and the unions, but we worked through them. We worked with members of the public service. We didn't always agree, but we were respectful.

I can tell you that if you want to get good work and expect good work and results from public servants, it's hard to do that if you create a situation that reduces the morale within the public service to the extent that it has reached now under this government. Even the verbiage used on the floor of the House by the President of the Treasury Board when he is talking about the public service.... It really undermines the productivity of government to take steps gratuitously that poison labour relations with major public service unions. This is distinct from the issue of specific changes to the sick leave policy.

If the government believes that this is the right way to go, then the government should address it through negotiation with the labour unions. That's the way to do it. It's not through an omnibus budget bill that circumvents the well-established collective bargaining process that exists and actually for the most part I think has worked quite well. What the government is doing now will actually make it harder to achieve labour agreements in the future with public service unions.

I think that outlines our concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

We'll deal with clause 253 first.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 253 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 254—Sick leave)

We have PV-53 and PV-54. They are identical.

We'll go to Mr. Hyer, briefly, on PV-54.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I have a suggestion, Mr. Chair, and that is that I speak to PV-54, PV-56, and PV-58 briefly all at once and then you can deal with them as you see appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Building on what Mr. Brison said, it's very clear to me and the Green Party of Canada that, whether it's based on ideology or some sort of strategy, the government is trying to pick a fight with unions.

Our amendments try to deal with getting around the incredible anti-labour position taken here, which is attempting to circumvent unions and our obligations under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Incredibly, Bill C-59 imposes the government's bargaining position on public service unions before they ever even have the chance to sit down and negotiate.

It's not the right thing to do. It's not the smart thing to do. I really hope the government will rethink this part of the bill.