Evidence of meeting #3 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, I don't know if Ms. Koutrakis is going to agree with me, but I would like to ask for adjournment, if possible. It's up to you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
No, it's not. Are you making a motion to adjourn debate on the motion?
Liberal
Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
I'm asking my colleagues opposite and everyone else if it's possible to adjourn the debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
It is my interpretation, Mr. Joseph, that you made a motion to adjourn debate on the amendment that's currently on the floor.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair. I think this is what you're getting at, but just for precision, you don't adjourn debate on an amendment only. If you're adjourning debate, you're adjourning debate on everything that is being discussed. You can vote down the amendment, but if you're adjourning debate, you're adjourning debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Yes, I thought that was clear. It's adjourning debate on the amendment, and it's adjourning debate on the amendments being discussed on the motion. It would adjourn it all, so we are clear.
We have a motion from Mr. Joseph to adjourn debate on the amendment and the motion currently on the floor. We'll have a recorded vote to adjourn debate on the motion.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
If I understand correctly, we're still talking about the amendment proposing to remove the second part of the motion. In that case, could we be given a little time to see what we could leave in the text? There are parts of the text that we would be comfortable keeping. Procedurally, I don't know how that would work.
We're really trying to find a compromise here, because these are very important issues for Canadians and Canadian workers. We think it's important to study the issue, to learn from what happened, to learn how the mechanisms in place have been used in recent years. That's absolutely valid. However, we really want to understand what would be involved and whether it makes sense to do so given that the situation is ongoing and affecting current workers. We really want to make sure that this is done constructively and for the right reasons, not to generate videos for social media campaigns.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't expect to be responding to something like that. Personally, I couldn't tell flight attendants that I wanted to do a study on section 107 and the definition of work just because I wanted to make videos. That's not my goal.
Even if a subject is not in the news or another body is looking into the matter, nothing prevents our committee from doing a study on it.
I just cannot say that the subject isn't important enough, that we should just do the study later on or that we don't have enough information. In addition, we are in a parliamentary committee, and I emphasize the word “parliamentary”. A parliamentary committee is not a government committee. We have to be able to discuss things together and publicly hear from witnesses who can give their opinion. I think it would add to the work the government is currently doing on unpaid work. Other aspects are also addressed in the motion. Among other things, I talked about the definition of work, which has an obvious connection to the issue of unpaid work.
In my opinion, it would be really worthwhile for the committee to look into these issues, and I don't want anyone to impute motives. No one from back home or anywhere else likes it when we try to pit one group against another.
I see what's happening right now. I met with flight attendants as well as the union, and they told me that time was of the essence. The issue concerns other people as well, including other flight attendants, but not just them. It's a very broad issue, as my colleague across the way rightly said. However, I don't see that as a reason not to tackle it. Instead, I think this is a pivotal moment, because some labour-related issues have never been raised. It's the job of this committee to raise them. Flight attendants and all workers are asking us to do so.
I think it would be beneficial to all of us if we gave ourselves a chance and no one said that we just want to make videos. I hope that the committee will be able to work in a very serious and sincere manner, for everyone's benefit.
Liberal
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
I thank my colleague for her comments.
I think we're saying the same thing, that it would be important to study this issue. I'm not suggesting that we look at the motion for a very prolonged period of time, but I would suggest that we have time to look at the text. At first, the motion had words like “the Liberal government” and “routine use”. They were removed, but it was very partisan language. I think workers—
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Can we refer to what was said in camera?
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
I withdraw my comment, Mr. Chair.
All I'm saying is that if we had time to read the motion, we could try to find a compromise.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say, for all Canadians watching us—and I'm sure they're watching with great interest—that the Canada Labour Code is clear: No worker should earn less than the minimum wage for every hour worked. I said that earlier as well—not on the ground, not in the air, not anywhere.
Flight attendants are essential to the safety of all travellers in the air, and everybody knows it. Day in and day out, they do the hard work and keep us safe. They are the first responders in the sky. We all take airplanes when we're travelling long distances, and we know how hard they work. Let me be clear: They deserve fair compensation for the critical work they do. No person in Canada should ever not get paid for the work they do. I think we all agree on that.
All we're saying on this side of the committee, the Liberal side, is that we need to make sure that, when we study this, we are dealing with facts. We need to hear what the results are from the probe. I don't believe we are asking for an indefinite extension. We're just saying, let's wait to hear what the results from the probe are, so that we can deal with facts, hear the stakeholders and have a fulsome study that is actually going to lead to the changes that perhaps need to be made.
Let's make sure we allow for the appropriate time before we start a study that obviously we all agree needs to happen. What we're not agreeing on is the timing of the study.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to correct something my colleague Ms. Koutrakis said. She says that the Canada Labour Code is clear. Personally, I already see a problem, because the Canada Labour Code is not clear. It says that all work must be remunerated, but there is no definition of the word “work”. That poses a problem. How can we know that all work is paid when there is no definition of a salary?
Also, how can you say that it's specified in the code, when no rate is indicated? For example, an employer could pay some hours at half the rate or they could pay someone below minimum wage. In my opinion, this is already a problem and not something that can be put off for very long.
I would add one last thing. I talked about salary, the fact that some workers could be paid below minimum wage, but they could also have fewer hours of work. That is already a problem. I would say that it is somewhat false, even wrong, to say that everything is already clear and settled. That's not the case. That is why we are moving this motion.
Liberal
Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, these people are the first responders in the sky. Make no mistake: They keep us safe every time we fly. We have nothing against them. However, my colleagues opposite should put themselves in the shoes of a mother who is in Paris, Cuba or the Dominican Republic with her three children just before school starts back up.
Can Mrs. Gill explain to Canadians why she voted against the proposal? Is she thinking of those people as well? We have nothing against flight attendants. The government made that decision because families were stuck overseas. There is a contradiction on the part of the people on the other side of the table.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
I don't know if the question is for me, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any further discussion on the amendment currently on the floor?
If not, we have two options: We can ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion, or we'll go to a vote.