Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

There's consensus. We'll continue.

Was there a further amendment or new motion that you...?

Just before, I want to clarify with Madam Sims. We had earlier discussed one that you were introducing. Did it get introduced?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

We are introducing it. It was given over. It was taken from me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Do the members have a copy?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

This would be a new clause.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When I moved it, I moved it a little bit differently. Somebody took it from me from the front table. I think it was your legal counsel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

If that's the case, I've just been told that we voted on it.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay. Shall I read it again?

Amendment on clause 5, where we're replacing line 29 on page 2 with the following—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Just one second, this is dealing with clause 5? So we're moving back to clause 5, and that's different than what I was thinking we were receiving from you.

(On clause 5)

Committee members, if you go back to clause 5, this is the one we had deferred and we stood on it because it dealt with a new amendment that was being proposed. That was defeated, by the way. I'll just refer to this because we're coming back now to revisit this. It's Government-4, and it is in line conflict with NDP-6. If G-4 is adopted, NDP-6 cannot be proceeded with.

Also, we will then move on to the amendment by the Green Party.

Let's discuss this amendment, which is G-4.

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think I did give the explanation, and that's documented, where we were looking at the recommendation by Ms. Sims in terms of...

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Those in favour of G-4.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to GP-2 and discussion on this particular amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If I could, Mr. Chair, in terms of the process—and I want to get this on the record with you and with the committee—because I'm hoping there can be a reconsideration of the process. This is my first opportunity to speak before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities since the committee adopted a motion which has direct application of my rights at report stage.

I understand that there was a simultaneous motion that went to every single legislative committee of the House of Commons, identically worded in all committees, all at once, and the intent of it is to prevent substantive motions at report stage—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

We're discussing this bill. This procedural thing doesn't apply to this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Can you come to the point on this please?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, because it is very much related to this, Scott.

The reason that this is out of sequence and came in late was because the motion that this committee—and all similar committees—adopted was not only unfair to my rights but places an undue procedural burden on clerks in committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There was an error in giving me a time that I was supposed to have and I appreciate that the clerk accommodated us, but that's why this particular....I mean it was a real scramble because we didn't get the 48 hours notice. I do think that this process isn't fair to me or to the committee, and that's the only point I wanted to make.

Now, going on to the substantive motion that I'm putting forward. GP-2 is a substantive change to clause 5 which does one simple thing, I can explain it very briefly.

Subsection 39.(2) of the Canada Labour Code makes a lot of sense. It's being repealed by the way this act is currently worded and if you earn a situation of decertification, if there's no collective agreement in place, but there is ongoing negotiation, and the bargaining agent is bargaining in good faith, you shouldn't actually create chaos in collective bargaining and labour relations.

Just to quote from the Canadian Labour Congress' brief to the committee, “that failure to improve this act”—as my amendment proposes—“will only serve to destabilize labour relations and undermine collective bargaining”.

I know this bill is a private member's bill, it's Blaine Calkins' bill. I'm not calling it the government bill. He's a diligent private member, but this is one of those examples of taking something....There is the old adage, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. This is one of a number of private members' bills, and some government bills, that aim directly at collective bargaining, as they have to other sectors, and say, “We're going to keep fixing it 'til it's broken”.

This little amendment would at least address this one gap in Bill C-525.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Any other speakers to this amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question on amendment GP-2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

(Clause 1 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the bill carry as amended?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

(Bill as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Shall I report the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?