Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, we'll now continue with clause-by-clause consideration.

Before we get started, I see we have someone standing, so I'll recognize you. Monsieur Lessard, fire away.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to introduce a motion to ensure that our proceedings are orderly and also effective from the standpoint of being able to make constructive recommendations to the House of Commons.

We're going to distribute copies to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Please wait one moment until they distribute the motion.

Go ahead, please, Monsieur Lessard.

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

My motion reads as follows:

That the total number of minutes of debate allotted to each member, per amendment and sub-amendment, be limited to at most 2 minutes, and that 2 minutes also be allotted to each member to study a clause, amended or not. That the committee complete the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-257 by the end of today, Thursday, February 15, 2007. That Bill C-257 be referred back to the House no later than Monday, February 19, 2007. That the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-257 be completed before the committee studies other matters. That the debate on the motions concerning Bill C-257 be limited to 2 minutes per person for each motion.

Mr. Chair, if you agree to it, I would also like to argue briefly on this motion. This is a motion that respects the order of business of the House which we agreed upon amongst ourselves and according to which we were to complete our business at 5:30 this evening. In view of the current state of affairs and the delays caused by yesterday's debate, we would like to take the necessary time today to finish consideration of all the clauses before the end of the day, that is before midnight tonight. If by chance we finish earlier, so much the better, we can each of us move on to other things, but that's the very basis of this motion.

The purpose of this motion, I repeat, Mr. Chair, is to make the business that we have conducted here something constructive and that will be consistent with the expectations the House of Commons had when it directed us to study Bill C-257 on second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is there any debate?

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chair, I don't know how anyone can decide how many minutes each clause is taking. This is a very serious bill. It involves, I think, a lot of work and scrutiny. The way the bill was debated yesterday was no fault of ours. As you could see, there was confusion as to the way the amendment had been proposed or brought forward, so I don't see that we can ever limit time on clause-by-clause. I don't think I've ever heard of this before. Has this been done before? I'd be very surprised if we could do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm not sure you want to know the answer to that question. I'm not sure you'll be able to handle the truth--Bill C-24, as a matter of fact.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

We're trying to represent a very serious bill here, trying to find the best way to make this bill work. I think it's going to take more than two minutes per clause. However, I could be wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Brown on the list. Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't think we should support the motion put forward by Mr. Lessard, because it leaves open other doors. If we're not done by midnight and we're still working on this, do we come back tomorrow? Do we come back on Saturday? Do we come back on Sunday? Certainly I think we want to make decisions when we're all focused on what's at hand. We don't want to be worrying about other issues--who has to go where or if there's a plane or a riding event. Certainly I think everyone here is willing to stay as long as required. We'd hate to see ourselves working at 11:30 at night, arguing on legislation, when we can simply meet next week and continue to do this in the selected committee time. I realize everyone can make rearrangements. But to simply pass a motion to say we cut it off at 12 o'clock I don't think is going to put us any further ahead. We'll probably still come back Tuesday.

I think it's better that we work within the designated time periods. Obviously we're all allowed to debate this as much as we'd like, and I think we need to be cognizant of that. Given the obligations everyone has in their own ridings, it may be more appropriate to continue within the agreed schedule for these meetings.

We've had these discussions before about when the committee meets, and realizing the extra workload we have in this committee, we've agreed to meet three times a week. Compared to other committees, I think we're showing significant effort to recognize the heavier workload.

My question, which I hope Mr. Lessard could answer, is this. What if we're not done at 12 o'clock? What is the next step? Are you suggesting we meet until 12 o'clock tomorrow too and on Saturday? That's something that I think you're going to need to give us some guidance on, if you want to steer away from what we've agreed upon in these three days when we meet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

We're going to Mr. Savage, followed by Mr. Lessard.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

This is a fairly dramatic motion and a change in the way the committee had planned to do its work. I'm prepared to listen to more debate. I just want to ask that we have a five-minute break for each of the parties to have some caucus and determine a position before the vote takes place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Most definitely. We could certainly do that.

Mr. Lessard and then Ms. Davies.

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

Mr. Chair, if we keep a break, I don't see any problem in that, but I simply want to say that that answers the question Mr. Brown asked: what happens if we haven't finished at midnight? That's why I'm going to wait until he is with us, with your permission, of course.

We aren't the first committee that has set itself guide posts for a bill. This has happened for very important bills, again recently, from the moment one of the parties wishes, for its own reasons, to stretch out the debate.

The committees of Parliament operate on the same principle as the House, that is by majority order. However, when you study the history of the formation of the committees, you discover that the purpose of that was precisely that, at some point, a majority order would decide, determine the progress of business.

That could have happened to any party. Sometimes, for our own reasons, we may adopt a certain type of behaviour, but it is always the majority that determines the order. In the matter before us, Bill C-257, the debate has been underway for a number of months and even years.

The Conservative Party, like a number of witnesses, has reminded us that this is the tenth time we've introduced this bill. Virtually everyone has repeated their positions. We ourselves have debated them here. We are at the clause-by-clause consideration stage, and we have identified those clauses very specifically. We would be deluding ourselves if we said that our positions would change if we continued the debate for another 20 hours.

If there are minor distinctions to be drawn, no matter how minor, we can easily make them in two minutes, and that requires us to rely on each other's intelligence. It also requires us to summarize our remarks very clearly.

That is why this order, which we want to see adopted here by the committee, is consistent with the interests of the House of Commons and the parties involved.

We have obligations as parliamentarians. One of those obligations is to report on our proceedings. At the rate we're going, we won't be able to report on our proceedings and we'll even undermine those proceedings for the consideration of other bills.

I would remind you, since I've said it, that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has called on me personally to ask whether I was prepared to collaborate, cooperate, so that we could expedite our consideration of Bill C-36. We will do so; I told him, yes. However, if we are put in a situation such as the one we've been in since yesterday, we can guarantee nothing, and I don't understand the way the Conservatives want to work when they act in this manner. However, I won't criticize them for that because they have their prerogatives, but I nevertheless want the majority of this committee to determine how it intends to conduct its business so that it is constructive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm going to support the motion. The basis on which I support it is that I feel we've gone through a huge amount of discussion at this committee about how to handle this bill. Members will remember that we actually sent to the steering committee the question of the timetable and how we wanted to handle this bill. The steering committee came back with a schedule and a timetable and clearly laid out that we do clause-by-clause yesterday and today, and then we would move on to the next bill, which Monsieur Lessard has referred to. That was adopted by the whole committee. We all agreed to that. I felt at that point there was some buy-in by everybody that this was what we were going to stick to.

It became clear that wasn't the case on Tuesday and Wednesday, because the Conservative members are intent on moving another motion, which is basically to derail the bill now and have it shut down at this point. We've already debated that, and so I'm going to debate it again, but I think this motion is in order.

We're talking about eight hours potentially. It's a three-page bill with three clauses. I don't think it's unreasonable that we should be able to get through it if we are actually focused on doing the clause-by-clause rather than everything else that some members want to get into. I think it's a reasonable thing to get through this today and have it reported back to the House, as we agreed, all of us unanimously, on the schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

I have Ms. Yelich, followed by Mr. Lake.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I don't think we're disagreeing that we can stick to the timetable. We're disagreeing on limiting it to two-minute rounds. I like Mr. Savage's words. It's a “little dramatic” if we have to start having the clock stop at two minutes. Sometimes our brightest things are said after the two minutes, not during the first two minutes. I think maybe you should reconsider that a two-minute limit is being a little bit fettering. I would like to have it unfettered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

Mr. Lake.

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

I find it interesting that we would limit to two minutes when I'm not sure if there's been one question asked in this entire committee during this entire process that's been under two minutes. I think it seems quite limiting. We need to carefully consider these amendments, and sometimes that's going to take more than two minutes. Sometimes you're going to say something at one point and someone else is going to clarify it, and you're going to have a dialogue, and that may lead to more questions. I certainly think it's unreasonable that we would limit to two minutes, not to mention the other timelines that are tied into here that Mr. Brown referred to a little bit.

I am interested, though, in Mr. Savage's point. Perhaps we need to take five minutes right now, talk a little bit among our own caucuses. This is out of the air, so I'd like to have some time to talk with my colleagues. I'm sure everyone on the other side of the table would like to do the same thing. I guess Libby would have a little bit of difficulty with that, but I'd like to take a little bit of time and consult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

If there's no more discussion, we'll break for five minutes and we'll come back and have a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we're going to get started again.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of cooperation, it is really our goal that we do go clause-by-clause through the bill and finish the bill as soon as possible. I realize that the committee has fully scheduled meetings and hearings and has other bills and priorities to look at, so at this time we would ask Mr. Lessard to withdraw his motion, that it might be premature. We're hoping that everybody from all parties will cooperate and go for clause-by-clause. However, if we find that in fact the meeting is being in any way, shape, or form filibustered, and that we're not getting clause-by-clause done, then this motion will in fact be reconsidered and we will be supportive at that time if it's brought up again on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The question is, does Mr. Lessard want to withdraw the motion, and if he does, we need unanimous consent from the committee.

So the question is, Mr. Lessard, do you want to withdraw the motion at this point in time? If you are interested, then we'll need the unanimous consent of the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I of course introduced this motion reluctantly because I'm always the first one to favour debate. We were forced to introduce this motion because of the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted here.

I'll tell you right away that I'm open to the idea of withdrawing my motion, but I'd like to hear from the Conservatives in order to know whether they are prepared to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration. If we were to fall once again into the same dynamic as yesterday, that would be quite annoying.

Do they want to talk about this matter immediately? Otherwise I'll make a decision.