OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 1, 2003

0920

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office)

0925

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ranald Quail

0930

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

0935

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

0940

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

0945

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

0950

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

0955

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Monique Boudrias

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

1000

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1005

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1010

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1015

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

1020

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1025

Michel LeFrancois (General Counsel, Human resources Modernization task Force, Privy Council Office)

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Paul Szabo

1030

The Chair

Ms. Yvette Aloisi (Director General, Human resources Modernization task Force, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

1035

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

1040

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mme Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1045

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1050

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1055

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1100

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

1105

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Ranald Quail

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1110

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1115

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

1120

The Chair

Ms. Yvette Aloisi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1125

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

1130

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1135

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1140

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1145

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

1150

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1155

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

1200

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 034

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0920)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): I see a quorum, so we'll begin meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We're here to look at Bill C-25.

For the information of members, we'll be sitting until about 11:45, unless we manage to pass the bill before then. Perhaps I should ask. Shall the bill pass?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: Done.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Do we have the amendments, the packages of amendments?

The Chair: Yes, yes, yes. Given the complexity of this bill, and I think there's a desire to have a few opening questions to the officials about some of the structural things here, let me bring everybody to the same point in the path we are going to follow.

We basically dealt with a number of amendments in our last meeting on this. Essentially, we got to and dealt with Bloc motion number 5. There is a package of amendments here that try to go in the same order as the way they're laid out in the bill. We have had some additional amendments submitted today, ten, from the NDP, and I'll come back and talk about that in a moment.

Before we start into this, Mr. Szabo, did you want to pose a question about the structure of the bill to the officials?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Probably it would be helpful for all members if we had some guidance. The form of the bill is a little different from the traditional form that members have been used to, and I know the labour act... We have the entire act here, and it doesn't highlight for us exactly what changes are being made, so you really need to have the old act in front of you to know very much about what's going on.

I guess it's been described that one of the acts included in here in fact is a clause by itself. It's different. Rather than speculate on why this Bill C-25 was crafted the way it was, with all of the consequential amendments, etc., I think it would be helpful if what is here could be explained to the members, how it should be looked at and how we should proceed, given the new format that's presented to us.

The Chair: Mr. Quail.

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are four main parts to the legislation. The first part is the proposed new Public Service Labour Relations act. That particular piece of legislation replaces, as Mr. Szabo has pointed out, the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act. There are proposed amendments.

Let me step back. There are two new bills here. There's one dealing with labour and there's one dealing with staffing. They're completely rewritten. They're in modern language and there are some substantial changes in both of those bills. There are also some parts of both bills that are not substantially changed. They're the same as they were in the old piece of legislation. We're rolling them over. They're there in new, modern language and we restructured it and renumbered it so that it makes more sense.

So there are two new bills: the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act--one for staffing, one for labour.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act is the piece of legislation that en grand ligne would be similar to the Canada Labour Code, but for the Public Service of Canada. So it covers the labour relations side of the people who are covered by bargaining agents and representatives in the public service, over 80% of the people in the public service being unionized. So it's a large piece of legislation. It's the first part, and it's the part that I think, Mr. Chair, we're probably going to talk about shortly.

We then amend two other pieces of legislation. We amend the Financial Administration Act as it relates to responsibilities for dealing with people and for dealing with labour issues. It's a small amendment, but it is an amendment to an existing piece of legislation in that area.

Finally, there are proposed amendments to the Canada Centre for Management Development Act, which is the senior management training centre that we have now, CCMD. People have probably heard about that. What we're doing is expanding the mandate of CCMD so it can also take on the responsibilities of Training and Development Canada that is presently done by the PSC.

So there are four main portions to this legislation: labour relations, staffing, amendments to those acts--both of them new, completely rewritten--amendments to the Financial Administration Act, and small amendments increasing the scope for CCMD. There are then ancillary parts of the legislation that deal with transitional, consequential, coordinating, repeals, and coming into force. We call that the plumbing that goes with the main portions of the legislation that were drafted in the first four sections I've talked about.

By and large, as we put the legislation together, particularly for the Public Service Labour Relations Act and particularly for the Public Service Employment Act--labour and staffing--we have attempted to do it not only with modern language but we also tried to make it enabling, so that we don't have every rule and regulation in the piece of legislation. So whenever we--

¿ (0925)

Mr. Paul Szabo: You had indicated that the Public Service Labour Relations Act is new, but then you said it's actually a rewrite of the existing act.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: If we just focus on that, this document called Bill C-25 includes the entire act.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: There are many things in here, even though in precise wording, that are unchanged from the existing act. If I wanted to look at what changes have occurred to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, I'd have to have the old act in front of me, as opposed to having a bill that says “This is Bill C-25, to amend...”. I think you came to the conclusion that it was too difficult to amend all of the language and better to simply rewrite it.

This is what's going to make it difficult, I think, for members. We will in fact, I guess, if we follow this procedure.... I'm not even sure, but it would appear to me that in this document—Bill C-25—clause 2 is in fact the Public Service Labour Relations Act. We would vote on passing a clause that was an entire act, rather than the individual clauses within that act.

What happens if members have a problem with some of the content of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that they would like to deal with, but they still want to support the act? Just the way it's been structured, it doesn't give us an opportunity to opine on some of the aspects.

Certainly we can debate anything that's written in here, but even when we get a bill from, for instance, a committee—a bill's passed at second reading, it goes to committee—at committee stage, if there are changes made, we will get a reprint of the bill with underlining showing where the changes are. We don't have that. So we've taken a complex bill and we've made it even more complex for the members of Parliament to actually do their job.

You know what? I would go so far as to say that this was crafted in a way that ignored the needs of parliamentarians to be able to do their job properly.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Chairman, I'd refer to the clause-by-clause book. We spent a great deal of time on the clause-by-clause book. It's a clause-by-clause book by clauses for the whole bill—not only the Public Service Labour Relations Act, but the Financial Administration Act, the staffing act, and CCMD. We have pages on each one of those clauses, so that people could perhaps refer to this if they so desired. We set out whether it was a new provision or a partially new provision or an existing provision. We talked about the proposed text, we talked about the current wording, and we gave an explanation for the changes: why the proposed text; what the difference is from the current wording and why we changed it; or in the case where there was no current wording, we gave an explanation of what it is we intended to do. This was our effort to try to take a complex bill and put it into a document that would allow people who had to examine it, as Mr. Szabo pointed out, to have a view and to have an opportunity to look at proposed versus new.

An example of that is shown, for instance, on page 27: “consultation committees and co-development”. It's a new provision. We have an explanation. It requires deputy heads to establish, in consultation with bargaining agents, departmental consultation committees. “Proposed text”: we set it out; “Current wording”: none; “Explanation”: we set out the explanation as to why it is that we want to do this. This was our effort.

The reason we ended up with this was we thought that at the end of the day, if we were going to redo the part dealing with human resource management in the public service, the fact of the matter is it does cover labour relations; it does cover the Public Service Employment Act; it does impact into the Financial Administration Act; and CCMD was an add-on.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Perhaps I can help clarify this, although we'll see.

Mr. Quail, it's my understanding that the reason you chose this form was that what we are doing here is basically taking two separate acts in the same bill: if we were just doing one act at a time, or if we broke it up into two separate acts with consequential amendments, then we would have gone in a more conventional form; but it was the desire to do the two acts within the same bill that led to this form of organization.

Mr. Ranald Quail: So there would be full presentation of the two issues, yes. Both of them relate to HRM.

The Chair: I agree with you that in the briefing books they're quite comprehensive, but it is a difficulty, and I have some sympathy for Mr. Szabo's concern, because classically around this table they're laid out in a different way so that all the information is presented clause by clause.

If we had organized this bill in a series of sequential individual clauses, we would have been, in effect, taking two bills and making one bill out of them. Is that part of the problem?

Mr. Ranald Quail: I guess so, yes. We certainly talked about it, and there wasn't a perfect solution to where we find ourselves. On one side you would find yourself asking why didn't you put them together so we could look at it together, and on the other side you'd think we now have it together and it is long and it is complicated and handling it is really difficult. Our best effort to try to meet the requirements that Mr. Szabo has put out was the book.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, are you...?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think we should move on.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

The clerk informs me that the new package of amendments, which number ten... Are they available yet? Apparently they've been taken over to Centre Block in order to do the copying and they haven't returned yet.

Well, let me deal with one of them. I'd like members to focus on my question here. We have ten amendments that arrived this morning from the New Democratic Party. The very first amendment actually amends a clause we have already passed. So my first question to you is, is there unanimous consent of the committee to return to...? Well, it's in clause 2. It would be around the time we dealt with amendment BQ-4, which was negatived on division. Does this address a similar issue?

Here's my dilemma: given that this amendment, which only arrived this morning, attempts to amend a portion of the bill.... The problem is with clause 2. We haven't passed clause 2, so we can't say you can't amend it. But we've passed that part in clause 2 that earlier amendments have addressed, so in a sense they have the right to amend it until clause 2 is passed. Is that correct?

This is one of the problems that arises with this structure of the bill. In a sense, you're saying we don't have to revert. It's hard to walk through this sequentially because....

Mr. Lanctôt, did you wish to comment?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Do we have something to look at? Do we have the amendments?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Lanctôt. Un instant s'il vous plait.

The dilemma here, Mr. Tirabassi, is no, we don't. They arrived this morning. Apparently, the copying facility was not available here in this building. They've gone to Centre Block and they've not come back. Rather than simply sit here and wait for them to come back, because one of them is applicable immediately, I thought that.... At first I thought they needed unanimous consent, but apparently they don't.

The other thing we could do is call for the mover. All I'm trying to do is allow us to move on to one we can deal with in the interim.

Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Forseth both have indicated a desire to speak, and then we'll come back to the agenda.

Go ahead, Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to touch on two points, one in response to an issue you just raised. Since we have some time and the documents aren't here, I'd like to touch on a second point that I raised earlier before the meeting started.

First of all, you mustn't lose sight of the fact that the Bloc Québécois had tabled amendment motions 1 and 2 in any case. A total of four amendments had been dealt with. Therefore, it wouldn't be fair not to allow the NDP to move its amendments.

Secondly, we have heard from witnesses since we began the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I think we both agree that we're only just starting this phase of our proceedings. I think we should take a look at the NDP's proposed amendment.

I fully realize that clause 2 is a statute in and of itself. But we did hear from other witnesses after we started, and I use the word “started” loosely. We've dealt with four amendments. Therefore, I think we should allow the NDP to present this amendment.

I'll let Mr. Forseth speak to this matter, then I'll come back to my second point, since we do have some time to debate this. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Yes. Because of the delay I think we'd cause ourselves more trouble if we try to get into a series of exclusions. I think the parties are represented. The NDP now have their amendments in.

There was some confusion even in the amendments I had thought were in that weren't. There were two extra ones today. We just need a little bit of time to make sure every party has all their stuff in and that it's all printed and we all have time to deal with it, rather than trying to get into trouble. Let's get properly launched, with everybody happy, and then we'll move forward and will probably find it will go a lot quicker.

The Chair: “Properly launched”, perhaps; “happy” I can't guarantee, but I'll work on it.

What I'm really wondering is, rather than just having us sit here for another 15 or 20 minutes until those amendments arrive, whether there are clauses we can proceed to and deal with, instead of everybody just biding their time.

It occurs to me, though, that while this issue with clause 2 does create this problem, it would allow us to go ahead and deal with other Bloc amendments without doing violence to what we've just agreed to do, which is allowing the NDP to bring their motion forward when it arrives. So I'll go back to Mr. Lanctôt, and then we'll see if we can get on.

No, actually, Mr. Lanctôt—I'm sorry—I need to respond to this also. Assuming there's agreement on that, what I would propose we do after people have had their say is start with Bloc amendment 6, which will be the next one in the order we have them in right now, and then deal with the new amendments once they arrive before us.

Now, Mr. Lanctôt, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was unable to be here for the last meeting. As I've already indicated to you, I'm not just my party's Government Operations critic, but also its Solicitor General and Justice critic.

With a view to expediting the process, I would also like to make another request before we go ahead with our clause-by-clause study, namely that Mr. Stilborn be allowed to present his summary, further to all the documents received to date. I've yet to receive Mr. Stilborn's summary.

Secondly, I will be away next week. I'm attending an important G8 meeting with Minister Cauchon and Solicitor General Easter. You all know how interested I am in this bill and the amount of time I've spent preparing over 100 amendments. I have no problem with starting this phase today, because I'm here, but I will be away next week. As you've seen, this is a highly complex bill. Even Mr. Szabo has said so. All I'm asking is for you to defer the study for one week and to focus on something else in the meantime, so that I can move my amendments when I get back.

If you feel it's best for the committee to move forward with these amendments without me, then I would find that very unfortunate. I'd like to be here to present these amendments as I see fit.

Ms. Fry, the Solicitor General is just as important as government operations, particularly when the committee can focus its attention elsewhere. Therefore, comments like this... The member comes here once and makes a comment like that. We've been working at this for some time now. Some of the witnesses who have testified have asked me to be here and to work hard on this bill. I've done that. I'm saying that I'd like to be here for the clause-by-clause study. If one week is too long for you, we'll arrange to have someone else from the Bloc be present. However, will that member be as interested in making this bill a better piece of legislation? I would prefer to be here myself. I've talked to the Chair and I think the other members of this committee are fine with my position. Perhaps, Ms. Fry, you should talk to the other members of the committee.

¿ (0940)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, then Mr. Tirabassi. Mr. Cullen first.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to raise this point at this particular time because it relates to the work program and the work plan from here on in.

One of the things this committee is charged with is to show some leadership in terms of the government's estimates process. As I understand it, the meter is ticking, and we need to deal with that in the next short while. I'm not sure; maybe the clerk could advise on the exact date when we need to do that work. But if there were a lull in the clause-by-clause to give Mr. Lanctôt an opportunity to be here—and he has done a lot of work on the bill—it seems to me that in that interlude we could get on with the estimates review. He'd be dearly disappointed to miss that, I'm sure, but if he had his choice he'd probably prefer to be here for this bill and deal with his amendment.

I would just put that idea forward, Mr. Chairman: that if we have to take a pause with the clause-by-clause on this bill, we have some important things we need to consider with respect to estimates and we could get on with that.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to offer the following. I think that since this was referred to this committee there's really been ample time to decide whether indeed this is a priority for any particular member—and I don't question that it has been a priority for Mr. Lanctôt. Just by the very nature of what we do as parliamentarians, from time to time there are going to be other issues or other destinations that are going to put a premium on our time. That is why in committee every party is designated so many members on the committee, proportionate to the seats in the House.

I would suggest that in the case of Mr. Lanctôt, his party has two allotted members, I believe, on this committee, and that over the period of four to five to six weeks we've seen there have been certain challenges with getting on with this bill. At this time there may have been opportunities for other members of his party to be briefed so that they could be here and represent it on this particular bill in his absence.

The other issue is with regard to estimates. I realize that is a priority, but it's my understanding that when a government bill appears before a committee, it becomes the priority for the committee to deal with. Based on that, I cannot support and the government cannot support any further delay on this. We have a motion on the floor that was passed at the last meeting that we proceed with clause-by-clause.

I understand there has to be a bit of a recess to deal with the estimates because of the time-sensitive nature of that question, but we should return to this immediately.

The Chair: Seeing no further indication of the desire to speak, I'm going to make a comment on that, and then I'm going to proceed with the first Bloc amendment, Bloc amendment number 6.

The comment I will make is this. We are better served.... No committee can work according to the individual schedules of all its members. The committee has to set its time and go. At the same time, the lead critics on certain bills I think deserve a little leeway from time to time, because they are the ones who invest an awful lot of time and energy. So where it's possible to accommodate, I think we try to do that; however, it's simply not always possible.

Having said that, though, I want to make a point in response to you, Mr. Tirabassi, and it's this. We have been referred this bill from the House. We have also been referred the estimates. They're both referrals from the House. The reality is that after what we went through with the auditor just recently on the estimates, I think it would be extremely irresponsible of this committee to allow the estimates to be deemed to be passed without any examination or any work done on them.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I think I recognized that in my comments.

The Chair: Yes, but I put that out as a caution because the problem we have here is this committee can sit into July if necessary to deal with some aspects of this, but it cannot sit past May 30 on the estimates, and after what we have been through there, I am not.... Now, in fairness, just for the information of members who perhaps aren't involved in these debates, we are starting estimates on Monday morning at 11:00 o'clock, and so we're trying to accommodate both. But to suggest that one takes precedence over the other is just not going to wash.

Having said all that—I think we've had a lovely little chance to chat among ourselves here—let's get on. I'm going to suggest we call Bloc amendment number 6, which you will find in your little package, and which may underscore the amount of work that's been done here.

Mr. Lanctôt, would you like to introduce your motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill C-25 be amended in Clause 2 by replacing lines 14 to 23 on page 8 with the following:

8. Each deputy head must, to ensure effective performance, establish in consultation with the bargaining agents representing employees in the portion of the federal public administration for which he or she is deputy head, a consultation committee consisting of representatives of the deputy head and the bargaining agents for the purpose of exchanging information and obtaining views and advice on issues relating to the workplace that affect those employees. In order to facilitate the process, union meetings in the workplace during normal hours shall be authorized.

As you can see, two things have been added. In line 1, we've added “to ensure effective performance” and at the end of the paragraph, we've added “to facilitate the process, union meetings in the workplace during normal hours shall be authorized”.

In our opinion, this provision as it is currently worded does not live up to the spirit of the act. It sets out the requirement to establish management-union consultation committees, but does not set out any obligation that these committees perform in an effective manner in the interests of Canadians. That's why we've added “the ensure effective performance”.

Secondly, at the end of the paragraph, we've added “to facilitate the process, union meetings in the workplace during normal hours shall be authorized”, further to the recommendations contained in the Fryer report. I don't know if you remember that report, but it noted that generally speaking the scope of bargainable issues is narrower in the public sector than it is in the private sector. Public sector unions bemoan this fact regularly and public sector employees tend to resist attempts to bring new issues to the bargaining table.

The Fryer committee proposed a workplace improvement plan that would involve bringing to the bargaining table for the very first time issues that would not normally be discussed in this kind of forum and that could be the focus of a management-union joint resolution. More specifically, the report recommended that staffing, pension and classification issues be addressed as part of this co-development of workplace improvement process. The report emphasized that following through with such a key recommendation would greatly improve the division of the bill on consultation committees and co-development of workplace improvement.

The aim of recommendation 32 in the second report was to greatly improve employee participation in the activities of their bargaining agent.

We believe that greater participation can only improve the quality and outcome of the consultation and co-development of workplace improvement process. That's why we're asking that the following words be added at the very end of the paragraph: “in order to facilitate the process, union meetings in the workplace during normal hours shall be authorized”.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0950)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The concern the government has with this particular request is that when you get into union meetings on site, it's not appropriate to deal with the question legislatively—in other words, saying let's define matters such as what would constitute a union meeting and how often those meetings shall be allowed.

I will say that the way is clear for this matter to be discussed between the bargaining agents and the employers. It is found on page 68 of the bill, where proposed paragraph 186(3)(b) states that such meetings on the employer premises would not constitute an unfair labour practice.

It's just that the government believes this particular amendment goes too far, and as a result we cannot support it.

The Chair: Shall I call the question?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, as I did last time around, could I dispense from having to say, each time a vote is called and my amendments negatived, that the Bloc Québécois dissents?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you for that.

There was a conflict between Bloc amendment 6 and Canadian Alliance amendment 1; however, given that Bloc amendment 6 was not adopted, Canadian Alliance amendment 1 may be put.

Mr. Forseth, would you like to deal with your amendment, which we call CA-1?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

It's found on page 8 of the bill, dealing with the same proposed section 8. It was related to the subject of the whistle-blower concept, on which the minister does have a policy. The argument was that instead of just having a policy memorandum, there should be some kind of basis in the legislation to say that such policies shall exist.

Instead of trying to delineate the whole policy inside legislation, consultations with the government side—actually the government lawyers—came up with this addition where.... Now, this is part of several amendments at different places to piece this together. This is not the only one related to it.

Part of the protectors of that regime would be the union representatives. Giving a nod or a consent to this whole topic area, the clause reads as it is shown, but tacks on at the end “which issues may include, among other things... harassment in the workplace; and... disclosure of information concerning wrongdoing...”, as you can see.

So it supports the existing policy but begins to give some recognition in legislation to the existing internal policy. I made this point in the House, and there seemed to be some agreement with the government side that it was a halfway compromise. This amendment must be taken in concert; I think it comes up again later.

That's the background. It's in support of the recognition that the government does have and shall continue with its internal so-called “whistle-blowing” policy, and that it will not just disappear with another government.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, do you wish to respond?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: In view of how this has been proposed by Mr. Forseth, and in view of some of the testimony we heard—the government has had an opportunity to look at this—they will be supporting Canadian Alliance amendment number 1.

The Chair: Gosh, isn't cooperation wonderful? Is there any further comment or conversation? No?

All in favour of Canadian Alliance motion number 1?

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: It's unanimous, Mr. Lanctôt.

[English]

Excellent.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): In the case of the last amendment, I just want to check to see if the English and French versions correspond.

[English]

When we're talking about proposed section 8, there's more in French than in English. Could you comment on that?

The Chair: The question is, on Canadian Alliance amendment number 1, does the English text reconcile with the French text? Someone with greater competence than myself will answer that question.

Madame Boudrias, do you want to make a comment on that?

Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office): I would refer you to page 8. What we've used is the wording we have in the policy of the government. That was the translation we got from the policy paper we are using. As we are referring to those two policy statements, we've used the same wording. Is that all right?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Is that a direct translation of what we just passed?

Ms. Monique Boudrias: It's the wording in French and English that we have in the policy. When we go to the drafter, it's not a translation of the French to English, or English to French: both drafters draft in their own languages. But I see your point, though, that we talked about the....

[Translation]

The French text refers to “règlement des différends,”, whereas the English text does not.

[English]

Mr. Ranald Quail: We can go back to the drafters with that, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that from a drafting point of view we have it correct, so it will conform to the English.

The Chair: Let me be precise about that, then. We may deal with this at the end. There will be places along the way, when we make amendments, where we'll want to do some cleanup changes.

À (1000)

Mr. Paul Forseth: This is a common problem.

The Chair: Yes, this will be a problem. It always is with a large bill, throughout.

I assume that Madame Sherrer wanted to make a motion saying that the bill has been passed empowering the staff to make the necessary corrections to bring the two versions in line. Was that the motion you wished to make?

Is there agreement on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It is agreed and so ordered.

Thank you, Madame Sherrer.

I wish to pause here. I believe you all have your packages of amendments that have just been produced by the NDP. I have to note, however, that there's another oddity in this package, in that the first three amendments, while they show the standard form for both French and English, in fact have no French translation. They have the indication of the start of it, but they don't have the actual translation.

Now, motions can be moved in one language by members of the committee, so it doesn't make them ruled out of order, but it does make it more difficult. We will have to call upon someone to move the motion—we would have to anyway—but I am struck....

I think Mr. Lanctôt makes a point. The lead critic for the NDP on this bill has in fact been involved with it. He unfortunately is also the lead critic in Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and they're sitting this morning, one more time. He has had meetings with the minister, I know, and has been generally well satisfied with the bill.

I am going to refer you now to what is listed here as NDP motion 1. The reason I'm doing that is that even with this funny structure here with clause 2, as we try to follow any kind of order here, this does reference the area of clause 2 we are currently working on.

So I'm going to ask the question: is there a mover for NDP motion 1?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would allow the NDP to move this a little later, but I can't go along with the fact that amendments 1, 2 and 3 to Bill -25 have not been translated into French.

If the NDP wishes to move these amendments another time, I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps it's merely a printing error, but I have a problem with moving forward with NDP motions 1, 2 and 3 at this time.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Mr. Chairman, if you look closely at amendment motions 1, 2 and 3, you will note that in the English version, part of the text is amended, whereas in the French version, part of the text is merely deleted, thus eliminating the need for a French text in the first place. Therefore, in the case of motions 1, 2 and 3, there is no need for any changes. It wasn't an oversight, but rather more a matter of removing part of the text.

The same applies to amendment motions 5, 6 and 7 and all the others. Part of the text has been deleted in the French version. Nothing, therefore, has been omitted from the French translation.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: The pleasure was all mine, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: There's an opening on this committee, Madame Sherrer, if you would like to join us on a permanent basis.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd also like Ms. Scherrer to sit on our committee, but there's a big difference here. As it now stands, it's unacceptable. The English version refers to a substitution, whereas the French version deletes a portion of the text. It's not at all the same thing.

Therefore, I'd like to say that you're right, Ms. Scherrer, but making a substitution and deleting a portion of the text outright are two very different things. I can't go along with that.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, enough. I think Mr. Quail might agree with me. Is it not “amend in haste, repent in leisure”? Is there some saying of that sort?

I am going to call for the moving of amendment NDP-1. Hearing none, it is gone.

I'm going to come back to amendment BQ-7. Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, with BQ motion 7, we're proposing that Bill C-25 be amended in Clause 2 by adding after line 23 on page 8 the following:

8.1 The consultation committees must prepare each year their consultation program and must meet and consult with each other in good faith, and make every effort to reach an agreement

Obviously, we're delighted that the bill formally acknowledges the fact that some consultation committees already exist. At the same time, however, we're disappointed that the government did not jump at the chance to make these committees truly effective. Although the establishment of such committees would now be mandatory and the latter would be subject to the provisions of the act, there is no obligation for the parties to consult with each other in good faith.

Moreover, the bill makes no provision for implementing dispute resolution mechanisms should the consultation committee reach an impasse in its talks. What the bill in effect does is establish committees that can then be legitimately ignored.

In order for the consultation committees to be truly effective, we recommend that they be allowed to choose the topics that will be on the table for discussion, including the subject of co-development of workplace improvement. We also recommend that a dispute resolution mechanism be put in place.

Therefore, we're asking that a new provision be added after clause 8 which would stipulate that consultation committees must prepare on a yearly basis their consultation program and must meet and consult with each other in good faith and make every effort to reach an agreement.

À (1005)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

Just on a process item here, as we go through these amendments, I will always allow the movers to make their statements. I will call upon Mr. Tirabassi or his designate to respond, and then I will take other interventions if there are any.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: The concern the government has with this particular amendment is that really what it attempts to do is turn the consultation committee into collective bargaining. Certainly when you talk about good faith, agreements, and what not, those are terms more appropriate to the collective bargaining process, not consultation. Therefore, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I don't think the elected union leadership would be very happy with the terms of agreement, because it would be trying to put into these committees what they, during normal labour relations and negotiations, would be doing, so it might be at cross-purposes. The purpose of these consultation committees is to send signals to each other to work out more local, cooperative resolutions as an addition and augmentation to the normal labour and management process. But if you start talking about agreements, then you're starting to cross purposes. I could see even the union leadership being not particularly happy with this, because it gets confusing.

These are consultation committees. If you're going to have cooperative consultation, it's inherent that they meet in good faith; otherwise, you don't have consultation. It just breaks down. You can't build into it a mandate that it inappropriately should not have.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Regarding the information to be passed on to Mr. Forseth, I just want to point out that this was one of the requests made by the Public Service Alliance.

To dispel any doubts you may have, I would also just say that we checked with them to see if there was a problem. Besides, they were the ones who said that this would be fine with them.

[English]

The Chair: Are you so absolved, Mr. Forseth?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm smiling. No, I don't think it's wise.

The Chair: I'll call the question.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: We're racing ahead to amendment BQ-8.

Mr. Lanctôt, would you care to introduce your amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. At this time, I'd like to move BQ motion 8.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 35 on page 8 with the following:

provement. The parties involved in a co-development improvement initiative must agree at the outset on a process for the resolution of any disputes relating to that initiative

Just to explain this amendment to you further, the co-development improvement initiative makes provision for a dispute resolution mechanism in exceptional cases - and such cases are truly exceptional - where parties cannot reach an agreement. The members and Bloc worked together to come up with this dispute resolution mechanism. In the same spirit of cooperation, we feel that all parties involved in a co-development improvement initiative pursuant to clauses 9 and 10 of the bill should agree at the outset on a dispute resolution process. In the absence of such a process, the difference between consultation and co-development is fallacious.

However, still in a spirit of cooperation, it's important to allow the parties the latitude to choose the right dispute resolution process, and we acknowledge that such disputes are a rare occurrence. That is the rationale behind this amendment.

À (1010)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, for much of the same reason as in the previous amendment, although we were talking about consultation previously and now we're talking about co-development, the government does not feel it would be appropriate to try to turn co-development into collective bargaining. As a result, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Is there any further comment? Hearing none, I shall call the question on amendment BQ-8.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: I will call amendment BQ-9.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I will now move BQ motion 9.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 5 on page 9 with the following:

may agree on. Any dispute regarding the co-development of workplace improvements may be resolved through the National Joint Council's dispute resolution process, regardless of whether the dispute is within the Council's jurisdiction.

This amendment is a follow up to the Fryer Report recommendations which noted the following:

Generally speaking, the scope of bargainable issues, that is the number of issues that can be put on the bargaining table, is narrower in the public sector than it is in the private sector.

Public sector unions regularly bemoan this fact and public sector employees tend to resist attempts to put new issues on the bargaining table. The Fryer committee therefore came up with the co-development workplace improvement initiative whereby issues not normally on the bargaining table could be open to discussion and subject to a joint labour-management resolution.

Specifically, we believe that issues like staffing, pensions and classifications could be addressed as part of the co-development workplace improvement process. We further believe that a dispute resolution mechanism could be put in place should discussions result in an impasse.

Since Bill C-25 makes no provision for this, we're recommending the approach set out in the motion that I've just read to you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The difficulty the government has with this is that the departments are not members of the National Joint Council, and the National Joint Council provides dispute resolution only regarding grievances arising from matters that are negotiated there. It would not be appropriate for this legislation to impose on the NJC what matters it is to deal with, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: I don't like that word “negatived”. I wish the clerk would come up with another word.

Now we are moving on to BQ-10. Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item is BQ motion 10 which reads as follows:

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 9 the following:

11.1 The employer and a bargaining agent must establish a process to resolve disputes between the parties where the consultation committees are unable to reach an agreement.

As I mentioned earlier, the parties are under no obligation to consult in good faith. Furthermore, no provision is made in the bill for a dispute resolution mechanism should the parties be unable to reach an agreement. What this all means is that consultation committees must be established by law, but these can also be legitimately ignored.

In order for consultation committees to be truly effective, we recommend that they have the power to choose the issues on which they wish to be consulted, including the co-development workplace improvement initiative. We further recommend the introduction of a dispute resolution mechanism.

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Again, the government cannot support this amendment because in effect it would legislatively require a dispute resolution mechanism for consultation committees. Again, that is more appropriately part of collective bargaining. We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: We are now on BQ-11. Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BQ-11 reads as follows:

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 9 the following:

11.2 The Board may review any complaint alleging that the employer or the trade union has failed to comply with their duty to consult in good faith.

My explanation would be the same as the one I provided with respect to the previous clause.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: As a result of BQ-7 being defeated, this amendment should be defeated as well. It cannot be tied to a provision in the act. Again, we're back to the duty to consult in good faith, as part of consultation.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: I will call BQ-12. Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd now like to move BQ motion 12.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 14 on page 9 with the following:

in accordance with this Act, and to ensure the attainment of the objectives of this Act.

The proposed legislation describes the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board in the following terms:

13. The Board's mandate is to provide adjudication services, mediation services and compensation analysis and research services in accordance with this Act.

We feel that the Board should also have a mandate to ensure the attainment of the Act's objectives, namely the right of association and the right to open collective bargaining. In the process, the Board's mandate would be far less technical. Furthermore, the Board could play a more complete and effective labour relations role.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: On this particular amendment, I'd like to refer to Mr. Quail of the task force for an explanation.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We certainly believe that clause 36, page 14, which talks about the board's powers or mandate, already covers what Mr. Lanctôt is proposing, in talking about ensuring “the attainment of the objectives of this act”. Accordingly, we didn't feel that it would be necessary to include what BQ-12 proposes.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived on division)

À (1020)

The Chair: We now come to G-2. I will call upon Mr. Tirabassi to present this motion.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chairman, if it's agreeable with the committee, I'm going to read this amendment: that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 36 on page nine, and lines 1 to 6 on page 10, with the following.... You all have it in front of you on page 14. Does the committee wish that I read page 14, or just offer up an explanation of it, for the sake of time?

The Chair: I would like an explanation of why we've added the word “any”, and whether this is constrained by normal budget processes. Does this give them an opportunity to simply order any research they wish, or are they constrained by their overall budget envelope or resources they have available?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, I would refer this to Mr. Quail.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From our point of view, we were trying to clarify a number of issues with this amendment. We wanted to make it clear that the public, as well as the employer and bargaining agents, would have access to the information and to the analysis that the board has and carries out.

At the same time, there's a need for appropriate protection regarding the personal identity of respondents to surveys and regarding the identity of the sources of the information that's provided to the board. Without such protection, some respondents might not wish to supply information to the board, which could make the board's job very difficult to do.

The amendment introducing a restriction on disclosure clarifies and confirms that the identity of respondents and sources of information will be protected from disclosure. The proposed language is consistent with other legislation, such as the Statistics Act. The proposed exception to the restriction on disclosure is also consistent with other legislation, and allows that the restriction does not apply if the parties concerned consent to the information being released.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I move amendment G-2.

The Chair: While I understand the purpose of your proposed subclause 16(2), the board is covered by the access and privacy legislation, is it not?

Privacy legislation allows the withholding of information supplied by third parties without the consent of the third parties. Why is it necessary to bring the clause in here that would already be covered by that?

Mr. Ranald Quail: It is for greater certainty, so that whenever the people went out to do the surveys, they could point to it in the legislation and say that this is how it's covered.

The Chair: Doesn't this create cumbersome processes when we go to amend privacy legislation?

Mr. Ranald Quail: I would hope not—but I can't be sure it won't.

The Chair: If we're restating something that's already stated in legislation, I am a little....

As for my first question, about the “any”, what control of expenditure is there here? Does this put into the legislation a right to order legislation that the government shall then pay for?

Mr. Ranald Quail: I'm not sure I understand the question, Mr. Chairman.

We have set this up so that we do have an advisory committee, which advises the chairman and gets approval for carrying out the work and the methodology, so that we can do the comparative analysis. The way this is written, we had not thought it was an open chequebook; rather, it was conducting any research relating to compensation that the chairperson may direct. He does get advice from an advisory committee, and he'll have a budget like everybody else.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: This is probably a good case for helping one to better understand the crafting of legislation. I've always been mesmerized by the linguistic gymnastics people go through.

I would like to understand the proposed subclause 16(1) in your amendment a little bit better. Although I appreciate that you propose only a very modest change, it says “The compensation analysis and research services to be provided by the Board include”—followed by the list—“conducting compensation surveys, compiling information relating to compensation, analyzing that information and making it, and the analysis, available to the parties and to the public...”. Whew, that's still one sentence. If there were to be a period after “public”, it would makes sense to me. But then when you start again with “and conducting any research relating to compensation that the Chairperson...” we're basically saying that the services provided by the board include conducting research.

First of all, it is very difficult to read, and I don't think it would pass a grammar class. Second, it presently says “conducting...research”, but what impact would adding the word “any” have on this? Give me an example of what will now be included, but which you were afraid might not have been included if it had just said “conducting...research”. Give me an example of what somebody was concerned about.

À (1025)

Michel LeFrancois (General Counsel, Human resources Modernization task Force, Privy Council Office): Mr. Chair, may I address the question of Mr. Szabo?

The Chair: Yes, please do.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Szabo, clause 16 is drafted or constructed in the rather odd way that it is, as you pointed out, because the second part of the research, the market comparison research, would not be available to the public. That's the information culled by surveying private sector employers and public services, and it was constructed in that way so that those market comparisons not be made available to the public, as you can see.

As as Mr. Quail indicated earlier, there was nervousness about the cooperation that the board might get if private sector employers and other employers were not assured that the information they gave was completely protected. In the amendment we proposed, we redrafted the clause to make that quite clear. Once we add the word “any”, we don't have to talk about market-based comparisons, or anything of that sort.

So in essence, Mr. Szabo, in clarifying the clause, we've added subclause 16(2), thus shortening subclause 16(1).

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's encouraging.

Mr. Chair, if I took subclause 16(1) from your proposed amendment and simply broke it down into two sentences, the second sentence would read: “The compensation analysis and research services to be provided by the Board include conducting any research relating to compensation that the Chairperson may direct”. Is that what you want in?

It would be possible to split this into two sentences. As I've read the second sentence, the services would include “conducting any research”. How is this different from the services “include conducting” research? The word “any” must have been triggered by some inclusion or exclusion in that sentence, which has nothing to do with market analysis in sentence one. The word “any” has something to do with going outside, either going outside the umbrella of compensation matters, or of other ancillary matters. The word “any” seems to be a more permissive description for what's being asked, but it's not apparent to me as a layperson how “conducting research” is different from “conducting any research”.

Unless you can explain why there is a difference, then I suggest that we're going to have to delete the word “any”.

À (1030)

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, I think Madam Aloisi wishes to make a comment.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi (Director General, Human resources Modernization task Force, Privy Council Office): I just want to make clear that in your proposed subclause 16(1) you have two parties. You have the board, the Public Service Labour Relations Board, as the board that is going to conduct research--as a board. What we are also doing here is allowing the chair of the board to decide to do some surveys. So it allows the two. It allows the board as a board to take surveys, but because the chair of the board is the CEO of the board, the chair can also decide to do some surveys. That's all it does. Because the board is composed of a number of people, as you can imagine, it can decide to do certain surveys, but the chair himself or herself as the CEO of the board may decide to do additional surveys.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I suspect if it just said “and the services to be provided by the board include conducting research”....

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: It just allows the chair of the board to decide to do his or her own surveys.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But what you really want to do is say the chair of the board can request research be conducted on compensation.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: That's what we're trying to do here, yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's all you want to do. That's different from saying “any research”.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: I think the word “any” doesn't have to be there.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That's the only change in your proposed subclause 16(1).

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: So it's much longer. The way it was worded before--

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's a replacement, but in terms of the language I hear, the underlined....

Mr. Paul Forseth: But it's incorrect. There are more changes than just what's underlined.

The Chair: Let's try to ratchet back on the creative impulses here.

Mr. Szabo, if you wish to propose an amendment, having heard the discussion, the one thing I will ask you to do is formulate it formally--write it down--so the committee knows exactly what it is passing. I note your concern about “any” and my concern about all the rest of it, but that's another thing.

I'll have Mr. Tirabassi make an intervention while you are considering that and then I'll come back to you to see how you wish to proceed.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Szabo raises a concern about the word “any”. It was put in there in an attempt to add greater clarity. We don't have a problem taking the word “any” out. However, he also wants to break it into two sentences for grammatical purposes. As far as needing a specific amendment is concerned, I would leave that to you, but we do not have a problem with taking the word “any” out.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi. We appreciate that.

How do you feel about the rest of it?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We'll take it out.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I raised it because in looking at the clause and how it's been presented here, the point was simply that the language was not very easy to work with, and legislation should be. Now the officials have assured me it has no consequence, there is no ulterior motive, etc. The point has been made, so I'm not going to propose a change if no change is necessary.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment? I'll call the question on amendment G-2.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

À (1035)

The Chair: Now, that brings us to amendment BQ-13, page 17 of your big package.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the case of BQ-13, we're proposing that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 10 with the following:

provision of stable funding, facilities and administrative sup-

We applaud the fact that the National Joint Council, or NJC, is recognized in the Act, but we are concerned that the clause makes no provision for funding this body. Pursuant to the Act, the Board is responsible for the provision to the NJC of facilities and administrative support services. However, given the importance of this agency to all parties when it comes to labour relations in the federal public service, we feel that our call for stable, independent funding of this body is justified.

For this reason, we're asking that the words “provision of stable funding” be added to this clause.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, the government has difficulty with this. Quite simply, we just don't feel it would be appropriate to guarantee funds in legislation, funds that could be used to, let's say, protest against a particular government policy or government event. So we will not be supporting this particular amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: One moment, please.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd like someone to explain to me why we can't include a reference to funding in this Act. After all, the Board was established to provide services.

When we talk about “providing a service”, indirectly we're broaching the subject of funding. Why not then include a reference to “stable funding”? I'd like Mr. Quail to answer that question for me.

[English]

The Chair: Your response, Mr. Quail?

Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any legislation I ever worked with where we were guaranteed and enjoyed stable funding as an undertaking in legislation. It's just not there. You deal with the cards you get. Next week you're going to talk about government estimates. Estimates are year by year. From a departmental point of view, it would be great to have this; I'd love it. But that's not reality. On one side, I really like the amendment, but on the other side, it just doesn't make sense. It's just not the way the world lives.

The Chair: I want you to know, Mr. Lanctôt, you have the support of Mr. Quail on this amendment.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, there is a clear definition between statutory spending and program spending. This would perhaps limit the ability of managers to manage the budget within their own purview, and to assign relative funds to different sections. If they're given a hunk of money, they have to manage it and justify that. The more you start rolling back the provision of their being able to do that in statute...that's kind of inappropriate.

We have statutory spending, like the Canada Pension Plan and OAS, but this is more on the program side. So I don't think it's appropriate.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any further questions on amendment BQ-13?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: I'm going to take a consultation here, so give me a second. We don't need to record Mr. Quail's lack of vote on that one, do we?

Mr. Paul Forseth: We have humour. Maybe we could have the addition of cartoon strips, as well.

The Chair: For the information of members, amendment NDP-2, which is coming up now, is almost identical in wording to amendment BQ-13. It's not identical in wording, but it appears identical in its intention. We have already defeated that one, so it would be my intention to rule this out of order.

Mr. Stoffer.

À (1040)

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, is it word for word the same amendment as the Bloc's? If technically there's a difference, then we should be able to vote on it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think the member wants to speak to his motion. We can accommodate him. I wouldn't object.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I don't have a problem with what's being requested in English. However, I'd like my colleague to tell me why there's nothing in French.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, I can respond to that.

Monsieur Lanctôt, I am informed that we have now received a fully translated version. I'm going to put it on hold until we receive the copies.

We'll proceed with amendment BQ-14.

We almost had anarchy break out there. Challenge to the chair would be terrible.

Let's go to amendment BQ-14. Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're asking with BQ-14 that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 10 with the following:

19. (1) Every member, other than the Chairperson, and every Vice-Chairperson must be

Our first comment pertains to subsection 19(1) of the bill which concerns board members. The provision in question reads as follows:

Every member, other than the Chairperson or a Vice-Chairperson, must be appointed from among eligible persons whose names are included on a list prepared by the Chairperson after consultation with the employer and the bargaining agent.

We would like the same rules to apply not only to board members, but to vice-chairpersons as well. We would also like to see included in the bill a provision whereby any policy decisions must be approved by all board members. This would ensure the desired balance in labour relations between the employer and the bargaining agents.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

There's a note here--and perhaps Madame Scherrer can have a look at this--that the English and French versions are not identical. Would you have a look at that while I ask Mr. Tirabassi to respond?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government has difficulty with this particular amendment. Vice-chairs, we feel, should be treated much like the chairs and not selected from a particular list. None of them should be seen as having been submitted based on a recommendation of one side or the other. Of course, in the case of the incapacity of the chairperson, one of the vice-chairs would act as the chair.

As a result, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Madame Scherrer, are the incompatibilities sufficient in consequence that they could be resolved in accordance with your former motion?

Mme Hélène Scherrer: On that one? It seems okay to me.

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll just throw my two cents in. I know the government's position, but we would support the Bloc amendment, because I think anything that will improve labour-management relations would be a good thing. This amendment assists in that regard, and really that's what we're all here for, to improve the relationships between the employees and the employers, to the benefit of the taxpayer. I think this particular amendment would go a long way in doing that.

The Chair: There are some, Mr. Stoffer, who would say that is the intention of the entire bill.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would just like to add, that's my point exactly. That was the intent of the entire bill, and after hearing from the number of witnesses, although many of them may have had concerns about a certain part of the bill, there seemed to be an overall--overwhelming, I would say--consensus that this bill moves tremendously in that direction.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If I may digress for just a moment, some bills are meant to improve the situation or the safety and lives of Canadians, but some would argue that Bill C-68 doesn't do that in its regard. So we could argue that this particular bill, although well-intentioned, has some fundamental flaws, and that's why we proposed these amendments, just to enhance and strengthen the bill.

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, for your information, Bill C-68 was two Parliaments ago. We're on Bill C-25.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I realize that. We were talking about strengthening relationships and working together.

The Chair: I appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure you were on the right page.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's just related to goodwill. It has to do with balance. We have a chairperson and up to three vice-chairpersons, and then any other members that the Governor in Council may appoint. You have a list of other members, and the list might only include maybe one or two from the other side, so then you have the chair voting in a tie. And you have three vice-chairpersons. I'm certainly sure there's good faith, but if there were a bit of a malevolent agenda or whatever, something could go awry.

In subclause 19(1), it's “Every member, other than the Chairperson or a Vice-Chairperson”. It says there are going to be up to three of them. So it comes down to the balance, the voting balance on this body.

The Chair: So your recommendation to the committee is to support or reject?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm looking at maybe letting this section stand until there's a bit of further thought here, for both the government and the Bloc to talk about this a little bit, because if there's lack of faith in the whole structure, the whole thing goes down, if the parties are saying it's a phony creation.

The Chair: I'm going to Madame Scherrer, and then I'm going to ask Mr. Quail or Mr. LeFrançois to comment, if they so choose.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I just want to focus for a moment on the wording of the French and English versions and on whether the two versions are consistent. They're not, because as Mr. Forseth just said, the English text refers to only one vice-chairperson, whereas the French version refers to “vice-présidents” in the plural.

Perhaps the necessary correction should be made to ensure the two versions correspond.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The English text refers to “every Vice-Chairperson”. I don't see why it couldn't be plural. It could mean one or more vice-chairpersons.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: That may be so in the amendment, but not in the original version.

[English]

The Chair: Let's not have a conversation break out here. We might be informed.

Let me suggest this: let's see what happens to the clause. If the clause passes, then, Madame Scherrer, I suspect your other motion would come into play, unless you're saying there is something particularly substantive about the change, the difference, other than it being one of context.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Can I ask the officials to comment on that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Quail or Mr. LeFrançois?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Regarding the French and English versions, whether in the case of the proposed amendment or the text as it now stands, I do believe the two texts correspond.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: The text refers to “a Vice-Chairperson”, whereas in the French version, we have “des vice-présidents”.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: It means every vice-chairperson. In English “a” means “every”. There could be one, two, or three individuals. It corresponds to the French.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Let us deal with the substance of this. The motion that's on the floor is amendment BQ-14. It has been moved. We've had some discussion of it. Mr. Forseth has made a suggestion, as he feels that there is a substantive concern here, that we table this for further discussion.

Mr. Tirabassi, is there any willingness to do that, or would you like to proceed?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, if it's to have another look, since we're not going to tie this all up today, I would agree that we stand this clause.

The Chair: Okay, so we're going to stand amendment BQ-14.

Boy, this is an agreeable committee.

I note, too, that we have stood two other clauses, which we might be able to come back to, but let's deal with amendment BQ-15.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

À (1050)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. I just want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that we are in a conciliatory mood, or at least I was during all of the meetings I attended. I'm here to improve upon this bill, not to make Canada a better country. If you want no part of it, so be it.

I move that Bill C-25 be amended by replacing line 11 on page 14 with the following:

before the Board or an interim order relating to any matter referred to in this division or Part 2.

First of all, we think it's critically important that the Board be able to issue interim orders, just as the Canada Industrial Relations Board is authorized to do, and that such orders can be issued in respect of matters set out in clause 4 of the bill as well as the grievance adjudication process.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, I would request that the committee stand this particular amendment. I'd like an opportunity to go back and perhaps take a look at defining a period of interim and what impact that may have. We're requesting the opportunity to take this back, so I'm going to request that we stand this particular amendment.

The Chair: It's up to you, Mr. Lanctôt. So amendment BQ-15 would stand as well as BQ-14.

Just because I am an orderly person, I note that we stood two amendments right at the outset of this. There was a little confusion when we were starting, but we stood amendments BQ-1 and BQ-2.

Mr. Tirabassi, can I ask you, are we in a position to respond to those two amendments, or do you wish to have them stand with the others? We can leave them standing and come back to them another day, if you prefer.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would request that we continue in the order that we've established, and then come back to those, please.

The Chair: That's fine.

I have the three NDP motions before me now, which I believe have been circulated to the members of the committee. While I passed on amendment NDP-1, I think I'm going to come back and allow Mr. Stoffer the opportunity to speak to NDP-1. We will deal with it, then we'll move to NDP-2, and then we'll go back into our package, because they come up in that order.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, may I say, first of all, on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Martin of Winnipeg Centre, we thank you very much for your leadership in allowing us the opportunity to be able to speak and to delay these as we go along.

In amendment NDP-1, we would amend line 39 on page 7 with the following: “trade union of their choice”. It more or less exemplifies freedom of association with members, allowing them to associate with the trade union of their choice, regardless of where they are, and not be forced to accept one. We think this deserves support from the committee.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Stoffer, I should have caught this earlier, but this amendment is identical to a Bloc motion that was negatived. My original instinct was correct, that NDP-1 is gone.

We now come to amendment NDP-2. Again, we are caught with this problem of an amendment being identical in intent, but not in wording, with another one. Given that it is not identical, I am informed that it is not out of order.

While recognizing that this issue has been dealt with by the committee, Mr. Stoffer, I will allow you to proceed with it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I'll therefore keep it very short. I would recommend support for this amendment.

À (1055)

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, I assume your reaction is the same as before.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: That's correct.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: To bring people back to our little road map here, we are going to move to amendment BQ-16.

Mr. Stoffer, for your information, we will do amendment NDP-3 after doing amendments BQ-16 and BQ-17. We will then do amendment BQ-18, and then amendment NDP-4. So you now have a sense of where we're at in this process.

On amendment BQ-16, Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're proposing that Bill C-25 be amended in Clause 2 by replacing line 23 on page 17 with the following:

before it without holding an oral hearing, provided that the parties involved agree that the matter in respect of which the complaint was made does not require an oral hearing.

Pursuant to section 41 of the Act, the PSLRA gives the Board the power to decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing. The Board's discretionary power is unlimited and could result in unfair rulings. Consequently, we're proposing the aforementioned wording, namely that the Board be authorized to decide a matter without holding an oral hearing, provided that the parties involved agree that the matter in respect of which the complaint is made does not require an oral hearing.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, the government cannot support this amendment. Quite simply, we feel that it's more appropriate to leave with the board the decision when to have a paper hearing. As a result, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I don't want to belabour the point, but I'm having some difficulty understanding, given that our basic objective is to improve labour relations, how a matter in respect of which a complaint is made cannot require a hearing.

Earlier, you indicated to Mr. Stoffer that the purpose of the act was in fact to improve labour relations. I won't comment on every single point, since I've been doing that for the past two months, but I'd like to know how much credibility you think you have when you say the onus in on the Board, particular when no discussion can really take place.

Mr. Tirabassi, I have to say that you and your officials astound me. To get good press, you maintain that your primary goal is to establish sound labour relations. Yet, what we're proposing to achieve this goal... I won't say it every time, but at some point, I just can't remain silent. There are some things that need to be said.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Macklin and then to Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I think the essence of what was attempted was to try to end up with an independent tribunal that would make those decisions. Quite frankly, the suggested amendment simply ties their hands in terms of what hearing they would choose to hear. So I think the amendment goes way beyond what would be appropriate.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: In view of Mr. Macklin's comments, I would like to withdraw mine.

The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: I am now going to amendment BQ-17, and Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the case of BQ motion 17, we're proposing that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 38 to 41 on page 20 with the following:

(4) The advisory board is comprised only of representatives of the employer and the trade union, in equal numbers, so as to form the majority of the members of the board under an impartial chairperson.

As you know, this amendment is a follow up to the Fryer report which recommended the following, namely:

the establishment of a Compensation Research Bureau to provide reliable pay and benefit data to both parties in collective bargaining

and that

the National Joint Council be the forum for the joint management of the newly established Compensation Research Bureau.

Subsection 53(2) of the Bill C-25 notes the following in Section 4:

(2) The advisory board is to consist of a chairperson and no more than 11 other members appointed by the Minister.

Subsection 53(4) further notes:

(4) Appointments to the advisory board are to be made such that there is an equal number of members representative of the employer and of employees.

However, if the Minister decides to appoint a single member to represent the employers, employee representation will also be limited. Accordingly, we're proposing that this provision be amended to ensure that the bill more accurately reflects the position stated in the Fryer Report, namely that the parties should jointly assume responsibility for the newly established Compensation Research Bureau, that an equal number of members representative of the employer and of employees be appointed and that the majority of the members on the advisory board must be appointed.

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We will not be supporting this amendment, Mr. Chair. Simply put, we feel that it's important for the advisory board to have independent experts for proper functioning. Of course, this is tied also to the next amendment. So again, we will not be supporting it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Tirabassi, with great respect, said that independence of the advisory board, I would assume, is important, but on page 20 of that--and maybe I should go to the people to my left here for further advice--if we wish to have independence of the advisory board, why would we be supporting anything where the minister appoints eleven members?

The reason I say that is we have challenges and difficulties, Mr. Chairperson, on airport authorities and port authorities across the country, where the minister has discretionary power to appoint his or her, as we in the opposition world say, “friends”, and we question whether or not they have the expertise to handle airport obligations or port obligations.

We're concerned that the advisory board, which is very important.... There is a great example of an advisory board by the FRCC within DFO. That's very good, and the minister seeks selection of people. He goes out to seek, and people advise him of who should be on that board. This isn't in here at all. This basically allows the minister discretionary power to appoint whoever he or she wishes to have. That's the perception I have. I'm asking for clarification, Mr. Chairperson, from our experts, if possible .

The Chair: This amendment would seek to replace the minister's friends with your friends.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have some good friends.

Mr. Ranald Quail: If you look at the proposed text for the whole section, it does definitely say at proposed subsection 53.(1), “The minister shall establish...”. Proposed subsection 53.(2) talks about the composition, and proposed subsection 53.(3) sets out the qualifications, so it's hardly wide-open. It does say:

All of the members must have knowledge or experience that will assist the advisory board to accomplish its mandate, including knowledge of or experience in compensation issues or statistics.

That's fairly specific, so it is designed, I think, for us to get the kind of knowledge and experience we need to deal with the matter at hand.

Finally, representatives, as in proposed subsection 53.(4), are

...to be made such that there is an equal number of members representative of the employer and of employees.

So you appoint one, you get another one. Obviously, we would like to have somebody from the outside who is neither an employer or an employee. That such person might come from the academic world or somewhere from whence they would bring “knowledge of or experience in compensation issues or statistics”.

I think that it is a balanced approach and we do have some checks and balances.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Quail.

Mr. Forseth.

Á (1105)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I also remind the committee that we have already voted on the issue of including the terminology “trade union”. The bill has equal numbers of members, representatives of employer and employees, and it stays away from language that uses the term “union”. We had previous explanations about that point, where the bill never refers to the word “union”, and we voted on that issue. As a consequence, every future amendment that has the word “union” in it, by definition, is really out of order as far as that word is concerned.

I wanted to make that point, that it's an additional nuance as to why the Bloc amendment is inappropriate.

The Chair: On your specific point, does our voting against the addition of the words “trade union” in an earlier amendment rule other amendments that bring that term in? I don't think that's the case, although I'm trying to recall the wording of the amendment. I will check to confirm that, but while I agree that was the intention and it was stated in the discussion that there was an attempt to move away from that, functionally I still think we have to deal with these amendments.

I'll go to Mr. Stoffer, then back to Mr. Lanctôt, and then we'll see if there is any more comment, or we'll call the question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Quail, may I ask, is there any peer review mechanism of what you've just stated?

Mr. Ranald Quail: No, it's in the bill. We follow it religiously, as set out in the various proposed subsections, 53.(1), (2), (3), and (4).

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, the problem I have with that is I've been a member of Parliament for only six years and have witnessed patronage--not from this party but from other parties--and favouritism, as in friendship. It happens in all political parties, by the way, not just the Liberals. I've seen it provincially with the NDP as well. I'm not just criticizing one party.

The reason for that is there is no concrete action that states appointments must be peer-reviewed, appointments must not be done by just one person, but by a group of people. The ability for one individual, whoever he or she may be, to appoint whoever leads to the perception that there could be either a political favour or a return of some friendship in kind.

I think if we're trying to build a bill that is open and transparent.... And I'm thinking of the future of the public service, as well. This is going to have long-term ramifications. I think that specific angle of allowing one person the ability, without any opportunities for peer review, to appoint people is a dangerous precedent. I mean, it's already happened, but that needs to change. How we do it I don't know. So I'm asking for your furtherance.

Mr. Ranald Quail: I think I can only go back to my earlier comments in response to Mr. Stoffer, that in thinking about the points he has put on the table, we tried to put some qualifications around it. We wanted to make sure we have people appointed who are knowledgeable of or experienced in compensation issues or statistics. And we wanted to make sure we have representativeness in terms of having an equal number of representatives of the employer and of the employees. We thought at the end of the day that would put sufficient restraint...or sufficient direction from Parliament to the minister in terms of the appointments to this particular advisory board.

It is in the interest of the party, the government, the employer, and the employee representatives to have people who know how to do this work.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd like to remind Mr. Forseth, who gets nauseous at the mere mention of the word “union”, that if memory serves me correctly, Mr. Michel LeFrançois had suggested we use the word “employee organization” instead of “union”. We could do that for every amendment. I seem to recall that we agreed on this. Mr. Forseth, you need to stop overreacting each time the word “union” is spoken.

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair: I think, in fairness, it was a definitional issue. There was no intention to suggest unions wouldn't be involved or important.

Mr. LeFrançois, can you add to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To put these remarks in context, Mr. Lanctôt, let me just say this: In the case of this act, the expression “trade union” corresponds to “organisation syndicale”. However, an “employee organization” is not necessarily the same thing as a “bargaining agent”, because bargaining agents are certified. There is an important distinction to be made here.

“Employee organization” has a much broader meaning than “bargaining agent”. In some situations, it's appropriate to use the term “bargaining agent” because the employer has the legal obligation to sit down and negotiate in good faith with that certified entity, namely the bargaining agent. That's not the case, however, for the employer and the “employee organization”, which has a much looser meaning.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: As I indicated to you last time, we are not assuming responsibility for the legal drafting. We're simply letting you know which amendments we'd like. I thought we had agreed on the use of the word “union”—I have no problem with using the word, but others would prefer not to—and that in the case of a definition, we had agreed to refer to an “employee organization”, a wholly separate entity. I trust that we can all understand that in certain cases, we're talking about an “employee organization”, whereas in others, we're talking about a “union” or ”bargaining agent”. In my view, the distinction is fairly clear.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Lanctôt, it's clear in this case, since we're talking about representatives...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The reference is to union representatives. I think we both agree that this is a reference to “bargaining agents”.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I understand what you're saying, but others seem to be confused.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, if it's possible, could you just slow down long enough for the translators to catch up with us? Also, given that they take their cue, in terms of turning on your mike, from my recognition of you, it makes it a little more difficult.

Let me see if I understand something here, because I think you raised an issue that will come up over and over. The reason for the objection from the outset on this issue of the words “trade union” was simply for equivalence and clarity in both languages in the drafting of the bill, Mr. LeFrançois. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Let me just add one feature, Mr. Chair. The expression “trade union” does not exist in the legislation. We talk about an “employee organization”, or in French “agent négociateur”, the bargaining agent. So the expression “trade union” is foreign to this legislation. We have two expressions that touch on it--again, employee organization or bargaining agent, depending on the context. So the expression itself, trade union, has no place here.

The Chair: I understand that. I understand the argument. I want to deal with what is just going to be a procedural issue as we go forward here, given that, as Mr. Lanctôt said, there's no intention in the bill to disenfranchise employee representatives. They're there, and that includes trade unions, right? That's a fair statement?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: In the vernacular, trade unions, or bargaining agents, in this legislation.

The Chair: What we're really dealing with here is this definition. Mr. Lanctôt, in the drafting of all his motions, has included the words “trade union” instead of the other term, which you're more comfortable with. Now, procedurally, as we deal with these things, he has to move some amendments to every one of them to change that word.

I would suggest, Mr. Lanctôt, if you are comfortable with this, let us just recognize that if one of your motions passes, or there's an indication it's going to pass, then we will amend that specific motion to change the word to make it line up with the intention of the bill. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Lanctôt?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It certainly is.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I understand there are employees who are represented by organizations that don't call themselves unions, so it's broader.

And I want to get back to the nature of the advisory board, after Mr. Stoffer.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just on a point of clarification, sir, and in my ignorance on this, would you be able to explain why the words “trade union” are foreign to this bill? What is the objection to them?

Á (1115)

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: It's historical, as I understand it, sir. In 1967, when the Public Service Staff Relations Act was created, when collective bargaining rights were given to federal public servants for the first time, their organizations were not called “trade unions”; they were called “bargaining agents”.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know where the word “trade” came from--it was carpenters, boilermakers, etc. Was it because public service was not considered a trade?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Well, that's part of it. The more professional type of employees, especially, were not comfortable seeing themselves as union members. The term was more generic and more acceptable to everyone.

The Chair: It is clear it's not an intention to disenfranchise or rule out; it's just a linguistic issue.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, getting back to the nature of advisory boards in subsections 53.(1), (2), (3), and (4), the issue came up about composition and favouritism. Tell me, this is just an advisory board to provide advice, but are the appointments paid appointments, or are they representatives that various organizations put forward? If these are paid positions, then we could see that maybe there's some potential there for favouritism and so on. But if this is not a paid position, can you explain that?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: The way this would work is that they would be paid for travelling expenses, that kind of thing. So if the minister would want, for example, to meet with them in Ottawa and then go on from Ottawa, they would have to be reimbursed for their travelling expenses and not be paid, per se. So they would have a per diem.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Can you cite under what general regulation that comes? Because in receipted expenses often there's a meal allowance, then perhaps there is a financial compensation for so much per day, for an actual salary. That's often the case when a consultant is hired. They're paid perhaps $150 a day, in addition to all their actual expenses. So there must be various categories where you can pin a name on it so we know the nature of what this advisory board is.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: I would respond by saying simply that the Treasury Board guidelines would apply to how to treat the payment of expenses for the members of this advisory committee. So I'm not totally clear, but they would not be paid for any salaries. It's the travel, meals, that kind of thing.

The Chair: I would like to be clear on this. That's the case with any of these. Unless the legislation specifically identifies it, or the order-in-council appointment, should there be one, specifically identifies it, it is all according to Treasury Board guidelines for expenses. And you're saying, then, there is no provision of an honorarium intended.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: No.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth, does that satisfy you?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Perhaps I may bootleg on that, Mr. Chairman.

Some people obviously have other occupations, and if they need to leave that occupation for a period of time to assist on this advisory board, their lost salaries or wages would be compensated for. Is that part of the Treasury Board guidelines in that regard? Would that be part of the package?

If I were a lawyer or in a field and say I had to come to Ottawa for three weeks to advise the minister on certain things and I lost three weeks' worth of salary, would that be reimbursed?

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: Actually, one of my colleagues pointed out that page 100 of the bill,

[Translation]

clause 247 on page 100,

[English]

deals with remuneration and expenses, and Treasury Board guidelines are fixed by the Governor in Council. It says:

Members of arbitration boards, mediators, adjudicators, persons appointed under subsection 53(2) and persons seized of referrals under subsection 182(1) are entitled to be paid the remuneration and expenses that may be fixed by the Governor in Council.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Excuse me. Then they could be paid an honorarium as determined by the Governor in Council.

Ms. Yvette Aloisi: That's right. That's to answer your question with regard to whether you lose some salary if you have to go there. You may be paid for that.

The Chair: Or, as is common in the book of appointments for these positions, the Governor in Council could determine that a person will be paid so much a day for every day they stand on the board.

So in answer to the underlying question, is the remuneration over and above the mere payment of expenses, the answer is yes, there could be, should the Governor in Council so decide. Are we clear now?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir.

The Chair: I will call the question on amendment BQ-17.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we move to amendment NDP-3, which is, I believe, the same thing. However, since the other one did not pass, it is entitled to be called.

Mr. Stoffer, would you please introduce amendment NDP-3.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, on behalf of my colleagues, for this opportunity.

I move that Bill C-25 in clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 20 with the following: “of members nominated by the employer and by the trade union,”--now, obviously that trade union would have to change--“and that the chairperson is neutral.”

We would keep it just like it is, because we believe neutrality, openness, transparency, further dialogue, discussions, etc., are critical and that the individual, be it the union or the employer, not be someone who has a perceived bias in further negotiations.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, could I assume that your response is the same, as this one has an identical intent to the earlier one?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Since the intent of the amendment is similar or identical, we will hold the same position. We cannot support it.

The Chair: As there is no further discussion, we will vote on amendment NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now, let's go to amendment BQ-18.

[Translation]

Would you like to move this amendment, Mr. Lanctôt?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 20 the following:

53.1 During the transition period, an interim working group shall be established and shall consist of, in equal numbers, representatives of the employer and of trade unions and university-based experts in the administration of compensation plans and creation of pay databases.

Clause 13 of the bill calls for broadening the Board's mandate to include research into compensation matters.

The Board's mandate comes from the Chairperson who will get advice from an advisory committee established by the Minister pursuant to the proposed section 53 of the Act. In our view, this committee will greatly influence the Board's credibility.

Analysis of compensation in the public sector can be a controversial process. A number of questions have been raised in the past. Among those subjects listed by unions and research groups as difficult to address were things like comparing public and private sector groups, compensation issues and certain benefits that cannot easily be quantified.

The first step during the transition period would be to establish a working group consisting of representatives of the employer, of unions and of two or three recognized experts in the academic field, in the administration of compensation plans and in the creation of pay databases. This group would examine methodology questions and analysis techniques with a view to recommending a work method amenable to the Board and to the advisory committee. This would allow for an enlightened opinion and would in the process facilitate the Board's work.

I'm pleased to see the government finally acknowledge the significance of analysis and research functions in the field of compensation by ensuring the provision of such services by the PSLRB.

Given the way in which subsection 53(4) is worded, we're concerned that the advisory committee may not be a representative body. In our view, this committee must consist of an equal number of representatives of the employer and of trade unions and the chairpersons must be impartial.

That is the gist of this proposed amendment.

Á (1125)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. I want to assure you the government also favours enlightenment.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, it would only stand to reason that, as amendment BQ-17 as well as amendment NDP-3 were not passed, we cannot support this amendment, as experts will always form part of an advisory board, not just during the transition period.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

As there are no other comments, I will call the question on amendment BQ-18.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now, Mr. Stoffer, that brings us back to you, sir, with amendment NDP-4.

Members, I'll draw you back to that original package you received, where the first three were not fully translated. We're now on to amendment NDP-4 of that package, where there is indeed translation.

We have the big package, with most of the Bloc ones, and we have the package of ten NDP amendments that were circulated this morning, the first three of which were not translated.

I grant you that it is confusing, and I suspect as we work away at it, it will become more so.

Okay, Mr. Stoffer, perhaps I can call upon you to move your motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I move that Bill C-25 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 23 the following:

(2) For greater certainty, if the Board has determined that an employee occupies a position that is included in a particular bargaining unit, that position shall be considered to be included in that unit until the board rules that the position is no longer included in that unit.

The follow-up comments, Mr. Chair, basically state that the board would rule that this position is no longer included. That's the crux of the amendment in that regard.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would call on Mr. Quail to respond to that, please, to address particular amendments.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. LeFrançois.

[English]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We don't believe this amendment is necessary, sir. The board has indeed the authority in the present legislation to do precisely what it is suggested it would do under this bill. If there's an application of decertification or a change to the bargaining unit structure, the board always makes those determinations. Those things cannot be made without concordance of the board. So there's no point in adding this.

The board has these authorities already. An employee is in the bargaining unit, determined by the board, according to occupational group, and that's the end of it. There's never been a problem under the present version of this provision in the Public Service Staff Relations Act in the 35-odd years that it's been in place.

We don't see the need for adding this. It would add perhaps uncertainty rather than clarity.

The Chair: Any further comment?

Mr. Forseth.

Á (1130)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I am wondering if Mr. Stoffer can cite any specific case, in fact, where his amendment is required, where he's actually responding to some real action in the field.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I had the ability or the right to bring PSAC representatives to this table to explain some specific examples, I'm sure we could find a few. I don't think that I have that ability to allow members of the union to sit here and to explain fully why they would support this particular concern.

If you want to give me that right, we can suspend the hearings and we can get them here. We would love to have Nycole Turmel explain to you specific examples. If you want specifics, we would be happy to provide them for you.

I can't, Mr. Forseth, in answer to your question, give you one off the top of my head.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So my general comment is that a particular group would like to push the envelope for the ideal of what they would like to see, and that is perhaps somewhat of an academic exercise rather than responding to real problems that have historically actually happened.

That's what I'm trying to get at. A number of the amendments from the union side are pushing the envelope. Or is it very specific that we actually have some problem out there that you can cite? I know you have limits, but that was my point.

The Chair: Well, writing legislation is like bargaining.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, with the greatest respect for my Alliance colleague, I was an activist in the union movement for many years, prior to becoming a parliamentarian, and pushing the envelope is what we do in order to protect the interests of our membership and their families and their communities across the country.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. It is so pushed.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I wanted to follow up on that particular question by Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Stoffer, I'm not really seeking a specific example. I'm wondering about what exactly this amendment does in general terms. Why do you think it's required? I'm at a loss to understand it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, it's basically stating that if an employee occupies any position that is included in the bargaining unit, then all of the aspects of it are considered. It's not to be used, for example, as you can't do this or you can't do that. Yes, you're able to have these abilities to perform this function or that function. Basically, it would be up to the board, not to an individual employer per se, to rule that this is no longer included in that unit.

In our opinion, it adds further protection.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So right now, Mr. Chairman, would the employer have the ability to move a position from one bargaining unit to another?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We're fearful that it may. We're not saying that it does now.

The Chair: Mr. LeFrançois.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: It's important to understand that there are thousands and thousands of positions and some very large bargaining units, with 10,000, 20,000, 40,000 or more people. There are a number of positions that cease to exist and some new ones are created. If there were a problem, or if the parties would have to go to the board every time there's a change in a position, it would be before the board every day of every week.

This provision is there to prevent a situation where, if the union representing the members of the bargaining unit believes that a position has been classified improperly, and the position winds up in a bargaining unit that it shouldn't be in, with the union, in other words, losing a member, the union will go to the board to ask it to determine which is the proper bargaining unit. That's what this provision is for.

It works quite well. The board hears these cases in the regular course. As far as I am aware, there has never been a problem arising out of it. If the bargaining agent is unhappy that a position is in one bargaining unit rather than another, the board hears it. If another union is affected, with the union losing a member or gaining one, it has the right to make representations to the board as well. It has functioned quite properly for the past 35 years.

Á (1135)

Mr. Ranald Quail: Could I add to that, Mr. Chairman, going to Mr. Cullen's point?

As Michel points out, some details of these processes are set out in clause 70 on page 27, and in clauses 71 to 78 on pages 28 to 29.

While Mr. Stoffer's amendment does say for greater clarity, there are some rules for engagement in the existing piece of legislation. I would also be concerned about the way it's written, in that the proposal would prevent the employer and the bargaining agent from agreeing on consent to whether a position is in the bargaining unit or not. As Michel has explained in a practical matter, I think it's more restrictive, in that the rules of engagement on how to do it are pretty well set out in clauses 70 through 78.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: For clarification, I have a last point to make, Mr. Chairman.

To conclude this discussion, are you saying, sir, that managers would be restricted from taking any unilateral action in moving positions within areas?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: That's the case today. If an employee's position is in a particular bargaining unit, and management proposes a change, in whatever form, both the bargaining agent who would stand to lose a member and the bargaining agent who would stand to gain a member have a right to participate in a hearing before the board to determine the issue.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's today, but what about when this gets passed?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: It will be the same.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: The rights will remain precisely the same.

Mr. Quail's reference to those pages and clause numbers are in the context of new certifications or changes to a certification, which only the board can make. And of course the board already has that exclusive authority, which I believe this amendment seeks.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, if you're satisfied, are you willing just to withdraw your amendment?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Call the question.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: On a point of clarification, if the employer looks at a certain position in a department and redefines the position so that it would obviously move from one bargaining unit to another, just by virtue of the redefinition, is this also subject to this consultation process between the board and the various bargaining units?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: It's precisely the case, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, if that's what happens.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I will now move to amendment BQ-19 in the large package.

I just have to make one comment on this, arising from the unique nature of the bill. You normally do not delete a clause in a bill, but you simply vote against it, but because this entire bill is presented as one clause, we don't have the option of doing that. So we will have to amend the bill in order to make a deletion, which you just wouldn't do in a normal bill. So this form is in order.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. With BQ motion 19, I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 20 to 45 on page 23 and lines 1 to 22 on page 24.

The proposed sections 59 to 63 and sections 71 to 78 respecting managerial or confidential positions do away with the long-standing principle in the field of labour relations whereby all positions referred to in the application belong to the bargaining units, unless the employer can justify excluding these positions.

Subsections 62(2) and 74(2) now place the burden of proof on the union, or employee organization. The onus is now on us to prove that a position is not one referred to in subsections 59(1) which stipulates conditions under which a position can be excluded. This presents a problem since it implies the introduction of evidence that the employer has and can produced, but also testimony from witnesses who may have negative feelings about belonging to a bargaining unit.

Therefore, we're recommending that these provisions be deleted, in light of the aforementioned explanation. A number of the amendments that will follow can be explained in the same way. I will only explain this once and then, of course, we can vote on all of the other amendments.

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the interests of time and brevity, my comments on this particular amendment will also apply to amendments BQ-19 to BQ-33.

The proposal here is that there would be no legislative exclusions, which we feel is not appropriate in our labour-management regime. The government recognizes that there has been a problem with over-exclusion. Thus, for example, Department of Justice lawyers and Treasury Board Secretariat employees will no longer be automatically excluded. Therefore, we cannot support these amendments.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Chairperson, but I almost get the feeling that you're guilty before your innocent, yet we have it the other way around.

We feel that the Bloc's amendment is bang-on, that the burden should be on the employer and not the employee. There are many examples in other areas where that is traditionally the case. We're talking about a burden of proof that shouldn't be laid upon the employee, but on the employer. We feel that this is a significant change, and that the Bloc is bang-on with it.

Regardless of what the people to my left say, we feel that this gives far too much power to the government and the bureaucracy. It's unacceptable.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt, I note the similarity in forms of amendment BQ-19 all the way up to amendment BQ-34. Given the discussion that's gone on, are you saying that we can deal with amendments BQ-19 to BQ-33 as one bunch?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No. We could deal with BQ motions 19 through 30 at the same time, and then with BQ motions 31 through 33 in the same manner. The same argument applies to BQ-19 through BQ-29. In the case of BQ-30, I would bring one additional argument to the table.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to make what we're talking about clear in my mind, this is when a position would be excluded from a bargaining unit and be made into a “management position”. In the bill before us, we're now saying that the burden of proof would be on the employee to show that this position really was a bargaining unit position and not an excluded position. And you are saying that your amendment would call for the burden of proof to be on the employer in showing that?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's right.

[English]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Then I have a question along those lines for the parliamentary secretary, and maybe for the officials. In terms of other labour law or benchmarks, is the bill before us generally consistent with the approach of other labour law in Canada or around the world?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, sir.

I have two comments, on both your question, Mr. Cullen, and the points raised by Mr. Stoffer.

To begin with, these amendments, as I understand them, would take away exclusions wholly from the act. It's not simply a matter of the burden of proof. Exclusions would no longer exist. Even in the private sector, in labour legislation, in the Canada Labour Code or in provinces, exclusions do exist.

Secondly, with regard to the burden of proof, there's no change in this bill from what is in the present legislation. What the present legislation says is when certain exclusions exist, we'll give the benefit of the doubt to the employer, and they should be clear-cut.

I refer you to page 28 of the bill. At the bottom of that page, proposed subsection 74.(2) says the burden of proving that a particular position is not a position referred to in certain paragraphs is on the bargaining agent. I'll take you there in a minute, but first I ask you to go to the next page, proposed subsection 74.(3). It says that the burden of proving that particular positions referred to in other paragraphs is on the employer. So it's not true to say that the burden is always on the union. It's on the union for certain cases and it's on the employer for others.

What cases are those for which the employer has the burden? Well, go to page 23, proposed paragraphs 59.(1)(a), (b), and (c). Those are exclusions where the burden is on the union to show that the positions should not be excluded. And you'll notice when you read them that they are positions confidential to the Governor General, a judge, or classified as an EX, classified as an executive, or in (c), providing advice on labour relations, staffing, or classification. Those are pretty obvious exclusions. You are or you're not. There's not much debate on that. Are you classified an EX or are you not classified an EX? Are you the chauffeur to the Governor General or are you not the chauffeur to the Governor General? So those are pretty obvious. And the burden should be on the union to show that what appears to meet the eye doesn't, because they're so obvious. And that's the state of the law today.

However, where the burden is on the employer, and that's in paragraphs (d) to (h), is where it gets a bit more nebulous--for instance, in (d) “...duties and responsibilities in the formulation and determination of any policy or program of the Government of Canada”. That's not something you can put your finger on too easily. So the employer has the burden in those cases.

To sum up, this amendment does two things. It takes away all exclusions, period. And with regard to the burden issue, all it does is explicit to what is the regime today. When the exclusions are quite obvious, the union has to show that what's there doesn't meet the eye. When they're nebulous and more difficult to show, the employer has the burden to show those. So it's quite fair, in our estimation, to continue this regime.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Mr. Cullen has a question.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you. That was very helpful.

I had a question maybe to Mr. Lanctôt. There are the two issues you've highlighted. One, Mr. Lanctôt's amendment would eliminate the possibility of exclusions, and I certainly can't support that. I think you've clarified the burden of proof issue, but I'm wondering, Mr. Lanctôt, would you agree with the official's assessment that what your amendments do would preclude the ability of the government to exclude positions? Is that what your intent was?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No. In fact, yes, so that they are members of the bargaining unit. They are already part of the bargaining unit. Indirectly, this happens, but the burden of proof would always rest with the employer, as it should.

By doing away with all exclusions, we need to reverse the burden of proof. Therefore, by providing for these exclusions and for the reverse burden of proof, we're doing away with everything that was already in place.

We mustn't forget one thing. The long-standing principle in labour relations is that all positions in respect of which an application for certification has been made belong to a bargaining unit. That's clear. Therefore, if this reference is deleted, the opposite would be true. These positions already belong to the bargaining unit and the onus would thus be on the employer to prove that these positions are excluded. By removing these exclusions, the burden of proof is reversed. The opposite of what Mr. Michel LeFrançois said holds. This is a long-standing recognized principle in labour relations.

This deletion is necessary, because as matters currently stand, the burden is on the employee, or the union, to show that these positions are excluded. Really now! The onus to do so must be on the employer. That's the rationale behind the proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, do you wish to respond, or do you want to hear from Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just want to allow my Liberal colleagues the opportunity to hear directly from PSAC themselves, who are a very well respected, very well disciplined union. I ask you the question, why would they say this under Division 8, “Essential Services”:

The essential services provisions of the new legislation combine the worst features of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code and extend them further than any other piece of legislation that the union operates under or knows. We are extremely disappointed that the Government has seen fit to draft such regressive measures in a piece of legislation apparently intended to improve labour relations in the federal public service sector.

I ask you, why would this very well respected union, which votes on all party lines—they don't just vote NDP, they vote Liberal, Tory, Reform, Alliance, Bloc, whatever—say that?

Á (1150)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, is this the same union that in its convention of Monday of this week said they had no respect for this committee and that it would simply rubber-stamp what the government had said and therefore they would not pay any attention to it? Is that the same union you're talking about?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They're very disappointed, Mr. Chairman, at this time, and yes, they—

The Chair: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Stoffer, they had an opportunity to come before this committee and to speak, like everybody else. I'm afraid I'm a little less accepting of it.

Monsieur LeFrançois.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to clarify in regard to the comments of Mr. Stoffer, the comments that were read out by Mr. Stoffer deal with essential services provisions of this act. We're not dealing with those in this series of amendments. I'm sure you'll want to hear what the position of the government is on that subject, but for the moment we're not dealing with it.

With regard to the other point I made earlier that Mr. Lanctôt mentioned, I do seriously believe that this series of amendments does take out completely the exclusions regime. For members of the committee, I point to page 4 of the bill and the very bottom definition in English—and in French you'll find it at page 5, around the middle of the page, before line 20:

“managerial or confidential position” means a position declared to be a managerial or confidential position by an order made by the Board under subsection 62(1)...

and others.

Those are all sections that are proposed to be deleted entirely by these amendments, so there would be no exclusions to speak of.

The Chair: I'll let Mr. Stoffer make a response to this intervention, then I'm going to come to Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll make my final point on this, sir, because I know we're all getting tired.

Mr. Quail or Mr. LeFrançois, is there any other statute in Canada that you're aware of that places the onus on the employee?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: As far as I'm aware, other statutes in Canada go about it quite differently. What they purport to do is to exclude only managerial positions and not confidential positions. In classic shop-floor situations, the supervisor is part of the union as well, but the person above that supervisor is normally management.

In the public service you have that model too for managers, but also you have the exclusion of confidential employees—executive assistants, for instance: people who are in daily, close proximity to the work and the activities of persons who are excluded. From that standpoint there are more exclusions in the federal public service because of this exclusion of confidential employees.

With regard to the burden, specifically, all this statute does is recognize the present state of affairs. There's no such thing in the private sector, Mr. Stoffer, as being excluded if one is in the executive category. There's no such criterion. But in the public service, everyone who's an “EX”, as we call them, is pretty high above that and would likely, if not all the time at least 99.9% of the time, be excluded under another head of the exclusions in this act.

So it's very hard to make a parallel. But for those positions where the burden is on the union, they're quite clear; there's never much doubt at all. In the 35-odd years of jurisprudence in this area, there've been a handful of cases only where it wasn't as clear as day to both the employer and the union that someone fit under those particular descriptions—confidential to a judge, for instance.

Á (1155)

The Chair: I'm going to let Mr. Cullen make a short intervention.

Mr. Lanctôt, you wanted to make a short comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: If I might just comment briefly on this.

The Chair: One moment.

[English]

Mr. Cullen first and then Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

Coming back to Mr. Lanctôt's comments that a position is part of a bargaining unit and that forever.... I can't agree with that. In fact, my experience at the provincial level of government is that management always has to have the right to exclude a certain position, because certain positions might change in the nature of their responsibilities; they might become privy to more confidential information, they might become more managerial in nature, and that right to exclude has to be there. So I can't support that general notion.

The burden of proof question, I know in my experience in B.C., if I remember correctly, management would exclude the positions and the onus was then on the unions to make the case that they shouldn't be.

Now, I may be misinformed on that, but that's my recollection. I think the officials have given a pretty good description of where the burden of proof should be and could be. It's actually split in terms of this bill. In some cases they argue that the burden of proof is with management and in other cases the burden of proof is with the union. I'm quite happy with the explanations.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The explanation provided hasn't convinced me. The employer will still be able to do whatever he wants.

Despite what Mr. LeFrançois said, I'm not convinced that the employer won't be able to prove that a position should be excluded. Nothing whatsoever in the bill points to that being the case.

I refer you to the definition read earlier:

“managerial or confidential position” means a position declared to be a managerial or confidential position by an order made by the Board under subsections 62(1), section 63, subsection 74(1) or section 75.

This is merely a definition.

I contend that there is nothing in this bill to prevent the employer from going ahead and excluding positions.

Pursuant to the provisions that I would like to see removed, the onus is on the employee or his representative to prove to which bargaining unit he belongs. As a rule, the burden of proving that the positions are positions of confidence or that they must be excluded rests with employers.

What if a person belongs to a bargaining unit and is none too pleased about this fact? He would have to testify in order to determine whether or not his position should be excluded.

How ridiculous would that be! Consider the uncomfortable situation that would be created for employees and the feelings this would create within union ranks. This is a significant change over what we have previously seen in the labour relations field. You have to understand that nothing in this bill precludes the exclusion of positions or compels the employer to show why a position must be excluded.

[English]

The Chair: I note that we are almost at the time that was agreed to for this committee to sit, and I just want to ask a question for procedural clarification.

Monsieur Lanctôt, notwithstanding the debate you're having in the discussion, are you prepared for us to call the question on BQ-19 before we adjourn this morning?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'm fine with calling the vote on BQ-19 through BQ-29.

[English]

The Chair: I have a second procedural item I'm going to deal with, if people will bear with me.

Mr. Cullen, are you content to allow BQ-19 to be allowed now?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now, my next question is do I have the consent of the committee to apply the vote on BQ-19 to BQ-20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now, one more. I could not do BQ-30 in that package because it was dependent upon the passage or not passage of BQ-29. Do I also have the consent of the committee to apply the vote taken on the previous block of amendments to BQ-30?

[Translation]

Are you all right with that, Mr. Lanctôt?

Â (1200)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We can vote on BQ-20 through BQ-29 as a package, but I would like to provide one additional explanation with respect to...

[English]

The Chair: We will not do that. We will stop at the end of amendment BQ-29.

Members of the committee, this committee meets at 11 o'clock on Monday morning to deal with estimates. Mr. Valeri will be in the chair as we start the process of estimates. I will send out a notice as to when we are reconvening relative to clause-by-clause.

Monsieur Lanctôt, we will take your situation into consideration, and I will speak with you about that.

This is a complex business, getting through all of this. I think we are well served by everyone who is working on this. I wish to thank the people at the table, the switchers, the translators, the messengers, and everybody who's trying to make this thing work, and I appreciate the indulgence of members.

We will have a notice in your hands quickly as to when we're going to meet again.

I'm going to let you speak before I adjourn, Mr. Stoffer, but also, through you, I want to thank Mr. Martin, who we recognized earlier has been in a conflict of time because of the other bill, and we know has put a great deal of time into this, meeting with the minister and other things at a difficult time for him. So I do appreciate your attendance here and your input.

We'll hear a final comment from you, Mr. Stoffer, and we will be adjourned.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, sir, since you said flattering words, I just want to congratulate you on your great chairmanship.

On behalf of all the workers out there, happy May 1 to each and every one of you.

The Chair: We are adjourned.