Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to repeal Division 20 of Part 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

This enactment repeals Division 20 of Part 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, which authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act, terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees who are employed in the core public administration.

[Jonathan Rudin]

I think it's very important, when the federal government starts to bring in legislation such as Bill C-5, that there is funding available to the provinces to be able to create the programs that are necessary. The Department of Justice is generally very good at often providing funding. It's a cost-share arrangement with the provinces.

The provinces have to want to be involved too. That just needs to be considered. If a province is obstreperous and refuses to put funding in, then it creates a real problem in which, in our case, indigenous people end up suffering the most.

[Jonathan Rudin]

There's no question that many of the individuals who are involved in low-level drug trafficking and drug-possession cases are addicts themselves. Jailing them does not work. We know that from our work. We operate and have operated our criminal diversion program since 1991, which takes on people who have drug offences, as well as other charges. There's no question that if people are going to address their substance use, they're not going to do that in jail. What they're going to do in jail is take more drugs or other drugs.

I think Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction. I don't know that we really want to be criminalizing people at all who are using drugs. Our brief to the expert task force on substance abuse was to decriminalize the use of drugs. Bill C-5 talks about enhanced diversion. I would point out that in our discussions with the Toronto Police Service, they are saying that there's going to be a price tag for these sorts of things.

I would just urge the federal government to consider, as Bill C-5 goes forward, that things will be in place to allow the provisions that the bill permits to happen on the ground, because the division of powers in this country makes what seem to most people to be very simple things, actually very complicated.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Coyle.

My next question is for Mr. Rudin.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, of course I'm very concerned about the opioid crisis. The government recognizes that problematic use of substances is a health issue. We're working hard to ensure that people who use drugs are referred to support services they can trust within the health care system, rather than getting caught up in the justice system.

With this in mind, Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code to repeal certain mandatory minimum sentences for drug and substance use offences.

Would you agree that a health-based approach and alternatives to prison sentences for simple drug possession could be positive, important steps in the right direction?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Rudin, it's good to see you again. As a member of the Crown attorney system in Ontario, I've enjoyed your presentations in the past. You have identified that this is a small step in the overall impact of over-incarceration.

The numbers are real. There is still an extremely high percentage of indigenous offenders—adult and youth, male and female—who are committing the types of offences that Bill C-5 attracts.

In addition to this type of legislation, are there other areas that the federal government ought to be considering in terms of reducing that number?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Beth, your opening statement describes a very tragic and difficult time in your young life. Bill C-5 makes no provision for the rights of victims in the criminal justice system.

How would you describe your experience as a victim in the system, from the perspective of your relationship with the police, the Crown attorneys, victim service agencies and the judiciary?

[Beth Bui]

If Bill C-5 became law, I do not think I could report my sexual abuse, because I would feel that my fight would be futile. For example, the offender in my second case was free to live his life, while I felt like I was in prison because my choices were limited in the same community where I lived.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Beth.

Bill C-5 eliminates the barriers of conditional sentence considerations for some very serious offences, such as kidnapping, human trafficking, criminal harassment and sexual assault. Adult offenders who commit these heinous crimes can now argue, post-conviction, that they should serve their denunciatory sentences in the comfort of their own homes.

As I described to you from my capacity as a former Crown attorney, prosecutors have a very low success rate in securing criminal convictions in this area. Coupled with the significant and long-lasting, if not permanent, trauma associated with this crime, it's no small wonder that there is under-reporting to law enforcement.

What kind of message does this send to victims of sexual abuse? Had you not come forward when you did and reported your experiences, would you have done so if Bill C-5 was now the law in Canada?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses, but in particular to Ms. Bui.

Ms. Bui, thank you so much for accepting my invitation to attend this particular study. Like the chair, I offer my sincerest thoughts about your background and what you had to go through. It brought me back to the day that I met you for the first time and heard your story.

Thank you for that very powerful message and the strength you have shown in attending here today.

Beth, Bill C-5 eliminates the mandatory minimum penalties for 14 very serious firearms offences and drug offences, such as trafficking, importing and production for drugs such as fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine.

As it's apparent that there has been no reduction in the number of offenders who are committing these offences across this country while there are still mandatory minimum penalties, as a resident of the GTA who is married with children, do you feel that this bill will compromise your sense of safety and that of others members of your community?

[Jonathan Rudin, Program Director, Aboriginal Legal Services]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-5.

As I begin my submission, I want to note that while the English name of our organization is Aboriginal Legal Services, our Anishnabemoin name, given to us by elder Jackie Lavalley, is Gaa kina gwii waabamaa debwewin. This translates as “All those who seek the truth”.

As the legislative summary makes clear, a major impetus for the introduction of this bill was the case of Sharma. ALS was involved in this case since it began in 2016. We wrote the Gladue report for Ms. Sharma.

Shortly after completing the Gladue report, at the invitation of Ms. Sharma's counsel, we intervened in the case at the Superior Court of Justice and led the calling of expert evidence and arguments on the charter issues. We were successful in having the particular mandatory minimum for drug importing struck down as cruel and unusual punishment. We also intervened at the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the restrictions on access to conditional sentences were found to violate the equality rights of indigenous people and the right to liberty under section 7. We recently intervened at the Supreme Court in the PPSC's appeal of the Court of Appeal decision. As you know, that case is now on reserve. I was privileged to be able to act as lead counsel for ALS throughout.

While we are, of course, supportive of this bill, it must always be kept in mind that if it passes as written, all it will do is partially restore Canadian criminal law to where it was in 2012. All of the work that was done in Sharma and all of the work of this committee just brings us back to where we were 10 years ago. While this is certainly necessary, it is hard to see this as representing progress.

We need to be clear: What is happening to indigenous people in the criminal justice system today is mass incarceration. In their paper entitled “Criminal Justice Reform and the Mass Imprisonment of Indigenous People in Canada”, Jane Sprott, Cheryl Webster and Tony Doob studied non-indigenous and indigenous rates of incarceration per 100,000 of population. In 2017-18 the non-indigenous incarceration rate was 79 per 100,000. That represented a 20% decline from 1996, when the legislation creating conditional sentences in paragraph 718.2(e) was passed. In contrast, the indigenous rate was 677 in 2017-18, a 33% increase from 1996. Indigenous Canadians are now almost nine times more likely to be in prison than non-indigenous Canadians.

When the 2017-18 rate of indigenous incarceration is compared to that of the U.S., the indigenous rate is actually slightly higher. America is the leading example of mass incarceration in the industrialized world. The fact that indigenous rates are even higher than the U.S. means that mass incarceration is the only term that can adequately describe what is happening to indigenous people. This fact is a national disgrace.

This government promised in 2015 to implement all the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One of those recommendations was to abolish mandatory minimum sentences and the restrictions on conditional sentences. Bill C-5 is a start, but only just a start, on this commitment.

We believe this is likely the only opportunity Parliament will have to enact meaningful changes to mandatory minimums and conditional sentences. It is important, then, for this committee to be brave and to be bold and to proactively address the other mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code not expressly addressed in Bill C-5.

We know that the other mandatory minimums have not been studied in depth by the House, but that is not going to happen any time soon. An option that has always existed, and that we urge on this committee with respect to all other mandatory minimums, is to do what other countries have done and allow for what are called “safety valves”. A safety valve can be used by a judge who is concerned that the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence will cause serious injustice to the particular individual before them and exempt that person from the mandatory minimum without having to declare the minimum sentence unconstitutional.

The advantages of such an approach are twofold. First, it is quicker than having to challenge the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum and leaves the legislation in place for most offenders. Second, decisions of trial judges are, of course, subject to appellate review. Within a few years, we would have a robust set of jurisprudence on what sort of cases merit the use of a safety valve.

Introducing an amendment to permit judges to rely on a safety valve for other mandatory minimums is a necessary and positive step forward.

Meegwetch. Nia:wen. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 17 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

For those using Zoom, your choice of language is at the bottom of your screen. You can either choose the floor if you can understand both English and French, or you can choose English or French.

For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select again the same desired channel, whether it is floor, English or French. Just remember to push up the volume, because it is usually on very low when you start on the House devices.

Are there any questions from any of the witnesses? You can raise your hand. I think you should all be briefed on it. It is just that we've had some technical challenges with some previous witnesses.

Furthermore, just by way of housekeeping, I will show you a 30-second card when you have 30 seconds left in your time, whether you're questioning or answering. Just be mindful of that. When you're out of time, I'll give you a red out-of-time card, and I hope you'll try to wrap it up then. I don't like being a stickler, but because everyone wants to ask questions, we have to be mindful of time.

In the first hour, we have three witnesses. As an individual, we have Beth Bui, a probation and parole officer. We also have Jonathan Rudin, a program director from Aboriginal Legal Services. From the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, we have Emilie Coyle, executive director—I believe she is here in person—and Nyki Kish, director of advocacy and systems change.

Each group will have five minutes.

I'll begin with Beth Bui with five minutes for the opening statement.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, moving a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House is not a great way to close out the last session of the 42nd Parliament of Canada. We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.

Once again, we take issue with the means the government is using to get all members to work a little harder because the session is ending and these are the last days of this Parliament. The other items in the motion do not concern the extension of sitting hours. We take issue with the government's approach, which prevents the opposition from doing its job properly. It is handcuffing the opposition and moving the government's agenda along as quickly as possible, not based on what parliamentarians may have to say, but on what the government wants.

This is not new to us, given how the government has handled the legislative process throughout its mandate. The government has been unable to advance a decent legislative agenda. I am the opposition agriculture and agri-food critic. I spoke to my predecessors, and we have been waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce a bill to improve the lives of Canadian farmers since my appointment two years ago.

When I look at all the agriculture documents and bills this government has introduced since it was elected in 2015, it is clear to me that the government has achieved nothing. Absolutely no legislation was proposed to improve the lives of Canadian farmers.

However, numerous bills were introduced. Now, the government is saying that the situation is urgent and that we must move quickly and pass this legislation. A number of bills were not passed by the government, and now time is of the essence.

Of all of the bills that were not passed, some never even moved forward. We have, for example, Bill C-5, introduced on February 5, 2016; Bill C-12, introduced on March 24, 2016; Bill C-27, introduced on October 19, 2016; Bill C-28, introduced on October 21, 2016; Bill C-32, introduced on November 15, 2016; and Bill C-33, introduced on November 24, 2016. The Liberals have had four years to move these bills forward.

All of a sudden, the government claims that these bills need to be passed urgently. After the vote this evening we will debate Bill C-81, which was introduced on June 20, 2018. It has been nearly a year. We are being told that this bill is urgent and must absolutely be passed, but the government was unable to bring it forward earlier.

If this is so urgent, why did the government not bring up this bill more regularly in the House? Why did we not talk about it on a regular basis? All of a sudden, we need to pass it quickly because the Liberals have realized that they are going to run out of time. The government was unable to manage the House. It was unable to give parliamentarians an opportunity to do their work and to speak about important bills. The Liberals have realized at the last minute that they have forgotten this and that. There is an election coming up in the fall and now parliamentarians have to do the work to pass this or that bill.

The government chose to impose late sittings on the House for 18 days while also moving a time allocation motion, which means that we will not even have the chance to talk about it for long. If we refer to the Standing Orders, the government could have extended sitting hours for the last 10 days of the session, as provided for in our normal parliamentary calendar. That is what it could have done, and it would have been entirely doable.

I would like to talk about one of the Standing Orders. Even though the standing order that governs the extension of sitting hours in June has been in effect since 1982, it is not used every year. In some cases, special orders were proposed and adopted instead, usually by unanimous consent.

Parliamentarians are here to represent the people in their ridings. According to the Standing Orders, anyone who wants to change the rules to move things along has to seek the unanimous consent of the House.

Unfortunately, this government does not really seem to care about unanimous consent. It does not really seem to care what the opposition thinks or has to say even though, just like MPs on government benches, we represent all the people of our ridings. The least the government could do, out of respect for Canadian voters, is respect people in opposition. We have a role to play.

Unfortunately, our role is not to agree all the time and say the government is doing a good job. On the contrary, our role is to try to point out its failings so it can improve. Basically, the opposition's role is to make the government better by pointing out its mistakes and bad decisions so the government can reflect on that and find better solutions for all Canadians. However, the government does not seem willing to take that into account.

On top of that, there are two opposition days left. I mentioned the negative effects of the motion. The government is proposing to extend the hours in the House, but what it failed to mention is that it is going to deny the opposition the opportunity to have two full opposition days to address situations that are very troubling to Canadians.

For instance, during a normal opposition day during which we might hear from a number of stakeholders, we could have talked about the canola crisis, which is affecting thousands of canola producers across Canada. This crisis, which involves China, is costing Canadian canola producers billions of dollars. For all members who have canola farmers among their constituents, it would have been an opportunity to express the concerns of their fellow citizens and farmers in their regions. Perhaps we could have convinced the government to take action, such as filing a complaint through the World Trade Organization to condemn China's actions or appointing an ambassador, for example. As peculiar as it may seem, Canada currently has no representative in China to speak with Chinese authorities.

We could have had such a debate here in the House.

The one thing that the members across the aisle seem to have forgotten is that members of the House are not the government. The government is the ministers, the cabinet members. In this chamber, people have the right to speak their minds in the hope of swaying the government.

It is true that the government is formed by the party with the most members elected to the House, but it is also up to backbench members of the ruling party to try to persuade their government and speak for the people they represent, such as the farmers in their ridings. Sadly, the members on that side of the House seem to be divorced from reality. They seem to be blind to the government's desire to crush Parliament, to crush the MPs who are trying to do a good job of representing the constituents of every riding. I think that is a real shame.

We have absolutely nothing against extending the sitting hours of the House, but if it is intended to cover up the government's mistakes and its inability to properly organize the work of the House, then I think that is disgraceful.

The government is using this kind of motion to not only make us work more, which, as I mentioned, we agree with, but also deprive us of our last remaining tools, like the voting marathons everyone remembers. We held those voting marathons to make the government realize it cannot do whatever it wants in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not the tool of the government. This motion to extend the sitting hours also prevents us from using that tool, which was a powerful means for us to send the government a message.

After making such grand promises of transparency and openness, this government has failed spectacularly to deliver. Sadly, its latest motion on the rules of the House just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has no respect for the work of the House. It saddens me to see a government ending its term on such a sour note.

Precarious Employment

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer support for the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie's motion, Motion No. 194, and I would like to thank him for bringing this issue to the floor for debate.

Canadians have worked hard to achieve the lowest unemployment rate in over 40 years. However, this number can only tell us so much about the employment situation in Canada. While good jobs are being created by Canadian businesses every day, there are still hard-working people who put in a full day's work but receive barely part-time compensation.

Our government has worked hard to support Canadian labour and the right of association. Immediately after the election, our government passed Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. These bills restored fairness and balance to labour relations by repealing legislation that undermined and weakened labour rights in our country. However, there is much more to do to ensure working Canadians receive fair treatment and fair compensation.

This motion speaks to a serious and growing problem across Canada that if left unaddressed could lead to serious labour issues. That is why this motion is so important. An in-depth study on precarious employment in Canada can provide the government with a blueprint to tackle this issue head-on.

As was pointed out earlier by the member for Sault Ste. Marie when speaking to this motion, precarious employment is tricky to nail down. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that a fifth of professionals are in some form of precarious work. Furthermore, the survey found that professionals in precarious employment are more likely to have a post-graduate degree than professionals who are in non-precarious work. Professional women are also more likely than their male counterparts to be in precarious situations, with women accounting for 60% of all professionals in a precarious work circumstance. Clearly, precarious work does not fit neatly into the norms of the traditional work environment and traditional work definitions.

These statistics offer far more questions than answers, questions that the HUMA committee can begin to unravel. While we do not know all that we would like to know, the root of this problem clearly lies in our rapidly changing economy. Thankfully, government has already started to address some of the stress points in this changing economy.

To provide young people the skills and networking opportunities necessary to find meaningful employment, our government invested $221 million in Mitacs, for example. This program creates 10,000 paid internships per year, providing the experience young people need to succeed. This program, coupled with the $73-million investment in the student work-integrated learning program, means nearly 60,000 Canadian students will benefit from a paid internship over the next five years.

The Government of Canada has also partnered with Ryerson University to create Canada's largest work-integrated learning, recruitment and reporting platform, known as “Magnet”. Magnet combines a network of employers, post-secondary institutions, industry associations and community partners to match skills with employment opportunities.

On February 14, the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour as well as the Minister of Finance announced plans for a new future skills centre and future skills council. To support this initiative, the Government of Canada is investing $225 million over four years and $75 million per year thereafter in future skills development.

However, it is not enough to prevent people from becoming precariously employed. We need to develop pathways for precarious workers to acquire skills that are in demand. In budget 2017, the government initiated a three-year pilot project to help adults who want to return to school, with an investment of $287 million over three years. It is clear, as the national and international economies change, that Canada and Canadians must put an emphasis on lifelong learning and skills development.

The disruption in the labour market calls for a flexible and forward-thinking policy. For this policy to be effective, we need a two-pronged approach. The first begins with Motion No. 194 to identify and narrow down the indicators of precarious employment. As the motion calls for, we need to dig into the data to come to a more complete understanding of what exactly precarious employment is both in terms of who it is affecting and in terms of its larger role in the Canadian economy.

The second part of this plan depends on a suite of flexible and proactive programs to lead young people to opportunities for quality employment. The plan must also offer those in precarious work situations a route to new opportunities or new skills and new training that will allow them to find fair, meaningful and reliable employment.

Yesterday the finance minister echoed the Prime Minister's comment that the global economy is changing faster than it ever has before, and it is moving slower now than it ever will in the future. If Canadians are to prosper and find security for themselves and their families in a changing global economy, we need to understand how these shifts will affect workers and Canadians.

As indicated in the speech by the member for Sault Ste. Marie and his motion, Canadians affected by precarious employment do not fit neatly into one or two industries or demographics.

Our government has taken steps to strengthen union rights to association and to provide access to education and skills training programs. However, precarious employment is unlike other forms of work and demands a more thorough examination by Parliament. Understanding the indicators of precarious employment will help federal, provincial and municipal governments address under-compensated workers.

When we tolerate full-time work turning into part-time pay with no benefits, we run a serious risk of losing ground that workers and Canadians will struggle with over the next generation.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to act in the best interests of Canadians, which is why I will be supporting Motion No. 194. I urge all members to also support Motion No. 194.

I would like to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this motion to the floor for debate.

[Marc Thibodeau, Director General, Labour Relations and Compensation, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency for your deliberations on Bill C-62 and would like to thank you for the invitation. As the committee is aware, Bill C-62 combines the previous Bill C-5, regarding sick leave provision in the public service, and Bill C-34, which concerns collective bargaining and essential services. I will focus my remarks on the last component of essential services as it relates to the CBSA.

The agency's dual mandate of facilitating the entry of people and goods at the border while upholding national security means that it must retain numerous employees in positions designated as essential.

To give you a sense of the magnitude of this responsibility, allow me to illustrate further.

The agency employs approximately 14,000 individuals, who provide service at over 1,100 locations across Canada and abroad. Our workforce consists of both uniformed and non-uniformed staff who ensure that border operations run smoothly on a 24/7 basis.

On an average day, the CBSA will process over 255,000 travellers who come to Canada by land, rail, marine, and air. In a year, our officers will perform over 17 million commercial releases, conduct over 89,000 commercial examinations, inspect 780,000 courier shipments, seize $400 million in drugs, and collect $30.5 billion in duties and taxes owed to the crown.

In addition, the CBSA plays an important role in protecting the safety and security of Canadians. For example, border services officers increasingly intercept highly toxic substances such as fentanyl and fentanyl analogues in our postal and air cargo courier streams. Between May 2016 and December 2017 the agency made 193 seizures totalling over 32 kilograms, which are most often smuggled into Canada in shipments that would otherwise be legitimate.

Essential service positions are critical for CBSA operations and allow the agency to keep Canada open for business. The current Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act defines an essential service as any service, facility or activity necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.

Essential services and the agreements that govern them, as determined by the CBSA and the bargaining agent, are imperative to ensuring public safety and security, and are in line with the CBSA's legislative mandate under the Canada Border Services Agency Act.

This is why approximately 75% of FB positions that are at CBSA are designated essential, and out of that 75%, 95% are front-line positions. The remaining 5% of designated positions fall within the other bargaining unit. So for greater clarity, 75% of the FB positions are designated essential, and 5% of positions in the other groups. Currently the number and percentage of essential services as positioned relative to the CBSA workforce has remained relatively stable in time. Since 2003, the creation of the agency, we have been at about 75% or 80% of the population.

The agency welcomes the committee's study of this bill, and steps taken to bring clarity to the process, as essential services are central to the agency's mandate and operations.

This concludes my opening statement.

I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am very pleased to appear before your committee.

I'm pleased to be joined here today by Sandra Hassan, Drew Heavens, and Dennis Duggan from Treasury Board Secretariat.

Our government is committed to restoring fair and balanced public sector labour laws that respect the collective bargaining process, laws that recognize the important role unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping grow the middle class.

I would like to talk to you today about how BillC-62 helps fulfills these commitments.

Bill C-62 combines Bill C-5 and C-34 that were introduced previously. Bill C-5, which was introduced by our government, dealt with public service sick leave, while Bill C-34 dealt with collective bargaining and essential services.

Combining these two bills into one, as we have, simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine the two sets of proposals into one piece of legislation moving forward. Broadly, the objectives of both are shared and related. Combining the bills makes sense. Both are amending the same act and both are related to restoring the balance to the public sector labour relations regime.

I'm going to begin with the changes to sick leave introduced as part of the Conservative omnibus legislation Budget Implementation Act 2015. Division 20 of the Economic Action Plan Act 2015, number one, known at the time as Bill C-59, provided the Treasury Board with the authority to establish and modify terms and conditions of employment related to sick leave of employees, impose a short-term disability plan outside of collective bargaining, and modify the long-term disability programs in the core public administration.

In short, the changes took the issue of sick leave off the negotiating table and gave the government the power to unilaterally impose a plan of its choosing. The bargaining agents for many of the public service unions rightly opposed this legislation, which was drafted without consultation with the public service. In June 2015, 12 of 15 federal unions joined together to file a legal challenge of these provisions, arguing against their constitutionality.

Bill C-62 will eliminate those powers and will show our respect for the collective bargaining process.

Our government knows that the unions play an important role, not only in protecting the rights of the workers, but also in strengthening the middle class.

Again, that is why we committed to not exercise the powers and to repeal the legislation.

I'd like to turn to the issues of essential services, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. Bill C-62 would repeal the most contentious changes made in 2013 to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. I'm referring to changes that would allow the employer to unilaterally designate essential services, remove bargaining agents' choice when it comes to the conflict resolution process, and impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making a recommendation or an award.

It's worth recalling that several unions have gone as far as to file charter challenges against the provisions passed in 2013, and we have every reason to believe that these challenges would have succeeded in the courts, in large part because of the experience in Saskatchewan. Back in 2008, the Saskatchewan government introduced changes similar to those found in the omnibus bill that was passed in 2013. They were successfully challenged by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour before the Supreme Court.

Let me outline the details of the key changes our government is proposing. First, the notice to bargain would be amended to return to a four-month notice period, although the parties may still meet earlier to bargain. Second, bargaining agents would be given the choice to determine which dispute process they wished to use should the parties reach an impasse in the bargaining. Third, when making awards or recommendations, public interest commissions and arbitration boards would have the flexibility to weigh the most important factors in the circumstances before them. They would no longer be forced to give undue weight to certain factors if the circumstances didn't justify it. Fourth, the employer would no longer have the unilateral right to arbitrarily determine which services are essential for the safety and security of the public and to designate the positions necessary to deliver those services. The employer would work with public sector bargaining agents to identify essential service positions and would enter into essential services agreements with them. So the determination would occur as a result of discussion with public sector unions. Finally, Bill C-62 repeals some of the changes made to recourse processes, even though these were never implemented, because they were to be brought into force at a later date.

Mr. Chair, and committee members, our government is committed to restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service, and to respecting the collective bargaining process. When we took office in 2015, all the collective bargaining agreements with public servants had in fact expired. Some of them had been expired for four years. We made it clear that we would work collaboratively with public servants and that we would negotiate in good faith. After two years of respectful negotiations, we have reached 23 of 27 agreements. That means, I believe, that more than 94% of unionized public servants for which Treasury Board is the employer now have collective bargaining agreements in place. It's worth noting that with most of the agreements, including an undertaking to develop an integrated approach to the management of employee wellness, our collaborative approach is achieving results. It's an approach that embodies the values of fairness and justice that make Canada the country it is today. We have a world-class public service in Canada, and one that is recognized as such in terms of its effectiveness and its professionalism

Bill C-62 affirms the values of treating our public service with respect and in partnership by understanding and responding to the need for fair and balanced labour laws in Canada.

I want to thank members of the committee for their attention. I look forward to your questions and to engaging with this committee.

Thank you very much.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. I have heard some good feedback on this.

What struck me this morning were some of the statements made by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He is a good friend. I really respect the person, but obviously, we have different ideas. He made statements about union bosses and union leaders and about the Liberals just saying “thank you” because some of the unions were putting money in and campaigning against the Conservatives in the last election. I want to say that I totally disagree with that. The unions were campaigning against the Conservatives, yes, but they were also supporting anyone who could beat the Conservatives, and that was because they have a very bad reputation for taking away gains from labour that people have fought for all their lives, and they wanted to make sure that those people never got back in power until they got their act together and started to respect what labour could do.

We are pleased that the government is finally moving forward to repeal legislation based purely on a backward ideology that forces public servants to go to work sick and that totally undermines the principle of collective bargaining. We have to ask what took the Liberals so long to bring this bill forward. What took them so long to act? Of course, this is a question many Canadians are asking more and more often about the current government. Why are the Liberals not keeping the promises they made during the election, and why are they so slow to act or are not acting at all?

The list of broken promises is far too long to list in the time I have today, but we all know about the Liberals' failure to support electoral reform, their failure to restore door-to-door postal delivery, and the failure to keep the promise to make government more transparent. We also know about their failure to support pay equity legislation, anti-scab legislation, and measures to increase retirement security. One of their most shameful failures is the unwillingness to protect workers' pensions.

We have heard over and over again expressions of sympathy from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development for Canadian workers, like those at Sears Canada who have lost severance and termination pay and health care and life insurance benefits. They now face reduced pension benefits.

Canadians need and expect more than their sympathy and their shallow talking points. They need action. They need the government to change Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and solvency laws. We have shown the Liberals how this can be achieved, but still the government fails to act or move to protect millions of vulnerable Canadians. As my friend from Timmins—James Bay is fond of asking, when is the government going to put the protection of Canadian pensions ahead of Bay Street profits? It is a very good question and a question millions of Canadians would like to know the answer to.

Let me come back to Bill C-62. New Democrats want to undo Harper's anti-labour legacy and build a fair framework for collective bargaining. We welcome the introduction of Bill C-62, which would formally put an end to measures introduced by the former government. We know that the government Bill C-5 and Bill C-34, both introduced last year, have been languishing on the Order Paper since their introduction. We hope that their being amalgamated into Bill C-62 means that the government is finally ready to move forward.

Bill C-62 would reverse the attacks by the former Conservative government on the collective bargaining rights of federal public service employees, and it should be passed without delay. This bill would repeal the power given to the government to remove sick leave from federal public service collective agreements so that it could be changed unilaterally, outside of the bargaining process. The bill would also restore some of the changes to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act affecting collective bargaining, which the Conservatives had included in one of their budget implementation bills in 2013, such as those affecting the designation of essential services. New Democrats rallied against the Conservatives' agenda to curtail public service workers' right to strike. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended in December 2013 to remove the choice of dispute resolution being available to essential services.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians we would stand up for public sector workers in light of the lost decade of Harper's union abuse. Supporting this bill makes good on that promise. A respectful relationship with the public service starts with safeguards to free and fair collective bargaining, not stacking the deck in favour of the employer.

Bill C-62 is aimed at repealing two blatantly anti-labour pieces of legislation introduced by the former Harper government: division 20 of Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The first of these sought to unilaterally impose an inferior disability and sick leave management system on public servants, which was an unwarranted and significant attack on the rights of public service workers.

Bill C-4 would have drastically changed the rules for collective bargaining within the public service, giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. The government would have also determined what positions would be considered essential.

A key provision in the collective agreements of public service workers is sick leave, which allows full-time workers 15 days per year of leave for use in case of illness or injury. The previous Conservative government was determined to unilaterally change this provision by reducing the number of sick days from 15 to 6, eliminating banked sick days, and imposing a short-term disability plan for federal public servants.

The previous government claimed this change would have saved $900 million, despite evidence to the contrary. According to the 2014 parliamentary budget officer's report, “the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the core public administration.” That means most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental costs to departments.

Under the Conservative legislation, workers would have been forced to choose between going to work sick or losing pay for basic necessities. Its legislation would eliminate all accumulated sick leave for public servants, reduce the amount of annual sick leave to 37.5 hours per year, subject to the absolute discretion of the employer, and institute a seven-day waiting period without pay before people could access short-term disability benefits.

I want to comment that, because I come from a union background. I served the union for 36 years. We had that seven-day waiting period also, and we made great gains. We proved to the company that having a waiting period of seven days would bring in workers who were sick, causing other workers to be sick, which actually caused a downturn in production because there were not have enough workers on the job to produce the machinery. Therefore, doing that was a step backward.

Both the NDP and the Liberals committed to reversing the changes during the last election. Bill C-62 would repeal the offending legislation, thus restoring sick leave provisions to public servants for the time being.

Bill C-62 would also revoke some of the more offensive Conservative legislation, including: giving government, as the employer, the right to unilaterally define essential services instead of negotiating an essential services agreement with the bargaining agent; undermining the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer; removing the bargaining agent's right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process, and undermining the workers in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring arbitrators to give priority to Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies. It also removed discrimination-based complaints by public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That to me is a shame.

While we fully support Bill C-62, we also know there is more to be done to dismantle the Harper government's legacy of anti-labour legislation. Some of those measures include restoring the Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to the rights of Canadians to refuse dangerous work. That was gutted by the Harper government, a right that everybody wants when they go into a workplace. Too many deaths have happened, and it should not be determined by the employer. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act should be reinstated, bringing forward pay equity legislation, as well as the federal minimum wage, bringing Bill C-7 back to the House of Commons, and respecting the right of RCMP members to associate and bargain collectively.