Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It's important that you clarify for the members of the committee when you say the ruling can go from three months to three years for the decision. Really, you can't go on strike until you clarify that. Because you have to wait three or four years doesn't mean that people are waiting all that time during a strike. The reality is that there has to be a decision first before you go on strike, because the impression that was left with the members of the committee is that the strike goes on for three or four years while the decision is still pending by the CIRB.

[Munir Sheikh]

The point I'm trying to make here is that depending on the nature of the issue, the board will do its very best to answer, to come up with a view on what it thinks about a particular issue. The timeframe I gave you is the timeframe the board has taken to deal with it.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's not the question. The question is, I realize the timeframe can go from three months to three years or four years, but you can't go on strike until you have a resolution first.

[Munir Sheikh]

The way things happen—

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I mean, it's a simple yes or no question. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. MacPherson, do you have a quick response? We are over our allotted time.

[Elizabeth MacPherson]

Sure. Two timeframes are contemplated in the statute. The statute provides that the parties are supposed to determine these issues before they acquire the right to strike or lockout. If they fail to do so and the minister refers the question to the board before the right to strike or lockout is acquired, then the right to strike or lockout is deferred until the board makes its determination.

But in cases where the board has determined there's no essential service and the parties are able to go on strike or to lockout, there's a provision to go back to the board. But the parties have already acquired and exercised their right to strike or lockout, so that continues if the question is only put before the board after the strike starts.

So yes, the law contemplates a process whereby you get this determination before you acquire the right. But if that hasn't been done and the right has been acquired, then that right is not lost when the question is put back in front of the board.

Is that helpful?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to move now to the last questioner today. Mr. Lake, five minutes, please.

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

I don't think I'll need five minutes.

I'm going to change direction a little bit. I think we have--I'm not sure exactly what the title is--a legislative clerk here with us. I have a question for you about the bill.

Given that the bill doesn't have any essential services provisions, is the committee even able to amend the bill to add them? Is that within the responsibility or ability of the committee?

[Marc Toupin, Procedural Clerk]

I think, Mr. Chair, the process is that if members wish to amend Bill C-257 in such a way, they would have an amendment drafted by the House legislative counsel. That amendment could then be looked at, and ultimately the chair of the committee would have to rule as to whether or not it is in order.

The general rule is that it is not proper for a parliamentary committee to go into sections of the Canada Labour Code that are not being amended by this particular bill, by Bill C-257. There has been some reference by witnesses that any amendments to essential services would deal with section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, and that particular section is not being amended by Bill C-257.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm glad you made that point, because it seems to me that there's something really weird going on here. All of a sudden we're now debating section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, as though somehow no one has ever raised before that this section isn't able to do its job in terms of determining essential services appropriate to each case. There may be some rulings that people are not happy with, but that is actually not before us.

There's a real misnomer here that somehow you can only provide essential services if you have replacement workers. That's not completely the case, because we know that in most strikes replacement workers are not used. They use this provision under the Canada Labour Code in a legitimate way to determine what those essential services are without replacement workers.

So I feel this has entered into the debate and we need to really clear it up. We're not amending that section of the Canada Labour Code itself. It works quite well as far as I know. No one has raised any problems about it, and it does the job in terms of determining what essential services are. It's not dependent on whether or not replacement workers are used.

I think this needs to be very clear, because we're veering off on a very strange course here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Mr. Lake on the list, followed by Mr. Savage.

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

I just want to bring forward a point of order. That sounds like debate to me. I'm not sure if we are going to another round here, or—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, that's just a point that Ms. Davies wanted clarified.

Mr. Savage.

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

I don't know if I'm in debate, questioning, consideration, or what. I listened to Ms. Davies' point. My concern is the same legal opinion, which carries some weight with me, that was referenced by Mr. Hiebert. I agree that we're not debating section 87.4, but this says:

Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code was drafted and intended to be applied in a specified legislative context; that is, employers being free to employ replacement workers in the form of temporary employees, contractors, managers and/or non-union employees in order to perform struck work and thereby ensure that essential services were continued. Section 87.4 was not intended to be applied in a context where an employer has no ability to perform any struck work and, hence, no ability to keep essential services operational.

Here's my issue. Our legislative clerk has indicated that we can't adjust section 87.4--that's out of the purview of this--but my concern is that we're affecting section 87.4 by changing part of the rest of the first part of the Canada Labour Code. That's where I'm trying to get an answer on this, and I don't have it yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd like to take this time now to thank the witnesses for being before us today. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to answer some questions that the committee had. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lake.

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

I'd like to move a motion now. I'll read the motion first. The motion is:

In accordance with its Order of Reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, your Committee has considered Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) and agreed to report the following:

Bill C-257 fails to provide balance to both sides in the collective bargaining process and fails to address other issues reflected in the evidence presented by witnesses. Accordingly, your committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, that the House of Commons not proceed further with Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

That's the end of the motion.

I want to also point out right now that I intend to move a second motion as part of the discussion. A copy of this motion is right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to suspend the meeting until we get copies made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we have everyone back. I realize that the copies are coming.

I imagine there is going to be some healthy debate on this.

Mr. Lake, why don't you start? I will be taking names. I realize that the copies of the motion will be forthcoming.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

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

I was really hoping it was just going to pass unanimously.

I wanted to point out that the motion itself stands for itself. I did want to mention that I'm not presenting a second motion right now, but I want to articulate that there is a second motion I intend to present following this. The second motion will be that the committee recommends to the Minister of Labour to establish a consultative process to conduct an examination of the concerns raised by witnesses, and the subject matter of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code ( replacement workers).

There is an intention to move a second motion following this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Is that all?

We'll have Mr. Lessard, followed by Mr. Savage.

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

Mr. Chair, in other words, Mr. Lake has announced two motions: one for which we're awaiting the wording, and a second for which the wording will follow later. I don't understand. I'd like to know what we're debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure. He has moved one motion and has discussed what his second motion will be, but he has not moved that motion yet.