Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you all for being here today.

Actually, that was a good segue, Mr. Marston, into my line of questioning, which is that we have had evidence before the committee, particularly from the president of PSAC the other day, where she indicated that she was elected by secret ballot, that when there is a collective agreement that they vote on they vote by secret ballot, when they have a strike vote they vote by secret ballot. The only thing they don't vote on by secret ballot is certifying or decertifying a union.

I don't quite see how there's this big, major change, this huge difference that Bill C-525 is going to have when all the other times the members of the union vote, they do it by secret ballot, except certifying or decertifying a union.

Can someone explain to me how this is some revolutionary terrible change that's going to take place within federally regulated unionized workplaces, when every other time the members vote they vote by secret ballot?

Who wants to start?

[Dick Heinen]

If I may, Mr. Chair, the issue isn't secret ballot. The issue is secret ballot of all the people in the unit or the secret ballot of 50% plus one of those who vote. That is the issue. We are in favour of a secret ballot of 50% plus one of all the votes that are cast, absolutely. We are in favour of democratic rights for the individual.

If I may say one more thing, Mr. Chair, and that is with the tripartite group. Mr. Sims was the author or developed the Canada Labour Code. He is currently working on amending the current Labour Relations Code in Alberta and he has done months of consultation with the union side and the management side and the government side and all that kind of stuff, and so he has been very actively involved in seeking a consensus as to what the industry should want. I think that's the way to go.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Ms. MacPherson.

[Elizabeth MacPherson]

As I've said, we will administer whatever law Parliament sees fit to give us. If that includes a secret ballot vote, then we will.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Let me just ask, with respect to CIRB, are you involved in supervising any of these other votes that take place such as strike votes that are done by secret ballot or voting on a collective agreement? Does your agency play a supervisory role in those circumstances that take place right now by secret ballot?

[Elizabeth MacPherson]

Not ordinarily. Those are all matters that are governed by the unions' internal constitution. There is one circumstance in which we may conduct a vote, and there's a provision in the code for a vote on an employer's last offer. The minister can direct us to conduct those votes.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Okay.

But as I understand it, in this particular bill, because you mentioned the application for certification and your concern about being able to schedule the timing of these votes, as an example.... As I understand it, this bill doesn't change that, doesn't affect that. You'd have that discretion to determine the appropriate time for the vote to be held in these cases.

[Elizabeth MacPherson]

Yes. It would be our intention, if we have to hold a secret ballot vote in every case, to amend our procedures so that we can do them much more quickly than we currently do.

The reason we can take the time we need to now is that we make the determination based on support as of the date of the application. The problem with the bill is that it's going to take away our discretion under that section of the code to determine a different date, if it's appropriate. As I mentioned, there are cases where we have seasonal employment, where the bargaining unit size would be quite different, for example, in July than it would be in January. That's why we would like the discretion to determine the appropriate date, if the date of application looks to us to be inappropriate.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

We've talked about the different methods that can be used to achieve ballots. Mr. Heinen, you mentioned rural and remote, and the ability to be able to vote. If it was a secret mail-in ballot, that certainly wouldn't adversely affect a person's ability to vote if they were in a very remote part of the country and were voting on certifying or decertifying a union that was going to represent them at the national level, I wouldn't think.

How would that vote not count in a circumstance where they're mailing in a secret ballot as to how they decided to vote yea or nay on a certification or decertification?

[Dick Heinen]

Well, Mr. Chair, the issue is this: a person goes away to work in the mine in the Northwest Territories, and he is there for three weeks. Then he comes home and he is home for one week. When he comes home, he has a pile of mail, plus a whole bunch of family obligations to take care of. The voting issue is not a high priority. In some cases he may have already been away for the date that it had to be voted on by, the expiry date, and so he would have missed the window in which he would have been able to vote.

Plus, one of the issues about voting in a unionized environment is that you should have the right to vote when the issue is alive. Situations change three, four, five, six weeks down the road. Every other province has a very expeditious process. Ontario has seven days, British Columbia has 10 days from the date of application that you should have a vote. That is because things go cold.

I don't think it's in the interest of the union to have this long-delayed time between the actual application and the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

That's the end of the questioning and the end of our first hour. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be here and to share your thoughts on this very important private member's bill.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm going to excuse the witnesses, then I'll recognize you.

So thank you for being here, and thank you as well, gentlemen, who've been video conferenced in.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chair, the testimony, especially today with CLAC and CIRB, is fairly compelling testimony. Outside of one witness, we haven't heard anybody speak in favour of this.

In light of this, I'd like to present a motion that would extend this study, that would extend the time put on this study, so that we are able to better represent what we've heard to date on this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Armstrong, you're next, and then Ms. Sims.

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

I move that we go in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

That's a dilatory motion for an immediate vote, so I'm going to proceed to a vote on the motion as just presented by Mr. Armstrong. The motion is to go in camera. All in favour?

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

A recorded vote, please, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

A recorded vote has been requested, so we'll move to a recorded vote, Clerk.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The motion carries. We'll suspend briefly to move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We now come back in session to deal with clause-by-clause of Bill C-525. The first item on the agenda is to postpone the short title if we can. Do I see agreement to postpone that until the end our clause-by-clause discussion?

Okay, thank you.

(On clause 2)

Let's move on then to amendment G-1. I must tell members that in G-1 there's a line conflict with amendments NDP-1 and PV-1. If the amendment G-1 is adopted, amendments NDP-1 and PV-1 cannot be proceeded with. Amendment G-1 also removes any reference to section 28, which is in paragraph (1)(d). As both amendments NDP-2 and NDP-3 refer to that paragraph, if amendment G-1 is adopted, amendments NDP-2 and NDP-3 cannot be proceeded with. That's in dealing with this amendment so I will open it up to discussion of the amendment G-1.

Madam McLeod.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have just a quick explanation. We've heard from the witnesses and I think what this has done is to better align the voting mechanisms for representation votes and the minimum employee support threshold to file a certification application with existing provisions in provincial statutes. It gives the ballots of supporters and opponents the same weight when determining the results of a representation vote. It's intended to remove redundancies and clarify the requirement for the CIRB to hold the representation vote before certifying a union. Also, it ensures some consistency. So, again, I think that is the intent of the government's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Are there any other speakers on amendment G-1, the first government amendment?

Madam Sims.

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

You have to give credit where the credit is due and I want to take note that my colleagues across the way have brought forward a sensible amendment that it is the majority of those who vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Seeing no further....

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, the process I think fails labour and employers in the intent. I've seen nothing through the testimony here that changes my opinion on that. So, as well intended as the amendments might be, I don't see supporting the amendment.