Human Resources Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we're going to get started again.

I think Ms. Davies put forward a motion in relation to hearing witnesses. I also want to point out that there was a proposed calendar. In all fairness, it didn't go to the steering committee; it was just proposed in light of what we had discussed with previous motions before Christmas. So why don't you address your motion in terms of where you're at? But I think we should also have the proposed calendar beside us in terms of hearing witnesses.

We have invited and confirmed witnesses for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of this week and next week, of all the additional individuals who had requested to be here but could not because of the limited amount of time we had.

So that's where we're at with that. That's what the budget is about, to be able to hear some of them via teleconference and to be able to hear the witnesses over the next two weeks. And since we have a new committee, it's a good thing we have some more witnesses as the Liberals get up to speed on what's going on with particulars.

Do you want to speak to your motion again, Ms. Davies?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes.

Could I just clarify one thing with you? When you say this proposed calendar went to the steering committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, it did not.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Oh, it didn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That was my understanding.

I think some of this would have been avoided if there had been a steering committee and it had been worked out.

Anyway, the intent of my motion is to make it clear that we should endeavour to complete the clause-by-clause by February 8. That means looking at the meetings that have already been scheduled and adjusting them as necessary to make sure that we hear the technical witnesses and that we then do the clause-by-clause.

I think the motion is reasonable, in that it will allow for the ones that have been scheduled to be heard. I would point out, though, that we've already heard from 34 individuals, not counting today, and it has generally been a fair balance. Of the 34 more witnesses who are being heard, who are being scheduled as a result of your decision or somebody's decision, only three are from labour, so what we're going to hear now will not be a balanced representation. I'm not proposing that we add more labour, but I did want to make that point.

In fact, a number of the witnesses who have been scheduled are actually affiliates of national organizations we've already heard from. For example, we did hear from the Chamber of Commerce, and now we're going to hear from local chambers of commerce.

I just make those points, because people are arguing that we have to hear from people and that it's balanced. Well, the witness list that we have right now isn't that balanced, but we know what the arguments are, and I would prefer that we now try to get down to some business of actually working through this bill.

So I'm proposing, in effect, a schedule that I think is somewhat of a compromise, because it's not cutting anybody out who you've already scheduled, and saying that we may need to adjust a couple of meetings to add on an hour to make sure that everybody who is scheduled is heard, but that we do the technical and then the clause-by-clause by February 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll just clarify, in terms of the witnesses, and then I'll start taking names, that the motion that was passed was to hear from witnesses particularly from regions that requested to appear and weren't able to, such as B.C., which hadn't had a chance up until this point in time. So it was people who had contacted us, and, because of our short amount of time, were left off the list. We didn't go soliciting additional people; these were individuals and companies that had not had a chance.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, as you noted earlier, I am new to the committee and quite pleased to be here, and I'm delighted to hear from the witnesses.

It concerns me as well that there doesn't seem to be a balance here. When you bring legislation forward to a committee it is important, first of all, to get the technical witnesses as soon as possible so that you're aware of what the issues are, and you can ask, if there are legal experts involved, some of the technical and legal aspects of the bill, but then try to get a very fair balance between both the labour and business communities.

I wasn't here when you had previous witnesses who came before this committee, so I have to rely on the transcripts that I've been reading. But I'm just wondering, why was that balance not struck?

There is a subcommittee here to deal with that, a steering committee. Not all committees have steering committees, but this one has a steering committee. Because you did not go to the steering committee, and because we're all new to this committee as well, certainly a question I have is why wasn't that balanced, and can we in fact arrive at a balance as we go forward with this particular legislation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes.

The meetings we held previous to the new year were well balanced, based on lists that we had chosen. The motion that was before us was to hear from additional witnesses who wanted to speak but weren't given the opportunity. So once again, we didn't go out asking or soliciting. They were witnesses who had contacted our offices and the clerk's office in order to be able to participate.

So you're correct. The witnesses we heard before Christmas were balanced. They haven't been as balanced because of who requested to come and speak.

Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Again for all my Liberal colleagues, being new to the committee, in terms of Ms. Davies' motion, how would it impact your proposed calendar? What would be the time differentiation? I believe she wants to finish it by February—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure. What Ms. Davies has suggested is that we hear all witnesses by the seventh. We now have witnesses booked and confirmed until the eighth. We're suggesting that we bring in the technical witness on February 13 and then go to clause-by-clause the week after.

So what this would do is put it off by a week.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

So then it's instead of finishing a week earlier?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes.

Now, I don't believe that Ms. Davies had seen the calendar prior to this, but that was the suggestion.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

So how many witnesses will be impacted, as a result of having that one week?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have five witnesses for each meeting. So there would be 15 witnesses for the second week; there are 15 or 16 witnesses this week.

Madame Lavallée.

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

Indeed, we do have to restore the balance regarding the presentations. As we saw a bit earlier, there was only one union representative. There was an imbalance with regard to the testimony. It's good to have people who want to look at the overall situation and present different points of view among the group of witnesses. Moreover, the same is true for everyone: we have many other activities. We'd like to do them in the time that you allocated, Mr. Chairman. I know that the committee has to consider many other bills and has a lot of work to do. That is why Ms. Davies' proposal is a good one. You could find time where we could add an hour or two in order to have a better balance of witnesses on the one hand, and on the other hand add an hour or two in order for us to hear everyone. It's important for us to hear all arguments.

In the case of this bill in particular, it's important that we be there to hear people who want to make their views known. I think that this is an excellent initiative. Certain persons perhaps did not appear because the rules of the game are such that national organizations are invited. The representatives of unions, who understand and normally apply the rules very well, probably did not want to present the requests of their affiliated unions. If that the case, these people were asked not to come and not to stand candidates.

Some will say this is all going too fast, that we'll never have time and that we're holding these debates too hastily. Let me remind you that in the case of Bill C-2, John Baird who was then president of the Treasury Board, had bragged in the House that he'd made the committee on Bill C-2 work hard and that he had pushed his bill through very quickly. He was very proud to say that he had done this in 72 days. With regard to our bill, three months have passed since the vote on second reading. He also said that he made the committee work over 90 hours in six weeks. We know that not all weeks are created equal. But that is still an average of 15 hours. I know full well because I sat on that committee that certain weeks, there were 40 hours of witness testimony. We know that that could be done. Where there's a will there's a way. Moreover, if we act quickly, the committee will have more time to examine other files.

In addition, the meeting with the officials is extremely important, especially since the wording of the bill contains a translation problem in clause 94(2.4). That has to be fixed as soon as possible and we must advise the other witnesses. I don't know exactly what could be done about this. Perhaps our clerk can answer that later on. The fact remains that we have to solve this matter of the faulty translation of that paragraph which says something we don't want it to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Once again, we'll just hear what everyone has to say.

Mr. Savage, and then Monsieur Lessard.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

In some ways it may seem unfortunate that the Liberal members are all new and there's an element of getting up to speed, but, listen, that's a fact of parliamentary life that happens all the time. I find these hearings useful. Balance would be useful. It would be nice if we could go back and actually see the witnesses. We have the transcripts, and we're going through those.

For the sake of one week, I wouldn't support this motion. For my good friend Carole, John Baird is not a good precedent to use with me in terms of ramming things through. So it's not just the witnesses here either. It's people in my riding. It's people in Ottawa. I have meetings with labour unions scheduled this week and next week back home, and business groups. I think for the sake of a week it would serve us all well to follow the schedule that was put before us, or close to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Monsieur Lessard, Mr. Lake, and then Ms. Yelich.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will support the proposal. I find it a bit unfortunate that we've ended up in this situation. With your permission, I'd like to make the following comment.

I've noticed that among ourselves, we are not respecting a number of proprieties. When I began sitting at this committee in 2004, we had a steering committee made up of a representative of each party in order to plan our work and then report back to the plenary committee. Following exchanges, we communicated this to our respective groups. This is how we managed to plan the work in a harmonious fashion. As a matter of fact, our colleague Mr. Silva was present at the beginning.

Something happened that has surprised me a great deal. At some point, before the holidays, the Conservative representatives started to propose what I would call dilatory motions, because that's how I perceived them. Perhaps that was not the intention, but it did change the rules that we had set for ourselves. This was often done at the beginning of a meeting, when we had witnesses before us. This practice began with Mr. Nadeau, and was repeated with Mr. Blackburn, the minister, and it was done afterwards with witnesses, until such point that the rules started to change, by default, because on our side, there was not the same representation on that morning.

We live with this situation, and the chair made a decision: the rules of the game were being changed. I'm quite surprised by this, perhaps because of my background. But it seems to me you don't change the rules just like that and in addition, you sit on this committee.

It has been done and this is the way we operate now. But now we're really improvising and we end up in a situation like we had today, where we see an imbalance. When the hearings were planned, we'd agreed to try to invite national organizations in order to hear all opinions and strike a certain balance. I wasn't closed to the idea of adding other witnesses because of opinions that we would have heard. We felt there was some discontent. However, it seems to me that we should have done this by consulting the steering committee again in order to maintain that balance.

I'm not saying this to reprimand you. Objectively, I think there is a flaw. If we establish rules among ourselves, regardless of our political stripes, we want to stick to them. If we intend to change the rules because our party is taking another direction, we say this frankly and honestly, and that's understandable. It's not because we agreed on one thing that we can't change our mind later, but we have to say so clearly. We can't just make things up as we go along.

Therefore I do feel that the Conservative motion the other day was improvised, with the result here today that forces us to come up with something different from what we had agreed upon. I do not want to take up too much time, but if this is how you intend to run things, I can tell you right now that I cannot agree.

We have two vice-chairs and a chair. We also agreed that the NDP representative would be present. There are some among us who even receive additional money because we take on this responsibility. However, we are being pushed aside. There is something wrong here and I am not going to play this game. We are going to lay our cards on the table.

I therefore propose that in the short term, the NDP motion be considered in order to create that funnel that we had agreed to at the beginning in a short period of time. This way, we will not be insulting those who are already invited: we will simply be completing our work.

What we saw today is nothing new. Let met tell you right away that I have another proposal for the second phase. Although you might tell me that I should show more discipline, I certainly do not approve of being handed a document while I am engaged in work that requires all my attention, and of being forced to make a decision just minutes after the work is finished. Nevertheless, I am not blaming you for the way things happened.

I confirm that we can receive some today, but we might need to discuss this at another meeting. I suggest that we reconvene in the small committee so that we can work together as efficiently as we did before. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. My prime concern is efficiency. I believe that we have an important mandate and an important task at hand. I do not want to get into petty politics. If I speak on behalf of my party, it is because I know my position, I know what I am talking about. I will represent my party in the way that we agreed upon. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I will vote in favour of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We're going to move to Mr. Lake, followed by Ms. Yelich and then by Mr. Silva. Mr. Lake.

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

No, I think we should just vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich. No?

Okay, then Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think I know what my Bloc Québécois colleagues mean, especially with regard to the imbalance in the selection of the upcoming witnesses. I am very worried about the lack of balance between both sectors. When we deal with such important legislation, we must always find a balance. However, even if we adopted this motion, the imbalance would still be there.

I do not know whether you agree. I am not objecting to your proposal to table another motion in order to balance the upcoming selection of witnesses, but the motion is not currently before us. We still have the motion from Ms. Libby Davies. It is reasonable, even if we have a busy schedule. Due to our numerous commitments, it is difficult to extend this meeting. I have never seen a committee like this, with three meetings a week. Although it is difficult, I can do my part and I have no problem with staying. However, the fact still remains that there is a serious imbalance in the selection of witnesses for this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we have Ms. Dhalla, followed by Mr. Lessard.

Just for the new members, the motion that we were dealing with here did not deal with balance. It didn't say that specifically. It just said:

...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...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.

Once again, we're just trying to fulfill the latest motion in light of not having meetings over Christmastime.

I also want to make note that there were concerns with three-hour meetings. That's why, with the witnesses, I didn't feel that we should be dragging this on for three weeks to try to get them done. That's why there are the extra meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, as far as that goes. I'll just mention that in terms of the context of the actual motion we are dealing with.

Ms. Dhalla, please.