OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 6, 2003

¿

0930

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

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

¿

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

The Chair

¿

0940

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister and Senior Advisor, Human Resources Modernization Task Force)

¿

0950

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Ms. Monique Boudrias

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

¿

0955

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

À

1000

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Michel LeFrançois ( General Counsel, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service)

À

1005

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

À

1010

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

À

1015

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

À

1020

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Ms. Monique Boudrias

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Ms. Monique Boudrias

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Monique Boudrias

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Monique Boudrias

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Á

1115

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Á

1130

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister and Head, Human Resources Modernization Task Force)

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 036

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0930)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let's come to order. I have two new amendments from the Canadian Alliance that are not relevant until somewhat later in the bill, but have they been circulated to all members?

    I apologize for being late and keeping the committee waiting. I had a discussion with the House leader this morning that ran on a little longer than I thought. We're all set to go.

    If I can just get people centred in this process, we are on Bloc amendment number 30, which refers to page 29 of the bill. No, I think we negatived that one, did we not?

    Before we start, are there any—

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Chairman, it was brought to our attention by the Public Service Alliance that as a result of some of the comments and discussions that have been taking place, they feel there would be a need for the committee to hear further explanations on some of the issues in the bill that they're having a lot of trouble with. With the indulgence of the committee, and I think ultimately to improve how we process the bill and make some of these changes that will have major effect for the years to come, it might be beneficial to suspend the proceedings as such and give the PSAC representatives an opportunity to come to discuss the concerns they have.

    The Chair: Is there any comment on this?

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I'm rather disinclined to agree with that. I think some of it has to do with the internal politics of the big convention that happened in Montreal over the weekend. I would suggest that if there are some specific amendments, those the NDP are talking to on that issue could bring forward the technical amendments quickly, within the next day or two. But to suspend the proceedings for further discussion—it's too late for that.

    Sure, we should entertain technical amendments whose merit we can see, and we'll vote on those to give an opportunity to improve the bill. But the approval in principle of the bill, which I think you're talking about, has already been given at second reading, so we're not going to get into that.

    I'm prepared to listen to any tabled amendment and look at it. That, I think, is the stage those people should be getting to you at—today, tomorrow—to move forward that way. That's my attitude.

    The Chair: Is there any other comment?

    Madame Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'm in support of Mr. Forseth. He made his statements clear.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I recognize I haven't been at the committee table throughout the process, but it's my understanding that other witnesses have come back to make some explanations. And quite frankly, we always have the department here on a regular basis adding their voice at the table when discussions are taking place for amendments. I think, recognizing the relationship we should have with the Public Service Alliance—they are the other major stakeholder, so to speak—that it would be beneficial to have this opportunity as well.

    I ultimately think it would speed up the process if we can have that understanding and hear their explanations. Rather than leaving the meeting, going back to them, coming back again, going through the whole process, they're right at the table and able to give us their considerations.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Madame Sgro?

    No, there is no question because there is no motion. I think, Madame Desjarlais, you were raising that as a question, and you are constrained from putting forward a motion by the 48-hour rule. You would need unanimous consent of the committee to move that motion.

    I will allow Mr. Sauvageau to make a comment, and Mr. Bélanger. Beyond that.... We'll see what happens at that point.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I will perhaps try to cover all of the bases for Ms. Desjarlais. I am not quite sure how that French expression translates into English, but since we have about an hour or an hour and a half left today, we could continue our work. However, I also think we should consider hearing from the other major player in the bill, namely the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We could invite its representatives to appear at an upcoming meeting and ask for their opinion on the work done so far and on the areas where we should perhaps be a little more careful in the future, or with regard to potential outcome.

    I just need to be convinced of the need to end today's meeting and to suspend our work, but indeed, we could hear from them as we do clause-by-clause study of this bill.

    There are two major players: the management side and the union side. I appreciate the New Democratic Party's wish to hear the other side of the story, but that could be done at a future meeting.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Bélanger.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would first like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Turmel on the renewal of her mandate, as we heard in the news on the weekend.

    I would also like to make a suggestion. Instead of having another meeting and inviting the Public Service Alliance of Canada to appear again, the committee, through the chair or the clerk, could perhaps ask the Alliance to provide written comments or clarifications on its representatives' appearance before the committee some time ago. Committee members could then refer to them and if some members want to make amendments in light of the written submissions, it would make the committee's work easier.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you. I think that is a useful suggestion, Mr. Bélanger.

    The reality also is that the Public Service Alliance were invited to appear before the committee and did so. They were here before the committee and put their feelings about the bill on the record. They put some further feelings of theirs about the adequacy of this process on the record at their convention. That was unfortunate. If they do want to come back, I'm a little concerned, because I suspect, given that there's.... Well, actually, let me do it.

    Is there unanimous consent for Madame Desjarlais to move a motion suspending that sort...? No.

    So we are going to proceed with clause-by-clause. But I want to make a couple of quick comments.

    We also have not been able to grant Monsieur Lanctôt the leave he asked because of his inability to be here, feeling that the committee cannot work to the agendas of individuals, whether individual members of the committee or folks exterior to the committee.

    Having said that, PSAC is an important actor in this, and if as a result of their convention there is additional information they wish to bring forward, I would encourage them to do so. I note that they have never contacted me. But if they wish to give information to the clerk, I will undertake to see that it is circulated forthwith, and members can consider it as we look at this very fulsome list of amendments we have before us.

    Yes, Madame Desjarlais.

¿  (0940)  

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I have a question on Mr. Bélanger's suggestion. Will we be requesting PSAC, then, to give the additional information through the clerk?

    The Chair: I'll just formally ask our newest clerk—I'm sorry, what is your name again?

    For the benefit of members, Marc-Olivier is our clerk for today, the fourth clerk we've had, I think, in the last few days. We are playing catch as catch can.

    Yes, we will have the clerk formally contact PSAC and make that suggestion to them. Okay? Done.

    Are there any other comments or questions before we begin with clause-by-clause?

    Then we move to Bloc amendment BQ-30 in the big package. I will call upon one of the Bloc Québécois members to move the motion.

    (On clause 2)

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The amendment is that clause 2 of Bill C-25 be amended by deleting lines 9 to 18 on page 29.

    We are requesting that clause 76 be deleted because we support the amendments moved regarding the definition of management positions or sensitive positions in clause 59 with regard to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. We are concerned about the exclusion process under clause 76, which could lead to abuse by the employer.

    Under the current system, when an employer suggests excluding a position, union dues continue to be deducted and the deducted amounts are given to the bargaining agent pursuant to the established process for transferring amounts due. When the employer decides to withdraw his request or when the bargaining agent withdraws his objection or when the board makes a ruling, the dues deductions cease or continue, depending on the case.

    The corollary to that statement is that the same process applies in reverse when the bargaining agent makes a request to cancel the exclusion of a position. Pursuant to clause 76, the bargaining agent is immediately deprived of income as soon as the employer decides to propose an exclusion.

    Since 1967, the Professional Institute has been dealing with situations where overzealous departmental representatives tried to exclude a number of major positions. Over time, these situations were corrected, and the spirit of the act was enforced. The grounds used by these employer representatives vary from one case to another, but the lack of training and understanding of the goals and objectives of the exclusions of management and sensitive positions was obviously a factor.

    Under clause 76, the bargaining agent would be vulnerable to situations where an unjustified interruption of income could compromise his operations.

    A second relevant point is the bargaining agent's obligation to continue representing employees in positions that are targeted by an exclusion. The obligation to provide fair representation is not suspended during the period where dues are held in trust while waiting for the final ruling.

    With Bill C-25, bargaining agents will be required to provide services to those employees for free, which represents an unfair burden that falls on the other members' shoulders. Clause 76 therefore opens the door to illegitimate abuse on the part of the employer's representatives.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what our witnesses think of this amendment.

¿  (0945)  

[English]

    The Chair: Just as a matter of process, as we did last time, the proposer will propose, and I'll go to Mr. Tirabassi for a response, then to other members who wish to make a comment. Then we'll call the question.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Technically, Mr. Chair, and for the information of the committee, with all due respect to the member's position on this, at the last meeting the committee turned down BQ-29, which talked of deleting lines 9 to 29 on page 29. This amendment speaks to deleting lines 9 to 18, which are within lines 9 to 29. So if we defeated BQ-29, this one the government will not be supporting as well. It should be defeated.

    The Chair: Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just on that little technicality, we all know that a number of times within the House we vote on certain things. If certain sentences stay in, we don't agree with it, but if they are removed, we might support the amendment. So I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that just because you've changed the number of lines you're speaking to, it should be automatically defeated.

    I think you will find that there are probably some NDP amendments coming up that are along the same lines but change the lines as well, because it may be acceptable with those line changes.

    I agree with my colleague from the Bloc. Having been someone representative in a union, knowing that you have a legal obligation to represent your members until such time as they're absolutely, positively no longer your members, I see no understanding as to why there would be a need to hold those dues from the union representing those members until such time as the ruling is made, because up until that point, the union absolutely has a legal responsibility to represent the members. I'm curious about what the discussion has been in the past as to why the government would see fit that those dues be held.

    I have to tell you, it's one of those things that I see as a kind of meanness, something that's being done just out of meanness, not out of any real necessity of having to do it.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Desjarlais. I rather suspect there is some explanation other than meanness. Maybe I'll ask the officials to comment after I've heard from Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I want to ask the officials to clarify that what we're talking about is where there is a question with regard to the status, the managerial or non-managerial status, of a person or persons when an application is made for certification, and that it's only the dues of that person or persons that are involved, not the entire union membership.

    So we're not talking about massive cashflow rejection to the union, because there's a dispute with regard to one or more people who may be in a grey area of managerial clarification. Is that the fact that we're talking about?

    Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister and Senior Advisor, Human Resources Modernization Task Force): Yes, it's only for the person who is proposed to be excluded.

[Translation]

    When we had the Canada-wide consultations with the employees, some of them told us they were frustrated when their manager proposed that their position be excluded, as they had to continue paying union dues for several months. And because both the employer and the union acted slowly, there was resistance and slowness in the system that resulted in the employee being penalized because he had to continue paying union dues. It is only after several months, often a year, that the Public Service Staff Relations Board makes its ruling, and the employee does not get reimbursed. So the employees themselves are very frustrated. It is in light of this consultation that we tried to put pressure on the two parties, the employer and the union, to resolve the exclusion problem and to ensure that agreements and bargaining proceed faster so that employees are not penalized financially.

¿  (0950)  

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I just want to clarify that I recognize that it's just the individual employee.

    On the question of employees being frustrated with the long process and dues not being reimbursed, I recognize that if it follows through that the person ends up staying in the managerial position, maybe there could be some discussion as to reimbursement. But does it not go against the grain that the individual, if they don't get the position, then goes back to the union, and do they then have to repay all those union dues if they haven't paid them?

    That seems to be the objection, that some people don't want to keep paying, but meanwhile, do they recognize that they're still represented? Do they recognize that if they don't go into the managerial position, then the union dues need to be paid in a lump sum?

    I think one of the things we often forget and we need to have employees focus on is that, despite paying union dues, you do get a tax benefit to union dues. So it's not as if it's something that works against you.

    The Chair: Maybe we should change that.

    Ms. Monique Boudrias: Mr. Chairman, I think if we go to proposed section 76(3), it says:

If the board makes an order dismissing the application in respect of the position, the amount held by the employer under subsection (1) must be remitted to the bargaining agent.

It will be put in trust and at the end it will go to the unions, if the unions win.

    I want to also make another point in terms of when.... I guess I see the point that the bargaining agent sees their role as representing those employees. On the other hand, that employee who is proposed for exclusion starts to work as an excluded person the moment the manager proposes their exclusion. Let's say it's a managerial exclusion. The person becomes a manager and works as a managerial person and behaves as an excluded person. That's where the frustration comes from. The employees who are proposed for those exclusions are the meat between the sandwich. Both sides want their money. The union wants their money because they say we continue to represent them, but the management side says to that person, I want you to start working as a manager and as an excluded person and those are your functions. It is a problem, and we thought that this would be a compromise to bring a balance between the unions, the employees, and the employer.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Boudrias. I shall now call the question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to have a recorded vote please.

[English]

    The Chair: We will have a recorded vote on BQ-30.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

    The Chair: The next amendment I have is NDP-5.

    Now, NDP-5, the chair will rule, has already been decided. I want to be clear about this because there are a number of amendments here where they're on exactly the same subject with exactly the same intent, but the wording is different. Where the wording is different, I've allowed both motions to be dealt with independently. In this particular case, the wording is identical and the committee has already negatived it, so I am declaring it negatived.

    That brings us to BQ-31. Again, I would call upon a member of the....

    Madame Picard.

¿  (0955)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: The amendment is that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 37 on page 29.

    The Public Service Alliance is also challenging clause 76 under which the union dues are placed in trust when the union files a notice of objection regarding the exclusion of a position.

    Our position is clear: the position continues to be part of the bargaining unit until such time as the Public Service Staff Relations Board decides otherwise, and the exclusion comes into effect only at that time. Under the suggested provision, the exclusion comes into effect as soon as the employer files an application for order with the board, and not on the date the board makes its ruling. The danger is that if there is a huge wave of submissions of exclusion, the union would be deprived of those dues for extended periods of time regardless of the soundness of the submissions. That is a particularly strict measure that should not come into play in labour relations.

    I emphasize that the Public Service Alliance recommends that this provision be deleted from Bill C-25, and I would also like to point out that every time the witnesses came and suggested amendments to the bill, no amendment has been retained so far.

    So I would like to know from our witnesses why they do not withdraw clauses 59 to 63 and 71 to 78, as requested by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, and then Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: The government will not be supporting this amendment. When Ms. Picard began speaking, she was quoting from proposed section 76 on page 29, and actually her amendment speaks to proposed section 77 on the same page, lines 30 to 37. But because this continues much along the same subject matter as the dues and the exclusion and whatnot, the government will not be supporting this amendment as well.

    The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I had raised my hand earlier. I had the same difficulty. Proposed subsections 77(1) and 77(2) really don't talk about union dues per se, and I had a little bit of trouble following the logic of that. I would have thought it would be in the union's interest to retain this, because it provides clearly:

(2) The bargaining agent must provide the employer with a copy of the application.

--it talks about where positions are no longer going to be managerial or confidential--

the bargaining agent may apply to the Board for an order revoking the order.

So it empowers the union. And without these lines, I think the union would be at a disadvantage. I just don't follow the logic of the amendment at all.

    The Chair: Okay. Any other comment?

    Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes. Perhaps I could get some clarification from my colleague from the Bloc, because I got the impression that she was not necessarily speaking to this particular one either, and I don't know if it was just a mistake. So I just want to get clarification.

À  (1000)  

    The Chair: Madame Picard, would you like to...?

    Excuse me?

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could we suspend or stand this, even if it means we have to get more information and come back to it later? Rather than withdraw it, we could first suspend it to give us time to check; Mr. Lanctôt is not here. We could come back to it in five or ten minutes, after checking, in order not to unduly delay the process.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, I understand. There seems to be some confusion as the intent of this one. Out of respect for the fact that we have new members here, given that one of our permanent members is travelling, I will suggest this.

    Yes, Madam Picard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Mr. Chairman, it can be withdrawn. After checking, we are withdrawing it.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you. I'm prepared to give you a little latitude simply because you're new, but I do want to keep moving ahead. But that's fine.

    Now, you can't just withdraw it. I have to ask this question. Does the member have unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw BQ-31?

    (Amendment withdrawn)

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: This is what I want to clarify. Are we discussing BQ-31 or BQ-32? Mr. Szabo again said BQ-32 and then you're saying BQ-31. So it's amendment BQ-31.

    The Chair: BQ-31 is the one that we're at. That's withdrawn with the consent of the committee. Okay, we will now move to BQ-32.

    Madame Picard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: So I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 39 on page 29 and lines 1 to 3 on page 30.

    The Public Service Alliance also challenges clause 78, whereby union dues are placed in trust while the union files a notice of objection of the exclusion of a position. Our position is clear on that: the position continues to be part of the bargaining unit until such time as the Public Service Staff Relations Board decides otherwise, and the exclusion comes into effect only at that time. But according to the proposed provision, the exclusion comes into effect as soon as the employer files an application for order with the board, and not on the date the board makes its ruling. The danger is that if there is a huge wave of submissions of exclusion, the union would be deprived of those union dues for extended periods of time regardless of the soundness of those submissions of exclusion. That is a particularly strict measure that should not come into play in labour relations.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to refer to Mr. LeFrancois for an explanation on this one, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel LeFrançois ( General Counsel, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service): Thank you.

    Given what happened with the last amendment, Ms. Picard, I would suggest you apply the same logic as you did when you withdrew the previous amendment, because clause 78 is a mechanism whereby the Public Service Staff Relations Board can decide whether a position will remain excluded or not, if a bargaining agent makes the application for order. So perhaps you could apply the same logic as you did for the previous amendment. Since you withdrew the previous amendment, perhaps this one should be withdrawn as well.

À  (1005)  

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Mr. Chairman, as the witness has just said, it would be logical to withdraw this amendment, and I am therefore doing so.

[English]

    The Chair: Does the member have unanimous consent to withdraw?

    (Amendment withdrawn)

    The Chair: Okay, BQ-33.

    Madame Picard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: If we apply the same logic, Mr. Chairman, we will be withdrawing BQ-33.

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me, in this particular case we do not need to withdraw because it has not been moved. You want us to follow structures here, right, so we just ignore that one.

    Now I move to BQ-34.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 37 with the following:

change in accordance with section 104 and the bargaining agent of the advised board of the process chosen for the resolution of disputes, only in cases where an agreement cannot be reached, so as to prevent mandatory decision-making before negotiation.

    Paragraph 103(3) would therefore read as follows:

The Board's process for the resolution of disputes, until it is amended under clause 104, will be that the bargaining unit involved from the day the notice for collective bargaining is given for the first time after the bargaining agent has made his choice of method and after the agent has advised the Board of the process chosen for the resolution of disputes, only in cases where an agreement cannot be reached, so as to prevent mandatory decision-making before negotiation.

    Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the federal government unions can choose between binding arbitration and conciliation or a strike as means to resolve disputes. However, they must make that choice at the beginning of the bargaining.

    In its second report, my committee stated:

The main problem with the current process for the resolution of disputes in the public service [...] is that it tends to hinder the process of voluntary resolution, especially when a union chooses arbitration. In that case, there is a risk that neither of the parties will negotiate in good faith, because they feel it is futile to make difficult choices when an arbitrator could make a final ruling in a continuous manner.

    Consequently, we recommend that the committee reformulate the wording of paragraph 103(3) of section 6 in such a way as to oblige the bargaining unit to advise the Public Service Staff Relations Board of its chosen process for the resolution of disputes only in cases where an agreement cannot be reached.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

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

    The government cannot support this particular amendment. Simply, what the Bloc amendment does is let bargaining agents wait until there is a bargaining impasse to then decide whether to choose conciliation or arbitration. We feel it's important for all parties to know what the rules of the game are upfront before the start of negotiation. Otherwise, you could have a chilling effect on the legislation. So we will not be supporting this amendment.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just to make sure I understand it clearly after the statement of my colleague from the Bloc, my understanding is that it would only go to the board if there wasn't an agreement on the process to deal with it. My guess from Mr. Tirabassi's point, then, is that right at the very beginning you have to say this is what we're going to do, whether or not you're going to have any kind of disagreement.

    I just want to make sure I'm clear.

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: That is correct. At the beginning of collective bargaining, you're going to decide exactly which course you're going to follow, conciliation or arbitration. You're really not going to try to change the rules once you reach an impasse and say, well, okay, we're going down this road, but now we'd rather this other one. That is why we cannot support that.

    The Chair: All right, the question on BQ-34.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could we have a recorded vote?

[English]

    The Chair: All right, Mr. Clerk, a recorded vote has been requested.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

    The Chair: For the information of members, if you are listening, there is a bell going right now. A vote in the House has been called. I have asked the representative of our whip to give me a high sign five minutes before the conclusion of the bells, and we will suspend the committee at that point, go to vote, and return.

    Also, so we're clear on that, at the conclusion of the vote, this committee will reconvene about 10 minutes after the result of the vote in the House has been called.

    Now, we are now on BQ-35, page 39 of the bill.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads as follows: That Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 38 with the following:

may, by notice in writing given four months in advance, require the other two

    Paragraph 105(1) would therefore read as follows:

Once the union organization receives the certification and the process for the resolution of disputes filed with the Board, the bargaining agent or the employer may, by notice in writing given four months in advance, require the other to start collective bargaining with a view towards a conclusion, a renewal or a review of a collective agreement.

    The Public Service Alliance of Canada regrets that the government did not seize this opportunity to increase to four months the period required to give notice of bargaining when a collective agreement or an arbitral decision is in effect, as was the case with the Canada Labour Code. Such an amendment would reflect the parties' wish to start bargaining earlier in the process and to shorten the bargaining cycle. We believe the government missed an opportunity to express its intention to bargain quickly and effectively.

À  (1015)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: You'll be glad to know that the government definitely supports the intent of this amendment to go to four months. However, we prefer a little different language, and that's why we've introduced G-3, which will be the next government amendment. What we do is this. On the same page, page 38 of the bill, we go to proposed paragraph 105(2)(b), and where it says “within the three months”, ours would propose “within the four months.”

    We agree with the intent. It's just that we prefer the language we will be proposing. So I would ask that we defeat this amendment.

    The Chair: Or perhaps Madame Picard would accept a friendly amendment. Okay, no, that wouldn't work either.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: No, I don't think so.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If we understood correctly, you are requesting four or three months.

[English]

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Right.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would have listened attentively.

[English]

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Okay. You're proposing on page 38:

may, by notice in writing, given four months in advance, require the other to

    We're on the same page 38. Ours would propose to go to four months, but we're taking the existing wording, proposed paragraph 2(b), and changing “within the three months” to “within the four months”. That's what our amendment will do, the next amendment that we're going to introduce.

    The Chair: But it is not possible to simply amend the Bloc amendment, because they refer to different propositions.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Right.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. That is no problem.

    The Chair: It is possible for...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The suggestion is being made, very conscientiously, that the words “in writing” should be added to your amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: Wait, let's deal with one of them at a time, okay?

    In terms of BQ-35, having heard the explanation, the proposers are prepared to withdraw.

    Madame Desjarlais, did you have a question prior to that, or can we deal with the withdrawal?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Well, I have the understanding that we can't withdraw it anymore, because it's already come forth for discussion. So it'll have to be voted on.

    The Chair: With unanimous consent, we can withdraw it.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. But I guess my concern is from hearing the no's that came out after the words “in writing”. I think there is a need to have discussion. If there seems to be an understanding that the four months is acceptable, I don't understand why I would have heard a strong “no” coming from the government witnesses on the issue of “in writing”. It just seems strange.

    The Chair: On that issue, though, you are discussing what is essentially a discussion that will take place upon the movement of G-3, which is on the next proposed subsection in the bill. But I have before me the Bloc amendment, which amends the previous proposed subsection in the bill and I need a decision on that.

    So I will ask this: the proposers of the bill, the movers of the bill—je m'excuse.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I understood you correctly, Ms. Desjarlais—and correct me if I am wrong— amendment BQ-35 would be withdrawn and Mr. Tirabassi's would be accepted, as long as the words “in writing” were added to Mr. Tirabassi's. So we would give our unanimous consent, but if we do give our unanimous consent beforehand with the intention of having the words “in writing” added and they are not, then we will no longer give our unanimous consent when we could possibly give it. It will be too late because it will already have been done.

À  (1020)  

[English]

    The Chair: Well, in the role of Solomon, I will call upon Mr. LeFrancois to make a comment.

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Sauvageau, the requirement for the notice to be in writing is already in paragraph 105(1) and confirmed in paragraph 105(3). So it is already there. The amendment to be moved by Mr. Tirabassi in a few moments only changes the four months in the provision concerning the date. So everything is fine. There is already the requirement for it to be in writing.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. So we will withdraw ours and vote in favour of that one.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. So the proposer of BQ-35 has asked for the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw that motion without condition.

    (Amendment withdrawn)

    The Chair: Notice I added the term “without condition” because you can't place conditions on these things.

    We will now move to amendment G-3. I will call upon Mr. Tirabassi to move this amendment.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, we would move that Bill C-25 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 13 on page 38, with the following:

award is in force, within the four months

and so on.

    The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We can have a recorded vote immediately, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: A recorded vote has been asked for.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 10 ; nays 0 )

    The Chair: Isn't unanimity a wonderful thing? Let the record show that amendment G-3 passed unanimously, after a hard-fought debate.

    I am now going to suspend proceedings.

À  (1021)  

---

Á  (1107)  

    The Chair: Now, just to say formally what I said informally, we are proceeding. We will be interrupted again by a vote, I'm told, and we will get an indication from the table five minutes beforehand. At that time, though, I shall adjourn the meeting rather than recess, and we will go over for the vote.

    We are going to move to amendment NDP-6.

    Madame Desjarlais, can I call upon you to move amendment NDP-6.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Actually, I have it here, but I'd love to be able to see it clearly.

    The Chair: For your information, members, while I'm awaiting Ms. Desjarlais, Madame Turmel, the president of PSAC, will be here in a while, and she'll be available to members if they have any questions.

    Okay, Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The amendment is to delete that whole section, because we're not in agreement with the two-tier bargaining process.

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

    As the member pointed out, this motion would delete the enabling provision for two-tier bargaining. The government supports two-tier bargaining and wants it enabled in this legislation.

    I would also like to point out to the committee that two-tier bargaining was recommended by John Fryer in his report, recommendation 9.

    So as a result, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I wonder if someone, the parliamentary secretary or the officials, would describe in a little more detail what two-tier bargaining actually is.

    Ms. Monique Boudrias: Mr. Chair, two-tier bargaining is about enabling the parties--the employer, the bargaining agent, and the deputy minister or deputy heads--to agree on negotiating at a different level from the main table. So let's say you agree the main table would be negotiating salaries and monetary provisions, but then all the parties could agree that some provision of the collective agreement would be bargained at the departmental level.

    I'll give you the example of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the technicians, a group that we call EG. The Department of the Environment has some upper air technicians who work two shifts a day--two five-hour shifts--and they're the only employees in government to do that. This would enable the parties to discuss the matters of those special shifts and negotiate them at the departmental level, and it would be part of the main agreement, because they would go back to the main table, put that in the main agreement, and then sign the collective agreements.

    This has been discussed with the unions, and as it's an enabling provision, it was considered to be a benefit and a new way of doing business.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any further comments?

    Monsieur Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, the experience of the BCGEU in British Columbia is that we have had two-tier bargaining since at least 1972. It does allow for flexible work schedules, negotiating specialist flex time, sometimes isolation allowances, adjusting shifts, and also to deal with when you get into unusual situations, such as how you handle holidays, training leave, and compensatory time off. So it empowers the union to make the workplace much more flexible for certain types of employees, especially working mothers and those people who may want to have distance working, such as spending some of their time working from home because they're on the road and they're using their computer. So all of those special arrangements are appropriate for two-tier bargaining and I don't see why any union would ever want to cut themselves off from this kind of flexibility, which would be an advantage to their workers.

    The Chair: Bev Desjarlais, why do you want to do this?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just on that note, is it all bargaining agents and unions that have agreed with this, or only certain ones?

    The Chair: Madame Boudrias.

    Ms. Monique Boudrias: We went on many occasions to meet with all unions, and they were all present. All the bargaining agents were present for those discussions.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: My question was, did all unions or bargaining agents agree with this?

    Ms. Monique Boudrias: I believe they were in agreement with what we've done.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: All of them?

    Ms. Monique Boudrias: I'm not saying that they voted. They didn't vote. We had a discussion and we didn't hear any major issues against the proposal for two-tier because it's enabling. It's only when all the parties agree that this will occur and there are no mandatory regulations that say you must vote two-tier.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. LeFrançois, you wanted to add a comment.

    Mr. Michel LeFrançois: I simply wanted to add, for Ms. Desjarlais' benefit, that any single bargaining agent must agree to this. It cannot be done over the objection of any bargaining agent in the bill.

    The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I actually have documentation from the PSAC that they aren't in agreement with this, so that's why I asked if they were all in agreement. I think once more it emphasizes the need for representation from the PSAC, so we can get all these little things ironed out.

    Thank you.

    (Amendment NDP-6 negatived on division)

    The Chair: Now we have BQ-36. NDP-6 was negatived, so BQ-36 may be put. I will call upon Madame Picard to move BQ-36.

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I move the following amendment: that Bill C-25 in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 39 with the following:

public administration, or in a particular service or only a portion thereof, where all the parties to the collective bargaining in the federal public service have reached an agreement with respect to a reasonable process.

    Thus, with this amendment, clause 110 would read as follows:

Subject to the other provisions of this Part the employer, the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit and the deputy head for a particular department named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act or for another portion of the federal public administration named in Schedule IV to that Act may jointly elect to engage in collective bargaining respecting any terms and conditions of employment in respect of any employees in the bargaining unit who are employed in that department or other portion of the federal public administration, or in a particular service or only a portion thereof, where all the parties to the collective bargaining in the federal public service have reached an agreement with respect to a reasonable process.

    If this provision remains as it is, it is hard to imagine under what conditions the Public Service Alliance of Canada would accept two-tier negotiations.

    We have a serious concern with the fact that the clause does not specify how this process should interact with the collective bargaining process provided for by clause 106. We are left to wonder whether it was intended that any issue, including wages, could be dealt with through two-tier bargaining and we wonder how disputes will be settled at the second tier of negotiations. This provision is too vague to be applicable and it cannot be simply clarified by regulations.

    The union is especially concerned with the fact that the clause does not specify how this process interacts with the collective bargaining process provided for by clause 106. We wonder whether it was intended that all issues, including wage scales, could be dealt with through two-tier negotiations and we wonder how disputes will be settled at the second level of negotiation.

    Does this mean that all rights, including the right to strike, would apply to the second tier? And if not, how will disputes be settled, in the specific cases where first-level talks that deal with issues concerning the federal administration as a whole are over before matters get settled at the second level?

    Given these concerns, the Public Service Alliance would be reluctant to take part in such a process. However, we support the part of the clause which clearly specifies that two-tier negotiations must be on a voluntary basis. Let us reiterate that the Public Service Alliance recommends that clause 110 of Bill C-25 be entirely deleted and only replaced after all the parties to collective bargaining in the federal public service have reached an agreement with respect to a reasonable process.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chairman, it is our position that it is not necessary to add that two-tier bargaining would take place in a particular service, or only a portion thereof, as stated in the amendment, as the provision already contemplates that two-tier bargaining may take place in respect of any employees in the bargaining unit, as is stated in proposed section 110 on page 39. And this could be in a particular service or a portion thereof already. Neither is it necessary to add the condition regarding two-tier bargaining only taking place if there is an agreement to a reasonable process, again, as stated in the amendment, as it is already the case that two-tier bargaining can only take place with the agreement of all parties. If the parties cannot agree on a reasonable process, they simply can decline to engage in the two-tier bargaining. The parties may decide for themselves without legislation prescribing which factors are important in order for them to agree to two-tier bargaining.

    As a result, we cannot support this amendment.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    The operative words in the amendment BQ-36 are “have reached an agreement with respect to a reasonable process”. Inherent in this, then, it's saying that collective bargaining itself is not a reasonable process. Collective bargaining is the reasonable process and so you don't need to gild the lily with extra phraseology. It seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the bill envisions with two-tier bargaining. It looks as if there's clearly no experience with it from Quebec as to how well it works in British Columbia.

    Two- tier bargaining is not to be feared. It's something actually that is quite beneficial to employees.

    The Chair: Madame Desjarlais, then Mr. Cullen.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, certainly when all parties agree on how a process is going to take place and they can support it. But my experience has been that there are a good many times when the process hasn't been indicated ahead of time, and as a result, we end up with more labour problems than should necessarily be there. There's no question, it is possible for this type of system to work, but you need all the parties concerned agreeing to the process and the clause.

    Since the PSAC is an integral part of this, it begs the question why they aren't supportive of it. They must have had some experience to the negative as to why they wouldn't support it without ensuring that the process is in place.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cullen, and then back to Madame Picard for closing.

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

    I have a question for the parliamentary secretary or the officials, just so I'm clear in my mind.

    If this is an enabling provision, it wouldn't be possible, then, let's say at the departmental level, let's say at tier number two, for them to agree to bargaining at that level unless it was sanctioned by the bargaining unit, the bargaining agents themselves. So there's no possibility of someone at tier two pulling a fast one if they wanted to on the main union or bargaining agents.

    So with respect, I don't know why we're spending so much time talking about something that's enabling. What is the big problem, other than the fact that some unions say they don't like it? There's no logic to this. If it's enabling and there's no possibility of a second tier pulling a fast one on the main union, if they don't agree, it doesn't happen.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

    Madame Picard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: I do not want to repeat what Ms. Desjarlais already said, but I fully support her questions. Why, then, is the union worried? Why does the Public Service Alliance recommend that clause 110 of the bill be deleted and replaced? I can imagine that this clause can be interpreted in different ways. The employer understands it in one way and says that there is no problem, but the Public Service Alliance of Canada, on the other hand, says that indeed there are problems. I imagine, as Ms. Desjarlais said, that they have already had some problems, or else they would not be so worried. Thus, there is no clear interpretation on either side.

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Desjarlais, did you have a comment on Mr. Cullen?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Basically that was it. I would agree too that it seems it should be quite acceptable but for the strong objection from an integral player. And after this, I certainly will be putting the question to the public service to get more in-depth consideration, but as well it might be worthwhile for the committee to get that.

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: As a matter of process, Mr. Chairman, as members of Parliament we get a lot of information, a lot of requests for amendments to bills, but it seems to me we have a duty to ask the people who are asking us to introduce amendments as to the rationale for the amendment. With respect, to come in and say they must have problems with it, and take up the time of everybody and officials when there doesn't seem to be any logic to it on the face of it....

    I get thousands of letters, we all get thousands of letters, saying amend this, do that, change that. But I'm not going to bring anything to the table unless I've had a chance to discuss it with them and find out what it is that's bothering them about it.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

    In all fairness to Madame Picard, she is standing in for the person who has developed these, Mr. Lanctôt.

    But, Madame Picard, I will give you an opportunity to respond.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In fact, Ms. Desjarlais' request, as well as what you just said, Mr. Cullen, means that we really need to hear those witnesses. If you think that we do not know what we are talking about and that we do not know why some say that some problems occurred, I agree with you that this may seem simplistic, but the fact remains that we do not have any witnesses to tell us why they want to strike out that clause. This is why I agree with Ms. Desjarlais' request. Before striking out this clause, we should perhaps hear out the parties about this matter. Why do they want to delete and change this clause?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, not to belabour the point, but--

    The Chair: But--

    Mr. Roy Cullen: --my recollection is that this bargaining agent of PSAC was invited twice to be a witness, and now we're in clause-by-clause. They've had their opportunity and they declined.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: They moved some amendments; and you rejected them all.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

    To add to what Mr. Cullen said, not only were they invited, but to all witnesses, once we started hearing witnesses, we recommended that as they're going through the bill if they saw problems, or obstacles, or challenges that didn't sit right with them, they should please submit how they might choose to amend the bill at that point. So there was ample opportunity to do that. I wish to offer that as well. So it wasn't just a matter of appearing. We recommended how they may wish to proceed to assist us to assist them.

    The Chair: Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: And I recognize that. But just as we have government representatives here through the course of clause-by-clause to answer the government's position on why they've put the bill forward and why they justify it, at times things may come up where we might need that additional assistance from those who oppose it; and rather than end up in a fighting match either within the House later or in the press, or have something that isn't going to work, the intent is to have something that's going to work with parties concerned. It's not to throw a monkey wrench in this. That's not the case.

    The public service has indicated that they have problems because the process isn't dictated. And I know there have been problems with process of negotiations and different things within the public service. So it's not a matter of not knowing why they object. I think they want to have the specifics spelled out at the start so that they're not supporting something that is going to be more detrimental in the future.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: One of the dilemmas typical of this process is that there was a two-year negotiation leading up to the creation of the bill, and too often when people do not win their point in those kinds of negotiations, they come back wanting to refight issues that have been on the table before.

    My personal observation on this is that this minister in particular has been more than accommodating, and from all of the remarks I've seen from Mr. Martin in the case of the NDP and others, they've been quite well satisfied with those aspects.

    I think we might be better served, though, in terms of the timeliness of our proceedings if we simply deal with the disposal of the various amendments as they arise. I have found Mr. Lanctôt and Madame Picard quite accommodating in that, as is Mrs. Desjarlais, so let's have our discussion and move on as expeditiously as possible.

    I'm going to call the question on this one, which is BQ-36.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: May we have a recorded division, please.

[English]

    The Chair: A recorded vote has been asked for.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: I am going to call BQ-37 and ask Madame Picard to introduce it, please.

    We'll talk to you right now.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 40 the following:

The employer, the bargaining agent or a bargaining unit and the deputy head for a particular department named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act or for another portion of the federal public administration named in Schedule IV to that Act must jointly determine a process for the joint management of the pension system.

    Clause 110 of the bill introduces a two-tiered method of negotiation which, we understand, is an opportunity to make the negotiation process more flexible. We believe that certain issues must be subject to specific provisions that complement, clarify or introduce regulations for specific groups of employees or public servants in a department or other organization.

    When we represented a group of employees from the Correctional Service of Canada, we already argued—and this is the CSN speaking—that the bargaining agent must be able to negotiate in a way that leads to the settlement of issues specific to the whole sector. For instance, there must be clear and consistent tools applicable to the entire sector with regard to correctional officers' applications for transfer from one institution to another. The parties may also have to agree on provisions with regard to specific timetables, to the training of personnel, and to issues involving health and security, not only throughout an entire service, but also adapted to different types of institutions or administrative regions.

    In our submission, this bill should provide a way for two-tiered negotiation to proceed within a sector or a part of a sector, department or organization.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can't support this particular amendment because what it in fact does is start to bring in pensions, requiring the co-management of pensions. That's what we see as the intent of this motion, and it's definitely counter to the policy of government.

    The Chair: Are there any further comments?

    Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just to be sure of hearing the parliamentary secretary correctly, is your sole reason for not agreeing to this amendment that it's contrary to the policy of the government? We're talking about a situation where there's a desire to have a process in place to deal with the pension fund. I'm at a loss.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, as I was preparing to respond, I had a representative of the task force provide me with some information that wasn't clear, so I would refer to her on this particular point for further clarification.

    The Chair: Madame Boudrias, or Mr. Quail.

    Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister and Head, Human Resources Modernization Task Force): Mr. Chairman, when the bill was introduced and put together, there was a fair degree of consideration internally about whether there would be any change in the scope of bargaining. The government decided in the drafting of the legislation, and it was set out on the very first day, that there would be no change in the scope of bargaining as it related to classification, staffing, and pensions. They're non-negotiable. That's the government position; that's what was drafted. It also comes up in subsequent amendments.

    It's quite true that it is a decision of the government. That is not something new. You can't negotiate now on classification, you can't negotiate now on staffing, and you can't negotiate now on pensions.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Unless the matter was basically addressed in the bill—and I take it this is a whole new concept—actually, the motion is out of order and cannot be entertained by the committee, because it's introducing a whole new measure that is not in the bill and has not been passed at second reading. You cannot, at committee, introduce a new concept to a bill. We could amend if pensions were in the bill, but this, I think, is outside the scope of the bill; it's out of order.

    The Chair: Let me deal with two issues here. The first, stepping aside from the substance, Mr. Forseth, is that the table informs me they have reviewed all of these amendments for exactly that question, to see whether they are poisonous to the intention of the bill, and are satisfied that this amendment is indeed in order.

    Rather than going down that road, perhaps we can deal with the substance of the amendment that's before us. I suspect if it passes, then we'll deal with other things.

    Can we call the question, Madame Picard?

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: Would you like a recorded vote, or would you like it to go just on—

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Please.

[English]

    The Chair: We have an agreement with Mr. Lanctôt to deal with them all on division. We could do that too.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: No. That is the difference between us.

[English]

    The Chair: All right. Mr. Clerk.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

    The Chair: Another close vote.

    I'd like to recognize a non-member of this committee on a point of order dealing, hopefully expeditiously, with a matter that came before this committee during supply. That is the request this committee made to the privacy commissioner for certain information. Members who were here will recall that he was asked to supply certain information. He has complied with that request, with the exception of some information.

    Mr. Bryden, on a point of order, I'll allow you to expeditiously raise your point, and then we'll move on.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Very briefly, on March 18—while I had standing on this committee, I should say—I took part in an examination of the privacy commissioner. This led to a request by this committee for certain documents. The privacy commissioner was given one month to supply those documents. In three instances he did, but he failed to supply the list of organizations that were on his list to be sent press releases.

    Mr. Chairman, this request rose out of testimony when I asked him about who it was he was sending his press releases to. It's very essential to get this information. He has not supplied it. The one-month deadline he had has passed.

    I would ask this committee, or I would be prepared to move a motion for this committee, if the committee will accept it, to ask him to immediately comply with the request to deliver the information.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Question one, does Mr. Bryden have unanimous consent to move the motion?

    Madame Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I hate to say no, but I need more specifics. I recognize—

    The Chair: This is procedural in this sense: the only reason I wish to deal with it is that our window is closing on estimates. The committee was pre-notified that there may be an issue, and it has now become an issue.

    There was a request made with unanimous consent of the committee for certain documents. Not all of the documents have been produced by the deadline. Mr. Bryden is simply asking the committee to authorize the chair to write a letter to the privacy commissioner noting that fact and asking for those documents.

    There are other issues here that will come up in estimates, but I ask again, does Mr. Bryden have unanimous consent to propose that motion? You all know the motion.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Agreed and so ordered. The clerk and I will send such a letter.

    Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

    This committee is now adjourned. I intend to call a meeting at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.