Finance Committee on Nov. 18th, 2013

[Drew Heavens]

We're actually not the experts in that area. There are people from Labour Canada that deal with division 5 of the act.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Okay. That was my question, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Keddy.

We'll go to Mr. Hsu please.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm good.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Then I will go back to Ms. Nash, please.

Is that correct?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was asking about consultation and input on the changes. It's my understanding from your comments that outside of government officials, there were no labour unions or labour law experts who were consulted. Were there any business organizations, business lawyers, officials, or experts who were consulted on these changes?

[Don Graham, Executive Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Not that I'm aware of.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So there were no consultations with any organizations.

There were no meetings with business associations or labour associations, in order to make these changes.

[Don Graham]

No.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No.

Okay.

Is it standard procedure to rewrite a piece of legislation so fundamentally without consulting directly with any of the people who might be impacted by those changes?

[Don Graham]

I don't know that we're qualified to comment on what's standard process.

The discussions that were held were internal and it was with the people who had been involved in, obviously, all of these processes.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay.

Minister Clement, the minister responsible, has said publicly, he has told Canadians that he's not going to say how these changes will be put to use until after they've been enacted. It seems kind of a curious way to make policy.

When you were looking forward and making these changes, your goal in making these changes, could you explain to us which public sector workers did you see being stripped of the right to strike? Minister Clement was commenting specifically on the right to strike and he said, “We'll tell you afterwards how it's going to be implemented.”

Were there specific workers you had in mind when you saw removing the right to strike from some public sector workers?

[Don Graham]

I think the change that you might be referring to, and I'll let my colleague Dennis Duggan speak to that, is the one that deals with essential services.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's right.

[Don Graham]

Essentially the provision is that any group that has positions that are 80% or more designated essential will be utilizing the arbitration route as opposed to the strike route. I think the basis for that was the fact that these groups, obviously by the reason of the number of positions that are designated essential, it does impact on their ability to strike. That would be the reason why arbitration is the route that they would be going on.

[Dennis Duggan]

Well, specifically there is a statutory right to strike, but the right to strike as far as that goes is certainly not new in the public service. The designation of employees for purposes of safety and security of the public as an essential service has been a feature of legislation in dealing with collective bargaining since 1967, when the public service staff relations act was introduced.

What's changed over the years is the form that we've utilized to reach the conclusions about who should be designated. The most recent iteration is the essential services agreement which came out of the changes made in 2005 to the PSLRA.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm almost out of time so let me just say that I do have concerns about how lax the wording is. I understand the point you're making about essential services, but I'm wondering what limits there are in this legislation on the ability of the federal government to declare workers essential. In the past they have had the full rights of others in collective bargaining. It was very open.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A brief response, please, sir.

[Dennis Duggan]

The ability is inherent in the law itself, in that the definition of safety and what is essential has not changed. The definition has just been moved from the definitions section into the section that particularly deals with ESA, and it has to be for the safety and security of the public.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Briefly, I am going to pick up where Ms. Nash left off.

The word “essential” is open to a relatively broad range of interpretations. At what point would this require a decision from the government? If there is a difference of opinion in the definition of the word “essential”, who will make the final decision?

[Dennis Duggan]

Under the proposed legislation, the employer has the exclusive right to make that decision.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

The exclusive right to...?

[Dennis Duggan]

To make that decision of what's essential and the positions that would be designated to perform that essential service.

If there is a challenge to be made, there is a possibility, if they so desire, to refer it for judicial review. Part of the process we've entered into is to require a consultative period. It would exist once the bargaining agents have been notified of the positions that are designated, so that they can be engaged and have an input into the process.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If I understand correctly, there isn't much that could prevent the government from declaring the majority of public servants to be essential workers, if it decided on such a broad interpretation of the word “essential”.