Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

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

Mr. Chair, you've just confirmed what I said. He announced one motion, but he debated the second one. I want to understand how we're going to be working from now on.

I suggest we take them in order and that we examine the first one first. It's written and we're going to wait for it. I imagine it will be in both languages. At that point, we'll be able to debate it.

Mr. Chair, may I suggest something? Could we look at our calendar regarding the witnesses to call for Bills C-36 and C-269? That way, we won't be wasting our time while we wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

What we are going to do is tackle them in the order in which they have come in. If there is only one motion on the table, then we are going to address that first and foremost.

We have Mr. Savage, followed by Ms. Dhalla.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I can't support the first motion. We have heard a lot of witnesses. I remain committed to trying to find some way to bring in a bill on replacement workers. I have questions about this one, but I don't think it is right to kill it. Any comments I have I will save for the second motion. The first motion is unsupportable, from my point of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Go ahead, Ms. Dhalla.

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

Like Mr. Savage, I find it very difficult to support the motion, which states that we not move the bill forward. A lot of time and effort has been put into it. I would have been interested in discussing the potential second motion, but since it hasn't been brought forward, I guess we will save the discussion and debate. But we could not support something like this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Dhalla.

I have Mr. Lake.

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

I want to point out that while we are discussing the first motion, I thought it would be important, as part of the debate, to articulate what the second motion was going to be. They go in conjunction with each other. My understanding is that because of the reference to Standing Order 97.1, we can't blend the two as one motion. They need to be two separate motions.

In terms of the communication and Mr. Lessard's concerns, we are dealing with the first motion. I want it to be debated in the context of an additional second motion to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We are still debating motion number one. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Lake.

If there is no further discussion, then I will call the vote on motion number one.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage.

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

He is talking about the connectivity between motion two and motion one. If motion one is defeated, does that mean motion two doesn't come to the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We will have to ask Mr. Lake that question.

Mr. Lake.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We should either debate this motion or vote on it. Then if there's something else another member wants to raise, that's fine, but it's a separate matter. We have a motion before us that we're debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I want to bring to the committee's attention the fact that we've had numerous opportunities to debate this issue. We've heard from a lot of witnesses. There's clarity that has come from my participation in this debate.

This motion is suggesting that there are weaknesses in this private member's bill, no matter how well intentioned it is, that have not been addressed. Some of the members raised them at this meeting a few minutes ago. There's the fact that emergency services or essential services would need to be amended if we were to proceed with this legislation. But we cannot amend the private member's bill as it stands, based on the opinion of the clerk.

I think Mr. Lake is simply trying to acknowledge the fact that we, and I think members from all parties, recognize there's a problem that needs to be addressed. This private member's bill doesn't adequately address that problem. We can't amend this private member's bill, so we're looking to find an alternative solution, which is where the second motion comes in.

That is the key point I want to raise at this time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Madame Lavallée.

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

It goes without saying that we can't second a motion like that, particularly since its premises are not only false, but also insulting. When you say that Bill C-257 can't guarantee a balance between the two sides in the negotiation of collective agreements, that's insulting for those who have 30 years' experience with this act in Quebec and 15 years' experience in British Columbia. That's an insult to all the union leaders who have worked with that act and all the unionized workers in Quebec, as well as all employers who work with this act and have found a balance in it. It's also an insult to the former Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, who publicly stated that that act had brought about social peace in Quebec. We know that Robert Bourassa can be considered a great federalist. As you'll understand, we cannot second a motion such as this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Lavallée.

Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I am having trouble understanding exactly the implications of voting on this motion. I cannot vote to kill this bill. I could, under certain circumstances, vote to have it deferred until this panel that has been recommended, suggested, or referred to brings back a more complete review of the Labour Code, including some definition of essential services that has some real meaning in the bill and takes into account other aspects of part I of the Canada Labour Code.

I need to be very clear about why these two bills are connected. If I vote against this bill, the second part of it can't even be debated. Could we bring it up again tomorrow?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's the will of the committee, so we'll vote on it.

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

Why do they have to be separate? Why does one have to be voted on before the other?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I would support Mr. Lake's motion. I think we've given this adequate study. Hearing the numerous comments, specifically in the last few weeks, highlights the trepidation that leaders in the Canadian economy have with the ramifications of such an implementation of this private member's bill.

We've seen the negative results it had in Ontario when it was utilized. We've seen the decision by the last two provincial governments not to go back in time and adopt a process that would cause hardships for blue-collar workers. Certainly I don't believe we should pick that approach federally.

I think the most responsible thing, in recognition of promoting labour peace and a strong economy, would be to adopt Mr. Lake's motion. Certainly we're not closing the door on further study. The very fact that Mr. Lake mentioned another motion about consultation shows that there's interest to keep studying this, because labour peace is important and we always have to be cautious of new trends and new techniques to make sure labour peace is always an objective for the Government of Canada.

By taking these two motions today, if the committee was to make that decision, we'd send a signal that, one, we're not going to harm our economy, but at the same time, we're always going to be diligent to make sure we continue to research the ideas that have been raised.

I would certainly support this and hope the committee would give Mr. Lake's motion due consideration. If there are small aspects of this that need to be changed, I would hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because I think we've chosen an appropriate road to follow in what Mr. Lake has put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Before we go to Mr. Lessard, Mr. Savage, just to let you know, this does not kill the bill. This is a recommendation that has to go back to the House. It will still be voted on by the full House. That's just a point of clarification.

Mr. Lessard, sir.

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

Mr. Chair, I get the impression I'm in the National Improvisation League here. The situation is completely crazy. A bill has been referred to us for consideration. We have heard a host of witnesses, and as we are preparing to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, an amendment is submitted to us, a surprise motion that we're trying to negotiate like this.

I tell you that trying to negotiate with our colleagues is insulting and contemptuous. Mr. Chair, we can't treat matters as important as this lightly. We all due respect for my colleagues here present, I must say that this is intolerable.

We could very well have introduced a motion today and said that the evidence heard in the first part indicates to us that a better balance will be struck with this bill, and I would have found that insulting for our colleagues. The reverse is also true. You can't say today that Bill C-257 will result in an imbalance in view of the evidence we've heard, because that evidence has to be viewed in perspective, in light of the initial evidence.

We know that there was an imbalance in the evidence. That's been admitted here. By dint of circumstance, we accepted a motion introduced by the Conservatives to add witnesses to the list.

We know that we could also have issued a list to restore the balance. We could have called for the unions, since we heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, then all the list of chambers of commerce of the provinces. We could have done the same with the Canada Labour Congress. We heard it and we could have called for all its affiliate organizations. There would have been a lot of people!

I contend that we should take Bill C-257 in its present form, as it was referred to us by the House, examine it clause by clause and responsibly conduct the evaluation and analysis with which we are required to proceed. That means that we will also examine the matter of essential services.

Are we going to shirk a responsibility that is ours by assigning it to someone else? That would be irresponsible. Ultimately, we could draw certain conclusions, but once the clause-by-clause consideration is done. At the end, we might find ourselves with a clause that is really the subject of special concerns. Everyone could then say that we can't find our way and that we should assign the study to someone else, but we have to know what it is about. We can't assign the whole thing to someone else.

I'm going to oppose this motion. I'll also say that I'm going to oppose any practice of this kind, which consists in introducing a makeshift motion, taking everyone by surprise, and trying to negotiate it with an opposition party. Mr. Chair, this is intolerable.