Human Resources Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), we'll commence as we look at clause-by-clause consideration.

I know that when we broke yesterday we had a motion before the committee. The question is, do we want to continue with that motion or do we want to go clause-by-clause? It's at the will of the committee to decide what we want to do.

Mr. Lake.

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

I definitely want to continue with a conversation around the motion.

I just want to reiterate what I was saying yesterday. I think, as we've heard through all of the discussion here, there are many, many flaws in this bill. There are flaws right from the standpoint of even dealing with this situation on an ad hoc basis through a private member's bill, right from the starting point, and then moving to the issues around the lack of an essential services provision within the bill. There are the problems with translation from French and English, particularly in that proposed subsection (2.4), where it's really obvious that they're not referring to the same thing in French and English. It's clear even from what the legislative clerk was saying yesterday that there are things wrong with this bill that we couldn't possibly amend and follow the rules of committee.

I just think it's important. And there is a second motion, which will follow this one, to take a more reasonable approach in a more consultative process, the way labour legislation should be modified. I think it's important that we continue to consider this motion. I'd like to hear some more thoughts, after maybe an evening of thought from the other side, as to their feelings on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I have Mr. Silva, Mr. Lessard, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to point out to members of the committee that today's meeting was for us to go clause-by-clause of the bill. That's what I'm here for, and I think my colleagues as well are here to go clause-by-clause. I would like us to proceed with the order of business for today, which is to go clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Silva.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chair, I entirely agree with our colleague Mr. Silva, since he's answering the question you rightly asked at the outset: do we want to continue with clause-by-clause consideration or receive a new motion, the one that was introduced yesterday?

It's the committee that must first dispose of the matter. In my view, we should study the bill clause by clause and, contrary to what our colleague Mr. Lake claims, I think there is room to make amendments. We're going to move amendments to the bill.

It's entirely natural for these amendments to be put before the committee. To study them, of course, we have to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

I propose that we proceed with the vote on maintaining our position with regard to clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go back to some comments that were made directly to me about me claiming that union bosses didn't have a say.

What I was trying to say--and I feel it was misconstrued, so I really want to get it on record--is that I think the impact of this bill is very deep. It has a deep impact on a lot of people. When I spoke about having employees, I wanted to go back to one of the witnesses, Maurice Zoe, the aboriginal site coordinator for the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories.

When he was speaking on behalf of his native community, he said,

The union did not appear to understand how the aboriginal community functioned. Labour unions are not part of our communities or our leadership. In this case, they imposed a significant burden on our people by forcing a strike, but at least we had the opportunity to make up our own minds and return to work.

This right to work for these native people with no other employment opportunities in the north will not exist if Bill C-257 is passed. Mr. Chair, those were the employees I was speaking about who aren't necessarily part of the unions that are involved in this legislation.

What I wanted to talk about were the farmers and individuals who feel disenfranchised by this legislation. They represent disenfranchised employees and employers, in this case. As committee members, we've received letters from the Grain Growers of Canada, in the prairie centre, who've not been able to testify.

And this bill will affect individual farmers who are my constituents. They have no way of being able to have their case heard. They don't have a union, but they are at the mercy of a federally regulated sector. Coming from the prairies, we rely on unions and sometimes replacement workers to get our farm products to the port, and with this bill there is no recourse for individuals like farmers.

As I said earlier yesterday, this is critical, and I think this is a message that we have to get out to all Canadians from coast to coast. These are critical services. It's not necessarily about workers; it's about the public good.

They expect federally regulated people to have good relationships with.... I believe there should be good relationships with labour and their bosses, but I do think that we are very innocent in this, and all the sectors.... I have a letter I would like to read that tells, already, about the effects that some of this legislation.... It's indeed going to create some problems.

I wanted the member to realize that I wasn't talking about bosses. I was talking about all the other people who are affected, who do have jobs that aren't particularly protected by this legislation. But certainly this legislation will affect them.

We know there are 12,000 companies that fall under federal jurisdiction, representing about 1% of Canadian businesses, and the majority of them are small, and they're very small. Four out of five of them employ fewer than 20 workers. In all, there are almost 900,000 people who work for federally regulated companies. That may not seem like a lot for companies, but they are important ones.

I think this is what's missing here. We're not talking about the impact and the public good. Besides public safety, we have to talk about what's in the best interests of the public good. We talk lots about the importance of productivity and—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Are we dealing here with comments on the motion, a summary of the bill or obstruction? Could we have an answer?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Of course, I think this motion has to be passed by this committee. I think it's incumbent upon us, as federal legislators, to make sure this motion passes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Yelich, just a second.

On the point of order, no, we are not on the motion yet. We are discussing, as a committee, whether we're going to bring the motion forward. We're not on the motion yet. We were on the motion when we left on Tuesday night. We're now just discussing whether that's going to be brought up or if we're going to do clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lessard, I have you on the list.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect, I believe that, in order to debate the merits of introducing a motion, as our colleague is doing, we should change the order of business that we agreed on by means of a motion. However, no motion of that kind has been introduced. Consequently, in accordance with the order of business, we are to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I think that's the natural procedure.

Mr. Chair, I think we should immediately begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-257.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, are you moving a motion that we move into clause-by-clause? Is that what you're proposing right now?

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

We have to stick to the order of business. The purpose of my motion is to ensure that we stick to the order of business as established and that we immediately proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hiebert, on a point of order, and then I'm going to come back to that.

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

Mr. Chair, is it not the case that when we adjourned yesterday we were debating a particular motion, and is it not the case that we simply resume at that same point when the next meeting begins?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, that isn't the case. The case is that if it's the will of the committee, you could move back into that, but we are under new orders of day. So that is not the way the Standing Orders are.

Is that correct, Madame Clerk?

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

I'm waiting to hear from the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hiebert, we don't have orders of the day. That's why we're having this discussion now. We do have a motion, though, that is debatable before us, by Mr. Lessard, that would like to see us move back to the clause-by-clause consideration.

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

Do you have an agenda? All right, perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It was the orders of the House I was referring to. Sorry about the loss of translation there.

We do have a motion now before us. I have Mr. Brown, Mr. Hiebert, Madame Lavallée, Mr. Savage, and Mr. Lessard.

The motion is that we move into clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a motion that we can't discuss, since its purpose is to ensure that we stick to business as established. It's yes or no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

The issue we have here is that we were working on a motion on Tuesday that was not completed. We do have the orders of the day, as opposed to the orders in the House that would lay out exactly what we're doing. The question was proposed to the committee whether we would continue with that motion and go into clause-by-clause because we were working on that. You now have a motion before the committee to move back into business. That motion is debatable, according to the clerk.

So we have Mr. Brown, followed by Mr. Hiebert, Madame Lavallée, Mr. Savage, and then Mr. Lessard.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to discuss Mr. Lake's motion today. I would not support proceeding with the motion of Mr. Lessard, because I don't think it's—

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

Yves has a point of order.