Human Resources Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Sorry. Are you on clause 5 or clause 4? We're still on clause 4 as amended. I just asked the question, “Shall clause 4 carry as amended?” We're not on clause 5 yet.

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

We're not on G-4 yet? Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

No, we're not.

I'm going to step back for a second.

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 5)

I'm now going to allow you to move your subamendment.

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

It's not a subamendment, Chair. I misspoke. It's an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay. Then we will deal with Government-4.... I've just been advised by our legal counsel we need to take your amendment first so we will take your amendment.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to say it. In proposed paragraph 5(e) replacing line 29 on page 2 with the following:

Subsection 5.39(1) of the Act is

The goal of the subamendment is to preserve important protections against unfair decertification in circumstances surrounding a first collective agreement or during a strike lockout. I don't think it was the intent of the government to delete that or in any way to embed that in their amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Just to be clear, this is an amendment, not a subamendment. It is new, as proposed by Madam Sims.

Is there discussion on this newly proposed amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question on this amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

The amendment fails.

We'll now move on to amendment G-4, and I must advise the committee that the line conflict here is with amendment NDP-6, so if government amendment G-4 is adopted, amendment NDP-6 cannot be proceeded with.

Is there discussion?

Ms. McLeod.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This motion is going to ensure that the certification and decertification processes under the code mirror each other and, of course, both would require the support of 40% of employees so that the supporters and the opponents of union representation are placed on a level playing field.

Of course, I again want to note that Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland have adopted a similar approach.

This also ensures that the ballots of those in favour and those against the revocation of the union certification are given equal weight to a representation vote. As currently worded, Bill C-525 could lead to a revocation of a union certification even if a strong majority of the employees casting a ballot are in favour of remaining unionized, so, for example, if a decertification vote were held under the code for a bargaining unit with 100 employees, and if 35 employees did not participate, it would be decertified. Again, we are addressing what was a significant concern by our witnesses. They think this is a very important amendment to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Is there more discussion on this amendment?

Madam Sims.

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

Chair, I realize what the government amendment is trying to do here, but we're still very concerned as the previous amendment moved by me was not accepted. That leaves us with big questions and a part of this bill that is not fixed. I am hoping that my colleagues across the way will have heard my concerns around the issues I raised and will be able to fix that before they bring it back at the report stage so we don't end up having a huge fight here.

I really do not believe it's the government's intention to undo what the original bill does, and that's why we brought the amendments that we did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Ms. McLeod.

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

I believe paragraph (e) was not changed, but I will have some consideration and perhaps we could come back to this particular issue at the end of this meeting.

Could we perhaps go to the next clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Is that acceptable to you?

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

I appreciate this very much.

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

I believe that, through the chair, paragraph (e) is not impacted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay, before we move to the next clause, we are going to deal with—

You'll have to excuse me. This is my first time to go through clause-by-clause as the chair, and I'm glad I have a legal expert to my right and my very capable clerk to my left.

There is another amendment proposed on this particular item, but we'll stand clause 5. The other amendment is a Green Party amendment, and we'll come back to this as well at the end, as proposed, as long as that's acceptable to you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

My only concern is to make sure members of the committee have the amendment that we'll be looking at so they have the text in front of them because I don't think it made it into the package, but that's a technical problem.

In terms of the order of sequence in which it's examined, I have no problem as long as the clerical and legal advice is that it will work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

It's just being postponed, and we'll make sure they have a copy of it before we deal with it.

(Clause 5 allowed to stand)

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Then we'll move on to amendment NDP-7 which is a new clause as proposed by the NDP, which would be clause 5.1. I must tell the table that this is inadmissible. It seeks to amend section 98 of the Canada Labour Code and that section is not being amended by Bill C-525. I have a ruling from the legal counsel. If you wish me to read it, I will.

The essence of what's being said here is that because section 98 of the Canada Labour Code is not being addressed in any of Bill C-525, we cannot accept an amendment to something we are not addressing.

Madam Sims.

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

Chair, this goes to some of the arguments made previously by me and others. This is what happens when you go in and try to amend one part of the labour code without seeing the whole. This new bill that's before us has a ricochet effect throughout on many parts of the labour code, and so I am very concerned. We were wanting to make this very specific in here. I am really disheartened by this ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm going to cut off debate because this is really, in many ways, non-debatable because it is a ruling from the chair. I'm going to read you the full ruling so that you absolutely know why it's inadmissible.

The ruling is: the amendment seeks to amend section 98 of the Canada Labour Code. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition states, on page—

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to challenge your call.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay. That's dilatory, and so we'll move to a vote on challenging the chair's ruling on this—before I get to describe the whole thing. But let's move to the vote.

All against sustaining the chair's decision, so those opposing the chair's decision? Do you understand what I mean?

[An hon. member]

That's us.