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
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the spirit of collegiality we're trying to have within this committee, I'm proposing taking out the part about section 107 and then doing a study on the pay for our flight attendants. That's what all three parties here today have been discussing, the pay and condition for the flight attendants. I'm proposing that we take out section 107 and do the study primarily surrounding the pay of flight attendants.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I've been advised the sound is not working again, so I have to suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Committee members, we will begin again. We may require further suspension, because they cannot tell if the floor audio is getting through on ParlVU for those participating.
I'll return to Ms. Fancy, who was speaking when we had to suspend.
Liberal
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Chair.
I guess what I was talking about was taking out the part about section 107. A lot of our talk today has been about supporting the financial pieces related to the flight attendants. I suggested taking out section 107 of the code because of the legal implications for the witnesses. Due to the probe and what's going on, it would not be good for their witnesses either, and it could also compromise the case within the probe.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any more discussion? There's been some back-and-forth on the wording.
Madame Desrochers.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
I'd just like to understand from my colleague if there is an interest in.... I listened to what my colleague Marilène Gill had to say earlier about the definition of labour and the definition of salary and unpaid work. Is there a possibility, in the spirit of coming to a place where we can move forward, of broadening what we are proposing to study in the labour code?
I'd love to hear from my colleague if she has something to suggest in terms of broadening what is proposed in section 2.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
What I understand from what I'm hearing is that the study is too specific—
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The committee will resume.
We were in discussion on the motion.
Madame Gill, you were speaking when we lost translation.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to get clarification.
Earlier, it emerged from a number of discussions that the motion was already very broad and would require a lot of time for study. I'm now being asked if I agree with expanding the study.
I would like to know if that is indeed what is being asked of me. Earlier, I was told that the motion was too broad; now some are asking to expand the study.
Did I understand correctly?
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
I thank the member for her question.
Actually, I was referring to what was said earlier about the importance of providing a better definition and the challenge posed by the current Canada Labour Code.
Right now, the current situation at Air Canada is being used to study the use of section 107 of the code. Do we want to study the use of this section or do we want to study the definitions contained in the code and other problematic elements?
I was wondering if we could talk a bit more about what you think is the most important to study so that we can find some common ground and move forward.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Chair, we could certainly add other elements. For example, it is all well and good to define work, but we will also have to add everything relating to compensation. Several other elements could very likely be added to the definition of work, because the definition of work alone would not be sufficient.
My proposal has been called quite broad. In my opinion, simply addressing the issue of the definition of work is a start. Having discussions is the way we manage to find the blind spots and what should be changed. As we know, in any rigorous intellectual work, we realize that the problem has ramifications and we also end up finding other things.
I don't know if it's relevant to state this here. We're already talking about the use of section 107 and we've removed the reference to routine use. Everyone agreed on that. We are talking about the definition of work, but we also know that witnesses who appear before committees can discuss other topics and share other thoughts that may be along the same lines or inspire others. For example, we're talking about Air Canada, but I imagine we'll also be talking about other carriers.
I don't think the idea is to do a complete study of the Canada Labour Code and overhaul it. We would already be studying the definition of work and the use of section 107, and that would be sufficient, given the number of studies and the time allocated to them.
I'm satisfied with the motion as it stands, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any discussion?
If there's no discussion, I'll go back to you, Mr. Genuis, just to clarify whether or not it was an amendment that you made.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I didn't make an amendment. I suggested a solution.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Yes, I didn't think so.
Is there discussion on the main motion?
Ms. Koutrakis, go ahead.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
I'm just wondering if there's a willingness to talk about the end date of that study. You proposed not starting before October 17. Is there a willingness to go beyond that date? If there is a willingness to go beyond that date, what, in your view, would that look like? I just want to make sure, because some of the dates we will be discussing might make a bit more sense if we have the necessary information by that new date.
I'm just wondering if there's an openness or willingness to look at that.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes. You tell me what day you want for that. The language I proposed was that the study “begin no earlier than”. I took October 17 directly from you. We want to be reasonable here. I don't want October 17, 2027, or something, but if you want to change it to November 1 or something like that, that's fine. Just tell us what you want, but with the goal of getting this done.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Earlier, we talked about the results of that probe, which are not going to be ready before the new year, in January. That's an issue for us. Is that something we could work with? Is that something we could entertain as a compromise? I'm not sure. I'm trying to find something we can all work with here.
Liberal
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
It's very hard for us to support this amendment to the Canada Labour Code in the interim. I think the important thing is to do the study and see what comes out of it. Then we can see what the committee recommends. If the motion were to be adopted, we would absolutely want to remove proposed section f.
I would remind you that the second part of the motion proposes “that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the impact of the lack of a definition of the term ‘work’ in part III of the Canada Labour Code”. The motion also suggests studying the use of section 107, which refers labour disputes to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The motion specifically looks at Air Canada and its flight attendants and the impact that referring these disputes has had.
Section f states that, while the committee is conducting the study and discussions are under way among stakeholders, the committee would move forward to request an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. Amending the Canada Labour Code isn't something that can be done quickly; it's not about jotting something down in five minutes. On the contrary, it is a lengthy process. If we want to go in that direction, we would like to do it once and properly, after hearing all the testimony.
Personally, the first thing I propose to do is remove section f of the motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Mr. Chair, can I kindly request a five-minute suspension? Would that be okay? I'd like to confer with the team and come back in five minutes.