Bill C-62 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts

This enactment amends the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act to restore the procedures for the choice of process of dispute resolution including those involving essential services, arbitration, conciliation and alternative dispute resolution that existed before December 13, 2013.
It also amends the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act to restore the procedures applicable to arbitration and conciliation that existed before December 13, 2013.
It repeals provisions of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 that are not in force that amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Public Service Employment Act and it repeals not in force provisions of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 that amend those provisions.
It 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 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees who are employed in the core public administration.

Labour

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, unions built the middle class in Saint John—Rothesay, and today, unions like IBEW, CUPW, CUPE, PSAC, ILA, Unifor, IAFF, and SJPA, and union leaders like Darlene Bembridge, Duane Squires, Craig Melvin, Erin Howell-Sharpe, Tammy Nadeau, Pat Riley, Kevin Suttie, and Jean Marc Ringuette are pillars of my community.

In 2015, the people of Saint John—Rothesay sent me here to stand up for them. One of the ways I have done just that since taking office is by standing up for my constituents' collective bargaining rights, both in this House and at HUMA, where I was tremendously proud to stand up for Bill C-4 and Bill C-62 to repeal of Conservative anti-union legislation in both places.

I will always stand up for the rights of workers in my riding, and I will always stand up for good middle-class jobs for the people of Saint John—Rothesay.

(Bill C-21. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 9, 2018—Third reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act—The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

(Bill, as amended, read the third time and passed on division)

(Bill C-68: On the Order: Government orders:)

June 13, 2018—Third reading of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence—The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

(Motion for third reading deemed moved, bill read the third time and passed on division)

(Bill C-62. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 11, 2018—Consideration at report stage of C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities without amendment—The President of the Treasury Board.

(Bill concurred in, read the third time and passed on division)

(Bill C-64. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 19, 2018—Third reading of Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations—The Minister of Transport.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Motion No. 24. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 28, 2018—Ways and Means motion to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting.

(Motion agreed to on division)

(Bill C-82. On the Order: Introduction of Bills:)

May 28, 2018—First reading of Bill C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting—Minister of Finance

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(Bill C-46. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 14, 2018—Consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts—The Minister of Justice.

(Motion agreed to on division)

(Bill C-50. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 14, 2018—Consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing)—The Minister of Democratic Institutions.

(Motion agreed to on division)

June 4, 2018—That the 64th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, “Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members”, presented to the House on Monday, June 4, 2018, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

June 19, 2018—Notice of Motion—That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Yves Giroux as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years—Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

(Motion agreed to on division)

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following routine proceedings on Wednesday, June 20, 2018:

(a) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(b) Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, be deemed read a third time and passed;

(d) Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(e) Ways and Means No. 24 be deemed adopted on division, and that the Bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance entitled, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, be deemed read a first time;

(f) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted on division;

(g) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, be deemed adopted on division;

(h) the 64th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members, presented to the House on Monday June 4, 2018, be concurred in;

(i) the following motion be deemed adopted on division: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Yves Giroux as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years”; and

(j) the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2018, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 21 and Friday, June 22, 2018.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of People with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of People with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2018-19: Vote 1 under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Vote 1 under Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and Votes 1 and 5 under Department of Employment and Social Development”.

While I am on my feet, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 1, 2018, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts.

We've discussed ahead of time that I'll be looking for unanimous consent to group clauses 1 through 8. Do I have that unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I do have to respect the minister's time. He does actually need to be on the move right now, but I wanted to thank him for coming back.

I ask our colleagues to stay put as the minister leaves. We're going to be bring back in the officials around Bill C-62.

While they're doing that, it's optional, but we can actually vote now on estimates to report back to the House. If we choose not to do that—

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

It's a bit unusual for me to step in like this at the end of process, but my colleague Karin Trudel had to go back to her riding.

However, she has introduced three amendments that really are essentially the same. I assure you I won't make the same arguments three times. I'll state them once, and you can consider them valid for all three amendments. You need only copy and paste them in your mind.

The amendment proposed by my colleague was requested during testimony by Ursula Hendel, president of the Association of Justice Counsel, and Chris Aylward, national president of the Canadian Public Service Alliance.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the bill is constitutional. In a judgment rendered in 2015, the Supreme Court held that Saskatchewan's essential services legislation was unconstitutional. As provisions of that act contains wording similar to that of clause 9 of Bill C-62, the amendment concerns pages 35 and 36 on page 5.

The purpose of the provision is to ensure that non-union personnel are not disadvantaged during a strike or subjected to pressures to which they would normally be exposed during a work stoppage.

These lines appear word for word in the Saskatchewan act. Their wording was cited by the court, which held that, if qualified personnel are available to deliver requisite services, it should not matter that they are non-union personnel. Consequently, the provision works at cross purposes to ensuring uninterrupted delivery of essential services during a work stoppage.

In conclusion, I would say these amendments address the concern that Bill C-62 does not sufficiently reflect the Supreme Court judgment rendered in 2015. The bill should therefore be amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Welcome, everybody. Pursuant to an order of reference on Thursday, February 1, 2018, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts.

Madam Sansoucy.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to challenge the notice that was given by the government House leader of a closure motion concerning government Motion No. 22. It is my view that her notice was premature and therefore is out of order.

I raised a point of order earlier today disputing the correctness of House records concerning debate on government Motion No. 22, and we are still awaiting a ruling on that point of order.

Standing Order 57, which governs closure, reads, in part:

Immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee of the Whole, any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his or her place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned....

Page 663 of Bosc and Gagnon puts this into plain English. It states:

Regardless, debate on the item which is the subject of the notice must have begun before notice of closure may be given.

The related footnote points to a ruling by Speaker Fraser in December 1988 during debate on the Canada-United States free trade agreement. Members with a passion for politics will recall that this was the immediate wake of that autumn's general election, sparked by the resistance of Liberal senators to a previous Conservative government's free trade agreement with the U.S. After the election, Parliament met quickly in order to pass the free trade agreement before a New Year's Eve deadline.

To aid the bill's passage, the government proposed a series of temporary procedural rules, not unlike the intention of government Motion No. 22. When the 1988 procedural motion was called, Liberals and New Democrats rose to challenge every fibre of it, because at that point they were still fighting against the free trade agreement with the United States. To make a long story short, those procedural arguments continued throughout the day.

In any event, the then government House leader gave notice of a closure motion. That notice, too, was challenged, which brings me back to Speaker Fraser's ruling. On December 15, 1988, at page 78 of Debates, the Chair said:

From a careful reading of this Standing Order, it is clear that the closure motion may only be moved “immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate is called”.

In addition, this may only be done if notice of the intention to move closure has been given orally in the House by a Minister of the Crown at a previous sitting. While the Standing Orders specify when the motion can be moved, and how notice is to be given, they are silent on when notice may be given.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier argued yesterday that notice could only be given after debate had begun. Standing Order 57 does not specify this. However, a search of numerous previous instances where notice of closure was given—going back to 1913 when the rule was first introduced—has failed to reveal an occurrence where notice was given prior to debate having begun.

It can be argued that merely because this has not happened previously that does not prevent it from being allowed in this instance; that the Standing Order does not specifically prohibit this and therefore it should be allowed.

After a very careful consideration of this point, I am more persuaded by the weight of precedent and practice. Taking into consideration the gravity of the measure to be invoked and the necessity of protecting the rights of the minority, it is my feeling and decision that the intention of the Standing Order as drafted and as it has been applied is to allow a majority to impose closure only after debate on the question has begun. This is to ensure that such debate is not unfairly or prematurely curtailed. In this instance, debate on the motion had clearly not begun when the Hon. Minister served notice.

In resumé therefore I find that the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Minister of State is in order and may be moved and debated. However, I cannot accept the notice of closure on that motion as proposed by the same Hon. Minister yesterday. Such notice can only be given once debate on the motion has commenced.

Next, let me anticipate a counter-argument from the government pointing to time allocation proceedings concerning report stage consideration of Bill C-62, the GST bill, in April 1990. It is critical to distinguish between the two rules that govern time allocation and closure.

Earlier, I quoted Standing Order 57 with its reference to an adjourned debate. Time allocation, on the other hand, is regulated by Standing Order 78. Section 3 of that Standing Order, which applies to most time allocation motions, reads:

A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration....

We have a critical difference here between “adjourned debate” for closure, and “under consideration” for time allocation.

Because a lengthy and complex ruling on the grouping and voting of report stage motions on the GST bill had been delivered and the various motions themselves had been proposed from the Chair, it could be clearly said that Bill C-62 had been under consideration when notice was given of a time allocation motion.

A critical maxim, applied judicially in statutory interpretation cases would be instructive here. It is that "Parliament does not speak in vain". That touchstone is elaborated upon in various entries in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, the leading Canadian authority on the interpretation of laws. I will simply offer two short quotes from the sixth edition. First is paragraph 8.14, which says:

Although ordinary speakers or writers require much co-operative guesswork from their audience, a legislature is an idealized speaker. Unlike the rest of us, legislatures are presumed to always say what they mean and mean what they say. They do not make mistakes.

Then there is paragraph 8.32, which reads:

It is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings. Another way of understanding this presumption is to say that the legislature is presumed to avoid stylistic variation. Once a particular way of expressing a meaning has been adopted, it is used each time that meaning is intended. Given this practice, it follows that where a different form of expression is used, a different meaning is intended.

In summary, “adjourned debate” and “under consideration” are two different expressions and, as a result, carry different meanings. The use of closure requires an item to have been debated, not simply to have been proposed or otherwise placed under consideration. Government Motion No. 22 has not been debated and, therefore, closure on Government Motion No. 22 is premature and out of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I'm quite sure that I have colleagues beside me who would also like to speak to this. I hope you will permit them the same privilege that you've given me. I do appreciate it.

We are now under proposed subsection 1(1), which provides a definition of “essential service”. The existing definition, under subsection 4(1) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, says:

4(1) The following definitions apply in this Part. essential service means a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that has been determined under subsection 119(1) to be essential. (services essentiels) essential services agreement [Repealed, 2013, c. 40, s. 294] mediator means a person appointed as a mediator under subsection 108(1). (médiateur) National Joint Council [Repealed, 2017, c. 9, s. 4] parties, in relation to collective bargaining, arbitration, conciliation or a dispute, means the employer and the bargaining agent. (parties) public interest commission means a commission established under Division 10. (commission de l’intérêt public)

National Joint Council means the National Joint Council whose establishment was authorised by the order in council dated May 16, 1944.

Chair, the new provision, proposed under Bill C-62, is that the very clear definition of “essential service” will be changed substantially. The new provision would say:

1(1) The definition essential service in subsection 4(1) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act is replaced by the following: essential service means a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public. (services essentiels)

Chair, I'm trying to understand where we are and where the government wants to take us in Bill C-62.

I think the definition that we have right now is actually much clearer, and it's important that legislation be clear, that we as legislators understand what it is, and that arbitrators understand what the intent of the legislation is.

For example, on the government web page, Government of Canada Guidelines for Essential Services Designations, under the heading “What is an essential service?”, it says, “...an 'essential service' is defined as 'any service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada [that] is or will be necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.' ”

Chair—surprise—that is the exact wording of Bill C-62. Should the government make the changes to their website prior to the passing of Bill C-62? I think not. That is a concern, but they have already made those changes.

It goes on to explain, “Examples of government services or activities that may be considered essential include, but are not limited to: border safety/security...”.

Chair, I have heard again the importance of clarity and definitions, and this is the foundation...a definition of what we are talking about. In terms of border safety and security, we are seeing problems at the border. The fact is that I had a border officer approach me who did not want to be named because he works for the Government of Canada. He was very concerned that there are people being moved from our ports of entry to deal with the influx of illegal immigration and refugees who are going between the legal points of entry.

Is that an essential service? I believe it is, but that essential service is being pressured because of decisions of the government to advertise on Facebook, Twitter, and whatnot that you can enter Canada illegally and then move to the front of the line. I don't think that's fair, and I wish the government would change their messaging on illegal border crossing.

Chair, the next one on the list of essential Government of Canada services is Correctional Service Canada. For our federal institutions that are an essential service, it is extremely important that we make sure anybody who is serving federal time in a penal institution is kept locked up, and that it is properly supervised and managed.

Chair, under the Correctional Service we have minimum, medium, and maximum security institutions. In our riding, we have all of them. These are all for sentences that are for two years and more. Two years less a day would be served in a provincial or territorial institution.

When I say they are in an institution during a warrant period, during their sentence, if it's less than two years, then it would be provincial or territorial, but we're dealing with much more serious crime, usually an indictable offence. There are summary and indictable convictions. I won't digress about Bill C-75 that wants to make youth terrorism a summary conviction with a fine instead of being a serious indictable offence for which they could do some federal time if appropriate, but the Correctional Service is essential to keeping Canadians safe.

The next one is food inspection activities. How important is it to make sure that the food in Canada is healthy and good? It is essential—I think we would all agree with that—so they have to know what is the definition of an “essential service”. Chair, the clearer we make that definition, the better.

On accident safety investigations, I was involved with that at a provincial level. It is very important when we have an accident, through Transport Canada, that accident safety investigators be available and be available now. When we have a serious plane crash where somebody has died, there has to be an investigator, so again, that is an essential service. It is critically important that we know what the definition is.

The definition on the government website also goes on to say that income and social security.... My responsibility, Chair, is income security for seniors. All of this means it is really important that we know what the definition of “essential service” is.

Chair, at this point, I think it is important that we support the existing provision because it's clear. It's more specific, and I would not support changing the definition under Bill C-62 proposed subsection 1(1), but I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.

Thank you.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

If you keep interrupting me, I'll never be able to finish, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps you didn't fully understand my motion, but it deals directly with the study before the committee, Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts. We are hearing from witnesses today on the bill. My motion is directly related to what the committee is currently studying. If you feel the need, you can check with the clerk.

As things stand, we cannot proceed with our study of the bill because we are missing key information. We are talking about several hundreds of millions of dollars, and we don't know exactly where that money is or how it has been allocated.

The reason for my point of order is this: I want more information about the billion dollars that the government is content to let slide. We need to know exactly where that money is coming from, how it is being allocated, and whether it will be possible to make up the shortfall.

In short, my motion is tied to the bill our committee is studying.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Chair, that is if it has nothing to do with what's being discussed. If we are discussing Bill C-62, and this is in direct relationship to Bill C-62, then it's relevant to the discussion.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Okay.

That information is extremely important. You will recall that, initially, the financial impact of the federal act that was tabled was projected to be in the order of 800 to 900 million dollars. I am talking about the value of the sick leave. The government witnesses, on the other hand, referred to an amount of $1.3 billion. So it is a substantial amount.

A significant part of that amount is used to pay for sick leave taken prior to retirement. That is in fact what I asked at that committee meeting. We know how it works in the public service: some people take their sick leave before they retire. I had asked what that adds up to and how many people do that.

It could be several hundreds of millions of dollars. It seems very important to me therefore to make sure we have all the information we need to review his bill before it is passed. To my knowledge, that information has not yet been provided to us. That is why I am tabling the following motion this afternoon:

That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Act, be postponed until the Committee has received in both official languages, in writing, the answer to the question concerning the cost and number of public servants who retire after using their bank of sick leave and that this information be provided to the Committee.

Mr. Chair, once again, I want to reassure you that you can count on the opposition's full cooperation to make sure that taxpayers' money is well managed.

During our consideration of the bill, we talked about what I would even describe as a fool's deal in certain ways. In order to maintain excellent staff relations, on the one hand, it is important to make sure that taxpayers' money is well managed. On the other hand, in its good faith dealings with employee representatives, the government must have the necessary legislative tools and means not only to have the best employees in the public service, but also to protect taxpayers' money.

That is why I maintain that, until this essential information is provided to the committee in both official languages, it would be superfluous and truly premature to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. In order to do a thorough job and adopt a bill that will benefit all Canadian taxpayers, protect their interests, and respect workers, I think we need this information.

I would like to add something. It does happen at times that the information we request is not immediately available. In the interest of our committee's work, and with the consent of the committee and the witnesses, be they public servants or not, we must receive that information in a timely manner.

The request I am referring to was made several weeks ago, but we have still not received the information, unfortunately. We feel we cannot proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until we get that information.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I asked him if he had a point of order, and he said he did not, and now I would like to continue to Bill C-62.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 1, 2018, we are considering Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. We are joined here today by—

Yes.