Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I wanted to return to address this issue about the whole business that Madame Robillard raised, about the content of this bill being similar to the amendments that were ruled out of order.

There's a touch of irony in this particular case, Mr. Chair, because I seem to recall, and Madame Robillard can correct me if I'm wrong, that when she was Minister of Labour--and here's where the irony comes in--she talked about the whole issue at different times during speeches and in response to questions during question period. Obviously as a government minister she was called upon to respond.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Twelve years ago.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Right. And my recollection of her responses is that it was extremely difficult to address just one provision, i.e. replacement workers, without touching on essential services. As I recall, she made some very strong arguments that the definition of essential services would have to be included for a bill to move forward. As I said, she can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding of the comments she made. Yet now, if I'm understanding her arguments correctly, she seems to be arguing in favour of making this bill votable because in her mind it's substantially different from the previous bill.

I'm trying to square the argument with the arguments she has made in the past, because it's not difficult for any of us to foresee that quite possibly this bill.... For argument's sake, let's say that the committee did decide to make it votable and that it passed second reading. Now, those are a lot of hypotheticals, but just for argument's sake, let's say that happened and it went off to committee. And following up on Madam Robillard's and many others' arguments in the past that you cannot in all good conscience touch this part of the Canada Labour Code without defining what essential services are, this bill does not do that. It does not define.

So we could end up in a similar situation, Mr. Chair, where we're at committee and Madam Robillard herself or someone else brings forward a definition of what essential services are. It might be one clause long, it might be 64 pages of definition. My understanding is that in Quebec labour law, the definition of what constitutes essential services is quite lengthy. It's quite involved. They tried to cover off everything possible, and that in itself is its own minefield of what you put in there and what you exclude.

So it wouldn't be difficult to follow this through. Someone would make those amendments, those amendments would be ruled out of order, and the bill would fail because the definition of essential services wasn't included. So the bill is voted down, similar to what happened to Bill C-257. Another member says, to use Madam Robillard's argument, oh well, the amendments should have been allowed but they weren't, so I will put my definition of what constitutes essential services into a new bill, I will introduce it in this same Parliament, and I will hopefully get it votable. And we could go through that whole process all over again.

So then we have a definition of essential services, and we could be back in the same situation, where some other well-intentioned member, like Mr. Silva, would bring forward a bill but try to correct the problem of the previous bill, which in this case would be Bill C-415, which was trying to correct a problem of a previous bill, which was Bill C-257. We end up in the situation where Bill C-415 is hopefully corrected, in the sense that it has this definition built into the new bill, but then ultimately the committee or the subcommittee rules it is votable. Off it goes again, gets to committee, and somebody brings forward amendments. Wait a minute, that definition isn't inclusive enough; we have to try to amend the bill. Well, somebody rules that no, wait a minute, when you start to amend and bring in other services as your description of essential services, that's beyond the scope of this particular bill. They're out of order. You know, this could go on and on and on in the same Parliament.

I get back to my earlier point: at what time does Parliament say that we've had a good, fulsome, healthy debate on this subject matter? In this particular case it's on the subject matter of replacement workers. The House has spoken. The House in its wisdom decided to set this issue aside. That's not saying that in a future Parliament it won't be dealt with.

I suspect that given the track record on replacement workers—I don't remember, I think Mr. Preston or Mr. Lukiwski said it was 11 times, or maybe 13 or 17 times, or whatever the number was—it just continues to come back and come back. So I suspect that we haven't heard the last of this legislation. If we uphold the rule of the subcommittee and make this non-votable, I suspect it will come up in a future Parliament, and all of us—well, those of us who are back—will be sitting here debating the same issue again.

That's what I'm proposing to Madam Robillard, and what I'm trying to do is square the thoughts that she put in, in the past, to the need to have essential services defined in labour legislation and in the Canada Labour Code; and if she disagrees with what she said a few years ago, how she squares that with this particular legislation, which doesn't define “essential services”. Doesn't she at least believe that my scenario is quite possible, whereby this legislation could go off to committee and indeed someone, any member, could bring forward amendments to try to define what constitutes essential services in Canada under the Canada Labour Code? Then we could be into this big mess all over again, where some member decides, oh well, the Speaker ruled that was beyond the scope of the bill, so then they try to correct that by drafting a new bill. We'd be right back here all over again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Next on the list is Mr. Lukiwski, but we're a little out of order there. So I'll go to Madame Robillard, and we'll come back to Mr. Lukiwski, just out of fairness in the rounding.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, because I was posing questions to Madame Robillard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madame Robillard, please.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I respectfully submit that the comments of my colleague Mr. Hill, quoting statements of mine from 12 years ago, when I was Minister of Labour, bring us directly to the substance of the bill, that is, the definition of essential services.

Our committee's role is not to decide on the substance of the bill, but to decide whether it is votable or not, as the result of an appeal submitted by one of our colleagues. I am not going to get into that discussion, because I feel I would then get into the discussion on the bill. In addition, the scenario foreseen by my colleague assumes further decisions from the Speaker of the House of Commons rejecting one amendment or another. These assumptions go too far. Let us get back to the question of whether the bill is votable or not.

It is difficult for me to support the arguments of some of my colleagues in the Conservative government who say that the subcommittee did its work very well. I do not question that, I respect the work that was done. But as a member of this Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I have absolutely no idea what happened because the work was done in camera. That is fine, even if we could raise the question again. Here, I am sitting on an appeal committee. I do not know what the committee discussed, nor which arguments were accepted or rejected. I only know the final result.

Mr. Lukiwski's argument today is that the subcommittee's work should be upheld. Our colleague Mr. Silva also has another avenue of appeal to go before the House.

We are being told to stop calling things into question. They did their work well and there is another appeal. We should not take a position today. I reject that. As a member of the committee, I have a role to play. The appeal is before us, I am dealing with it according to my knowledge of the bills and of the criteria as interpreted by the subcommittee. I am not questioning the quality of their work, but today, I am able to have an opinion that differs from that of the subcommittee that did the work. That is the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have a question first, Chair, because I honestly don't know the answer to this. I think I do, but I think Mr. Hill has a differing opinion.

We're all talking about how it would be nice to know the discussions held at the in camera subcommittee meeting, to determine exactly what thought process they had. If we went in camera as a committee here, would we have the ability to hear in camera testimony? I don't think so, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Since you're asking the chair, it's--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I don't know. I'm asking.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, we would.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I didn't think we could because the in camera discussion was confidential. No matter if we went in camera, we still couldn't hear another--

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That's correct, but it's confidential in the sense that it's not to be made public.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'd like to know an answer to that.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

There are members on that subcommittee who do not sit on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Perhaps I could interject. It's my feeling, as well as our analysts', that in camera meetings are in camera; they're not to be discussed in another in camera meeting, as a general rule.

Just to answer your question, if we were to go in camera, that would not give people the freedom to discuss a previous in camera meeting.

Thank you.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

You had indicated at the outset, Chair, that you were adjourning this at 12:30 to go into what is the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I was hoping to have some time at the end to discuss future business, on Thursday, for the entire committee, plus there is a steering committee meeting that we need time for.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

And I have a motion.

[An hon. member]

So why don't we vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We're still in a discussion phase here.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

So the ruling is, then, that we'll go to one o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have to ask the committee's indulgence. I need time for the steering committee. This committee has a tonne of business to do and we need to have some direction for the next couple of weeks, otherwise the committee, as we move forward, doesn't.... It sounds to me as though we may have to discuss this and put it back on the agenda.

We have about eight or nine outstanding issues that this committee needs to deal with--and hopefully within the next four weeks, giving way for our break week.

Mr. Silva, I'm going to let you make a comment while I think about whether or not we should adjourn and move to a steering committee.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I would ask, Mr. Chair, that you proceed to a vote, given all the arguments that have already been stated. I don't think there's anything else one could hear that would make one go one way or the other.

The reality too, Mr. Chair, is that this issue has to be dealt with today at this committee, because my appeal was five days, and therefore today is the date. So I would ask for a vote, Mr. Chair.