:
I definitely want to continue with a conversation around the motion.
I just want to reiterate what I was saying yesterday. I think, as we've heard through all of the discussion here, there are many, many flaws in this bill. There are flaws right from the standpoint of even dealing with this situation on an ad hoc basis through a private member's bill, right from the starting point, and then moving to the issues around the lack of an essential services provision within the bill. There are the problems with translation from French and English, particularly in that proposed subsection (2.4), where it's really obvious that they're not referring to the same thing in French and English. It's clear even from what the legislative clerk was saying yesterday that there are things wrong with this bill that we couldn't possibly amend and follow the rules of committee.
I just think it's important. And there is a second motion, which will follow this one, to take a more reasonable approach in a more consultative process, the way labour legislation should be modified. I think it's important that we continue to consider this motion. I'd like to hear some more thoughts, after maybe an evening of thought from the other side, as to their feelings on this.
:
Mr. Chair, I entirely agree with our colleague Mr. Silva, since he's answering the question you rightly asked at the outset: do we want to continue with clause-by-clause consideration or receive a new motion, the one that was introduced yesterday?
It's the committee that must first dispose of the matter. In my view, we should study the bill clause by clause and, contrary to what our colleague Mr. Lake claims, I think there is room to make amendments. We're going to move amendments to the bill.
It's entirely natural for these amendments to be put before the committee. To study them, of course, we have to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.
I propose that we proceed with the vote on maintaining our position with regard to clause-by-clause consideration.
I just want to go back to some comments that were made directly to me about me claiming that union bosses didn't have a say.
What I was trying to say--and I feel it was misconstrued, so I really want to get it on record--is that I think the impact of this bill is very deep. It has a deep impact on a lot of people. When I spoke about having employees, I wanted to go back to one of the witnesses, Maurice Zoe, the aboriginal site coordinator for the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories.
When he was speaking on behalf of his native community, he said,
The union did not appear to understand how the aboriginal community functioned. Labour unions are not part of our communities or our leadership. In this case, they imposed a significant burden on our people by forcing a strike, but at least we had the opportunity to make up our own minds and return to work.
This right to work for these native people with no other employment opportunities in the north will not exist if is passed. Mr. Chair, those were the employees I was speaking about who aren't necessarily part of the unions that are involved in this legislation.
What I wanted to talk about were the farmers and individuals who feel disenfranchised by this legislation. They represent disenfranchised employees and employers, in this case. As committee members, we've received letters from the Grain Growers of Canada, in the prairie centre, who've not been able to testify.
And this bill will affect individual farmers who are my constituents. They have no way of being able to have their case heard. They don't have a union, but they are at the mercy of a federally regulated sector. Coming from the prairies, we rely on unions and sometimes replacement workers to get our farm products to the port, and with this bill there is no recourse for individuals like farmers.
As I said earlier yesterday, this is critical, and I think this is a message that we have to get out to all Canadians from coast to coast. These are critical services. It's not necessarily about workers; it's about the public good.
They expect federally regulated people to have good relationships with.... I believe there should be good relationships with labour and their bosses, but I do think that we are very innocent in this, and all the sectors.... I have a letter I would like to read that tells, already, about the effects that some of this legislation.... It's indeed going to create some problems.
I wanted the member to realize that I wasn't talking about bosses. I was talking about all the other people who are affected, who do have jobs that aren't particularly protected by this legislation. But certainly this legislation will affect them.
We know there are 12,000 companies that fall under federal jurisdiction, representing about 1% of Canadian businesses, and the majority of them are small, and they're very small. Four out of five of them employ fewer than 20 workers. In all, there are almost 900,000 people who work for federally regulated companies. That may not seem like a lot for companies, but they are important ones.
I think this is what's missing here. We're not talking about the impact and the public good. Besides public safety, we have to talk about what's in the best interests of the public good. We talk lots about the importance of productivity and—
:
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect, I believe that, in order to debate the merits of introducing a motion, as our colleague is doing, we should change the order of business that we agreed on by means of a motion. However, no motion of that kind has been introduced. Consequently, in accordance with the order of business, we are to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I think that's the natural procedure.
Mr. Chair, I think we should immediately begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-257.
There's no order paper that says explicitly what will be done. The committee operates on its own agenda in terms of how we want to proceed. There were, obviously, motions brought forward. We talked about setting the calendar. I know this motion was brought forward yesterday, so we left the business to talk about that motion.
As we started, it was put to you whether we continue with that motion or not. Since we don't have an order paper that lays it out, the committee will decide, as a whole, which direction it will head into. I have been challenged on Mr. Lessard's motion as to whether we would go back. I said it was debatable. I've been challenged on that. It's just been voted down, so now we're moving back into clause-by-clause.
:
Thank you, Madame Lavallée.
I've just been informed that we're in the orders of the day, and our business is Bill C-257, as we know. A motion within that business can be brought forward at any time. Because Mr. Lessard had asked us, and the motion passed, to go to clause-by-clause consideration, we must start that. As I said, we will get the first clause done; then we can look at any other motions that may be forthcoming.
I will ask you to pick out your packages, please. We have clause 1—
:
I don't understand your ruling, Mr. Chair.
The agenda that we received, and that I have before me, states that we're conducting clause-by-clause consideration. Then it mentions each of the clauses: clauses 1, 2, 3. Then there are questions such as: shall the bill carry as amended, and so on.
Earlier, when my colleague Yves Lessard introduced the motion saying that we wanted to return to clause-by-clause consideration, that concerned all the clauses. He never said it only concerned clause 1.
You never said that, did you, Mr. Lessard?
:
Okay. We are going to learn all about procedure today. This is great.
I have been challenged. I have a feeling I am going to be challenged quite a few times today. I have been challenged, so what we need to do now is have a vote on whether the recommendation by the legal counsel, my recommendation, should be overturned. If that is the will of the committee, then we will debate the motion. If my ruling is upheld, then there will be no debate on this motion and we will move on to the next motion.
Once again, just on the ruling that I have proposed. I have been challenged....
Sorry, on a point of order, Mr. Hiebert.
:
As I was stating, before I vote on this motion I want to understand how it is...and what would be the outcome of a successful vote on the part of those opposed to your ruling. What would happen?
It seems to me that if your ruling, which appears to be consistent with the tradition and the rulings of the previous chairs in the House of Commons, is that you cannot amend a bill that does not refer to a particular piece of legislation--and that has been a consistent ruling from the House of Commons for who knows how long--how is it that the committee could overturn your decision when in law we know that this can't be done? Would it be appealed to the Speaker of the House? Would it be appealed to the legislative clerk?
There seems to be a departure from what the law allows. And yes, we might want to, here in this particular committee, pretend that as a committee we can overturn your rulings, but at some point the buck has to stop someplace. You can't simply draft legislation ad hoc that isn't allowed for in the rules of the House of Commons. If that was the case, we could move amendments to the Income Tax Act, which isn't being referred to in this piece of legislation either. It is absurd to suggest that we could address a piece of legislation, or a portion of legislation, that is not of the purpose of a particular bill.
So could the chair provide for the members some explanation as to what would happen if they were successful in overturning your ruling? Where would it go from here?
:
The question to be asked is if we upheld the chair on the basis that this amendment on this particular clause and section 87.4 is not in order and in fact is incorrect, would the chair agree that Mr. Silva could then move the same wording that he wants to move, but that in actual fact it should be on the next clause in the bill before us, which is clause 2, dealing with subsection 94(2.1)? If you look at the bill, it shows proposed paragraphs 94(2.1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g); he is seeking to add proposed paragraphs 94(2.1)(h) and (i). That is actually the amendment he is seeking.
We're dealing with the wrong clause, but if we uphold your decision, what I'd like to know is that you are not then going to rule it out of order if he tries to move the wording in clause 2--because technically, it's not on the paper here, right? They got the wrong clause.
My understanding is you can do that verbally, as long as it's clear. I'd like to know that you are generally in agreement, so that we can proceed and then vote on it.
:
Thank you, Ms. Davies and Mr. Silva.
I would certainly entertain having a look at that. I haven't seen the motion the way it was presented. I can only rule on what we're dealing with here on clause 1, so once again, I would not have an issue with its being presented, and we could deal with it. That would have to be looked at in the context. Once again, we'd still have to go through the same process before we have a discussion and move forward on that. If you're willing to uphold my decision on that clause, it will go back to what clause 1 was originally, and then we'd move to Liberal amendment 2. As I said, if it is reintroduced, we'll evaluate it at that time and in that context.
I have not seen that, once again. I have only seen the proposals right here. Once again, if it's going to be reintroduced, we could have a look at that.
Mr. Hiebert is next, and then Mr. Silva.
:
I want to be sure I understand what's going on here.
If I understand the comments made by and , the motion presented to the committee, the first amendment to clause 1, which is, “Subsection 87.4(1) of the Canada Labour Code is replaced by the following:”, including this text, is not what they intended.
But you're saying that this particular clause is out of order because it's amending a section that 's bill, Bill , does not reference. So it cannot amend this particular section.
Originally they were trying to overturn your decision that this was not amendable, and now they're saying, oh sorry, there's a mistake, this is not what was intended. So we're waiting to see whether they will in fact uphold their challenge of your decision.
And then you want to revisit this topic immediately after—
:
Are you withdrawing it?
Just so you're informed, you need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: You guys are all heart. That's great.
We are now done on clause 1.
We've got Madame Lavallée, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Hiebert.
:
I'd like to have some clarification, Mr. Chair.
Earlier, when I wanted to introduce my motion, you said that we hadn't disposed of clause 1, and we still haven't disposed of it. I don't even know what happened to clause 1. Did it carry? Did we vote on clause 1?
Once we know what happened to clause 1, we can introduce our motion. It seems to me that's what you said earlier.
What happened to clause 1, Mr. Chair?
:
Thank you, Mr. Lessard.
What we have before us, as I know you're aware, is clause 1 as it was written in the original bill. There were two new clauses proposed by the Liberals. The first clause we just dealt with. What would happen next is that there would be a new motion put forward for clause 2, still dealing with the new amendment or the new clause 2—this is getting confusing—on the first clause.
Because we were in between motions, a new motion can be introduced. Pages 1 and 2 were the Liberal clause 1 and pages 3 and 4 are the new clause 2 for clause 1.
If you'd like to continue, I have Mr. Lessard, I have Madame Lavallée, and then I have Ms. Davies.
:
A new motion concerning the agenda? You can't accept that new motion, Mr. Chair. That can't be. We haven't completed consideration of clause 1.
If you decide to let him speak to his motion, we'll challenge your decision. We won't have any choice.
It's Valentine's Day. I like you a lot, and I was even getting ready to kiss you before leaving...
Mr. Yves Lessard: A little restraint here.
Ms. Carole Lavallée: We'll be forced to challenge your ruling because we have to finish consideration of clause 1. When you ask whether clause 1 shall carry, you can say that it's carried as amended, negatived or stood.
We understand quickly, but you have to explain it to us for a long time.
:
I don't know if anybody else feels like we're in the twilight zone or something.
Mr. Chairman, I do feel you're contradicting yourself in terms of what you said earlier. When we first started on this point, Mr. Lake tried to introduce his motion. Mr. Lessard then tried to introduce his motion to continue the business. My recollection is that you clearly said that could not be done until clause 1 was completed, and then you would entertain another motion. You did not say that in the middle of the debate on clause 1, when we had disposed of one amendment and were about to begin another amendment, that you could then introduce a completely different motion. You said that at the conclusion of clause 1 and before we got to clause 2, another motion would be permissible.
I do believe you've contradicted yourself, because we're still in the middle of clause 1. We haven't yet voted on it. Based on what you said earlier to us, I do believe that only when we have voted on it can you then entertain whoever gets to the mike first—either Mr. Lake or Monsieur Lessard—with some other kind of motion.
But we're still on clause 1. You should not be allowing some motion that interrupts the flow of us continuing with clause 1. I feel you've contradicted yourself.
Bill C-257 fails to provide balance to both sides in the collective bargaining process and fails to address other issues reflected in the evidence presented by witnesses. Accordingly, your committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, that the House of Commons not proceed with Bill C-257, an Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).
It's astounding to me that we're seeing the term “ad hoc” taken to a whole new level. We're dealing with a badly flawed private member's bill that has been voted down--10 times, I believe we've heard--by Liberal majorities who could have brought in a very well-structured bill, one that was well thought out, through their majority governments over 11 years, I believe. They had the opportunity to bring in legislation like this, and instead they've chosen to wait a couple more years and vote for a private member's bill that has been proven to have many flaws.
Not only was that bill sent to committee, but we saw an attempt to ram it through the committee in three days. Basically there was two days' worth of testimony over three days before Christmas. Thankfully, some common sense prevailed and we were able to get a decent number of witnesses in here to hear a little more. Thankfully, we heard many of those witnesses testify that they had concerns about balance--the total lack of balance in this legislation and a complete lack of due diligence in terms of the process.
We heard that the original Sims review took four years in the late 1990s to go through section 1 of the Labour Code dealing with industrial relations. It was a comprehensive process, very carefully thought out and very consultative. It travelled across the country and heard people on all sides of the issue talk about this.
As we've heard more and more of the witnesses come forward, we've heard concerns about the provision of essential services in this bill. It's completely missing in the bill; there's been no thought given to that. We've also seen translation issues.
At first we heard that some people said the managers could work, but of course as we went through and studied it further, we realized the bill does not allow managers to work. It doesn't allow employees, who were employed in the business before and may not have wanted to strike, to keep their jobs and continue to feed their families. It doesn't take into account concerns about the impact on the Canadian economy and industries that are crucial.
Obviously, by definition, anything that is regulated federally is vital to the Canadian economy. We're talking about transportation. We're talking about rail transportation that farmers rely on to move their goods. We're talking about the mining industry. We're talking about many industries that are actually unionized, the workers of which will be severely impacted negatively by strikes in other areas. For example, workers in the mining industry would be impacted by rail strikes or air transportation strikes.
We're talking about what impact a shutdown of the ports on the west coast could have on our ability to import and export goods that are vital to the Canadian way of life. Obviously many of the people who would enjoy using those goods or enjoy the economic benefits of our being able to actually move and sell those goods are union employees who will be negatively affected by this. None of that has been taken into account.
We've heard total confusion regarding the essential services. We've heard claims being made that it's hogwash and that the union can write out—I can't remember exactly what it's called—an agreement and agree before they strike that they're going to protect essential services, but we know you can't count or rely on that.
There's no legal basis to rely on that for any kind of assurance whatsoever, that if a strike shut down the phone system we would have access to 911 services, or if a strike shut down the air transport system, food would be able to get into the northern reaches of Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, or the Yukon.
There are all sorts of concerns about these things, and they just seem to be totally ignored in a mad rush to take on this legislation that, from what I understand, almost no country in the world of any stature has actually supported or put into law.
That's the rationale behind moving this motion. As I explained before, there is an intention, in conjunction with this motion, to answer some of the questions and some of the people who really do want this process looked at properly.
I'm not introducing the motion, but it will be the following:
That the committee recommends to the Minister of Labour to establish a consultative process to conduct an examination of the concerns raised by witnesses, and the subject matter of Bill C-257, an Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code Replacement Workers.
We're saying that if we're going to do this, let's do it in a way that makes some sense. This makes no sense whatsoever. It astounds me that we're even in a situation where legislation this bad actually has a chance to be enacted.
I've read a little bit from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press by Sidney Green. In the interest of completeness of information, I'm going to read the article, because I think it touches on all of the concerns I have. Keep in mind that Sidney Green is a former NDP cabinet minister in the Manitoba government. By the way, the NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba right now don't have this legislation. Why haven't they enacted it?
This is what Sidney Green had to say on November 21, 2006:
The election of a minority government has resulted in a curious anomaly. The combined opposition is in a position where it believes that it can pass legislation in direct conflict with the position of the government. Indeed, the combined opposition, simply to flex its muscles, has given second reading to legislation that no party seeking to become the federal government ever included as a plank in its election platform.
Last month, by a vote of 167 to 101, divided substantially on government and opposition lines, the House of Commons gave second reading to a bill commonly referred to as anti-scab legislation. If passed, the legislation would affect workers under federal jurisdiction.
The history of union demands for such legislation is interesting. Until the mid-1970s, the battle cry of the labour movement was free collective bargaining. Nothing was more sacred to the philosophy of trade unions than the unrestricted right of working people in combination with one another to withdraw their labour and to seek public support for their demands. For years, labour leaders had been plagued by legislative nuances and court rulings that infringed on their freedom to do what all other citizens had the unchallenged right to do, namely to cease working.
I notice that Mr. Simms is trying really hard to listen to this and everybody else is talking and making a lot of noise. In the interest of showing respect for Mr. Simms, maybe we could have a little bit of quiet in the room so he can hear what I'm reading, because he's very interested.
I'll continue:
The labour movement regarded any third party intervention in their disputes as anathema. Labour resisted all governmental attempts to impose third party intervention.
In the mid-1970s, a drastic turnabout took place. Governments friendly to the trade union movement were in power. Trade union organizers could not resist the opportunity that friendly governments seemed to make available.