Human Resources Committee on May 28th, 2018

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Okay.

That information is extremely important. You will recall that, initially, the financial impact of the federal act that was tabled was projected to be in the order of 800 to 900 million dollars. I am talking about the value of the sick leave. The government witnesses, on the other hand, referred to an amount of $1.3 billion. So it is a substantial amount.

A significant part of that amount is used to pay for sick leave taken prior to retirement. That is in fact what I asked at that committee meeting. We know how it works in the public service: some people take their sick leave before they retire. I had asked what that adds up to and how many people do that.

It could be several hundreds of millions of dollars. It seems very important to me therefore to make sure we have all the information we need to review his bill before it is passed. To my knowledge, that information has not yet been provided to us. That is why I am tabling the following motion this afternoon:

That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Act, be postponed until the Committee has received in both official languages, in writing, the answer to the question concerning the cost and number of public servants who retire after using their bank of sick leave and that this information be provided to the Committee.

Mr. Chair, once again, I want to reassure you that you can count on the opposition's full cooperation to make sure that taxpayers' money is well managed.

During our consideration of the bill, we talked about what I would even describe as a fool's deal in certain ways. In order to maintain excellent staff relations, on the one hand, it is important to make sure that taxpayers' money is well managed. On the other hand, in its good faith dealings with employee representatives, the government must have the necessary legislative tools and means not only to have the best employees in the public service, but also to protect taxpayers' money.

That is why I maintain that, until this essential information is provided to the committee in both official languages, it would be superfluous and truly premature to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. In order to do a thorough job and adopt a bill that will benefit all Canadian taxpayers, protect their interests, and respect workers, I think we need this information.

I would like to add something. It does happen at times that the information we request is not immediately available. In the interest of our committee's work, and with the consent of the committee and the witnesses, be they public servants or not, we must receive that information in a timely manner.

The request I am referring to was made several weeks ago, but we have still not received the information, unfortunately. We feel we cannot proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until we get that information.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

We do not have notice of this motion, so it's just being tabled.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

All right. We can't, unfortunately, debate that until then, so I will be going to the members of—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair...

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm moving forward with clause-by-clause. You cannot debate a motion until the notice has been served, so we have—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Chair, this motion pertains to the bill we are debating.

Can I speak, Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, hello. Bonjour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

It has to be tabled with the appropriate amount of time. We are going to move forward with clause-by-clause.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Chair, not if it's related to the bill we're debating. I think you should consult with your clerk before—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mark Warawa has a point of order.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I think you should seek advice from your clerk, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I have, as always.

Mark Warawa, you have a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Chair, my point of order is that a motion can be made to change if it's relevant to the discussion. The motion, I believe, is relevant. If you could, please share with us, in the Standing Orders or O'Brien and Bosc, where this is that you can say no to a motion if it is relevant to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

The motion has just been tabled. It requires, as usual, 48 hours' notice to actually move a motion at committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Chair, that is if it has nothing to do with what's being discussed. If we are discussing Bill C-62, and this is in direct relationship to Bill C-62, then it's relevant to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

If it's relevant to the clause that I'm attempting to move at that particular moment, you would be correct, but I don't believe that it is, if you read which clause we're on. I would like to move forward, if that's okay.

Shall clause 1 carry—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to it.

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Chair, you have people who are waving and calling to you, saying we want to discuss this. You've said, by your actions, I don't want to hear from you. We couldn't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Warawa?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Yes, this is a point of order, Chair.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I have one too, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Chair, the point of order is that this is clause-by-clause. Clause-by-clause means that we discuss before we vote. Clause-by-clause, under the Liberal definition, still means you discuss before you vote. To say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

This motion that was just put forth is not—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

While we were waving, saying, we want to discuss it, Chair, you went ahead and called a vote, and again ignored the opposition. You figuratively banged down the gavel on us, saying, “we don't want to hear from you, we want to just move forward”.

Chair, a power—