Human Resources Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

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

I don't read that then necessarily to mean that.... You say “essential services, operate facilities, or produce goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health”. So “essential services” doesn't apply just to safety or health, in your interpretation of this?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Well, it's referenced back to section 87.4. Right now in section 87.4 we do talk about safety to the public and health. The board has interpreted on numerous occasions that this could also mean essential services, but we're making it very clear that what we're talking about is essential services, so that there will be no confusion.

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

It seems to me essential services apply to more than just safety or health, and I want to make sure in this that there are essential services that may not be safety or health related.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

May I reply?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The issue here is that, first of all, the CIRB makes rulings all the time, and in those rulings--I have a whole bunch of them here--they refer to essential services. There's no one definition of essential services; it's case by case.

For example, there's one here involving CN Rail. It was a ministerial referral. It says, “maintenance of activities agreement--essential services--”. The board looks at that and makes a determination in each case. In this particular decision they made involving CN, they had 10 references to essential services. There's another one here dealing with the Montreal airport. It has 15 references. Another one I have that involves Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has 60 references to essential services.

There are two points to be made here. First of all, I do not agree with the legislative clerk or Ms. MacPherson that it's outside the scope of the bill to use the words “essential services”. It is correct that section 87.4 uses the term “maintenance activities”, but the board, in all of its rulings, uses the term “essential services”. How they view that may change slightly from case to case, depending on the circumstances, so that's a board determination; you can't spell it out definitively in a bill, because it varies depending on the circumstances, in terms of what are considered essential services.

I still think this amendment before us is indeed a clarification to assure members that there are essential services. There's a provision that's spelled out in the existing code, and the CIRB, when it makes its rulings, deals with that. I've got the cases here to show you that they themselves use the words “essential services”, and they make their rulings based on each application before them.

There's no weird stuff going on here. This is a clarification to what already exists so that people are clear on what we're approving.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll continue on.

I have Mr. Silva, Ms. Yelich, Mr. Harvey, Ms. Dhalla, Ms. Davies, and Mr. Lake.

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

How can you have Ms. Davies again, when she just spoke? Can I have three spots? I'd like three spots.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Silva, please go ahead.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think what needs to be said has been said already. I think the important thing is that there were issues of concern relating to essential services. The fact is that the language is there; it spells it out; it's very clear.

As has been mentioned several times, under section 87.4 on a number of occasions the board has ruled and has made decisions about essential services, and has in fact used the same language of “safety or health to the public”. Safety and health to the public is extremely broad as well, and gives a lot of latitude for the board to make a decision as well on essential services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chair, I really think that to hang this bill on just that word “essential” and say that these three people have decided what essential is.... Have they not heard the witnesses and what they think is essential for this country?

In fact today in question period, Mr. Savage asked a question about competition and where we are in the whole international spectrum. The message, which was loud and clear, was that we will have some serious situations with our international trade if any of the services that are counting on such things as our rail transportation.... And I go back to my province, which specifically depends on rail. We don't like the rail any more than the union that works for them. However, the farmers really do have a difficult time if those two have decided to lock horns, and there is no way they can get their product to the coast. So they are the ones who are expected to settle this strike somehow on the backs of the farmers or the backs of the potash mines, or mining, or whoever depends on these particular....

It may not be deemed essential by these three people, because it certainly does not talk about just public health, but it talks about the international stage and about where we are in international trade. And this is always missing out of this whole bill. It is easy for someone who is only looking at the small picture not to realize that there are many people relying on us to make sure that federally regulated sectors are able to continue their service, make sure there is not a disruption. But if there is the right to strike, and labour has the right to strike, and I think that collective bargaining does protect labour....

I'm thinking we are going to have to broaden “essential” to “critical”--critical for this country, critical for our trades. I think this is missing. And many of us are small farmers, small business people who rely on these essential services.

We can't compare it to the Quebec bill, which continues to be brought up, in which they say that public health and public safety is in that bill. It is not in Bill C-257, and I think we have to make sure it's understood.

These people who have come before us are afraid of this bill, and there are reasons that other provinces didn't adopt it. I would like to hear what the other jurisdictions think of this bill and why they never did consider this legislation. It's because it's legislation that I think just encourages bad relations between labour and the sectors.

I think we have to rethink what.... I really don't know how anyone here can decide what essential services are without going out into the ridings and finding out how many of these people in your ridings--small businesses--rely on these services that would never be deemed essential.

I am just so surprised that we can hear three people decide, back and forth, what essential should mean, when in fact I can tell you what essential means. Essential means livelihoods. The people rely on getting their products to markets. We're an export nation. The provinces export just about everything. In central Canada we export all the time. It's essential to us.

When they want to put in that farmers are an essential service, then I think this bill might be starting to come around to where we are. So moving right along....

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

Mr. Harvey, Ms. Dhalla, and Mr. Lake.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I asked him a question earlier, but he never answered me.

What is serious damage? At what point does it become serious?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do officials want to answer that?

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

Mr. Chair, that's because there has previously been a lot of discussion and debate. Representatives of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board came here and explained all that. Perhaps you could ask your researchers.

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

I'll answer that in a moment, Mr. Chair.

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

No, let him ask his researchers. Come on!

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That's why we have a board to decide that on each case. Be different; do your own research.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Next is Ms. Dhalla, followed by Mr. Lake and Mr. Silva.

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

I have a question for the legislative clerk.

You said it's up to the committee to determine whether this is beyond the scope of the legislation before us, so are you then saying it is up to the committee to make that decision? As my colleagues on this side have also stated, I do believe that having this amendment in the bill is going to provide clarity. It's also going to perhaps appease the individuals who had apprehensions about this bill...to talk about some important issues. So I would definitely support this amendment going forward.

I think this is an important piece of legislation, and as my colleague Mr. Savage said, I also completely support in principle the idea that we must ban replacement workers. However, we must also ensure that we address the issue of essential services.

So with your expertise, would you say it is up to our committee to make that decision? If it is, then we could perhaps have a motion of that sort put forward by one of us.

[Marc Toupin]

I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that the decision concerning the admissibility of this amendment is made by the chair. If the chair is in doubt as to whether the amendment is admissible, he can consult committee members if he so wishes. If he's clear that the amendment is out of order, he can rule that way; if he's not, presumably he'd give the benefit of the doubt. But it's the chairman's call.

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

I would say that we've heard from many different stakeholders and I think it is extremely important going forward that this amendment, which perhaps clarifies in regard to essential services, be incorporated into this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Lake, followed by Mr. Silva and Mr. Savage.

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

Actually, Ms. Dhalla just asked the question I was going to ask, but I'd like to know at this point if we can get a ruling on the admissibility right now.