Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We're going to move to Ms. Yelich, followed by Mr. Silva, Ms. Dhalla, and Ms. Davies.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about what I think was lacking in the whole debate.

We really only heard how the labour legislation works in two provinces. We didn't hear from provinces that never adopted this legislation. It was on the table in my province, which has an NDP government, and they absolutely refused this kind of legislation. Just because these two provinces have the statistics and data that makes us believe we should make this legislation, as federal regulators...I find that very difficult.

I think it's very important for us to understand what was said today. It is federally regulated because it is essential; it is essential to be federally regulated because it's critical. The word “essential” is very important, but he also said it's “critical” to our country.

In the prairie provinces, we would be devastated with legislation such as this that creates an imbalance.

I don't like where this debate went--almost that we're against labour. We are not. In fact, I believe there should be peaceful and good relationships with peers and bosses in corporations.

We are federal regulators. They're looking to us to make sure this economy doesn't stop. I know our prairie provinces would have a very difficult time. These provinces that are represented by unions have ports. We rely on those ports, and the labour, which put a lot of our goods through to other countries. We rely on good labour relations. We expect that between labour and their bosses.

Nobody has asked the consumers. Nobody has asked us, who rely on these services, what we call essential. I would be afraid that we would never have any input on what would be essential. Our livelihoods on the Prairies are very essential--very essential.

We heard from the mining industry. I think we haven't heard enough, even from the employees. What do the employees think of some of this? We've heard mainly from the union bosses. Perhaps some who were represented here on the last day of witnesses said that they felt they did represent the employees and that the legislation did not represent those people.

I think we're not looking at the bill in the right context. If we're going to actually think about this bill, we should ask other provinces why they didn't adopt this legislation.

We are going through strikes right now in our province. They have replacement workers. They've used another jurisdiction to have replacement workers.

I think this motion in fact says what should be said. All our witnesses have given different scenarios about how this country will have some difficulties if this legislation is adopted. It tilts the balance of power. I think there should be no more discussion about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

We're going to move to Mr. Silva, followed by Ms. Dhalla, Ms. Davies, and Mr. Lake.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be speaking against the motion. I will not be supporting it.

Mr. Chair, there's no need for our committee to study whether we should have replacement workers during a strike. The reality is that either you believe it or you don't. I have very strongly said that there is no need to bring in replacement workers. In fact, during a strike or a lockout it can be quite disruptive. It prolongs strikes. There's no benefit to the working relationships within those particular sites as well.

I realize there are some issues of concern that people have raised. I know the issue of essential services has also been raised a number of times by members of the committee and the witnesses.

The only way one can contemplate there being a study is if the minister were to say he is going to have a study for three or four months, bring all the players together, and then bring in legislation. But the government is not planning to do part B. How can you support having a committee go through the studies and trying to finesse the language that might be needed for this legislation without there also being a plan B that the minister will bring in legislation? A study for the sake of studying, without any proposal by the government to bring in legislation, tells me this is just a delay tactic. I can't support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Silva.

Now we're going to move to Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I share some of the opinions around the table, including those of my colleague Mr. Silva.

I think many members on this side do support the banning of replacement workers. There is an issue with essential services, and that does need to be addressed. However, I'm going to have to speak against the motion. In light of all the work that's been done, I do not believe we can actually have the bill not move forward. I don't think that would do justice to any of the work that's been done and the efforts that have been put in place by many of the individuals.

So this is something that cannot be supported. We do need to have a broader discussion around the issue of essential services, but perhaps we can take that up after we finalize the vote on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Dhalla.

We're going to move to Ms. Davies, followed by Mr. Lake and Madame Lavallée.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to be voting against the motion--surprise, surprise--and the first point I want to make is this. I really believe the House, by a vote, sent us this bill in good faith. It was debated in the House. It had two hours of debate under private members’ business. It went to a vote at second reading, which is a vote in principle. The House sent it to this committee believing, as with all other bills and private members' business, that we would continue in good faith to deal with the bill, to hear witnesses, to eventually get to clause-by-clause, and to then make a decision about sending the bill back.

So to try to short-circuit that before we have done our work is very unfortunate, and I think really speaks to the real position being put forward here by the Conservatives--that is, they just want to kill this bill.

I don't for a minute believe this is a rationale for further consultation. There's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if this motion were approved, and then the second motion were moved and approved on the basis that we need further consultation, it would probably end up being the longest consultation in history. I can tell you that there's no indication from the Conservative government that they actually want this legislation. This is simply a way to get this off the political agenda, to get it off the table, to get it off the committee...and to not have it go back to the House. Let's be realistic about that.

We've also heard arguments that because it's private members' business--the bill came from a member, from Monsieur Nadeau--it's somehow not quite legitimate; it hasn't gone through the right process, and doesn't have the credibility that other proposed legislation does. I'd like to dispute that too, because I think it gets to the very core of what we do in Parliament. The bills and motions we move as part of private members' business have equal standing to, and as much right to go through the process as, a government bill, or a Senate bill, or anything else for that matter. So I'd like to deal with that one as well, because it keeps on popping up.

The fact that it's a private member's bill doesn't mean that we give it any less attention or any less due consideration. In fact, I could even argue the contrary, that because it's a private member's bill I think we're spending an enormous amount of time scrutinizing the bill and looking at it from various points of view.

I just heard, from the parliamentary secretary, that we've heard mainly from union bosses. I'm like, what? Let's go back and check the record.

I think the split right now is about 80% to 20%, with 80% being employer representatives and 20% being union representatives.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The fact is that we determined what witnesses we would hear. We actually agreed, on this side of the table, that we would....

Yes, we've heard an imbalance, and there hasn't been equal representation, but we've certainly heard from a lot of employers. Nobody could argue that we haven't heard from all kinds of employers. National, regional, local, provincial, large operations, small operations--we've heard it all, as we should. And we agreed that we wouldn't submit any further labour witnesses because we felt that the arguments had been made. So the suggestion that somehow we've heard too much from the union side I find quite astounding.

In terms of further consultation, I really want to suggest to Mr. Savage that we should be very clear that this is a tactic being put forward by the Conservatives to basically kill this bill. I think it would be most unfortunate if any member decided to go along with that.

If there are issues around particular points--for example, I know that some members have concerns with regard to essential services--then I would hope that this is what we will be doing tomorrow and Thursday. We will go through this bill clause-by-clause. Members have the opportunity to submit amendments. If I'm not mistaken, tomorrow at noon we can submit amendments to the bill. So if clarifications are needed, then certainly the members have an opportunity to do that.

So my point is that I think we have to continue in good faith. And this is my final point. If there are members here who believe that this is a bad bill politically or ideologically or whatever, then they'll have an opportunity to vote against it. We will go back to the report stage in third reading in the House. If there are members who think it's not balanced and that they haven't achieved what they want to achieve at committee, then they will have an opportunity to vote for this in the House.

So I feel that it's very important that we do our work, that we do as much as we can to deal with this bill, and that we make our determination. Then let the House decide. That's the point of sending it back. That's the point of its being here, to go through those details and send back a bill, with amendments or without amendments. Then there will be a further two hours of debate in the House. Then all members of the House will decide, on its merit, whether or not they believe in this bill--beyond the principle, in terms of the substance--and whether they think it's balanced. And if they don't, they can vote against it.

So what I want to say is that this is absolutely not the time to do this. We should continue our work. We're close now to concluding the committee process. So let's uphold that process and do our work. And let's just continue with the steps. And other decisions will be made and people can make a decision about what they want to do at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

I have Mr. Lake and Madame Lavallée.

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to speak again to the concept of the two motions, the first of which we're debating right now, and the first of which comes out of some of the concerns we have after listening to much of the testimony here--concerns about balance; concerns about a bill that's flawed in many ways, not just in terms of essential services but in terms of the translation problems and in terms of the suggestion that even management can't run their own businesses; and the concerns I have with the ad hoc approach to legislation that has been developed over years and years through careful and consultative processes. It's clear that there are so many problems with this bill that we need to start over. It just doesn't work.

The second motion, which hasn't been put forward yet—

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Our colleague is starting debate on a second motion that we do not have before us. I think he should stick to the motion we have before us; otherwise we'll be debating something we don't have before us. Under the Standing Orders, we clearly cannot begin debate on this motion until we have it in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lake, continue.

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

I'm not debating the second motion. I'm actually referring to it in my debate about the first motion.

The fact is that if this is something that's going to be pursued, it needs to be pursued through a proper procedure and with a more careful approach. Give the concept a really fair hearing. If we're going to approach something as important as this, it needs to be approached much more carefully.

Industries that are regulated in the federal jurisdiction are, by their very nature, important enough to be protected by federal regulations. Telecommunications, rail and air transportation, and our ports are too important to impact as significantly as they would be impacted by a flawed bill like this, by a bill that doesn't respect the balance that needs to be considered in all labour relations in the federal jurisdiction.

I think at this point what I'd like to do is introduce a motion that we adjourn this meeting and reconvene after the vote tonight.

I call the question on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have a new motion here, but it is debatable.

We have Madam Lavallée, followed by Mr. Savage, followed by Ms. Davies.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the meeting be adjourned because it is past 5:30 p.m. We would need unanimous consent in order to continue.

This is a motion that cannot be debated or amended, and on which we must vote immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Let's correct that. The motion is not debatable. We're voting on Madam Lavallée's motion to adjourn.

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

We'd like a recorded vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The meeting is adjourned.