Evidence of meeting #6 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was account.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
The check is that the law, the definition, hasn't changed, and it has to be for the safety and security of the public.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Is there also a definition of health and safety?
5:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Not per se, no.
5:45 p.m.
Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
There is a definition in the act as to what an essential service is—
5:45 p.m.
Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
—and it hasn't changed.
5:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Well, it's the same as what was there before.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I am talking about constitutionality. A few experts have suggested this. For changes regarding arbitration and essential services, the wording of the act could be a violation of collective bargaining rights. These rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Can you confirm that the Department of Justice examined the way the legislation is worded in light of these concerns?
5:45 p.m.
Dora Benbaruk Director and General Counsel, Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services, Department of Justice
The Department of Justice has dealt with the concern.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
So he did glance at this and state that according to his expertise, this complies with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
5:45 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services, Department of Justice
I am not at liberty to disclose the advice. However, I can suggest that because the bill is here and to the best of my knowledge, the minister has not consulted with the House of Commons to the extent that there would have been an inconsistency with the charter. That is all I can say.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Fine. I think I understand.
My next question concerns a case that is currently before the Supreme Court. The opposing parties are the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the provincial government. That legislation is similar to what is being proposed here and it is currently before the Supreme Court.
You cannot necessarily tell me why theses changes are being proposed before a decision is handed down, but what would the impact of a decision be, whatever it is, with regard to the legislation which is before us?
5:45 p.m.
Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'll take a crack at it. We're familiar, obviously, with the case that's ongoing and is before the Supreme Court as we speak. The position the Government of Canada took in that case is consistent with what's in the legislation being proposed. It intervened at the appellant level, so it's consistent with that.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I'm going to rephrase my question.
If, in the case at issue, the Supreme Court hands down a decision that is favourable to the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, will that invalidate the provisions of the federal bill we have before us?
5:50 p.m.
Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It would actually depend on exactly what the Supreme Court would say. Obviously, we'd have to compare and review the legislation at that time.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Caron.
I simply want to get clarification on a couple of points.
Mr. Heavens, you referred to the definition of what is an essential service. Can you provide the definition for this committee?
5:50 p.m.
Senior Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Perhaps Dennis can point to it quicker than I can.
5:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It's in what would be section 119 of the PSLRA, clause 305 of the bill.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
No, it's exactly what is in the definition.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes. It reads:The employer has the exclusive right to determine whether any service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada is essential because it is or will be necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that.
One of the reasons the government says it's advancing this legislation is that to improve the predictability of the collective bargaining process, the notice period will be increased to 12 months.
Could you speak to that briefly, please?