Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 14th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Godin, could I ask you a question? It's my understanding that they belong to a much larger union. This smaller group of individuals within this union who have chosen to strike would stay at work and not be penalized for doing that, because they are considered an essential service. So as to the benefits of the ongoing strike, they would benefit from them anyway.

We're not denying that the union can strike. We're simply saying that this section of workers within those various unions would not be allowed to be off work during the strike. Is that not what I'm hearing?

Mr. Simard is next.

Are you passing?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I think you might have answered my question. My concern is, if you're going to establish these employees as being essential service, just as you would for police officers or firefighters or so on, you would have to afford them the same protection as these other people have.

If you do that, then it's okay, right? You can't take it away and not give them some protection. I'm not sure we can assume their existing unions have that protection. I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Would we want to make the recommendation then in our draft report that this is a significant consideration and the committee is divided on it, but it should be looked at it with the provision that these employees are in fact protected?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have Mr. Preston

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I have one really quick comment. Mrs. Redmond said that there has to be some time that this is looked at.

It came to mind, as you were saying it, that we seem to be only looking at the recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer. We're not even looking at the whole act. I mean, what is in there that he doesn't want changed?

I might just throw that back to the committee. We're certainly dealing with his recommendations, but we're not dealing with things in there that may need to be changed but were never brought to our attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I've just been re-reading the actual recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer. I have to say that he managed to word it in such a way that I can see why somebody who believes deeply in the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining would bridle at the wording.

I think he could have done it a lot more.... He doesn't have to say that we're removing the right to strike. We're removing the participation in strikes. So to the extent there's a legal strike under way....

It seems to me that what we want to say is, to be quite specific, we don't want to take away the right of collective bargaining, of benefiting from collective bargaining in any way. The goal would be specifically to deal with a very legitimate problem, which he actually puts down here, and I think is worth saying, “Normally, Parliament can legislate a return to work if necessary, though this is not an option when Parliament has been dissolved for a general election.”

That's the nub of the problem. That's the problem we're trying to deal with, right? You can't get around that particular problem except by removing the workers of Elections Canada not from the bargaining unit, not from being beneficiaries of a collective agreement, but from participation in the actual strike action.

I think if we could reword it that way and then maybe look at that at a future date, we might find we'd get more consensus than we would get with the wording about removing the right to strike, which I agree is overly strong wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll go to Mr. Hill for a final comment, and then we'll make a decision.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

If we try to get some consensus around the room about how to proceed with this, bearing in mind the fact that this has been brought forward a number of times in the past, I think it is, as Mr. Reid has just laid out, a legitimate concern that all of us should be concerned about, that previous committees grappled with and didn't resolve.

If we're going to be bothered bringing forward recommendations in our report, we shouldn't have six of one and half a dozen of the other. We should make a decision, and hopefully we can make a decision along the lines that Mr. Reid just suggested so that we--not we as in members of Parliament or political parties, but we as a nation--are protected.

As the Chief Electoral Officer indicates in the remarks that Mr. Reid just read out, if we were in a situation where Parliament has been dissolved, in effect you don't have a government and you're into an election period, and there's a strike.

Just think about that. Fortunately it hasn't happened, but what would happen?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We'd come back and go back after.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

How do you come back? Parliament doesn't exist.

In all good conscience, if we're serious about doing our work, we should be able to arrive at something that would satisfy the needs of the employees, which Mr. Godin and others are raising--we're all concerned about that--but also address the fundamental issue that the Chief Electoral Officer is drawing our attention to, rather than just shrug our shoulders and say we can't really decide, or we're split, or we have concerns on both sides of the question, and do nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

May I recommend, then, from the chair, that we reword this thing a little bit and bring it back perhaps at Tuesday's meeting, if we can't get it done by Thursday, so that it infers exactly the sentiments of all committee members? Would that be acceptable?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

If that's possible, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mrs. Redman, and then Mr. Guimond.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

For a point of information, can we have exactly what being declared an essential service means?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Remember that Mr. Kingsley told us that his raw material comes from different sources. He said that people who operate computers send him information. So are we talking about his office staff, some 52 employees, or are we talking about all related services? This is why we absolutely need this answer.

As for the wording we are going to use, remember what I said. I talked about binding arbitration. If we take away their right to strike, we have to give them the same protection as police or firefighters who do not have the right to strike.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Michel just raised an important point which I support. This is what I understood Mr. Kingsley to say. He did not talk only about his own staff but also about employees of other departments. We really need to check this out...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We will check on this and we'll get the wording down.

The next section, recommendation 1.9, deals with the same sort of contentious issue, hiring and payment of temporary Elections Canada staff. It would appear that the Public Service Employment Act requires the employment of such folks for 90 days.

If you want to read through that, you can:

The Chief Electoral Officer feels that Elections Canada needs to retain these employees for a maximum period of 175 days. He proposes that the Act be amended to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to hire temporary workers for the direct preparation for, and the conduct of, elections and that the Chief Electoral Officer determine the duration of such employment. Other temporary workers would be subject to the Public Service Employment Act time limits. The Chief Electoral Officer proposes an amendment to section 20 to the Canada Elections Act, by dividing it into two parts: one part for those temporary employees directly involved in the preparation for, and the conduct of elections; and the other part for other temporary employees that support the work of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I'm getting a lot of nods indicating yes, so maybe we should just put the question.

Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

He's saying that the 90 days works fine for elections, but he needs an extension of temporary workers' time to support him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's the other way around.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

The 90-day period impedes the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

It says, “By dividing it into two parts: one part for those temporary employees directly involved in the preparation for, and the conduct of elections.”

He wants that to be the longer period?