Evidence of meeting #12 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was union.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Now all those who wish to sustain the chair's decision.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
The chair remains in place and the decision remains in place. There will be no further discussion of that particular item at this time.
(On clause 6)
We move on, then. We move on to amendment G-5.
I would say on this that there's a line conflict with amendment NDP-8 and amendment Green Party-3. If amendment G-5 is adopted, amendments NDP-8 and Green Party-3 cannot be proceeded with. Amendment G-5 also removes any reference to proposed paragraphs 25(c) and 25(c.1) while creating a new similar paragraph. As both amendments NDP-9 and NDP-10 refer to proposed paragraphs 25(c) and 25(c.1), if amendment G-5 is adopted, amendments NDP-9 and NDP-10 cannot be proceeded with.
Ms. McLeod.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
Amendment G-5 to clause 6 is essentially to align the PESRA's certification provisions with those of the Canada Labour Code and give the ballot supporters of an employee organization the same weight when determining the results of a representation vote. It also, of course, removes redundancies and clarifies the requirements for the PSLRB to hold a representation vote before certifying an employee organization.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
This amendment is nicely consistent with what was presented to us this morning, with what we are studying. If a vote has to be held—and you know that is not the preference of the NDP or the union movement—then at least the number of ballots in the box are counted, not the people who stayed at home. In our opinion, that is quite fair and reasonable.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 7)
We move on to clause 7 and the amendments to clause 7.
This is amendment G-6, and it has a line conflict with amendments NDP-11 and NDP-12. If amendment G-6 is adopted, neither amendments NDP-11 or NDP-12 can be proceeded with.
Ms. McLeod.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Chair, this motion does not make any substantive changes, as the requirement for a representation vote to be held in all cases prior to certifying an employee organization would be moved to section 25 of PESRA. It simply removes redundancies and makes consequential changes.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My comment is rather a question to the legislative clerk. I just want to be sure that there is no contradiction between the English version and the French version. In the English version, point 3 of the government's amendment says:
“If the Board directs that a representation vote be taken...”
The French version says: “La commission doit, lorsqu'elle ordonne...” To me, “lorsqu'elle” means “when”. So it is “when”, not “if”.
The sense of “if” in the English version is not in the French version. Is there a problem there, or not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Our legal counsel here does not feel comfortable answering that because this really goes to the drafters of the bill, not to his being here specifically for reference for us today as a committee, but I'll move to Mrs. McLeod.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We did have a discussion with the drafters and were reassured that what is important is the intent, and that the intent was the same within the two clauses. That question has been flagged and our expertise indicated to us that it was the same.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thanks very much.
I really appreciate that the experts think that the intention is the same, but we all know that we're all gone, and what's going to be left is the written word, and one written word says “if”, and the other says “when”. To me there is a marked difference between the two. So I'm hoping that you will bring it back addressed if you're not comfortable doing it today. I'm not a linguist, but I do know what language means once we put it into statutes, and there is a big difference between “if” and “when”.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair.
We did have Journal linguists look at this issue and again they indicated that, although it's not word-for-word when you are changing things, the paragraphs represent the same.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I will tread here carefully, but as a matter of statutory interpretation, I can't see how the English or the French would have different results. I'm sorry to have to support—
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The word “lorsque” implies that it is not possible to imagine a circumstance. It is different too. It is the same event whether it is “si” or “lorsque”.
If there's going to be a vote, then the key difference would be if it wasn't mandatory. “Shall” and “doit” are much more important to the sense of the paragraph. But I'm not a linguist either, and I think the objections can.... But as a matter of statutory interpretation, I don't see how there's a different result.
Conservative