Human Resources Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I can see that some of my colleagues opposite are filibustering here this morning. I also know that they did not have the decency to have the minister appear here, for obvious political reasons.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the decisions we made are clear. We have a responsibility to fulfil. We have a bill before us on an important issue. This isn't the first time we've discussed this matter; it's perhaps the tenth. So we know what we're talking about. Despite all those members who may be

what we call “nervous Nellies” with all those little letters you're receiving from lobbyists—that's an issue—our role and our job as members of Parliament is to address a situation; we're here as legislators. When we have something there, we have to face it, and we addressed it last week.

As my colleague said, there's committee business; we have to discuss those things. But for now, first things first: we have a witness, and on the orders of the day that's number one. Pursuant to the order of reference, we have a witness. We want to hear him; let's do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would like to make a correction. There is no politics being played here. We're talking about a huge impact on our country. There are many unions from coast to coast to coast. Playing politics is when you want to put it in two days of four-hour meetings that can exhaust everyone. We all know it can be very exhausting to be listening to witnesses on and on. We need more time.

So we would really like to have Mr. Lake's motion passed quickly, and then we can go back to our witness as quickly as possible. It's up to you now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think some important comments have been made. What we're talking about here is wanting to avoid the perception that this legislation is being rammed through in short order, which is certainly how it could be perceived if Mr. Lake's motion is not adopted.

I too have been hearing from constituents who were very quick to follow this kind of legislation in the House. They're wanting to make presentations and be a part of this process. I think it's only fair for all Canadians, as Mr. Coderre suggested, that as legislators we take our responsibility seriously. To suggest that we can ram through this legislation in a very short two meetings will strike great concern amongst business owners and employees alike across the country, and I think it's only fair to Mr. Nadeau that this legislation have a proper hearing and that enough witnesses have a chance to appear before the committee, with enough time to prepare their presentations.

I note, with the short period of time that is currently being proposed for groups to gather their thoughts and their research and to make some recommendations, that for many of them it's going to be impossible to appear in time and to participate in this important process. Out of respect for Mr. Nadeau and for the legislation and for our responsibilities, I can only hope that the members opposite will support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Ms. Davies, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lake, and then Ms. Brown.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

I think what hasn't been answered is why this motion is coming at this particular moment, in the middle of a presentation.

I think there's an appropriate place to have a motion and to have discussion about this. We haven't even finalized the list of witnesses yet, so we don't even know how many witnesses are going to be heard, which could be then an argument as to whether or not the number of meetings that have been established is sufficient to hear those witnesses, or whether we need additional hearings. That's my issue. I'm not going to get into whether something is being rammed through, or how political it is, but it seems just so strange that in the middle of a witness presenting you would try to foist this motion on the committee, when there's clearly a place on the agenda that is appropriate for doing it.

Here we are, now debating this, when we should be hearing the witness, as the agenda says. I would suggest we return to our agenda, because it says we're to hear from Monsieur Nadeau.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

We'll go to Mr. Brown, followed by Mr. Lake, and then Ms. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support Mr. Lake's motion. I think it is appropriate. We're hearing from Mr. Nadeau on the importance of this legislation, and it's appropriate timing to have the committee express in front of Mr. Nadeau our support for looking at this legislation in as much detail as possible. I don't think we're giving the mover of this legislation appropriate courtesy if we try to ramrod it and not actually research it, or if we ignore the obligations that we have for broader consultation.

I would hope the committee would show this sign of good faith to Mr. Nadeau and show good faith to all those who have an interest in this potential legislation. I think everyone has recognized and is cognizant of the fact that there is a lot of interest in this potential legislation, and it would behoove us to be cognizant of this democratic responsibility that we have to allow those viewpoints to be heard. I'll certainly support Mr. Lake's motion, and I hope everyone on the committee would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake, then Ms. Brown.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I wanted to answer the question asked by Ms. Davies. She asked, why now? Had she been in this committee previously, she would have seen what happened at the last couple of meetings. As I mentioned before and want to reiterate, it was clear that this legislation was going to be rammed through. It was absolutely clear, so it was important for us to make this motion at the earliest possible moment in order to make sure that we get a fair hearing. That's why I did it now, as opposed to waiting.

Typically we wait until, as you've phrased it, the scheduled times to have these kinds of discussions. Clearly, though, nothing was happening at that point. It was very clear that in those scheduled discussions and timelines, this was going to be rushed and was not going to get the proper hearing.

I have all respect for Mr. Nadeau. I want to make that very clear. We serve on another committee together and I have a lot of respect for him. I just think that, in his interest as well, we need to give his bill a proper hearing and make sure we hear all of the witnesses who want to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I have several points, Mr. Chair.

First, in all my years here in Parliament, I have never seen a witness interrupted like that. I find that outrageously disrespectful.

Secondly, I'm wondering why, on the very first day on a bill, the legislative clerk is here. In the committee that I used to chair, the legislative clerk came in to assist with clause-by-clause. It seems to me that we're quite a way from that.

The third question that I have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I thought we were only a couple of meetings away from that.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Well, even if we are.

The third thing is that I don't know how Mr. Lake is prescient enough to know that this particular bill is going to require six meetings. I don't know that. This is the first witness we've had.

When I read the report prepared here, it says that organized labour is virtually unanimous in support of this bill, while management is unanimously opposed. It seems to me that when there's such a terrific and clear split between two essential groups on the management of our economy, we have to be careful that we're not jumping ahead too fast. I don't know, maybe six meetings is a good idea. Maybe we need ten. Maybe we need four.

I would like to hear the first few witnesses, Mr. Chair, so we have a little bit of a feel for the thing before we decide how long it's going to take. I don't think anybody is anxious to ram it through without having proper knowledge and understanding.

The other thing is that we have a responsibility to the people in the House who voted at second reading to pass this and send it to committee. I know a number of people in my caucus who said this idea has come up two or three times in Parliament and has usually died on the order paper because we've gone to an election or whatever. It has never been aired, so a lot of people in the House who aren't on this committee are puzzled by this. They have been lobbied by both sides and they really are expecting us to sort it out.

So my suggestion, Mr. Chair, would be to refer Mr. Lake's motion to the end of the couple of days we have scheduled. By then all of us will have a better feel for it, an idea as to whether or not we want to go to clause-by-clause, as according to the skeleton plan we have now, or whether we want to hear more witnesses, whether we really are comfortable to go to clause-by-clause.

I think his motion is premature at this moment. But I think once we get a feel for the conflict that I think we're going to hear about when we hear these witnesses, we could decide if we want to move ahead to clause-by-clause or if we feel we need to air more of these issues.

I don't want to vote against Mr. Lake's motion. I don't want to vote for it. I don't know yet. We're only beginning to expose the ideas. I mean, this is the proponent, for heaven's sake, and we haven't even heard him out. I think it's all premature to make these kinds of decisions so quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

We have Madame Lavallée, and then Mr. Coderre.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I am not an expert in committee procedure but under the Standing Orders, isn't there a motion seeking a return to the agenda as soon as possible?

We can discuss these issues at the time scheduled to discuss them. It seems inappropriate that we would do this right in the middle of somebody's testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The clerk informs me that we are in Bill C-257. That is the order of business, so anything that pertains to that is fair game.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I haven't finished. That was my first question. We have to hear everything in relation to this bill, but isn't there an order that needs to be followed? We agreed on this last week. I don't know the exact wording of the motion we adopted, but I thought we adopted an agenda.

Having said that, coming back to an old motion should be more complicated than simply rudely interrupting a witness we took the appropriate steps to invite in order to move a motion on the work plan.

Furthermore, the member is calling for six more meetings in order to debate this bill when we still don't know the number of witnesses who registered before 5 p.m. yesterday. As we say back home, that's like putting the cart before the horse. We are proceeding in a totally disorderly fashion. Let's wait for the steering committee and the list of witnesses who've registered. Otherwise, this would be seen exactly for what it is, a political tactic called filibustering.

I'd ask that we get back to the agenda and to the excellent presentation being made by my colleague, Mr. Richard Nadeau.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Lavallée.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I simply want to remind the committee that last week, when we adopted a majority position, we said, at the end of this resolution, that we had a work plan and, moreover, we used the term “if possible”. We had already looked at the issue of flexibility.

Aside from filibustering—probably because they are frustrated about yesterday's election result for the riding of London-North-Centre—, the conservatives can try whatever they want, but the fact remains that we have the numbers and we intend to make sure nothing is written in stone, and ensure in the name of social peace and in keeping with our role as parliamentarians that we will debate this crucial issue on labour management relations. I can see a few lobbyists here and so I will reiterate it: nothing is written in stone. We want to have a decent debate so that we can protect the essential services, people, workers, employers. We want to achieve, in accordance with Canada Labour Code's preamble, a balance between labour management and labour, between management and workers.

It is time we dealt with this motion so that we can debate it immediately, hear from our witness, and deal with serious issues. It is time to fully play our role as parliamentarians. They can do whatever they want, but the majority will prevail. We care about the public's best interest. They won't move up in the polls if they continue to behave this way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I will defer to Mr. Lake, but I'd just like to say we have the public in mind. I just want to be assured that all my witnesses will be able to appear, without any shenanigans.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The way you treat our witness, we might have fun too.