Human Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

If some people prefer to have their benefits calculated under the old system, like the previous year, they can do so. But if they are better off under the new system, they can choose to use it. We suggest they decide which system is better for them towards the end of the benefit period.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That wasn't my question. Why are those people being forced to fill out paper forms?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll move to Mr. McColeman.

Go ahead.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I'd like to direct my question to Minister Raitt.

Minister Raitt, you mentioned the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in your comments. We know you've made reference to this quite frequently over the past year, especially in light of some of the labour disputes that have occurred. We also know that in Budget 2011 our government made an investment for the expansion of preventive mediation.

I'd like you, if you can, to tell the committee about what this supplemental funding is being used for and how it assists mediation and conciliation to become more efficient.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much for the question.

We've had these services for preventative mediation since about the mid-1990s, and what we've seen from these services is that they're very successful.

I can give you great examples from across the country. In the east, Bell Aliant works with their union, and they went from a really difficult situation with a hard strike and lots of bad feelings to a wonderful working relationship where they deal with issues as they come up. They have no problems bargaining their own collective agreement and having a seamless working relationship.

A lot of it's due to the fact we have officers from FMCS working with them almost on a monthly basis, helping them go through agenda items and keeping the conversation going.

We saw what a great success it was. When you go from the brink of a work stoppage and the potential for violence and lots of acrimony to negotiating a collective agreement at the table prior to it even expiring, it's well worth our taxpayer dollar. It is a great investment.

Building on that, we decided it was a good time and a good place to be able to offer this service more broadly across the country. The department has been a lot more open about advertising the availability of the services. In Burlington a couple of weeks ago we had a workshop that invited lots of federal and not necessarily federally regulated workplace players to the symposium just to describe what preventative mediation is and how it can work.

The key with preventative mediation is that both parties have to agree to submit to it and to work on it. Our pitch is that when you do things, first of all, it's well worth the investment by us, but when the workplace partners do it, it's extremely beneficial to their company and to the lives of the workers.

I'm looking forward to more results. I hope we have great success, because the more time we spend in preventative mediation, the less time we spend in trying to put together collective bargaining agreements in a very acrimonious and sometimes unnecessarily confrontational way.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

This question is on slightly different subject matter, but it is still pertaining to workers, because as the Minister of Labour, your portfolio deals with them.

You've talked frequently about the fact that in your portfolio you would like to see every worker return home safely from every day of work.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I know the labour programs in your ministry are geared toward the prevention of injury, and you have advanced them, so it is a key focus for you.

Can you expand a bit on that area of your portfolio?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Absolutely. That is the bedrock, at the end of the day, of our workplaces. It's making sure the workplace committees, which are made up of both representatives of employers and employees, know and understand the rights of workers and the rights of employers, and the obligations on both on health and safety in the workplace.

The role we play in government is really an educative side of it, making sure that people understand what the best practices are. What the rules and the regulations are, of course, is important too. It's really just supporting these players in developing their own workplace for health and safety.

We have fantastic labour inspectors who are on call 24/7 in the case of a complaint or a difficulty or a problem. I know they work hard and I know they visit far, remote workplaces, from correctional facilities in Yellowknife all the way to facilities on the east coast, in B.C., and everywhere else. I'm grateful for the work they do in helping to make our workplaces healthy and safer.

It is the obligation of the people in the actual workplace to know they have rights. The most important right a worker has in the workplace is the right to refuse work if they feel it is dangerous. I think that's the one piece of education we can provide to all, because then you can take matters into your own hands. If you work with your committee first within the company, and then if you don't get any kind of result from that, you can come to Labour Canada for it. I think it's important for people to know that especially.

We talk a lot about youth employment strategies. My side of the fence with respect to the youth is that I want my kids to know that when they have their first job, if they're asked to do something they feel is unsafe, they have the right to refuse it. I think we're better off as a nation for having those rules in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much. Your time is up. That was a good point.

I'd like to thank Minister—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, in response to a legitimate question that was posed by me and my colleague Mr. Cleary with regard to processing times and why there was an extension of the standard from 21 days to 28 days, the response from the official was that up front there was already a two-week waiting period.

That waiting period applies to the applicant, not the processing time.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you could ask the officials to provide the committee with an explanation as to why—because I'm not satisfied with the answer we got today—the standard was increased to 28 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

This is not a point of order, so I won't consider it as such.

The question you have is probably a fair and legitimate question. I'll leave that up to the department officials and the minister if they wish to respond to the committee, and they certainly can, but it's not a point of order.

I'd like to thank Minister Finley and Minister Raitt for appearing. You're certainly welcome to leave with your officials.

I have some points of order to deal with, and also a notice of motion that I will rule on shortly after I am done with the points of order, but for the moment, we thank you for appearing. You're free to leave with your officials or to stay if you wish.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order before we move in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Just a second. I'll hear your point of order.

All right, go ahead.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

While we're still in public, I would like the committee to deal with my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We're still in public.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I would like a recorded vote, please, while the meeting is still public.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I have a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Just a minute. I'm going to deal with the motion, but I would ask the members to come back to the table. We're still—

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

—in public. The camera is rolling.

I will give a ruling on the motion, and we will deal with it.

I'll wait a few moments for the room to clear and for the members to get back to the table.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I'd like to go in camera, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Well, this is in public, and I need to deal with that ruling in public because it was raised during a question period in public and I could have dealt with it there and then. However, I asked the member to delay the motion if she wished to until the end of the meeting so that I could consider it, and I'll make that consideration with the camera on.

We'll wait for the members to get back.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

But part of that is that the vote be in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

That's another issue. We'll get there when I deal with your motion.

Let's just hold on until we get all our members back, and then we'll deal with your motion.

All right, I think we have all of the members back.

There are a number of things we have to do. We have to vote on the supplementary estimates.

Before we do that, there is a motion that came forward from Ms. Boutin-Sweet. I will indicate that first of all that the motion that she brings can be brought at any time, with appropriate notice. We know that's a two-night, 48-hour, two-sleeps kind of notice. If you wanted to bring it again, you could.

With respect to the notice itself that you've brought, you can bring a motion that relates to the subject matter that's under consideration. We can deal with it on that basis.

First of all, I'd like to thank the clerk and the analyst for doing a lot of scurrying around and getting the information for me. I appreciate that you allowed us some time to deal with your motion in order to make a more reasoned decision on it.

The motion reads,

That the Committee ask the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to release to the Committee the information requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the cuts in her department.

That's the substance of the motion.

The motion itself does not relate to the supplementary estimates (B). Those are not the main estimates, which cover a whole wide range of areas. It doesn't deal with the mains. It specifically deals with things that are added to them, and in this particular case, the requirements for an increase in funding.

The other place it could fall into would be the departmental performance report. The departmental performance report deals with the period of time that ends on March 31, 2012. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's request for information flows from budget 2012, but it commences on April 1, 2012, so it is not within this area. For that reason, I would rule that the motion as put forward is out of order. That's my ruling.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lapointe.