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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
| ¿ | 0915 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)) |
| Â | 1220 |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1225 |
|
Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office) |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1230 |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
| Â | 1235 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
| Â | 1240 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois, (General Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force) |
| Â | 1245 |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Â | 1250 |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
| Â | 1255 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
| · | 1300 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
| · | 1305 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| · | 1310 |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrancois |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1315 |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| · | 1320 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
| · | 1325 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
| · | 1330 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Monique Boudrias |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Ms. Monique Boudrias |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1335 |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| · | 1340 |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Ms. Monique Boudrias |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Michel LeFrancois |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1345 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Ranald Quail |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Michel LeFrançois |
| · | 1350 |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0915)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let's come to order. Before I begin the process on the bill, let me draw this to your attention. The clerk has prepared a letter to the Privy Council Office requesting that information.
The information that has been requested is the report, or other documents, and we are told the report is okay, on Bill C-25 by Mr. Donald Savoie, and any other reports or opinions commissioned by the task force regarding Bill C-25, in particular the report of Mr. Jim Mitchell and that of Nicholas D'Ombrain.
I wanted to clarify that because I didn't think the name of Mr. Dombrin was specifically mentioned when we made the agreement to do that.
So I'm not hearing any objections.
Mr. Forseth.
 
(1220)
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I understand we have made that formal request and we're calling it a report. I'm wondering if Mr. Quail could give us a little technical explanation on what the nature of that communication is, because I understand it is not a report and he is calling it something else.
The Chair Well, Mr. Forseth, I was informed, though, that the clerk had this discussion with the officials and he was told, whether it was called a report or a letter or advice, that it would be interpreted as the same thing.
Does anybody care to comment on that?
 (1225)
Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office): Well, I cannot say it will be interpreted as is, because I'm not the PCO and I'm not the person who will rate your motion. I'm a member of the task force.
What I said is, it is not a report. What we have is advice, letters, but I cannot provide any comments on the way it will be interpreted by PCO, by access to information.
The Chair: So, then, Mr. Forseth, are you suggesting we broaden the description here to include--
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Yes. Don't give them wiggle room.
The Chair: Perhaps the clerk can work on that while we are proceeding, and I'll interrupt to deal with that.
Thank you, Mr. Forseth.
There is one other thing I should also say as a matter of business. This meeting will adjourn when it adjourns. We have a meeting called for 3:30 p.m., after question period; however, I am informed now by the whips that there are four votes called at the present time, beginning some time after 3:15 p.m. We can't predict when, because there may be other procedural things going on. We have a meeting called for tomorrow at 3:30 p.m., so it is suggested that at the adjourning of this meeting, we will reconvene at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. That would be the next meeting of this committee. Are there any comments on that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We are convened now for the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act.
As we're beginning, I'd like to put a few details on the record. Bill C-25, which contains 286 clauses and two schedules, is structured in such a way that it contains two new acts. The new Public Service Labour Relations Act is found in clause 2, which starts on page 1 of the bill. The new Public Service Employment Act is found in clause 12, which starts on page 112 of the bill.
Each of these two new acts contains a preamble. These preambles apply only to the provision of the acts in clause 2 and clause 12. They do not apply to Bill C-25 as a whole. Amendments to these two proposed acts will be considered as amendments to clause 2 and clause 12 respectively, and it will be taken up line by line as we proceed through the bill.
I need to bring to your attention that there is a typographical error at the top of page 274. At the top of that page the text currently reads “Schedule IV”, or “Annexe IV in the French version. This is incorrect. It should read “Schedule V”, and “Annexe V” in the French version. A correction will be made when the bill is reprinted.
We have currently received 105 amendments, which have been organized into the package that all members have.
A second package of five amendments was distributed earlier this morning.
And who knows where life will take us as we wander down this road. So perhaps we can begin.
Consideration of clause 1 is postponed until the completion of the clause-by-clause consideration, so we will move to the new Public Service Labour Relations Act, pages 1 to 102, which is clause 2 of the bill.
On clause 2
The Chair: Mr. Quail, would you like to make any introductory or opening remarks?
Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office): No, sir.
The Chair: Well, I note in our package here that we have a Bloc amendment on page 1 of the bill.
Monsieur Lanctôt, would you like to introduce your amendment?
 (1230)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Yes.
Good morning, everyone. I think you'll be hearing a great deal from me today. It really can't be helped. As I mentioned earlier to committee members, I really want to improve this bill with a view to striking a fair balance between the amendment granting managers more powers and public servants.
You have a copy of the first amendment. It's important to remember that the Charter recognizes union rights and that these should not become unconditional. Therefore, under no circumstances do we want union rights to be tied to the public interest. Just because someone belongs to a union or to an association doesn't mean that labour-management relations are not in the public interest. As you can see, we're asking that “protection of union rights” be substituted for the “protection of the public interest” and that such rights become unconditional. We're proposing that protection of union rights becomes paramount.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Tirabassi.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you.
I appreciate the member's intent to make paramount what he feels should be so. What he's referring to is covered in the preamble of that particular act, where it recognizes effective labour-management relations. I'm not going to read the entire preamble, but the position of the government is that it's sufficiently recognized in the preamble and as such it does not need to be put in this. It would change the essence of what is being proposed.
The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt, could you move your amendment before we begin the discussion, and then speak about the reasons for it? I apologize, as I should have done this at the beginning.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 with the following:
| tion of union rights is paramount |
instead of saying that the protection of the public interest is paramount.
[English]
The Chair: Now, Monsieur Lanctôt, do you want to respond to Mr. Tirabassi?
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Are we going to go back and forth on every one of these?
The Chair: In the beginning.
Do you wish to speak on this, Mr. Mahoney?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I want to vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd like to say something now so that each time one of my motion is negatived, I will not have to explain why I am dissenting. Each time the chair calls for the vote and a motion is negatived, I'd like my dissenting vote to be automatically recorded, just in case I may be speaking with my assistant when the vote is called. Understood?
[English]
The Chair: So you're content to have us record you on division, or to record your dissenting vote on all of your motions, whether you're at the table or not?
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Exactly.
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: When the amendment is negatived.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, since we are at the beginning and we are talking about principles, which probably underpin many of the motions that Mr. Lanctôt is bringing before the committee, I would find it helpful if the department would also make a statement with regard to the point Mr. Lanctôt is making. This has clearly been an issue that has been raised by the honourable member during the testimony of witnesses, etc. For the clarity of all, and for the information of Mr. Lanctôt, I believe it would be useful for the department to comment on whether it understands the thrust of his amendment and to give its response to the amendment so its position on this matter is at least very clear to him.
 (1235)
The Chair: Mr. Quail.
Mr. Ranald Quail: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I understand that correctly, there are a few comments I might make, not only on this particular motion but generally on the way in which we have structured the bill.
Obviously, we have structured the bill on the basis that it's enacted where the public interest is paramount. We built a lot of the bill in terms of that, and it does make a difference in the way in which the bill gets structured relative to a number of the motions I see on the table.
Secondly, there are a number of motions that talk about the scope of bargaining. I think that was a particular issue that was raised during the hearings. In our case, the scope of bargaining does not include bargaining for classification, does not include bargaining for staffing, does not include bargaining for pensions. As I understand it, in the submission by Mr. Lanctôt there are a number of amendments that would put that back on the table.
We have also developed in here a method to have consultation and good harmonious relationships with the unions, to attempt to put those into place. We do talk about enabling provisions for co-development, but it is not mandatory co-development and co-development does not extend to mandatory dispute resolution.
Certainly, in the preamble we have outlined that the government recognizes that public service bargaining agents--we do not call them unions; we call them bargaining agents--represent the interests of employees in collective bargaining and participate in the resolution of workplace issues and rights disputes.
We do talk about the employer and the bargaining agents to mutually respect and have harmonious working labour relations and that we do want to have a collaborative approach. But that does not extend to co-development, which extends to co-management, which extends to mandatory dispute resolution, which can extend to a different form of collective bargaining. That is not the way in which we built the law.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Quail.
Mr. Quail, for clarification, is it a fair statement that the public interest, so defined, is not coincident with management's interest, that it encompasses both management's and labour's interest?
Mr. Ranald Quail: It covers the interests of the country.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Quail, I think I understand your explanation about the public interest being the global.... But as you can appreciate, Mr. Lanctôt has.... Because of the significant role that the union movement plays in the public service, there is a clause in the preamble--it's on page 2, “Collective bargaining ensures...”, etc.--that is getting close to what Mr. Lanctôt is...but it's not the bold statement you would like it to be.
Mr. Ranald Quail: That's right.
Mr. Paul Szabo: In your opinion, would it be good public policy to maybe try to be a little more precise with regard to the presumption of the department in this bill with regard to the importance of unions at large? I'm wondering if there is some opportunity here so there would be no misunderstanding of the intent, even from the chairman's question, that the public interest on its face is not a defined matter in this regard and that there may be.... You may want to suggest, or have your people come back to us with a phrase or something that might help, for greater certainty, to acknowledge the importance of union rights in this entire process.
Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Szabo, you asked me for my personal opinion. My view is that the preamble as we set it out is a pretty clear representation about how we want to work with our unions, how our unions represent our people. We do want to work in a collaborative way. We have developed enabling legislation for two-tiered bargaining. We say “collective bargaining ensures the expression of diverse views for the purpose of establishing terms and conditions of employment”.
I really thought our preamble was pretty representative of an indication of the way we wanted to work with our unions, the way we expect to work with our unions. We do have labour-management consultations. Lots of departments already have that, but labour-management committees are already now in here as mandatory. The government “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”, as I mentioned, which is also in the preamble.
So I thought that this in no way relegated the unions to a lesser position, but it talked about how we need to work with them. In excess of 80% of our people are represented by unions. I thought it did deliver this message, and that's what we were trying to do when we worked to put it into place, Mr. Szabo.
 (1240)
The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt and then Mr. Cullen.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Having heard Mr. Quail's explanations, I'd like us to be very clear about the situation. Upon thoughtful consideration of the first “whereas” in the preamble, we note an implicit presumption that the bargaining process or labour-management relations in the public service could be counter to the public interest. In my view, when such a presumption is found in the preamble, this sends a somewhat, if not strong, negative message to unions in so far as their rights are concerned. That's why...It won't change the preamble a great deal. It will merely indicate that union rights are unconditional, that is to say that the right of association and the right to be represented by a union are Charter rights. The first paragraph of the preamble clearly implies that labour-management relations could lead to problems and that in such cases, protection of the public interest must be paramount.
Personally, I think this sends a negative message to unions and to public servants. The public interest will always be protected indirectly, and even more so when proper bargaining takes place between labour and management. All I'm asking for with this amendment is to have the importance of union rights acknowledged. If union rights are respected, rights will be protected indirectly, whether essential services or something else is at issue, because the bargaining process will be carried out correctly. One should not imply that bargaining goes against the public interest. That's not the kind of message we should be sending to the public service.
Mr. Michel LeFrançois, (General Counsel, Human Resources Modernization Task Force): Mr. Lanctôt, the preamble clearly recognizes the right of a bargaining agent to represent the interests of his employees. The importance of dialogue is recognized, along with the importance of taking a new approach to labour relations in the public service. However, in the event the bargaining agent and the public have divergent interests, the public interest will be paramount. This is spelled out in the preamble.
Getting back to what Mr. Quail was saying earlier, we are not seeking to change the relationship between a bargaining agent and the employees in the bargaining unit. We go even further in that we acknowledge the contribution and obligation of bargaining agents to represent employees. However, should the interests of the parties diverge, the public interest will be paramount.
 (1245)
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: May I respond to that comment?
The second paragraph of the preamble states exactly that. I'm not asking you to amend it either. However, the first paragraph implies something altogether different. I quite agree that a bargaining agent and the public service can serve to protect the public interest. This much is stated in the second paragraph.
However, the first paragraph of the preamble implies that in the course of bargaining, problems could arise, putting the public interest at risk. All we're saying is that union rights are equally important and must be protected. The reason for that, as you just explained, can be found in the second paragraph. The amendment merely conveys the message that union rights are protected, as we note further in the second paragraph of the preamble:
| ...effective labour-management relations represent a cornerstone of good human resource management and that collaborative efforts between the parties, through communication and sustained dialogue, improve the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest; |
That summarizes everything nicely, in addition to stating that union rights are important...
I think a distinction is warranted and that this will make the preamble stronger. It will take nothing away from what you've just said. In fact, that's covered in the second paragraph. Furthermore, the preamble later contains a reference to bargaining agents. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but we would like it to be stated clearly that union rights are important. Doing this would strengthen the preamble and solidify what you hope to accomplish with this bill.
[English]
The Chair: Do you wish to respond, Mr. Quail?
Mr. Ranald Quail: I don't think I have anything more to say, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Quail.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In looking at the term “public interest”, I was piqued by that because we've just spent three months in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance trying to define what the public interest is or how you define that in the context of proposed bank mergers. I noticed that in the interpretation there is actually no definition of public interest. There is a definition of public service but there is no definition of public interest.
The problem I have with Mr. Lanctôt's amendment is why would we say necessarily that union rights are paramount? If we're going to talk about paramountcy, surely we should also be talking about union rights and management rights, or the need for management to be able to manage. The problem is by singling out union rights.... I guess my question is, how do you define the public interest? Presumably the public interest would recognize the rights of unions. The public interest would also, though, it seems to me, recognize the right of management to manage the affairs of the government on behalf of the Government of Canada.
I have two questions for the officials. Why is it we do not define public interest? Could we define public interest in this context? And secondly, if one were to define public interest, presumably that would include the need to respect union rights, but it might also include perhaps the need to respect the need for management to manage.
Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Quail?
Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Cullen, I turn for reference to page 61 of the bill. On page 61, in proposed sections 174 and 175, we talk about the public interest commission.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Sorry?
Mr. Ranald Quail: In the bill itself, on page 61, proposed subsection 174(1) and proposed section 175, it would be our view that whenever you appoint a public interest commission or commissioner as a result of needing some help to come to a conclusion on negotiations or on arbitration, the factors to be considered, while they are not exhaustive in proposed section 175, the public interest commission must take them into consideration. And we set them out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). We would suggest that that's where we start to think about the labour negotiation side in the public interest and the factors for the public interest commissioner, or commission, to look at in resolving disputes.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Quail.
That's a useful reference. I'm just wondering, though, looking at it very quickly, if you were looking at defining the public interest, this would be quite a narrow definition of the public interest. Paragraph (e) is the state of Canada's economy and the Government of Canada's fiscal circumstances, but equally you would have criteria around the broader public interest criteria or tests as well.
I'm wondering if it's possible to elaborate on the public interest and in the interpretation section define public interest in this context, perhaps with reference to these factors, because they are fairly specific to this area of operation, or this function, in terms of the role of the staffing. The kind of public interest criteria identified here is quite targeted.
I would argue that there would be other public interest criteria in terms of the ability of the government to deliver social programs and policies and to give all Canadians equal opportunity, etc. You could go on and on.
 (1250)
Mr. Ranald Quail: In that kind of context I'd back into and have a look at page 42, division 8, “Essential Services”, because it's also in here where we start to talk about the rights of the employer.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Right.
Mr. Ranald Quail: Okay.
And that backs in as well to--
Mr. Roy Cullen: What's that reference again?
Mr. Ranald Quail: Page 42, division 8, proposed section 119, application of the division. Proposed section 120 is where the employer determines the levels of service to be provided to the public or a segment of the public at any time. Then we get into further breakdown as to how to manage essential services--“Proportion of duties may vary during strike”.
But certainly dealing with the level of service at which an essential service is to be provided to the public backs into being concerned about the security of the country, of course, to the point that we're talking about, in terms of the public interest.
The Chair: Is it a follow-up question, Mr. Cullen, to this point?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a final comment on that. What you've pointed out I think is quite useful and illustrative of the need to look at both the rights of unions, but also the rights of the employer. But I'm still left with the notion that for someone reading the first part of this bill, the part we're on, it's leaving it--and I'm not trying to be facetious--to them to hunt around in this bill to be able to figure out roughly what we mean by public interest in this context, rather than spelling it out through interpretation.
I'll just leave it at that for now.
The Chair: Or you could draft away, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Masse, and then Mr. Forseth and Mr. Lanctôt again.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to identify as well the issue of public interest. I didn't have the opportunity, obviously, to listen to the witnesses and to hear the testimony, but reading the bill for the first time it did strike me later on that you have the context here where protection of public interest is paramount. I would argue that the whole bill is inherently about the public interest in terms of labour-management practices for the taxpayers and what they're getting for it. Identifying public interest on its own like that almost puts a suggestion that these things aren't happening because of public interest.
I have this specific question. I understand the concerns that have been raised with just the union being identified--rights are paramount; that's a good identifier. But still, where's the drawback in that? Given the preamble, where's the specific drawback from that addition, or one that identifies both labour and management?
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairperson, the position of the task force is that these factors--the importance of the relationship between unions and the government as employer, the role unions play, the importance they have in the whole human resources regime--is quite properly recognized already in the preamble.
I take you, sir, to the provisions of the preamble. The second paragraph refers to effective labour-management relations being the cornerstone of a good human resources management regime. It mentions “collaborative efforts”, “communication”, and “sustained dialogue”. These are recognized as improving the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.
It's not the position of the task force that one is at odds with the other. In fact, harmonious labour relations do help to provide effective service to Canadians, so they're part and parcel of the public interest.
If you follow, sir, you'll find even in the next paragraph, “collective bargaining ensures the expression of diverse views”, etc., and then “the Government of Canada is committed to fair...and efficient resolution” of disputes, etc. There's the recognition by the Government of Canada that bargaining agents represent the interests of employees. All of these considerations, in our view, are already recognized in the preamble.
The only point we make is about something that is unique to the public sector, that the public interest is paramount. You won't find that in a statute that deals with private sector labour relations; you will find it here.
Mr. Quail mentioned a moment ago essential services. That's not a regime you'll find in most private sector collective bargaining regimes.
 (1255)
The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.
I believe the bill is written the way it should be. The preamble is introductory and outlines a basic principle.
I'll add to the additional comments that have already been talked about. Once you get into the bill, it begins to specify certain operational ways of doing things that must be considered as component parts of the public interest. The key is also that it's not an exhaustive list, and I refer to page 61 and the beginning of proposed section 175:
| the public interest commission must take into account the following factors, in addition to any other factors that it considers relevant |
That's the opening. It's there for operational purposes, but it includes maybe those higher sociological ones or whatever. They are there, but you don't in the beginning, in the preamble, when you outline a fundamental principle, then immediately get into all the operational definitions. That happens later in the bill, the way it is written.
When you come down to writing the bill, I don't see any other way how, despite the comments about it, to write it any better than the way it is here. The public interest is the public. They are the ones who go to the ballot box and vote, and by the mere fact of voting, in some respects, they are delegating the public business to a government structure of some kind in the broadest sense.
I think the bill is written the way it should be written.
The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I totally disagree with the last comment.
Earlier, I cited essential services as an example. Mention is made of these in clause 120, which completely defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to accomplish. The Charter guarantees the right of association. The first paragraph of the preamble, the part I would like to see amended, refers to the public interest. Clause 120 contradicts everything set out in the preamble and constitutes a violation of union rights. This provision, which deals with essential services, makes no mention of possible negotiations to determine essential services. It reads as follows:
| 120. The employer has the exclusive right to determine the level at which an essential service is to be provided... |
Since the preamble acknowledges that union rights are protected, a provision like this is unacceptable. Were you aware that the Canada Labour Code says something altogether different, namely that the level of essential services to be provided shall be determined by a commission comprised of union and management representatives? Clause 120, however, stipulates that the employer has the exclusive right to determine the level of essential services to be provided. Really! This is a violation of the Canada Labour Code and goes against every existing bargaining provision in Quebec, whether in the public, parapublic or private sector. The same holds true here, except for public service employees. Come on! Where's the logic? Public servants also have the right to negotiate openly the level of essential services to be provided. Their rights must also be protected.
Just because a person belongs to a union doesn't mean that he will not bargain in the public interest. That's what you seem to be implying in the first paragraph, and that's what worries me. You imply that these individuals will bargain without the public interest at heart. If you want to protect union rights, you can't have a clause like clause 120.
I'll come back later to our proposed amendment to clause 120. Public servants must have the same rights as those enjoyed by all other Canadian workers pursuant to the Canada Labour Code. The unions and the employer work together at Canada Post and at Air Canada to determine the level of essential services to be provided. Why then are you now saying that where essential services are concerned, the Canada Labour Code does not apply to public servants? Why does the employer have the exclusive right in this regard? Do you really think this provision will promote good labour relations? I'm truly astounded! I don't understand, as this area is covered in the Canada Labour Code.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our Canada Labour Code is also your Canada Labour Code, Mr. Lanctôt.
I believe Mr. Lanctôt and I are very much on the same wavelength, Perhaps it's because we share the same tradition, Mr. Forseth. I've also been taught that in the case of a bill or an act, what comes at the beginning applies to all subsequent provisions. Therefore, I totally agree that unions should be mentioned much earlier in the bill, and not, as Mr. Quail suggested, much later, namely on page 40 and 42, or whatever.
However, where I disagree with Mr. Lanctôt is over the question of the public interest. I see this as a much broader issue that the interest of unions, although the two can certainly coincide, even though they don't necessarily always do. Therefore, I would retain the reference to the public interest in line 13, but mention the presence and importance of unions in the collective bargaining process much sooner in the bill.
· (1300)
The Chair: Mr. LeFrançois.
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd just like to respond quickly to Mr. Lanctôt's comments. First of all, this bill in no way violates the Charter. The provision respecting essential services is entirely consistent with the Charter which of course guarantees the right of association, but not the constitutional right to collective bargaining, or the constitutional right to strike.
In the case of the provision to which you alluded, it's not a matter of the employer deciding unilaterally which services are to be deemed essential. The employer comes to an agreement with the union on essential services. In the absence of an agreement, the Public Service Staff Relations Board settles the matter. The employer works with the union to determine which essential services are required. Failing this, the Public Service Staff Relations Board steps in to resolve any dispute.
All clause 120 on page 42 of the bill says is that the employer has the exclusive right to determine the level at which an essential service is to be provided. Take, for example, a person who receives a pension cheque every two weeks. In the event of a labour dispute, the employer will have the right to continue issuing a cheque to that individual every two weeks, not on a less frequent basis, for example, every four or six weeks. The employer will have the right to determine that this cheque should be issued every two weeks, as always. The employer has the right to determine the level of the essential service, not what constitutes an essential service per se, or the number of employees required to provide that service.
· (1305)
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wonder if the members would agree to stand this amendment. I understand there is some consideration to possibly accommodating language that might be acceptable to Mr. Lanctôt, and maybe we could come back to this when the officials have had an opportunity to give us a final answer on whether or not they can have some accommodating language.
The Chair: Just for clarification, as I understand the nature of the discussion today, could I say the clarifying language would be around the definition of the public interest and the inclusion of collective bargaining?
Mr. Paul Szabo: It would be to make specific reference to union rights within the preamble, and there are some possibilities. As soon as we can get a response from the officials as to whether or not they can accommodate.... Nowhere in the bill does it specifically mention unions; it talks about bargaining agents, etc.
We know from all the witnesses we've had, Mr. Chairman--if you'll be patient with me--that they are reflective of the union movement in Canada and are representatives of employees in labour-management issues. The acknowledgement of unions in the preamble may very well be the accommodation that would make a lot of our work a little easier as we go through the detailed sections of the bill.
I ask for a little latitude to stand that particular amendment simply until we can get a response from the officials as to whether or not this could be accommodated without any unintended consequences.
The Chair: Just for clarification, I note that the amendment is relative to the preamble and there are three Bloc amendments to the preamble. Are you suggesting that we stand all three of them or that we just stand Bloc-1?
Mr. Quail.
Mr. Ranald Quail: I refer to the first full paragraph on page 2; we're talking about lines 3, 4, and 5. Presently we say, “the Government of Canada recognizes that public service bargaining agents represent the interests of employees”, and we could certainly look at words such as “the public service bargaining agents have the right to represent”.
Now, that goes part of the way to what Mr. Szabo was referring to and also Monsieur Lanctôt. Monsieur Lanctôt in his motion is specific with respect to the word “union”, and we've been careful in--not so much careful--the way we have drafted the law. We don't talk about unions. We talk about “employees”, we talk about “bargaining agents”, and we talk about, I think, “employee organizations”, but we have not used the word “unions”; we have “bargaining agents” to represent and include unions.
So certainly in that part on page 2, after “the Government of Canada”, we could say, “the public service bargaining agents have the right to represent the....”
[Translation]
The French version could say “ont le droit de représenter les intérêts de la fonction publique”,
[English]
but we would have trouble coming up and using the word “unions” because we don't use it anyplace else, and we have “organization”.
The Chair: Robert.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I was wondering if it would be possible to use the word “association” in place of “syndicat”, and “représentant et association”, in place of “représentant” all on its own. This would give us a better overall picture of what a union actually is.
· (1310)
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chairman, I think the correct expression would be “organisation syndicale”, the French equivalent of “employee organization”, something to which Mr. Quail alluded. The difference between this and the expression “agent négociateur” is this: the latter is a certified bargaining unit pursuant to the legislation. The term “organisation syndicale” encompasses both. The English equivalent would be “employee organization”.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The equivalent of “agent négociateur”?
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: No, the equivalent of “agent négociateur” is “bargaining agent”.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Therefore, the equivalent would be “organisation syndicale”.
Mr. Michel LeFrancois: That's correct.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Cullen, do you want to make a comment?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I need to hear again what Mr. Quail said, but if I heard it correctly, I think what he's proposing is stating the obvious, if I might say so, that--what do we call them--not unions, but employee organizations would have the right to be represented by bargaining agents or--
A voice: Bargaining agents have the right to represent--
Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, but isn't that stating the obvious? I thought what we were wrestling with was trying to somehow in the preamble acknowledge there is a public interest here and define what a public interest is.
Mr. Lanctôt is saying the paramountcy of union rights, forgetting the word “union” for the moment, needs to be reflected. I and a number of us also have been quite specific that we cannot, in my judgment, recognize the paramountcy of unions, or whatever we call them, without also acknowledging that the employer has rights and responsibilities as well.
While I appreciate Mr. Quail's offer--maybe I misunderstood him--it seems to me he's just giving language that states the obvious. He's not really coming to grips with the issue that's on the table.
The Chair: Maybe I can help with this.
I've allowed the discussion to be fairly wide ranging, because this is the first discussion at the committee and I thought it was important that all members get a chance to express their concerns about...it's the preamble, I suspect, not the specific law that is the concern here. So if that wording change is acceptable to the officials...and I believe the wording change, in intent.... It's not accepting Mr. Lanctôt's first amendment that asserts the paramountcy of unions; it is a wording change within the preamble that addresses the concern he has raised. And if my understanding is correct in that, which is why I was asking the question about which motions we are going to stand, then it may address a whole lot of other amendments.
Now, can we just be clear? There are two possibilities here. Given that this has come up now, perhaps we can take Mr. Szabo's advice. I'm assuming he would stand the preamble and move on to later amendments, and then come back to this once the officials have had a chance to look at it, because there seems to be some willingness to give us something specific to look at.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Just to clarify that, I haven't read through all the amendments, to be honest. So maybe before we stand all the amendments, could we just go through the ones that relate to the preamble, have a discussion on those, and then maybe stand all or one or two of them? I'm worried about the officials coming back and saying “Okay, we're proposing this to deal with the first amendment”, and then we'll end up bogged down with problems with clauses 2 and 3, which deal with the preamble.
Maybe we want to stand all three; maybe we just want to stand one. I'm not sure.
The Chair: That's precisely it.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, well, you're more familiar with the amendments than I am. I'd like to go through those amendments.
The Chair We have the added complication that this bill is not in a normal format. Normally we would go clause-by-clause, and each clause would have amendments. The way this bill is set up, all of this is only one clause, technically. But that's a question we'll put to the officials later on in the discussion.
· (1315)
Just so that we can move on here, I note that BQ-1 and BQ-2 both seem to relate to this question of the bargaining unit. Amendment BQ-3 seems to be on a different issue.
Would it be fair or acceptable, Mr. Lanctôt--and not just Mr. Lanctôt, I guess, but all members of the committee--if we stood BQ-1 and BQ-2 and came back to them after the officials had time to consult, and moved on to BQ-3? Would that be acceptable?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: However, given that only one is tied to more or less the same thing, I would like all committee members to look at the second amendment, which would add something to the preamble. I know that Mr. Cullen has read it.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen: The grouping makes sense, yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The meaning is the same. In my view, to say “the practice of free collective bargaining and the positive resolution of disputes must be encouraged in the interest of the public good” summarizes much better what we've been discussing for a while now. Obviously, there are some similarities with parts of the first point, but the aim is to do away with the negative implication that labour-management relations could go against the public interest, as noted in the first paragraph of the preamble. Therefore, either we need to say “les droits syndicaux” or delete the reference to “le droit d'association” or “le droit d'organisation syndicale d'importance”.
The second amendment focuses more closely on what we've been discussing. If we add the words “the practice of free collective bargaining and the positive resolution of disputes”, this would accurately reflect what we've been saying.
However, the negative thing about the first paragraph is the implication that bargaining or labour relations run counter to the public interest, hence the proposed first amendment. I think it's dangerous to imply such a thing.
What if we go with the second amendment, which would include a reference to free collective bargaining? I see this as two separate things. Of course there is a connection, but I also see a distinction and I hope committee members can appreciate what I'm saying. In the first instance, there is a negative connotation and the implicit suggestion that collective bargaining may not be in the public interest.
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to let Mr. Mahoney comment, as he has not spoken yet, and then Mr. Tirabassi. After that we'll have a decision on whether we either stand these two or call the question.
Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Normally I'd be happy to just stand these down and get clarification, but because of conflicts--we all have them--I may not be here the next time the committee deals with this; I'm carrying another bill.
Part of my concern is that words are critically important, even in a preamble, because the next time this is discussed, it will be by some labour lawyers who are interpreting it in a way that is to the benefit of the people they represent. Then we're going to have lawyers on the management side fighting it out with them. So I think we want to be clear on this.
I don't see at all how the suggestion would resolve the issue of making union rights paramount as it relates to public service labour-management.... It just doesn't address it at all. In fact, making union rights paramount here--and some members will know that I come from a union background--deals with the very issue of essential services, which is the crux of the matter when it comes to public services. If union rights are paramount over public rights, the question then becomes, can you declare a service essential or not? So the public interest would then come second.
If this first amendment is totally withdrawn, if that's what I'm hearing, and we move then to the second amendment, I would again argue that it's the issue of essential services that's at the crux of the matter here. The statement in the preamble says that “effective labour-management relations” is what in fact it's all about, and that's the best way to serve the public.
But once again, the words are important, particularly the word “must” in the proposed amendment, that “the practice of free collective bargaining and the positive resolution of disputes must be encouraged in the interest of the public good”. If we did this, I fear there would be strong argument in a labour dispute that the positive resolution of the dispute must come first. So, once again, the ability of management to declare a particular service essential would be at risk. I don't think we want to do that.
So if you want to stand it down, fine. But I would just say that I'd be very concerned about changing the wording that in any way would inhibit management's ability to declare a certain service in the public domain as essential.
· (1320)
The Chair: If I may, I'll interject before Mr. Tirabassi.
Mr. Mahoney, it would be my reading, as the traffic cop here, that there is concern about the motions as they are currently worded, and that they would not stand for precisely the reasons you are suggesting. However, I believe there is some opportunity, however imperfect, to find language that does not cause the problem and that accommodates the concern. If that's the case, then we may entertain it, but we need to see it before we can actually draw an opinion on it.
Mr. Tirabassi.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Lanctôt. As I read your second amendment, you referred to the “practice of free collective bargaining”, and so on. What was the intent of the word “free”?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Free collective bargaining implies the absence of restrictions or obligations, in other words, bargaining that occurs in good faith, where parties are free either to do, or not do, certain things. Free collective bargaining is just that. Do you understand what I'm saying? If the parties have no opportunity to bargain -- mention was made earlier of levels - then the process of free collective bargaining is non-existent, because only one party is free to make decisions.
To answer Mr. Mahoney's question, the Canada Labour Code specifically refers to such cases. This is the Code that you have adopted, the Code that applies to all public servants.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's a different issue. You know that.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Okay.
The Chair: If I could just refer the task force to maybe express its concerns about the broad definition of free.
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: Mr. Chair, the concern of the task force is that “free collective bargaining” would be interpreted to mean that there are no limits to the subjects of collective bargaining in the public service. That's not the case today in this public service, nor in most. There are things that are not subject to negotiation, as Mr. Quail indicated in his introductory remarks. We do not bargain pensions, classification, or staffing. So to the extent that the term “free collective bargaining” or “libre négociation collective” encroaches on that in any way, it's against the policy of this bill in its entirety.
The Chair: It is not simply a matter of no-cost bargaining.
Then let's be very clear on the questions I'm about to ask. Is it the will of the committee to stand these two amendments and return to them, or would you like to have the questions called?
Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to see the alternative that the officials would like to propose. I would rather take a vote, and then one of the two....
The Chair: Okay.
Given that I don't exactly have a clear consensus, I'm not certain that I'm going to call the question on the procedural item at this point, particularly as there seems to have been an indication that there is some possibility of accommodating some wording.
I will stand BQ-1 and BQ-2, and I will move to BQ-3.
Mr. Lanctôt, would you like to introduce your amendment BQ-3?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, I would.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo Mr. Chairman, many of these amendments are fairly lengthy. I know that for the official record they have to be appropriately moved. If a member indicates they want to move the motion, I wonder if the committee will accept that it is deemed to have been read into the record so we can move directly to debate, if they don't indicate they're going to withdraw it. It does take time to--
· (1325)
The Chair: Is that satisfactory?
A voice: No.
The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, would you introduce your motion 3? You have to move it.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 4 the following:
| “harassment” means any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee. Every employee is entitled to a work environment free of psychological or physical harassment, and the employer must take reasonable action to prevent harassment in any form and, whenever the employer becomes aware of such behaviour, to put a stop to it. |
[English]
The Chair: Would you care to make a statement introducing it?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, in light of the poll that was published, I raised this matter with virtually every witness, as you may have noticed. We heard how it was important that a definition of harassment be included in the act, and that a simple administrative policy wasn't sufficient. Some witnesses even followed up their testimony with additional briefs on the subject. Despite the existence of an administrative policy, problems persist.
Quebec's Labour Standards Act includes a definition of harassment. Quebec's labour standards also contain provisions respecting harassment. Therefore, out of respect for those who testified, the preamble should contain a reference to harassment and a definition should be included in the legislation as such, to give a clear picture of the policy respecting harassment.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must apologize that I don't have copies. Since we received these amendments this morning, we hustled to get a definition from the existing policy in Treasury Board that was arrived at jointly with the unions. The policy sets out a definition of harassment stating that:
| Harassment is any improper conduct by an individual that is directed at and offensive to another person or persons in the workplace and which the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprises any objectionable act, comment or display that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment, or any act of intimidation or threat. It includes harassment within the meaning of the Canada Human Rights Act (CHRA). |
Again this policy was arrived at jointly. This is just a reminder that when you have it in policy it's perhaps a little easier to uptake change than when it's in legislation.
The Chair: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Tirabassi, you're recommending against acceptance of this motion.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It's already reflected in the policy.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.
Based on Mr. Tirabassi's intervention, I'm not convinced that something as important as this should be left to policy. No matter where we go in time, harassment is not going to change that much. Whatever we know about technology today probably would be incorporated in this.
So I guess I'm saying I'm not sure why we can't incorporate a definition of harassment into the legislation, rather than leaving it to policy. I'd probably be happy to go with what's in the policy now.
But with respect to Mr. Lanctôt's amendment, first of all, I think there's a typographical editing error, in the English version anyway, in the second last line at the bottom. It says “to prevent harassment in any form and whenever the employer become”. Shouldn't it be “becomes” aware or “would become aware”, or something? I'll leave that to the English grammar specialists.
· (1330)
The Chair: We'll clarify that.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a question for Mr. Lanctôt. On the sixth line it says “dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment”. A harmful work environment conjures up more questions than answers for me. What does that mean? I know it could be psychological or physical. A “harmful work environment” might be too high a hurdle. A person could have a very miserable, uncomfortable, working environment and that might be sufficient, I would suggest.
It might be useful to look more closely at the policy statement that's been agreed to by the joint committee, or at least get some answers to those questions from Mr. Lanctôt.
The Chair: Let's hear from Mr. Forseth, and then we'll let Mr. Lanctôt respond to your question.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.
I'm looking at the definition of harassment, and I can see that someone who had a malevolent agenda could drive a truck right through this definition. In fact, a supervisor's job evaluation could be turned against the supervisor. Complaints from the public about the particular physical appearance and dress of an individual could be pointed out to the supervisor, and if the supervisor made some comments about dressing appropriately in the workplace, that could be termed harassment.
I just see that the way it is worded, “repeated and hostile”, and what is joined together is a poor definition of harassment. I cannot accept it the way it is. I can see difficulties with it just in the plain reading of it, right off the top.
Obviously, I think the other definition has been worked out in a much more thoughtful way. If we have to go to a definition, I'd prefer the other one and certainly not this one, because this one is inherently problematic.
The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, would you like to respond to Mr. Cullen's questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: As far as the English version is concerned, I'm not responsible for the translation. That was done by the House of Commons. The French version refers to labour relations that are “néfaste”. To my mind, “becomes aware” and “connaissance” have equivalent meanings. Perhaps they mean different things to you.
I've been told that this definition is incomplete and risky. Yet, that's the definition contained in Quebec's Labour Standards Act. If the definition is incomplete, then by all means I don't have a problem with changing it or improving upon it. I would be delighted to see the Canadian Alliance come up, if it can, with a better definition that is legally acceptable. The definition as such isn't important. What matters is to have a definition in the Act. If this definition can be improved upon, so much the better.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cullen, just a moment, please. Mr. Epp would like to make a brief comment on this question.
Mr. Ken Epp: My question is to the officials here. I wonder if they would put forward to us any good reason why the definition of harassment should remain in regulations as opposed to being in the legislation.
Ms. Monique Boudrias: From my own experience in human resource management for the last 30 years, I've seen the definition evolving, because things evolve in the workplace--the way people behave, social events, and so forth. So it's easier, when you have those definitions in policies or regulations, than to have them embedded in legislation. Even though we're proposing here to review it in seven years, our experience has been 35 years without reviewing the legislation.
So those things that involve behavioural approaches in the workplace are better served when they are based on policies where the stakeholders, including the unions that represent our employees, are involved in the co-development of those definitions, joint training, and helping to resolve the issues.
The Chair: I'm going to allow Mr. Masse to make a comment and then come back--
Mr. Roy Cullen: Actually, Mr. Epp asked my question.
Mr. Ken Epp: That's a very good answer.
The Chair: Thank you. Actually, thank you on behalf of Monique.
Mr. Masse.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is there a possibility there could be a definition or at least...? I think there has been some consensus about specifically noting harassment as an issue that should be in the legislation. Perhaps there's a bridging measure that can be introduced that identifies harassment through a policy of taking specific measures later on, that creates some flexibility. Is that something that could be done?
Ms. Monique Boudrias: It is, in one of the amendments.
Mr. Brian Masse: Okay, so it's in one of the motions.
The Chair: Shall I call the question?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: It's not on division. Did you vote against it? It's not on division.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, we voted against the amendment.
The Chair: “On division” implies that all of them voted against it.
Mr. Ken Epp: No, not all of them. “On division” means that it wasn't unanimous, and it means according to party standing.
The Chair: It normally does. It's normally governed opposition. I think that's a misunderstanding on his part.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Chair, it would be very easy if you said orally, which would get picked up, it's defeated with Mr. Lanctôt, and then it's--
The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Masse voting in favour, the rest voting against.
I did want us, after a day's labour, to have some product, and we do. We have defeated one motion; one motion has been decided upon, of the 100-and-some-odd that we have.
I note that the hour for question period is approaching. In the past, it has been our practice to allow opposition members, in particular, time to get to the House before question period, in case they have questions.
Mr. Lanctôt, Mr. Masse, would you be prepared to carry on till, say, quarter to two or ten to two? Okay, let's keep going then.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I hope we don't break quorum, Mr. Chair, because some of us have to be in the House for our ministers.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Actually, you're absolutely right. I forgot about that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have to be there at 1:45 for a briefing, but I can stay for another five or ten minutes.
The Chair: Okay. I think we're okay should you have to leave.
Let us move to...in my little road map here we are at Bloc 4, page 7. No, G-1. Government amendment one, on page 4 of our package, page 7 of the bill. I'm learning my own way around here.
Monsieur Tirabassi, would you like to introduce amendment G-1?
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: On page 7, clause 2, that Bill C-25 in clause 2 be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 38 on page 7 with the following, under “Employee Freedoms”: “5. Every employee is free to join the” instead of “any”.
If I may, this will tie in with the Bloc amendment number 4. It's just a cleanup.
The Chair: Is there any comment? Are you ready for the question?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Carried with the opposition of Monsieur Lanctôt.
That now takes us to Bloc 4, page 5 in your package, page 7 of the bill.
Monsieur Lanctôt.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 7 with the following:
| trade union of his or her choice |
Here again, this would ensure consistency with the existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Tirabassi.
· (1335)
Mr. Tony Tirabassi We've addressed this in the previous motion, cleaned it up through that language. Obviously, we will not be supporting this amendment.
· (1340)
Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Chair, can I just make two points? Number one, we aren't in the Canada Labour Code. This is not what we drafted. We drafted the Public Service Staff Relations Act. That's what this is about. The Public Service Staff Relations Act is about safety and security. The Canada Labour Code is about health and safety. They are different. I accept that. The whole basis of this law is safety and security. That's point number one.
The second point is that we do not talk about trade unions. I mentioned this earlier. We talk about bargaining agents. That's the world in which we live. So whenever we have suggestions dealing with trade unions we're going to have trouble because we don't mention them in the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Quail.
Are there any further comments or questions?
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a question, Mr. Chair, just to clarify the fact, Mr. Quail, that trade unions are not mentioned anywhere else in the bill. I can understand that you might not want to introduce the words “trade unions” for that reason. Could you expand on your particular reasons for not wanting that wording? I think I understand; there are various associations and other organizations, so in other words, you think the expression “trade unions” would be too limiting. Is that it?
Ms. Monique Boudrias: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, if I may, the words “trade union” refer to blue-collar workers, and in the public service we have 18 bargaining agents. Some of them represent professional workers, who we could compare to white-collar workers. Referring to trade unions will limit the scope to some of the unions like the federal dockyards, the ship repairs on the west and east coasts, and some other trade unions, which are blue-collar-type organizations.
That's not the representation of the public service. Most of our unions represent professionals in the public service.
Mr. Ken Epp: I have a question.
The Chair: Mr. Epp wishes to make an intervention.
Mr. Ken Epp: Do we have trouble with this wording not necessarily in this motion only--the one we're now dealing with--but also in the one we just passed? It says the member has the right to join any trade union. I don't think that's the case because usually it's a group decision as to which bargaining agent is going to represent them. I cannot, as an individual employee, say “Well, okay, the rest of you guys forget it. I'm going with this other union or bargaining agent.”
I wonder if the way that's worded there poses any potential problem.
The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, do you wish to have one of the officials respond?
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes, please.
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: It's precisely for this reason, Mr. Epp, that the concern was brought about the subject of the previous motion. It was to prevent any situation where an employee could join a number of bargaining agents or employee associations. It was to prevent this situation that we made the correction we referred to. It's very similar to the present enactment in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It was a correction to avoid precisely that.
The Chair: Shall I call the question--oh, Monsieur Lanctôt.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I can understand your reluctance to mention the word “union”. However, if we go with the expression “employee organization”, I want to see the underlying principle. A trade union is one thing. An employee organization is altogether different.
As it is now worded, this provision could be interpreted as giving an employee the opportunity to belong to several unions, and this is something I want to avoid. Some would have my amendment rejected simply because it contains the words “trade union”. Just between you and me, it's virtually impossible to have an amendment adopted. However, the way in which an amendment is drafted could lead to some confusion and lead some to believe that employees can join several unions. Therein lies the problem because an employee can only be represented by one bargaining agent. As the provision is now worded, there could be some confusion.
Michel LeFrancois: Mr. Chairman, it's mainly the English version that could give rise to some confusion. This not so with the French version, hence the reason why the amendment concerns the English version only. The French refers to “l'organisation syndicale”, not to “any employee organization”.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I see. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
(Amendment negatived on division)
· (1345)
The Chair: We have time for another one. Let's see if we can get BQ-5 done. Mr. Lanctôt, would you like to introduce this one?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by replacing line 11 on page 8 with the following:
| to assign duties to positions and |
The word “un” is being added in the French version.
[English]
Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Chairman, this is the point I was making earlier in my opening remarks, which this bill is based on. The scope of bargaining does not include classification, pensions, and staffing. This drops classification.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Tirabassi, you're taking the position that you're opposed to this particular amendment.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: That's correct.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo: The point has been made twice by Mr. Quail about the matters that are not there. I'd like to understand one more time, if I may, from Mr. Lanctôt whether he has an objection to what Mr. Quail has advised us and how we can resolve this. This will come up again in other motions. We should resolve this now.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Obviously, I'm going to introduce an amendment each time to ensure that classification is subject to the bargaining process. I insist that unions have the right to bargain on classification matters. Therefore, each time the subject of classification or staffing arises, I will be moving an amendment.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I'd like Mr. Quail to respond. I need to hear this thing played out. Mr. Quail is making a representation. I'm not sure why it's being rejected, whether it's an interpretation problem or simply a matter of, you're not putting it in and I want it in.
Mr. Ranald Quail: I think it's the latter. We started off with the fact that we weren't changing the basis of bargaining, and we didn't change the basis of bargaining. Today you can't bargain for classification, pensions, and staffing. We continue with that kind of concept, and that's inherent here. We have a diametrically opposed view of what's on--
Mr. Paul Szabo: You said “can't”. That means in accordance with the labour law.
Mr. Ranald Quail: The current law.
Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to know if Mr. Lanctôt has any evidence that is not the case, so he would refute what you've just said.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Obviously, under the current law, you can't bargain on classification matters and that's why the legislation is being amended. As far as staffing goes, established criteria are already in place. We also have the benefit of a substantial number of judicial precedents. We would like managers to have decision-making authority. However, in this case, it's discretionary and that's a big problem. Co-determination is non-existent, and that's what unions are demanding. This is true of employment, but the same applies to classification and human resources. Obviously, we want trade unions to have their say in matters. The government's position is to refuse to let the unions be a part of the co-determination process.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I need a bit of help. I understand the government's desire to leave classification off the bargaining table, and I support that at this time. What I'm confused about is the addition of the words “or to assign duties to and to classify positions”. Adding the word “positions” would basically mean that classification is now on the bargaining table. Maybe I'm just a dummy, but I don't understand how that language leads you inexorably to that conclusion.
Mr. Michel LeFrançois: As I understand the amendment, sir, it would remove the notion of classifying positions--proposed section 7 on page 8 of the bill. So that is inside a section, Mr. Cullen, that states that this act shall not affect the employer's exclusive right to organize the public service, to classify the positions within it, and assign duties to those positions. The amendment would take the classification of positions outside the realm of an exclusive employer prerogative.
The amendment would not touch the notion of assigning duties to positions, just the classification of those positions.
· (1350)
Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, I'll take your word for it. I think I'm convinced. I'm not a lawyer, to read all that into it, but if that's what you're saying, I think you're saying it quite clearly and I'm ready to accept that's what it does. I don't support it.
The Chair: I'll call the question.
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: You know, if we were to go quickly, we could maybe squeeze in another one.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's a big one. It calls for replacing an entire provision.
[English]
The Chair: It's a big one. Okay, well then I'm going to adjourn.
We'll look at the resolution to the two that are standing at the commencement of our meeting at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon in this room. Then we'll move on.
We are adjourned.