Human Resources Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentations, and there will be two rounds of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second one of five minutes.

I can assure you that I will be better with the time today. Things got away from us a little bit yesterday. I'm going to have to try to keep you to seven minutes. I apologize for that. I will keep an eye on the clock so that we can get through this agenda. I also want to remind everyone that all questions should be put through the chair.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, in light of the last meeting and lots of suggestions during that meeting that we're not having enough time to discuss this important topic, and I think even Ms. Lavallée at one point said we really don't have enough time on a topic as important as this one, I'd like to move a motion. I'll just read it right now and then we can discuss it:

That, in relation to Bill C-257, notwithstanding any motion previously adopted, that this committee not consider clause-by-clause study of said Bill on Tuesday December 12th, and instead that the Committee instruct the clerk to seek the testimony of such witnesses as the Legislative Counsel, to testify on possible amendments beyond the scope of the Bill, and to hear from Department of Labour officials to provide technical advice on the functioning and impact of the said Bill, and that additional witnesses representing both labour and industry be invited to testify on the Bill, particularly those witnesses from regions that have requested to appear and that they be given appropriate time to appear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do we have any discussion on that?

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I think it is premature at this point to talk about the clause-by-clause study. I would prefer that we first ask a series of questions of the legislative clerk on the ability of the committee to make amendments.

I have always maintained that the two contentious points in discussions were essential services and labour relations. Our party voted in support of this bill at second reading because it believed that it was time to study anti-strike-breaking legislation. We believe that this issue is extremely important to find a balance in employee-management relations.

Our role, as responsible members of Parliament, is also to ensure that the issue of essential services does not end up holding Canadians hostage, if you will, despite the fact that there still could be a balance in employee-management relations. Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code contains a list of essential services which also include security and public health.

It is clear that this type of bill raises many questions. During clause-by-clause study, we will want to examine the ability of the committee to make amendments so that there is no contradiction between essential services and an anti-strike- breaking law within the context of the Canadian Labour Code.

The other important element are labour relations. In that regard, certain agreements between employers and workers created legal precedents, including in the grain sector. In our opinion, issues regarding transportation and telecommunications are valid and as members of Parliament we must thoroughly study this matter.

The Liberal Party of Canada has never, as certain witnesses have implied, tried to pull a fast one. My colleague and her acolytes from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have tried to pass this bill 10 times. I do not think that it is a question of time. I have always been against the idea of bringing in replacement workers or strikebreakers. However, we must take the time to do things well to make sure that the bill is passed.

It would be premature to vote in support of this motion. I have a specific question for the legislative clerk about our ability to make amendments. Should we not vote against this motion and then decide on the procedure to take and how we want to deal with the clause-by-clause study?

I would ask my colleagues from the Conservative Party that we hear the witnesses now, since some of them have come from far away to give us their points of view from both the side of employers and from the side of the unions. Afterwards, we can take some time to hold discussions amongst ourselves. We do not want to block the process, but just to make sure that we are doing a thorough job as members of Parliament.

I do not know whether it is relevant to ask this question of the legislative clerk, but I don't think that it would be appropriate to have that kind of debate now. We can always have it later.

I completely agree that we must have the debate, but only after having heard from our witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Coderre, were you suggesting that we call them back at a later time?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

At a later time I will have a question for the legislative clerk, because I think what's accurate is the issue of essential services. I think everyone supports that.

I would prefer to go through the witnesses, and then among ourselves, in camera, have that kind of discussion about whether we are ready or not for the clause-by-clause. There is an issue about our capacity for amendments for that legislation, that's for sure. But I'd like to have that kind of discussion among our colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, what is a little troubling is that this is our third meeting to hear witnesses, and every time the Conservatives introduce a dilatory motion. I realize that this morning's motion must be taken into consideration. But I feel we should consider it when we go into clause-by-clause study of the bill.

It is also clear that we will have questions regarding the procedural modalities of the clause-by-clause study. If the Conservatives absolutely want to debate this matter before going into clause-by-clause, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly suggest that we wait and that we agree to holding an additional meeting once was have heard from the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, may I remind you that these people were asked to appear this morning—we will hear from several witnesses—and that the time we have allotted them is also very important. It is not a lot of time, but we expect to learn relevant information with regard to the situation we are in today. Mr. Chairman, we will not hear from every affiliate from each of the organizations present here today.

So this is what I would suggest to our colleagues opposite, that we hold a special meeting amongst ourselves in addition to the time already set aside for the clause-by-clause study in the presence of witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Indeed, it is extremely important to hold in-depth debates and to examine issues thoroughly. With us today are very high calibre witnesses: the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Teamsters Canada, the Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada and the Railway Association of Canada. These are serious, remarkable people who are also very busy. It would be more classy and respectful on our part if we waited until after this morning's meeting to have that discussion. We are not against it, because it is true that we want to have an in-depth debate and to get to the bottom of things. We want to talk about content.

Perhaps there is a certain openness to the Conservative motion, because we should finally address the necessity of having special measures for essential services, even if they already exist under the Canada Labour Code. We would study the matter in good faith, but please understand that this should not be done in front of our witnesses because we do not want to waste their time. So why don't we hold a special meeting before we begin the clause-by-clause study?

Our next meeting is on Tuesday of next week; today is Thursday. Perhaps we can have a meeting Monday afternoon. I am free Monday afternoon for a discussion on essential services and to take an in-depth look at the issue. Just look at what is currently happening in Quebec: the provincial essential services legislation is 94 pages long. Of course, we will not settle the matter in the blink of an eye with a simple amendment, but there is something we can do, because the health and public safety of Quebeckers and Canadians are very important, and we are there to make sure they are maintained. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I think my colleague, Mr. Coderre, has made some very good points about this motion. It does seem to me that we should proceed to hear the witnesses, but at that time I think we should be flexible and have a discussion about what other witnesses we should hear beyond them.

My expectation is that there will be, for instance, perhaps some witnesses from western Canada. We've had no one from west of Ontario, really, although we'll have had some national groups that represent all parts of the country. I think that's very important.

I also think it's important to do this right. We have questions for the legislative counsel. My colleague has talked about some of those. For me, one of the key questions is not only, given that this bill refers to section 87.4—I don't think it amends section 87.4—whether that gives us an opening to amend section 87.4, first of all, which, of course, deals with essential workers in terms of public health and safety, but also whether it allows us to make amendments that would actually provide for essential workers in terms of their being economically essential.

Obviously, if you need to have banking going on and you can't do telecommunications, that's pretty important. And in transportation and the transport sector you have some things that may not all be essential in terms of health and safety but certainly are economically essential to the country. I don't think anyone would want, first of all, to see those things shut down, and, secondly, to have government constantly bringing in legislation to put people back to work. I think neither of those is an appealing answer.

So it seems to me that Mr. Coderre's reaction is reasonable.

I think we do have to examine the nature of the kinds of amendments we might need to make. The problem with asking for instructions right now is that we don't know yet whether it's just section 87.4 that we may feel we need to amend or whether there are other areas, but I suspect—and I would like to hear from the legislative clerk about whether I'm correct in thinking this—that we aren't going to be able to amend..... Well, first of all, are we able to amend section 87.4 at all, if it's only made reference to in the bill? And secondly, can we amend it to change its character in the way I've described? I'd like to hear that. Having said that, we may also have other things we want to talk about.

So I like the intent of the motion. I just think it's better to discuss this at the end of today or perhaps on Tuesday.

Lastly, I think it is important that we study this carefully. We don't have to have the appearance of being in haste.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

What I'm hearing is that we need to bring back the legislative clerk to talk about some of these issues.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

If there's any answer he can provide us today, it would be helpful, but I expect we'll have other questions as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Do you have any comments right now?

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair, do you want to call the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll call the vote when everyone is done speaking.

[Marc Toupin, Procedural Clerk]

Mr. Chair, what I can say is that normally, whenever there is amending legislation before a committee, the committee is bound by the terms of reference of that bill. So it would be improper for a committee to go back to sections of the parent act that are not being amended by Bill C-257.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I think we'll probably need a more fulsome discussion, though.

Did you have something else, Mr. Coderre?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, as I have already said, there is no doubt that we support the thrust of the bill and that we want to do a good job. However, now is not the time to hold that type of discussion.

If you want, I can present a motion.

It would be that we call for a report to seek instructions from the House. We all know the way it works.

But I truly believe that for now what we need to do is have our witnesses. Some of those witnesses represent every region of the country. Let's have the discussion, because they have come here.

We'll have an in camera discussion among ourselves, if necessary. As I've said, we have several ways of dealing with that. But I don't think we should have that motion right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it might be useful to read the motion again. We just want to make sure that it is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The motion is:

That, in relation to Bill C-257, notwithstanding any motion previously adopted, that this committee not consider clause-by-clause study of said Bill on Tuesday December 12th, and instead that the Committee instruct the clerk to seek the testimony of such witnesses as the Legislative Counsel, to testify on possible amendments beyond the scope of the Bill, and to hear from Department of Labour officials to provide technical advice on the functioning and impact of the said Bill, and that additional witnesses representing both labour and industry be invited to testify on the Bill, particularly those witnesses from regions that have requested to appear and that they be given appropriate time to appear

I've been led to believe that the motion is in order.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like the opinion of the clerk on that matter. It seems to me that the motion is not in order, since it changes the procedure we have already established and the order of proceedings we had already agreed on.

I think that if we wanted to change that, there should have been a notice of motion of 24 hours, as prescribed by procedure. Otherwise, I don't understand why we would receive it today. This would mean that at any time during our meetings any one of us could question the rules we had established. Mr. Chairman, this does not make any sense: We would never see the end of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Because we are in the study of Bill C-257, the motion is in order.

I'll call the vote. All those in favour?

I will support this motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to witnesses. I'll start on my right hand side.

Mr. Mackay, you have seven minutes, sir.