Human Resources Committee on Feb. 6th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Committee members, we're going to begin the committee meeting. We're running just a touch behind. We are waiting on witnesses.

I'll recognize you in just one moment, Ms. Sims.

I would just like to first of all say good morning and welcome, our witnesses who are here.

This is our meeting number ten of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today is Thursday, February 6, 2014.

We're continuing our study concerning opportunities for aboriginal persons in the workforce.

Today we have a split panel of witnesses to provide testimony. For the first hour we have with us Ms. Dawn Madahbee, vice chair of the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board; as well as Judy Whitlock. Judy is from the—

[Judy Whiteduck, Director of Economic Development, Assembly of First Nations]

—Whiteduck.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Sorry. It's handwritten in here for me, because I believe you're substituting for another individual.

[Judy Whiteduck]

I am, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you for correcting me on that.

Judy is from the Assembly of First Nations. I believe we will be joined, when he arrives, by the AFN chief executive officer, Mr. Peter Dinsdale.

Also joining us by video conference from the First Nations Human Resources Development Commission of Quebec we have Ms. Cheryl McDonald, director of support services; and perhaps joining us—his connection is not yet made—Mr. Dave Sergerie, regional consultant for employment and training.

I'll turn the floor over to the witnesses, but I notice Ms. Sims raised her hand and would like the floor to begin.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I apologize to the witnesses, but this is a critical motion I want to get on the floor. The motion is:That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities add five (5) more full two-hour meetings to the study of Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation – bargaining agent).

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you.

Ms. McLeod, I understand you'd like to respond.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you—

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Can I open?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Sorry, I thought you had stopped.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

No, I just read out the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Your pause—

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Yes sorry, it was a pregnant pause.

I really appreciate the facilitation of a discussion of this motion this morning. As you know, we have a critical study coming before us as a result of legislation that's going to be going through the House, and that is a study on Bill C-525. I'm not going to read the whole name out again. This is a bill that is going to have a significant impact on how unions or workers organize, and how they decertify.

For me, when we only allocated two and half hours for witnesses, it just wasn't enough. This is not a bill that is just housekeeping. I see this as a major overhaul of the Labour Code, and as a result I believe we need to give it the due time. As we know, when we look at private members' bills when we are in the House, there is very limited debate on these bills. That's why we have the committee stage, because at the committee stage we get to hear from witnesses, we get to examine the bill in depth, and then we do clause-by-clause and go through looking at amendments. Here, in three and a half hours, we're going to do the clause-by-clause amendments and hear from the witnesses.

I'm really appealing to all sides of the table, especially across the way from me, that there is no need to rush this through committee. I'm urging that everybody see the wisdom of us taking our time to make sure that we do justice to this piece of legislation.

I also want to say, look, the government has the majority, and at the end of the day they will get their will anyway. But to allow for this fulsome discussion will actually give different perspectives, different points of views to be heard—and some of us around the table might even change our minds as a result of that—and end up with a piece of legislation that will serve Canada well. So I really urge full support for this, and I know that in order for this to happen I need the support of my colleagues across the way. It's a new year, and you being very reasonable people, I know you're going to say, “Yes, Jinny.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mrs. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly, although I appreciate the comments of my colleague, I do want to make a few comments. One is that though this particular piece of legislation creates a shift, if you actually review the testimony at first and second readings, the arguments for and against this legislation are pretty well articulated. I think that with 10 witnesses—that's a significant number of witnesses—we can have a robust viewpoint in the allotment.

There's another thing I want to note. We have a really significant and important agenda ahead of us between now and June. If we look at how full that is and at our witnesses here today, I think that in order to do all the important work we have to do we've managed to come up with a schedule to do that appropriately.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must say I agree with my colleague Ms. Sims. This is a private member's bill which introduces fundamental changes to the system, and will govern whether federally regulated employees will be able to unionize or not. We are going from one system to another, and it will have consequences on whether or not working men and women can give themselves a collective tool to improve their working conditions and lives. This is very important. After all, it affects 10 % of this country's workers.

We think we need more time to study this change and hear what people have to say on the concrete consequences this bill will have on peoples' lives. They could let us know what the consequences, advantages and disadvantages of this change in the system have been in Ontario or British Columbia. I think Ms. Sims could tell us about the change in her province. We also need to know about specific voting provisions in this bill, and whether they need to be amended or improved.

We feel that two-and-a-half hours is a very short period, even in a parliamentary context. We need more time to study this bill and discuss it in committee, to analyze it properly and see what its consequences will be on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

On a point of order, Chair, this is typically what.... We're going through the same argument that Madam Sims brought forward. We're just hearing that again. That's the whole issue we're talking about. It's that when we look at these issues, we don't have to go meeting after meeting hearing the same thing. We know what the issues are and how we're going to deal with them. We have witnesses who are waiting to speak to us, valuable witnesses who have taken the time to be here, and we're listening to a repetition of arguments on this issue. Let's just deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I don't believe that's a point of order.

Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

This is the first time we discuss the time we will spend studying this bill. I had finished putting my arguments forward. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayes, but I think that was the first time I said that we have to take the time we need to study this bill properly.

The motion that has been submitted is entirely reasonable. That is all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Call the vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Let me confer for one second.

Actually, that's not an acceptable motion. We have to continue the debate. It's not a dilatory motion, so we'll continue.

Do you have anything to say? You have the floor.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

[Inaudible—Editor]