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

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

1540

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

1545

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1550

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1555

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel LeFrancois (General Counsel, Human resources Modernization task Force)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1600

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1605

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

1610

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1615

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

1620

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1625

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

M. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1630

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1635

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1640

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1645

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

1650

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

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

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

1655

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Hon. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jim Peterson

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

1700

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jim Peterson

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jim Peterson

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

1705

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Jim Peterson

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1710

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1715

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1720

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1725

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Michel LeFrançois

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 037

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Okay, let's come to order.

Before we proceed with the various amendments we have on the agenda for today, I need to raise a couple of things. I wish to inform members, following up on the discussions relative to the Public Service Commission, that they have been contacted by the clerk, and Mrs. Turmel has indicated that she will provide a letter shortly. So we will continue to move on, and that will be distributed.

Now, there is a copy of what was Canadian Alliance amendment 1 that has already been passed by the committee. But members may recall that when we did this, it was noted that there was a lack of agreement between the French and English texts, and we had simply said, well, let's leave it to the drafters to clean up, and we had unanimously agreed to do that.

I'm informed by the clerk that we can't do that because it involves changes in wording that we actually have to pass. So you've had circulated to you the corrected version of this, a clause we've already agreed to and passed. So I believe Mr. Forseth is just about to move the adoption of this in its amended form.

Is that right, Mr. Forseth?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Yes, that is true. I so move.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I note the vigorous dissension of some member.

Further to this, just for the information of members, we're meeting tomorrow morning in room 362, again on this bill, if we need to meet. We may be so efficient this evening that we do not need to, but if we do, we will meet at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in room 362 in the East Block. Monday, at our regular scheduled meeting from 11 to 1, we have the officials from four departments as part of the estimates process talking about the tendering system, MERX and the like. That's enough for now.

Yes, Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): You mentioned we may be efficient enough this evening. How late is this committee planning to go, because I have another--

The Chair: The meeting was called essentially to be open-ended. It was called for 3:30 with no set end time. We will move for as long as people are feeling comfortable and we are getting work done. We're not going to sit all night, despite my comments about breakfast.

Well, actually, I have to be careful, Mr. Proctor, because I am of course the servant of the members of this committee, and if they insist that I order breakfast, I will of course carry out their wishes. However, the maintenance of quorum may be something of a problem for them. So we will see what occurs. I think we are best served if we simply attempt to move along, and we'll move as expeditiously as we possibly can. Okay?

I also note a further problem. In my agenda, I would at this point turn to Bloc amendment 38. However, I note that we are lacking a Bloc member here, which of course is a problem.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'm not a regular member on the committee, and I don't want to cause grief to the regular members, but if the will of the members were that these motions be moved so they can be dealt with, if there's no great reluctance from anyone to my doing that, I'd be prepared to move these.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Frankly, given the relationship we've tried to establish here, I would appreciate that. Simply, yes. I think that's enough of a courtesy.

We have five until we get to NDP motion number 7. So why don't we start with that?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I note your comment, and I agree with you about the relationship issues.

We had this question about the form of the bill and that in fact this particular part of Bill C-25, clause 2, is an entire bill. All of this stuff can remain open, even if we move on to others.

The Chair: Actually that's right.

Mr. Paul Szabo: We could probably deal with non-Bloc motions until we exhaust...and give them an opportunity to make representations on the underlying rationale. So I would just simply suggest that if we have other clause 2 motions, we should just proceed with those to the extent possible.

The Chair: Yes, thank you, Mr. Szabo.

I had forgotten about that--you're absolutely right. We have no lack of accordance until we get down to amendment NDP-9, right?

In that case, why don't we proceed to amendment NDP-7.?

Mr. Proctor, are you comfortable proceeding with that?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, I am.

We're asking that clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 5 through 19 on page 44. We're talking about how many employees the government can or should be able to demand stay on the job during any job action. It seems to us that the government wants the whole loaf, if not more.

We think that some form of an essential services provision is inevitable, but the government seems to wish to go further than we think is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the public. So we think this undermines the very concept of effective collective bargaining, as laid out in the preamble.

We're asking that it be withdrawn, Mr. Chair.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment put forward would remove the provisions the government considers necessary to ensure that essential services are provided in the event of a strike. Dropping them could jeopardize public safety and security.

The intent of the first part of the provision in question is to ensure that managers and unrepresented employees are not required to do the essential work of a striking employee. If an employee provides essential services, they cannot strike.

The intent of the second part of the provision in question is to ensure that the manner of operations normally used to deliver essential services to Canadians is maintained. For example, if two wards of a veterans hospital are normally required, then the employer cannot be forced to shut down one ward and have all the patients moved to the other ward.

For those reasons, and in giving this example, the government cannot support this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: Now that Mr. Sauvageau is here, I want to buzz through as many of these amendments as quickly as possible. So we'll turn the floor over to him.

Mr. Sauvageau, we are at amendment BQ-38. Would you care to move it?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Yes. I am going to ask for your indulgence. I have just arrived, in every sense of the word, as far as this file is concerned.

I am moving that we amend the proposed clause 113(b) on page 40.

After that, I will get the rhythm, you will see.

The clause reads as follows:

b) the term or condition is one that has been or may be established under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Government Employees Compensation Act.

We are moving that the Public Service Employment Act be removed.

The position of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is as follows:

The pension plan represents a significant item in the compensation package applicable to Professional Institute members. As a matter of principle, the Professional Institute has held fast to the position that the superannuation regime applicable to members should be the subject of collective bargaining. As a practical matter this is difficult to achieve in the present context. The current superannuation plan is determined by the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) and this legislation is not covered by Bill C-25 and therefore not before this Parliamentary Committee. Further, the PSSA applies to employees of several employers, not to mention the interests of thousands of current recipients of benefits under the PSSA.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore suggesting that the pension plan remains an issue to be dealt with outside of the collective bargaining process so that the parties would have an opportunity to jointly improve changes in cooperation with the major stakeholders. That is interesting.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: If you'd perhaps give Benoît another opportunity, I believe he was referring to amendment BQ-37, which we previously dealt with when talking about pensions. Amendment BQ-38 is what we're--

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Sauvageau, while amendment BQ-38 is also an amendment involving the pension, I think the one you referenced in your motion was in fact the previous amendment, BQ-37, which has already been dealt with.

No?

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is indicated as BQ-38, and BQ-37 comes before it. Is it the same argument? If it is the same argument, I would move that it be the same vote.

[English]

The Chair: Just to be sure, is it our understanding that Mr. Sauvageau moved the correct motion? I was unclear on this myself.

Mr. Tirabassi, is it your feeling that he moved amendment BQ-37 or amendment BQ-38?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: As we understand it, amendment BQ-38 deals with staffing and amendment BQ-37 deals more with the pension.

The Chair: As I have it here in the French, amendment BQ-38 says:

[Translation]

“Service”.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It is the removal, as I understand it, of that particular clause.

The Chair: Right. So we are dealing with the right issue, and the position of the government on amendment BQ-38 is the same as on amendment BQ-37.

Now, I will call the question on amendment BQ-38.

(Amendment negatived on division)

Mr. Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, we could move these in blocks if you would like.

We now move to amendment BQ-39.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, been amended by adding after line 38 on page 40 the following:

113.1 A collective agreement may, directly or indirectly, alter, eliminate or establish, among other things, staffing mechanisms, pay and classification structures and any acquired rights that are subject to collective bargaining.

As for the logic behind this amendment, I would say, speaking for my colleague, Robert Lanctôt, that we are referring to the CSN position, which states:

During the consultations held by the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management, we had made the case that free collective bargaining is the cornerstone that ensures the credibility of an industrial relations system. A consensus appeared apparent in the eyes of all the actors in the system, to the effect that an approach had to be found to building effective industrial relations between the Unions and the employer.

I hope so.

Effective industrial relations cannot exist unless the legislator provides Unions and employers with adequate room to deal with each and every one of the questions that pertain to the entire range of employee working conditions, in other words, that the “domain of what is negotiable” is sufficiently large to deal with these terms and conditions of employment.

More specifically, the Bill does not meet our expectations with respect to the collective bargaining regime, namely, with regard to the affirmation of the crucial role of the collective agreement between the bargaining agents and the federal employer, as well as the broadening of what is negotiable to include everything that constitutes a term or condition of employment.

I would like to add to that—and my friend Mauril Bélanger will not be surprised—that I am positive that the Official Languages Act must be interpreted, according to what I said previously, as a priority issue in collective agreements. Are you surprised to hear me say this? No, and I am pretty sure that you share my opinion.

Moreover, the Bill, while acknowledging the authority of departments and separate agencies to enter into a collective agreement, stipulates that such an agreement

[...] may not, directly or indirectly, alter or eliminate any existing term or condition of employment or establish any new term or condition of employment if

(a) doing so would require the enactment or amendment of any legislation by Parliament, except for the purpose of appropriating money required for the implementation of the term or condition; or;

(b) the term or condition is one that has been or may be established under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Government Employees Compensation Act.

These then, are my arguments for amendment BQ-39, Mr. Chairman and generous colleagues.

¹ (1555)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, the government will not be supporting this amendment. It's much the same as the previous one, except we're now talking about bargaining, staffing, and classification. So we will not be supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: That brings us to amendment BQ-40.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I must begin with an explanation, Mr. Chairman. I thought that you were going to begin by asking who was in favour of the amendment.

I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 13 on page 42 with the following...

Before I introduce amendment BQ-40, may I ask a question? I made a joke in my previous intervention, but in all seriousness, does the Official Languages Act have priority? Is it taken into account during these negotiations?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Acts of Parliament override collective agreements.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Does this apply only to employers who come under the Treasury Board, or does the same thing apply to institutions, such as Air Canada, Canada Post, National Defence?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: They would not be at the bargaining table with the Treasury Board, obviously, because they are Crown corporations or private companies, but the Official Languages Act does take precedence over collective agreements, as does any other Act of Parliament. If there is a direct conflict between the provisions of an Act and those of an agreement, the Act takes precedence over the agreement.

We are, naturally, talking about situations where the employer is either the Treasury Board or a separate agency; we are not talking about Air Canada.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, because that would be another union and another negotiation. We are not talking about Canada Post either?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: No, because Canada Post is a Crown corporation.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

So I'll go back to amendment BQ-40, after this brief interruption and interlude, Mr. Chairman. I move that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 6 to 13 on page 42 with the following:

The employer, the bargaining agent and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue to provide services, operate facilities and produce goods to the extent necessary to ensure public health and safety.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada stated: “The Professional Institute opposes the definition of essential services as contained in section 120.” I am surprised by that. “The construction of this definition grants pervasive powers to the employer”—the Treasury Board— “which can be abused to nullify the lawful right to strike”.

I am sure that that was not your intent.

Before commenting on the definition, we wish to acknowledge that Bill C-25 seeks to improve the administration of the designation process. The existing process is cumbersome and an obstacle to the timely administration of the collecting bargaining process. The Professional Institute concurs with the concept of negotiated essential service agreements which would remain in effect until either party seeks to renegotiate terms of the agreement.

The definition of essential services contained in section 120 provides the employer with the exclusive right to determine the level at which an essential service must be provided to the public. In any dispute over an essential services agreement, a union is not permitted to argue that the level of service designated by the employer is too high or is unnecessary to protect the safety or health of the Canadian public.

This distinguishes Bill C-25 from the Canada Labour Code which states that, during a strike or lockout, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods “to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”. Instead, the employer gets to choose an arbitrary level of service that needs to be provided to the public, and designate enough employees to ensure that the level of service is met. Further, the employer does not need to make any changes in the manner in which it operates. The union cannot argue that the employer designated too many employees as essential on the grounds that some employees could work overtime or excluded managers could perform essential duties.”

So as far as essential duties are concerned, these are essentially my comments on amendment BQ-40.

º (1600)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

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

The government will not be supporting amendment BQ-40. We feel it removes the government's ability to determine the level of service.

Also, the proposed wording in the amendment, “health and safety”, may be okay for the private sector, but we feel it is too narrow for the government. We would prefer the words “safety and security”, as outlined in Bill C-25. The word “security” would include health. For those reasons, we cannot support this particular amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you're saying that you agree with the fact that the employer has the exclusive right to determine the level of essential service to be provided. It is solely the employer, the Treasury Board, that makes this decision.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: My understanding is that the level of service would be such that anything less than what is currently offered could not be negotiated.

For a further explanation, I would refer to the officials.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But that would mean, if the Treasury Board were to decide, on its own, that 100% of the positions in a given department were relevant to the provision of essential services and two employees decided to leave, the services could be reduced. It seems to me that that is a bit excessive.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would refer to Mr. LeFrançois.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Sauvageau, the bill maintains the status quo. Under the current system, it is the employer alone that determines the level of essential services to be provided to the public. So the provisions of the bill simply preserve this status. Nevertheless, there is a major difference between this bill and the current status in the following provision: currently, if some of the duties of a position, regardless of whether you're talking about 75% or 5% of the duties, pertain to an essential service, the position is designated. So this person could not strike.

The system proposed in the bill would change that in a very radical fashion. Currently, if there is no agreement between the employer and the union, the Public Service Staff Relations Board could order that a certain number of positions, a specific number and even the positions themselves, be dedicated to the provision of essential services.

I have an example to illustrate that, Mr. Sauvageau. If the job descriptions of 100 positions suggest that they deal with the provision of old-age-pension cheques, which, let's say, is an essential service, if these 100 positions are entirely or partly dedicated to this duty, the 100 positions are designated. However, if in actual fact each of these employees spends only 50% of his or her time on these essential duties, then only 50% of these positions will be designated, and the other 50 employees will be able to join their colleagues on the picket lines. This is a drastic difference between the current system and the one proposed in the bill.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

If the Chair will allow me another question, I will ask you this: when you decide exclusively to determine the level at which an essential service needs to be provided...

[English]

The Chair: Actually, Mr. Sauvageau, finish this question. Then I'm going to go to Mr. Bélanger, and I'll come back to you if we have any more questions.

But please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is the designation of bilingual positions, under those circumstances, taken into consideration? For example, if you keep 50 employees to provide an essential service, but you realize that they are all in positions for which the bilingualism criterion is unilingual anglophone and that there are no longer any employees in bilingual designated positions to provide the services, is that dimension also taken into consideration in the interpretation of what is an essential service?

º (1605)

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: There is no reason to think that that would not be the case. I can illustrate it for you with an example. If some of the positions in question are held by people who deal with veterans' health needs, for example, and it is determined that it is essential for 20 people to do this work, 10 of whom are in bilingual positions, it is up to the employer to decide how many bilingual positions are required. So there is no reason to think that it would not be up to the employer to decide which positions should be essential.

In addition, there is a provision in the bill that says that it is for the employer to decide which specific position is essential. I will try to illustrate that with another example. Take the 20 people performing the essential task of providing care to veterans and assume that 50% of the time, they do something else. Now, we know that it is the employer who determines the level of service, so 50% of the people in those positions, i.e., 10 out of 20, will perform that task. If the employer is of the view that eight, two, or even all ten of the positions have to be bilingual, it will be up to the employer to identify the positions. If it is related to an essential service, to the provision of an essential service, at the end of the day, it is the employer who identifies the position, not the number of positions, if there is any dispute over that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is at the employer's discretion.

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: So for the same reason, when the employer decides that 10 out of 20 positions are bilingual, it is because the employer has to provide a service in one language or the other. So there is every reason to believe that the employer would do exactly the same thing when the time comes to decide which position will be essential, the bilingual position or the unilingual position.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, to respond to Mr. Sauvageau's first question on the exclusive right of the government or the employer to determine what is essential, am I right in believing that legal recourse is available to the union, and that if you were to imagine a situation in which a government went too far, the unions might successfully challenge that legally or quasi-judicially?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairman, it is very important to distinguish between the level of service and what is an essential service. In the absence of an agreement between union and employer, it is up to the Public Service Staff Relations Board to determine what is an essential service. Once that is decided, it is up to the employer alone to determine the level of service.

For example, we were talking about issuing old age pension cheques. If it happens that these cheques are issued every two weeks, neither the union nor the Public Service Staff Relations Board can order the employer to issue the cheques every four, six or eight weeks. Level of service is for the employer alone to determine. But as to the question of whether or not the provision of these cheques to pensioners is essential, in the absence of an agreement between the two parties, it is up to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

[English]

The Chair: Shall I call the question on BQ-40?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The amendment is negatived on division.

Mr. Sauvageau, that brings us to amendments BQ-41, BQ-42, and BQ-43, all of which are line deletions. Do you wish to deal with them individually, or do you want to deal with the substance of them and then we'll move them as a block?

º (1610)

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Did you say 41, 42, 43?

[English]

The Chair: I'm just looking at BQ-41, BQ-42, and BQ-43, all three of which you--

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am advised, wisely, I am sure, to do them individually. It won't take long.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am on BQ-41. That Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 37 on page 42.

We recommend that this provision be deleted entirely. At the very least, we recommend that the definition of essential services in the Canada Labour Code replace the current provision in the bill and that any dispute over the level and nature of essential services or the number of employees required to provide such services be referred back to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

That is more or less what Mr. Bélanger was saying before, I believe.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We will not be supporting this amendment. The purpose of proposed subsection 121(2) is to give concrete meaning to the employer's right in proposed section 120--which is what the Bloc's previous amendment addressed--to determine the level of service. If the employer were required to use overtime to change its equipment or manner of operating, this could inadvertently result in a decreased level of service and put public safety or security at risk.

We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: I will call the question.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: This brings us to amendment BQ-42.

Monsieur Sauvageau, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think I understand Mr. Tirabassi's argument.

I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 42 on page 43.

This is about proposed subsection 123(4). We recommend that this provision be deleted entirely—as you can see, we are being more precise; earlier, we wanted it deleted, but now, we want it deleted entirely—and that it be replaced by the essential services provisions of the Canada Labour Code, which, albeit onerous for the union, have proven workable.

At the very least, we recommend that the definitions of essential services in the Code replace the current provisions of the bill—as you can see, at least we are consistent—and that any dispute over the levels and nature of essential services or the number of employees required be referred back to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

I am going to go ahead right away with BQ-43. I have changed my mind.

That Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 36 on page 45.

We recommend that this provision be deleted entirely and that it be replaced by the essential services provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

So we have just done BQ-42 and BQ-43.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau. I appreciate that.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We cannot support these two amendments.

On BQ-42, the purpose of proposed subsection 123(4) is to ensure the Public Service Labour Relations Board does not change the level of service. It is the employer's exclusive right to determine the level of service in order to ensure that public safety or security is not put at risk. In this case, there is case law in this regard in the 1982 Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, so we will not be supporting that.

With regard to BQ-43, this amendment is a twin of BQ-42. We will not be supporting those two amendments.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau, for clarity on the process, I will call the question on amendment BQ-42, deal with that vote, and then apply the result to amendment BQ-43. I appreciate your willingness to move more expeditiously, but I am trying to keep everything clear for our clerks.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: Do I now have unanimous consent to apply the vote on amendment BQ-42 to amendment BQ-43?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It is so ordered.

That brings us to amendment NDP-8, which, for the benefit of newer members, is in your small package.

Mr. Proctor, perhaps you would like to move NDP-8.

º (1615)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're requesting that clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 1 through 15 on page 46. Again, we're talking about how many employees the government can or should be able to demand stay on the job during a strike. I note in parenthesis that this is modernization. It's referred to as “modernization”, and I'm having real difficulty with that as I listen to the explanation from the members opposite.

Some form of an essential services provision is inevitable, but we believe the government is seeking to go much further than is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the public. In the guise of protecting essential services, it is endeavouring to keep so many employees on the job that the employer is insulated from feeling any effect from job action. To us, that undermines the concept of collective bargaining.

So that's our proposal on amendment NDP-8.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We cannot support this amendment. As the committee is aware, this is the same as amendment NDP-7, except this applies in the context of amending an essential services agreement.

The Chair: Perhaps I could ask a clarification from Mr. LeFrançois.

It is my understanding of your earlier explanation, for the benefit of Mr. Proctor, who is new to this process, that there is a new regime for identifying essential service positions, but it is your analysis that this will result in a smaller number of positions being so designated. Is that a fair representation?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'm in a place to predict the overall numbers. What I can indicate to Mr. Proctor is that, as indicated to Mr. Sauvageau earlier, the bill does not change the fact that today the employer determines the level of service exclusively. A few moments ago, Mr. Tirabassi referred to a 1982 Supreme Court of Canada case. That's the case that confirmed this: the CATCA case, the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association case. What the bill does, however, is permit the parties, and in case of disagreement the Labour Relations Board, to force the employer to assign duties to positions that are exclusively or almost exclusively related to essential services.

To illustrate that, sir, I'd propose the following example, as I indicated earlier. If presently 100 people are involved in some capacity in cutting cheques for pensioners, but in reality they only do so for about 50% of the time, in today's regime, those 100 employees would be designated and could not strike. In the regime under this bill, the employer could agree with the bargaining agent at the negotiating table and in the absence of such an agreement the Public Service Labour Relations Board could order that those functions related to the cutting of those cheques performed by those 100 people should be consolidated in the functions of 50 of those 100. So there would be 50 employees on the picket line under this regime, whereas in the present regime there'd be 50 fewer.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: That brings us to government amendment 4, which is in your big package.

Mr. Tirabassi, would you help us walk through this complicated amendment?

º (1620)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I sure will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We move that Bill C-25 be amended in clause 2 by replacing line 42 on page 51 with the following:

40(1)(a), (d), (e), and (h) to (j)

This motion corrects an oversight in the bill and ensures that arbitration boards have the power to compel the production of documents. That's something they currently have under the PSSRA.

I would move that amendment.

The Chair: And to think people think we only deal with trivial things at committee. How can they have that opinion?

Is there any comment or debate on this particular proposal?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: That brings us to amendment NDP-9.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: This deals with the factors to be considered in arbitration. The point I want to bring forward here is that it appears to us the government is inserting new factors in proposed section 148 that an arbitration board must take into account when fashioning an award. For instance, they want to include “the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada's fiscal circumstances”. For us, this is far too broad a definition for any meaningful arbitration. One might ask facetiously why we don't consider the state of the North American and global economies while we're at it. That's why we want to restrict this, and that's the essence of the proposition.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: We will not be supporting this amendment. This motion would drop the factor representing the Canadian economy and the government's fiscal circumstances. Of course, our position is that it should remain.

Just as a note, John Fryer suggested in his report that this should be one of the factors as well. We cannot support this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: That brings us back to our larger packages for amendment BQ-45, or rather BQ-44, I'm sorry--although I'd be prepared to deal with amendments BQ-45, BQ-46, and BQ-47 in the same motion, if you'd like, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They are not the same.You won't fool me this time. I told you I would catch on.

[English]

The Chair: It was not a mortal wound.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 37 on page 52 with the following:

(e) the Government of Canada's financial situation.

That would replace “fiscal circumstances”.

With respect to dispute arbitration, we are concerned by some of the factors that the arbitration board must take into account in making an arbitral award. The relevant provision of the bill indicates that—and I am describing the current situation—in the conduct of its proceedings and in making an arbitral award, the arbitration board must take into account the following factors, in addition to any other factors that it considers relevant: the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada's fiscal circumstances.

In our opinion, “fiscal circumstances” has a restrictive connotation that refers in part to the general administration of public finances. This expression limits the board to considering the government's political choices in the fiscal arena.

If the legislator wants to introduce a genuine factor for assessing the overall state of public finance like the factor for the general economy of the country, we think it necessary, consistent and logical to consider the big picture of government operations, i.e., all revenue, spending, borrowing and debt, rather than just referring to the government's fiscal circumstances. That was, in fact, the idea behind one of the recommendations of the Fryer Committee, to use the expression “government's financial situation”. See page 34 of the report.

Among the basic guiding principles of organizations involved in dispute resolution, this approach more fundamentally reflects the public finance situation, rather than fiscal considerations alone, and to proceed otherwise would create real difficulties both for the arbitration board and for the parties to the dispute in terms of assessing the government's financial situation.

That is clear. I am sure that you won't turn me down this time; I sense a groundswell of support coming from you. Let's go!

º (1625)

[English]

The Chair: I sense agreement in this room, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Tirabassi.

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

I would like to offer an explanation. I heard Mr. Sauvageau's submission looking for a broader definition that you would use when it comes to the financial situation of the country, so I'm going to offer the following.

In fact this motion would drop the reference to the economy, and the economy should be among the factors considered by an arbitration board. Fryer used in English “fiscal circumstances”, and in French “situation financière”--financial circumstances.

The government's view is that “fiscal circumstances” is the broader expression and includes consideration of economic factors, whereas “financial circumstances” is narrower in scope. As such, it is the government's position that “fiscal circumstances” is the most appropriate expression.

I cannot support the amendment, but what we've proposed is broader.

The Chair: I'm sure Mr. Sauvageau will agree with that.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I understood correctly, you are proposing that we remove paragraph (e). I misunderstood; you are proposing that we keep the word “fiscal”?

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes, as it is in the bill.

The Chair: I believe he said, Mr. Sauvageau, that your amendment, which you thought was reducing the scope, was in fact, in their interpretation, broadening it.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Sorry, could you repeat that?

[English]

The Chair: If I understood your argument correctly, you felt your argument would narrow the scope upon which these decisions are made. I believe Mr. Tirabassi's response was no; in fact, their interpretation was that it would broaden the scope.

[Translation]

M. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but that is his interpretation. In my opinion, a country's fiscal situation and its financial situation are not the same thing at all. Now, you are telling me that in English, the expression “fiscal situation” is more restrictive than “financial situation”. If it is a translation problem, we will have to find a translation solution.

We are still requesting that the term “fiscal situation” be replaced by “financial situation” because the state of the Canadian economy is not reflected in its fiscal situation, but in its financial situation. It is true that the amount of taxes you pay may reflect your financial situation, but your overall financial situation is not fully reflected by the taxes you pay.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps I could resolve the conflict by calling the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's an idea, but I expect that he may wish to express another opinion.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I've stated mine.

The Chair: All those in favour of amendment BQ-44?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: That takes us to amendment BQ-45.

Shall I apply the vote, Mr. Sauvageau?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No. We've almost got Mr. Tirabassi convinced. It is going to happen soon; I can feel it. With three or four more points, we'll get there, I'm sure of it. He is quite willing, but there is just a little something missing.

[English]

The Chair: There's a lot of love in this room.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 53 with the following:

of employees; or

(b) by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 53 with the following:

misconduct.

In short, this would simply delete paragraph (e), which says:

(e) doing so would affect the organization of the public service or the assignment of duties to, and the classification of, positions and persons employed in the public service.

Our interpretation comes from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, an organization that we all respect.

The first change in Bill C-25 has to do with management rights and the scope of collective bargaining. Classification must be subject to collective bargaining. The job evaluation and classification plan provides the structure upon which the compensation plan is developed and maintained. The determination of what work is to be valued and its relative value within the range of worke performed by an occupational group or bargaining unit is critical to the determination of compensation. Work and work processes change over time. Consequently what merits value today must be reflected in the tool used to measure and evaluate work. To illustrate the problem, suffice it to say that informatics professionals in the Computer Systems (CS) Group remain subject to a job classification standard which dates back to the days when punch cards were still utilized—the CS classification standard was last updated on October 1, 1984.

I hope that the computers have been upgraded since then, or else there may be some problems.

Out-of-date job classification standards form the basis of pay inequities and relativity issues which are unfair to employees and adversely affect the employer's ability to recruit and retain employees. Maintaining current and relevant job classification standards is the foundation of relevant and competitive compensation. The current antiquated job classification standards found throughout the public service cannot be blamed on the unions; the employer has had complete authority to act in this area. The capacity to negotiate the job evaluation and classification standard is fundamental to the negotiation of rates of pay.

Do you agree with that, sir? I hope you are not going to turn me down again, otherwise I'm going to think you have something against me personally.

º (1630)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

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

In fact, deleting paragraph 150(1)(e) would allow an arbitral award to deal with classification, meaning it would no longer be an exclusive management right.

For the committee's information, this is related to amendment BQ-5 that was defeated earlier. We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Perhaps we could have some explanation. I've heard of certain groups of employees who, over time, felt their duties and pay compensation were out of sync with reality. They weren't really able to negotiate this, so they launched some kind of action.

How does that mechanism work?

In this situation, an arbitral award can't address it. It must be addressed somewhere else in the mechanism so that aggrieved parties, because of changing work circumstances or what happens over time where they're really out of sync, can make a case and get things changed.

How does it work?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairperson, in answer to Mr. Forseth's question, there are two mechanisms.

The first one is a classification grievance. Classification is not something that may be the subject of adjudication by the PSSRB, but it may be the subject of a grievance. If the employee is not satisfied with the answer at the last level of the grievance process, there's an internal mechanism for these types of complaints inside Treasury Board, with the participation of the department involved.

With regard to classification as it affects pay, the vast majority of federal public servants, if not all of them, have in their collective agreements the right to a fair, realistic, current, and truthful job description that reflects what they actually do in reality. Quite often the first course of action, sometimes coupled with a classification grievance, is to file a grievance to get a proper job description.

If the employee is not satisfied with the content of the job description, modified or not, then it goes to adjudication to the PSSRB and a hearing is held, if need be. With the new job description in hand, if his or her grievance is admitted by the board, then the employee goes back and seeks a change in classification with that in hand.

º (1635)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. It's not really relevant then to this section?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: No. As the bill is crafted now, there's a limitation that an arbitral award may not deal with classification matters. To remove that paragraph is to remove the limitation.

It's one of the many amendments that have been before the committee dealing with scope of bargaining. The classification would be something on the bargaining table. At least in the case of this particular amendment, there's no prohibition against classification being on the bargaining table.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll call the question on amendment BQ-45.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: That brings us to amendment BQ-46.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 57 with the following:

person must represent employees, management and the public, report directly to Parliament, publish all reports and act on those reports.

What a novelty it would be to follow through on a parliamentary report; that happens relatively rarely. Our interpretation is based on something the CSN said, at paragraph 162(1):

162(1) Subject to subsection (3), on receiving a request for conciliation, the Chairperson must recommend to the Minister that a public interest commission be established for conciliation of the matters in dispute. We thus cannot help but observe that this provision will enable the Chairperson of the Board, who is appointed let us recall by the Governo-in-Council, to recommend to the Minister the appointment of a public interest commission to provide conciliation services in a dispute.

Let us recall, at the outset, that the report of the advisory committee presided by Mr. John Fryer asserted that the notion of public interest constituted the central theme that informs union-management relations in the public service. In this connection, the committee therefore proposed the establishment of a public interest dispute settlement commission, which would be equipped with very elaborate intervention mechanisms in order to break the deadlocks that might occur in this area.

(page 35 of the report)

In the formulation of the committee's recommendations, they took into account the fact that Governments generally restrict their own employees' right to strike more rigorously than they do when dealing with private sector employees.

In order to create a better equilibrium in union-employer relationships, the Fryer committee therefore recommended the creation of a body that would be given extensive authority to assist the parties in breaking deadlocks, as well as to determine and impose collective agreements, if necessary.

Answering directly to Parliament, this new commission, representing both the parties and the public, would have a great degree of independence and would therefore enjoy substantial credibility, authority and influence.

We share this point of view with the CSN, and we would ask you, Mr. Tirabassi, to incorporate into the bill the corresponding principles recommended by the Advisory Committee on Labour-Management Relations in the Federal Public Service.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks for raising the question, Mr. Sauvageau. I note that these amendments, BQ-46 and BQ-48, essentially deal with the same subject.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: BQ-48 contains roughly the same thing, but everything is in the negative, and that is in the event that the Chairperson is not convinced that the request or dispute is valid. So if you look at this the right way—and I did this too; I made myself double-check it—you have one amendment that would encourage the Chairperson to do it in the public interest and another that would discourage the Chairperson from making a report if there are insufficient reasons. That is my modest interpretation of it.

º (1640)

[English]

The Chair: Would you like to deal with these as two separate items then?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, we need to deal with them separately.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, on amendment BQ-46, please.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, I'd like to refer this one directly to the officials. You never know, if their explanation isn't really good enough or clear enough to convince me, we might recommend something else.

The Chair: Okay, which one of you wants to take that on?

Mr. LeFrançois.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed amendment reflects a role that the Chairperson of the Public Service Staff Relations Board does not currently nor will under the bill play. In your comments, Mr. Sauvageau, you referred to a model put forward by Mr. Fryer. The bill accepts some of the features of the proposed model, but does not accept Mr. Fryer's suggestion in its entirety. So under the bill, the role of the Chairperson is not necessarily to represent employees, management and the public. The Chairperson sees to it that the mandate of the board, as it is set out in the Act, is respected and that the board's obligations are fulfilled.

With respect to reporting to Parliament, the way the public interest commission works is that its report is published, whereas currently, the report of a conciliation board is not necessarily published. Under the bill, the report will be published. There is no mention of not publishing it; it is therefore public. So both Parliament and the public will have to access to the report.

The other thing is that the Chairperson of the Public Service Staff Relations Board reports to Parliament, or the Board reports to Parliament through a designated minister. That doesn't change. The other thing that the Chairperson does not currently do under the bill is to report to Parliament on a given dispute. The Chairperson does not invite Parliament to get involved in conflicts, in labour relations disputes. That is not the model that is proposed. It is up to the parties to agree. In the absence of an agreement, an arbitration board makes an arbitral award. But the Chairperson does not report to Parliament every time there is a problem or deadlock in the public service. That is why the amendment, as it stands, cannot be included in the bill, because it is not in keeping with the surrounding context.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But if I understood correctly, before your explanation—and I am not challenging that—your neighbour on your left seemed interested in proposing something new, if you could convince him. I would like to ask him if you did convince him to propose something new.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: No, that was an excellent explanation. The reason I referred it to the officials is that I did not have a complete understanding of that particular amendment. After that explanation, I'm going to move that we cannot support this amendment.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: This brings us to amendment BQ-47, which is okay to proceed with.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: O.K.

That Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 57 with the following:

person must recommend to the minister that an independent

The word “independent” is the new word.

If you look at page 57, line 17, you would have “an independent public interest commission”.

The three main recommendations of the Fryer Committee are without the slightest doubt those dealing with the establishment of a public interest dispute resolution commission, as follows, and I am reading from the recommendation of the Fryer report:

20. We recommend that the Public Service Staff Relations Act be amended to provide for a tripartite representative Public Interest Dispute Resolution Commission, to represent the public interest and to assist the parties in resolving interest disputes. The public interest dispute resolution commission should have the following powers: fact finding; referral back to the negotiating table; mediation; issuance of a preliminary report commenting on the reasonabless of the parties' position; issuance of a report outlining the terms of a settlement that could be adopted by or imposed on the parties; imposition of a collective agreement at the request of a union under specified circumstances.

21. We recommend that the public interest dispute resolution commission be a representative body. It would consist of at least nine part-time members and a full-time chair, all to be appointed by the Governor-in-Council. An equal number of union and management representatives (at least three of each) would be drawn from lists submitted by the parties. The remaining members would be third party neutrals representing the public interest.

22. We recommend that the public interest dispute resolution commission report directly to Parliament.

Members of the Committee will see for themselves that under Bill C-25, the notion of a public interest dispute resolution commission is in fact tantamount to another form of conciliation, at best. We would have thought, for example, that such a commission, given the importance of its functions, would be an independent organization reporting directly to Parliament, and whose members would basically be tasked with ensuring that the public interest was taken into account in labour-management disputes.

We therefore recommend the creation of an independent public interest dispute resolution commission, based on the recommendation set out in the report of the Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations in the Federal Public Service.

º (1645)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Chair, I would like to address the insertion of the word “independent” in the amendment. We feel it would be redundant. The PIC is appointed from a list of persons jointly agreed to by the parties, and that's laid out in proposed section 165 on the next page; therefore it is independent by virtue of this. So we cannot support this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you. I think we can find some common ground here, because you are saying that the commission is de facto independent, but that cannot be put in writing. If the commission is independent—the legislation says what it is—then the words would be important. You say that the commission is independent. So why not say so in writing? It is like the Minister of International Trade, who says that we will not negotiate supply management, but that we do not want to put it in writing. It seems to me that if we do not want to negotiate, we are willing to put it in writing. I say to you that if you are telling me—and what you say will be in writing, because there are the “blues” and the minutes—that it is independent, then it is in writing.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Perhaps I may refer to Mr. LeFrançois for this explanation.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Sauvageau, I think that what you're referring to is still the model put forth by Mr. Fryer. In that case, yes, the model was that the organization would be independent and permanent but that it should also be independent from the Public Service Staff Relations Board and at arm's length from everyone because it was an organization reporting directly to Parliament in cases of deadlock, in other words rather usually, if you will.

What Mr. Tirabassi indicated before is quite correct. The mechanism proposed for the public interest commission is that in the case where an individual is appointed then that individual is appointed by the minister from a list agreed upon by the employer and the union. If the commission is made up of three members, then the first two members on the list are appointed by one party and by the other. Then, you agree on a president for this public interest commission whose name is also on the list.

So you can see that the people have to be appointed by the employer and the union. So it's not just a matter of independence in the sense of Mr. Fryer's recommendation, but these are people who are knowledgeable about these things, of course, because both parties have recommended they be on the list and these are people representing the interests of their community.

º (1650)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I don't know if one has the right to amend one's own amendment, but if you don't want it to be independent, could we add “not independent”?

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Once again, that's not what the bill proposes. It's not a matter of being at arm's length from the Public Service Staff Relations Board or at arm's length from everybody else. The question is the following one: where does the member of the public interest commission come from? What the bill is proposing is that he or she be appointed from a list agreed upon by the parties. So the member cannot be independent in the sense that it was put on that list by one side or the other. But what is provided for by the mechanism is that the person appointed come from a list on which the parties agreed.

It's something like grievance adjudication in the private sector or in a number of provinces. Both parties agree on someone and that person then makes a decision. This is the same concept, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much, Mr. LeFrançois.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: The margin's getting smaller, Mr. Sauvageau.

That brings us to amendment BQ-48.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will read it as I understood it myself. I move that the Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 33 on page 57 with the following:

(3) The Chairperson shall not represent employees, management and the public, report to Parliament, publish the reports and act on those reports if the Chairperson considers, after consultation with...

Our inspiration for this comes from the CSN:

Thus we have to understand that this provision will allow the Chairperson of the commission who is appointed by the Governor-in-Council, as we should not forget, to recommend to the minister the appointment of a public interest commission for the conciliation of the matters in dispute.

In this case, it would not be independent.

We should remember that the Fryer Advisory Committee Report stated that the idea of public interest was the cornerstone of employer-union relations in the public service. In this respect, the Committee proposed to set up a public interest dispute resolution commission with those mechanisms necessary to intervene in order to settle whatever deadlock might occur.

That is the same thing.

The Committee, in its recommendations, took into account the fact that governments generally restrict the right to strike of their own employees more rigorously...

I suppose I will have the same definition.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, I would like to refer this one to the officials, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister and Head, Human Ressources Modernization Task Force): Same answer.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairman, it is the same answer, for all those reasons concerning amendment BQ-46. Amendment BQ-48 cannot work in the context of this bill.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Sauvageau, may I call the question on amendment BQ-48?

º (1655)

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: All those in favour of amendment BQ-48?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: I need a moment here, please.

Mr. Sauvageau, I have to inform you that amendment BQ-49, in its current form, is inadmissible. It's unfortunate, but it does propose to increase the membership for public interest commissions. That brings it into conflict with the royal recommendation attached to this bill that determines the level of expenditure.

Committees are not allowed to rule in those areas. I would suggest that we simply not proceed with this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chair, may I have a little more explanation on that, please?

The Chair: Yes, you can have a great deal more explanation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: In the context of this clause, it proposes to change the membership in the commission that is being established here. It would then require a larger number of commissioners that would make a greater draw on the public purse.

Committees are not allowed to do this. I'm trying to give the informal explanation. You can have the formal explanation.

Are you ready?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): You could have one commissioner who is extra, but isn't paid.

The Chair: According to page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

It is the ruling.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What is the royal recommendation? This is a proposed bill. Where is the royal recommendation attached to it?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to defeat this motion until you ruled it out of order.

The Chair: As much as your preferences are, of course, a motivating factor in any decision I might arrive at, I have it on fairly good authority.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're going to challenge it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're going to challenge my ruling? My God!

I wish, Mr. Bélanger, to bring your attention to the front of the bill in which, as there is in all substantive pieces of legislation proposed by the government, there is a definition of the recommendation.

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure

We are able to amend this in a number of ways. We can change the actions and responsibilities of the authority granted under this legislation. We can reduce. We can alter. We cannot increase.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: May I?

The Chair: Yes, you may.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not sure I agree with that on a number of grounds.

First of all, the approval of this bill and referral to committee is at second reading. It's an approval in principle. It is not a finalization of the references and establishment of levels, and so forth. Therefore, until the House determines in the final forum, it can deal with a report from this committee. It would affect the resources attached to the implementation of this legislation in the same way a committee can recommend estimates be increased and sent back to the House for the House to dispose of.

I'm not crazy about being told that this is out of order because we can't increase the number of people on a certain board. I may not wish to do so, but I have a....

[Translation]

I have a habit. I get subborn when I am told that something can't be accepted or something is being refused because the House has already decided on the matter whereas, in my opinion, that is not the case.

Mr. Jim Peterson: We are more important than the government.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are doing our work here and it is up to us to make a decision. The House will deal with it later. Otherwise there are all kinds of arguments that could be said to be out of order. In that case, we could not suggest any amendments involving another meeting because that means money will have to be spent. We could not introduce any amendment involving one more public consultation, because that also leads to costs. We could not even have a single cup of coffee more because costs are involved. At some point, you have to be reasonable and I do not think that the advice you are getting is necessarily reasonable.

» (1700)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, let me correct one statement you made. A committee, in dealing with the estimates, cannot increase the estimates.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We have in the past, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Can you provide me with examples of that?

The rulings are very clear that this is an issue for the estimates portion of the work this committee does. Not only can we not increase, but we cannot transfer funds between votes.

It has long been established, in the same manner that a private member's bill that seeks to impose a charge upon the Crown is ruled out of order.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is not any more, Mr. Chairman. Not any more, it isn't.

The Chair: It's news to me.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we've adopted private members' bills that impose expenditures on the Crown. That has gone by the wayside.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I find that what Mr. Bélanger is saying is totally justified and important with respect to the way we proceed in future.

Mr. Jim Peterson: So let's vote.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: He has expressed, in terms even better than my own, my impression of the importance of being able to vote on this amendment.

We have a battle of the committee chairmen here, because I would like to remind you that he also chairs a committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, we are not dealing with a battle of committee chairmen, Mr. Sauvageau. Don't get another one going for no good reason, one is already enough.

[English]

Mr. Jim Peterson: Let's vote.

The Chair: The only hesitation I have, at this current time, is that we haven't moved the motion yet. So we're not going to vote on it just yet.

It would be possible, I suppose. There is some advice that I have made a ruling and therefore we can deal with a challenge to the ruling. However, given that this is an issue of some interest to the committee because we are walking down this road in other areas, it is one that we need to be clear about. I'm interested in entertaining this discussion for a moment or two.

Give me one second.

Let me clarify this. I am informed that indeed there has been a change in private members' legislation that allows it to proceed in the manner you suggested. However, if it moves beyond the committee process, it needs to receive a royal recommendation before it can be enacted.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The House will decide that.

That is my argument, Mr. Chairman. We cannot determine. We can recommend to the House.

The Chair: As this is a second reading bill, the House has decided the scope by attaching a recommendation to the bill. The House has decided that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The House has adopted in principle the nature of the bill, not the detail. That's what we're doing.

The Chair: The royal recommendation is attached to it in the bill.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is in principle. It's not finalized until it goes back to the House and then through the stages that we all know.

The Chair: Okay, let me then bring this to a close and move on. We have two possibilities. I have made a ruling on this. So you may challenge my ruling, if you care to--

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: May I elect to suspend your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and we'll just vote?

The Chair: What will we vote on?

» (1705)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We'll have a motion or a vote on amendment BQ-49.

Mr. Jim Peterson: I'll move the adoption of amendment BQ-49.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the private member's bill that made history is a private member's bill by Guy Arseneault, I believe his name is, from New Brunswick. It said that we would pay, through unemployment insurance funds, people who were not receiving unemployment who were subpoenaed to go for jury duty.

That's what triggered the whole thing. We do that now. It's the law.

The Chair: As you can see, I am somewhat torn on this as I'm about to argue in estimates that we can in fact transfer funds between votes, which does exactly the same thing. So I must confess that I am somewhat reluctant to proceed. However, I do have a responsibility as the chair of the committee to deal with these matters, consistent with the rules of the House, as I understand them.

However, I've made a ruling. The member is quite free to challenge my ruling.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, and almost at your invitation, I will challenge your ruling so that we can deal with amendment BQ-49.

The Chair: So the question for the challenge is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

An hon. member: Suspended.

The Chair: Sustained is the motion I believe Mr. Bélanger put.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: The decision of the chair has been overturned. Has this established a precedent?

Amendment BQ-49 may proceed.

Mr. Sauvageau, I invite you to read amendment BQ-49.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to withdraw it. No, just kidding. I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 60 the following:

172.1 (1) The public interest commission has the power to...

Some of this will be familiar to those who looked at the Fryer report.

(a) determine the facts;

(b) refer the parties back to the negotiating table;

(d) issue a preliminary report commenting on the reasonableness of the parties' positions;

(e) issue a report outlining the terms of a settlement that could be adopted by or imposed on the parties; and

(f) impose a collective agreement at the request of a union under specified circumstances.

Now, here is the clause which is problematic:

(2) The public interest commission shall consists of at least nine part-time members and a full-time Chair, all to be appointed by the Governor-in-Council. It shall have an equal number of union and management representatives, at least three of each, and the remaining members shall be neutral third parties.

(3) The public interest commission shall report directly to Parliament.

The three most significant recommendations made by the Fryer Advisory Committee are no doubt those dealing with the establishment of a public interest dispute resolution commission. The committee wrote:

We recommend that the Public Service Staff Relations Act be amended to provide for a tripartite representative Public Interest Dispute Resolution Commission, to represent the public interest and to assist the parties in resolving interest disputes.

As we are proposing in our amendment, the committee also outlined the commission's powers, including fact finding, referral to negotiating tables an so on. It was therefore recommended that a public interest dispute resolution commission be set up that would be at arm's length, but that part seems to have been lost. This recommendation is based on the report of the Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations--not federal-provincial relations--in the Federal Public Service.

» (1710)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Perhaps I may refer to the officials for this, please, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LeFrançois.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to Mr. Sauvageau's comments. The bill does not provide for the establishment of a permanent body as was suggested by Mr. Fryer, for the reasons outlined earlier. I would like to add that the bill does give some powers to the public interest commission, but it does not allow the commission to impose a collective agreement, since that is the responsibility of arbitration boards. Nor does it provide for the commission to report directly to Parliament. The parties should be able to come to an understanding on that, and the Chair of the Public Service Labour Relations Board reports to Parliament on an annual basis.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: That takes us to another one of these blindingly complex government amendments.

Mr. Tirabassi, can you help us understand this?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes. I would move that Bill C-25 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 11 on page 61 with the following:

paragraphs 40(1)(a), (d), (e) and (h) to (j).

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We are in complete disagreement with that. If need be, we will resort to filibuster. Like Mr. Tirabassi, I would ask the officials to tell us why we should oppose this major amendment to the bill. No, it's a joke; we are in agreement with that.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: It's unanimous, Mr. Tirabassi. You are a persuasive fellow.

That takes us to amendment BQ-50. I see that the Bloc amendments run from amendment BQ-50 through to at least amendment BQ-70.

Could we deal with this as a block, Mr. Bloc?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Where are you? I am at 54.1.

» (1715)

The Chair: We are at BQ-50.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's start with BQ-50, and let us look at them one by one. That Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 7 on page 65 with the following:

183.(1) The Minister shall give the employees in a bargaining unit the opportunity to accept or reject the offer of the employer last received by the bargaining agent in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties, and the minister may

The idea for this amendment came from the CSN, once again, which said:

The bill gives the minister the power to intercede which we believe is patently unacceptable, in the sense that it enables him to impede the bargaining process, among other things, with respect to voting on the employer's offers. Indeed, clause 183 of the Bill provides that: “183.(1) If the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the employees in a bargaining unit be given the opportunity to accept or reject the offer of the employer last received by the bargaining agent in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties...”

The CSN objected to the introduction of a similar provision during hearings on reforming the Canada Labour Code.

In our opinion, such a provision is contrary to the preamble of the Bill, which states that:

the Government of Canada recognizes that public service bargaining agents represent the interests of employees in collective bargaining and participate in the resolution of workplace issues and rights disputes;

We think the minister should not allow this type of intervention which would tend to discredit democratically elected bargaining agents, since intervening like this in the collective bargaining process could ultimately generate more problems than it would solve.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, monsieur Sauvageau.

Monsieur Tirabassi.

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

What we have put into Bill C-25 is the same provision used in the Canada Labour Code and the present PSSRA. As a matter of fact, we're a little surprised that the Bloc is making this motion. Conventional wisdom states that unions do not like final-offer votes in any circumstances, yet this motion would require them in every case. It's my understanding that this clause is not intended to be used frequently; in fact, it has never been used in the past to involve the minister.

So we will not be supporting amendment BQ-50.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The New Democratic Party does not believe it is in the interests of labour to have a regime in which all employer final offers must be put to employees for consideration. This is one instance where we think it's preferable for the minister to retain discretion.

So I will not be supporting this particular amendment.

The Chair: So the coalition is breaking up.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, you're losing ground here.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The next time, I will find myself objecting to my own motion!

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: That brings us to amendment BQ-51.

Mr. Sauvageau, would you like us to apply the vote or to take it on the last...?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to move it. Perhaps I will succeed in convincing you or one other person. That Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 38 on page 66 with the following:

ployees by an employee organization; (b) discriminate against an employee organization; or

The bill makes no major changes with respect to unfair practices. We feel it would be important to specify that some matters should be referred to the new commission for adjudication. When an employer refuses to make a salary deduction in the amount specified by the bargaining agent as the amount to be paid in union dues for any public servant covered by an accreditation certificate, we think this should be considered an unfair practice. The same goes for monthly remittance of such amounts.

The failure to recognize bargaining agents or their representatives should also be deemed an unfair practice, a practice which is inconsistent with the mandate of the new commission responsible for labour relations in the public service. A review of the case law under labour legislation in various jurisdictions—which I would not really be in a position to quote—points to instances where employers do not recognize bargaining agents or their representatives through a variety of means, some of them more subtle than others. The legislation should prohibit such practices, and the best thing would be to have wording that is comprehensive enough to prohibit such non-recognition.

Do you agree with that, Mr. Tirabassi?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Tirabassi.

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

We feel that the refusal to withhold membership dues should be dealt with as a policy grievance and should not bypass the grievance scheme, which is more rapid and less formal than unfair labour practices.

To add just a note, if an employer decides to withhold the dues in order to interfere with the administration of the employee organization, then it can file an unfair labour practice complaint under paragraph 186(1)(a). For that reason, we cannot support amendment BQ-51.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: You gained ground on that one, Mr. Sauvageau.

Just for the information of members, before I proceed to amendment BQ-52, it is my intention to adjourn the session at 5:30. I've had some consultation with the whips and other members, and I think that would be the most reasonable approach, given the information I have received.

» (1720)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Would you mind an ultimate attempt to see if there's a willingness to finish dealing with clause 2?

The Chair: The question has been put, Mr. Sauvageau. Would you be willing to deal in a block with all of the amendments down to the end of amendment BQ-85, plus the four amendments that have been stood?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I really can't, Mr. Chairman, because I'm getting closer and closer to convincing Mr. Tirabassi to vote for one of my motions. I would then lose any chance of convincing him.

[English]

The Chair: It was asked and answered, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Sauvageau, on amendment BQ-52.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 35 on page 68 with the following:

(5) the employer or a person commits an unfair labour practice under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) by reason only that the employer or person expresses their point of view, even though they do not use coercion,

It's like when you try to take apart furniture from IKEA.

Again, we got that idea from the CSN:

Some aspects of the bill are still problematic, particularly clause 186(5), which reads as follows:

The employer or a person does not commit an unfair labour practice under paragraph (1) (a) or (b) by reason only that the employer or person expresses their point of view, so long as they do not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

This does not even apply to unions; that is typical.

There is no justification for giving the employer such latitude, given the general prohibition in clause 186(1). There should be no exceptions whatsoever to that prohibition, even when an employer is extremely subtle or crafty. On the contrary, union organizations should be given full latitude, and they should be able to report any improper behaviour in this regard.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Tirabassi.

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

While we would agree that the employer should be careful as to what it says and what it discusses at certain times, we would have to oppose this motion because it would completely shut down the employer's freedom of expression.

I will say that the provision provided for in Bill C-25 is the same provision that's in the Canada Labour Code.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, would you care to move amendment BQ-53?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would be pleased to. I move that Bill C-25, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 70 the following:

189.2 A joint committee shall be established to give bargaining agents, regardless of their affiliation, the right to participate in all phases of trade union consultations or labour-management consultations.

The bill, in clause 13, provides that the commission's role, or its mandate if you will, extend to research on compensation. This mandate would come directly under the responsibility of the commission Chair, who would be advised by an advisory committee as provided for in clause 53 of the bill.

We feel that this committee will play a significant role in establishing the commission's credibility. A review of compensation in the public sector would not be without controversy. Questions regarding comparison groups in the public sector relative to equivalent groups in the private sector, as well as what should be included in compensation, or how to measure benefits that are difficult to quantify have often been considered difficult issues to deal with by unions, and in research reports. Appointments to the advisory committee on compensation should ensure equal representation for employers, unions, as well as academics.

» (1725)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, I refer to Mr. LeFrançois for an explanation on this one.

Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur LeFrançois.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairman, this bill is not aimed at changing the regulations concerning advisory committees or bodies such as the National Joint Council. The parties involved agree on how issues should be dealt with. In the case of the National Joint Council, that has been going on since the 1940s.

One of the reasons why that committee is still working is that it operates in a voluntary and non-coercive manner. Given that success, we did not want to make any changes there. So, we did not want to legislate on the way in which those consultations are conducted.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. LeFrançois for that explanation.

I would like to ask Mr. Tirabassi whether or not he plans to support BQ-53 after having heard Mr. Lefrançois's comments.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting amendment BQ-53.

The Chair: Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to ask for a recorded vote, but I won't.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chair: At this point, we will cease our work.

I simply wish to inform members that we meet again tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in room 362.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Point of order.

I would like to ask my friend, Mr. Sauvageau, who is usually quite familiar with the issues he's involved in, to consider a suggestion.

Given his talent for summarizing, would he agree to describe in one or two sentences the substance of each amendment, rather than reading all of them from start to finish? We could then have the vote.

I would leave that suggestion with him so that he can think about it during the course of the evening, and we will see where things stand tomorrow morning.

[English]

The Chair: I would simply like to thank Mr. Sauvageau, Mr. Proctor, and others who are new around this table. They have basically been thrown into the breach, given some strictures on other people's time. I think we've moved along expeditiously.

I'll see you all tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

We are adjourned.