Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I just want to add to the points I raised earlier. When you reach the point where you're considering decertification, you've had a well-established relationship between employers and employees via the union being certified. For these people with that established relationship, as my friend here was talking about, there are implications for the package they have in collective bargaining, and a variety of things will be set in motion that will have consequences even beyond what the government side has here.

I'm still very concerned about destabilizing. We have to be very sure that the members do want to decertify. If they do, then that threshold should be in a place that is very clear and there should be no chance of calling into question whether the representation vote is there for decertification. We need a higher threshold to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Cuzner.

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

With regard to the change in the threshold, could I get clarification on which of the witnesses suggested that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Perhaps Ms. McLeod would like to respond to that.

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

I'm trying to recall. A number of people in the first panel that we heard talked about 40% to 45% being a very appropriate.... I'll see if I can quickly dig up the name, but there was certainly some discussion on the panel on Tuesday in terms of that level. There was also some testimony around the provincial norms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We're going to call the question on Government-11.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to the vote on clause 12, as amended.

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Moving on to a new clause, I believe this is one that Madam Sims mentioned, which is amendment NDP-20.

I'm told by the legal advisor that you also have another motion, but first we're going to deal with your amendment NDP-20.

Has everyone received a copy of NDP-20?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay. I will ask for anyone who wishes to speak to amendment NDP-20.

Monsieur Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have listened carefully to the comments made by Ms. MacPherson, from the Canada Industrial Relations Board. She said that, if a vote has to be held, it is important for the process to be quite short and for things not to drag on for a long time.

With the voting process spread over a short time, if the employer uses any illegal, unfair or underhanded tactics and someone complains, the complaint has to be dealt with quickly.

That is why the New Democratic Party is putting forward this amendment. If the voting process lasts from 7 to 10 days, and it takes a month for a complaint to be heard, there is a kind of inconsistency and the rights of the workers are not respected. That is why amendment NDP-20 establishes a period of 48 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

So this actually proposes a new clause 13, just to be quite clear, and it's brought forward by the NDP.

Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that we want to have timely responses and resolutions, but I think 48 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to make such an examination and inquiry.

This motion also opens a section that was not amended by Bill C-525, and I would question if it's even in order. But having said that, I think I've stated my two concerns with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'll call the question on proposed new clause 13, as proposed by the NDP.

[An hon. member]

Could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

You can have a recorded vote if you wish.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to debate another new clause being proposed by government amendment G-12.

Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, chair.

As the bill was written, immediately if it received royal assent it would have been the law of the land, and I think that is also unreasonable. I think having a coming-into-force timeframe of six months gives a lot better opportunity for the necessary adjustments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

You know, six months comes and goes very quickly. I would say that when you have these kinds of changes that are going to be then embedded into the Labour Code....

I should maybe make a subamendment before I speak: change six months to 12 months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay. We have a subamendment as proposed, and we'll deal with that subamendment before voting on the amendment.

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

If I may carry on making my points, I'll be very brief.

We need to give time for people to put structures in place because not only is this legislation going to pass, regulations have to be made. There has to be a timely way. We've already rushed the bill, so let's make sure we do the implementation of it in a way that does the least harm.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Just for clarification, I believe this is an amendment to a new clause, not a subamendment, as I had mentioned.

Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you.

We're debating Ms. Sims' amendment to the one you're currently debating. If you look at the changes that we've made by all the amendments that we've put through, what we have is the mandatory certification vote. This is the essence of what's happening. As we've heard clearly already, we have systems and structures in place for mandatory certification vote. We're not looking at new infrastructure. We're simply looking at providing a little bit of time and ability to accommodate. It would be a valid point if there were significant new structures, but again, we already have the structures in place. We heard that very eloquently from the CIRB.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We will vote on Madam Sims'—we can call it a subamendment if you like, or amendment, to the new clause, number 13, as proposed by the government.

Those in support of the amendment? Those in the nay?

(Amendment negatived)

That amendment or subamendment is defeated.

We will now deal with the new clause 13 as proposed by G-12. Those in favour? Those opposed?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

I do recognize, committee members, that the time is....

Mr. Armstrong.

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

I'd like to extend the committee for a few minutes to finish this off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay. We don't have a long way to go. Can I see if there's consensus around the table to continue this meeting to finish this today?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.