Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 5, Evidence - Meeting of June 14, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 14, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, met this day at 8:33 a.m. to give consideration to the bill; and to study issues related to the Defence Policy Review presently being undertaken by the government.
Senator Daniel Lang (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence's deliberations on Bill C-7. Before I begin, I would like to ask all the senators to introduce themselves. I will begin with the deputy chair.
Senator Jaffer: My name is Mobina Jaffer. I'm from British Columbia.
Senator Kenny: Colin Kenny, Ontario.
Senator Cowan: Jim Cowan, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning; Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Vern White, Ontario.
Senator Campbell: Larry Campbell, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good morning; Jean-Guy Dagenais, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy, Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm Senator Dan Lang from Yukon, and to my left is Adam Thompson, the clerk of the committee.
Welcome everyone to the deliberations today. As everyone knows, we're here to deal with Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.
Over the past number of weeks, we've had intensive hearings in respect of this legislation that has been sent to us from the other place. My recommendation to the committee is that we go in camera for the first part of the meeting in order to determine the direction that we're going to take in respect to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I hereby suspend the meeting to go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
——————
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed that I group clauses where appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clauses 1 through 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Now I understand there is an amendment to add section 4.1; is that correct?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: This is an amendment. At the hearing, we noticed that there was an error in the bill. Clause 4.1 referred to a non-existent section.
Senator Dagenais: The amendment is new clause 4.1, which reads as follows:
The act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
7.1 Nothing in this act is to be construed as affecting the human resources management powers conferred on the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
And so, I move that Bill C-7 be amended on page 3, at clause 4. . .
[English]
Senator Kenny: Are we not dealing with Senator Carignan's amendment?
The Chair: I thought Senator Carignan was moving the motion for section 4.1, but Senator Dagenais is moving that motion. Is that not correct?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We misunderstood each other as to where we were. I understand that we are beginning with the amendment to clause 10, on page 4, to replace —
[English]
The Chair: Senator, we're not there yet. We're on section 4.1, the amendment that Senator Dagenais has moved on page 3.
Senator Carignan: Okay, sorry.
The Chair: We'll start with Senator Dagenais, and then we will move along for other amendments. Is that clear?
Senator Dagenais has moved the following amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I will repeat the amendment, Mr. Chair: that Bill C-7 be amended on page 3, with a new clause 4.1, which reads as follows:
"The act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
7.1 Nothing in this act is to be construed as affecting the human resources management powers conferred on the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.''
That is the amendment I am moving on page 3, after clause 4.
[English]
The Chair: Any debate? Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am in favour of this amendment, which clarifies the management powers of the RCMP, powers inherent to any collective agreement, and to any employer's right.
[English]
The Chair: It has been moved. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So moved.
Honourable senators, shall clauses 5 through 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 10 carry? I understand there's an amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We are on page 4, clause 10. I move that we amend subsection 64(3). As I began to explain earlier, we found an error in the drafting. Subsection 64(3) of the bill referred to a non-existent provision, which could have created problems with unionization.
I move that we replace subsection 64(3) with the following:
"(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), membership in any employee organization that forms part of a council of employee organizations is deemed to be membership in the council.''
The objective is to clarify paragraph (1.1)(a).
[English]
The Chair: Senator, could you read the whole motion, please?
Senator Jaffer: He did.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I move that Bill C-7 be amended on page 4, in clause 10:
(a) by replacing line 27 with the following:
"10(1) Subsection 64(1) of the act is replaced by the''; and
(b) by adding after line 36:
"(2) Subsection 64(3) of the act is replaced by the following:
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), membership in any employee organization that forms part of a council of employee organizations is deemed to be membership in the council.''
[English]
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 10, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clauses 11 through 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Senator Kenny, the clerk has asked me to defer clause 17 because it has a consequential amendment, so we'll put this aside and come back to it. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 18 through 32 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 33 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: As we saw in the process, this is about the possibility of holding a secret ballot. When we heard all of the witnesses, both employee and employer representatives said that they agreed with the possibility of voting by secret ballot, in order to guarantee good union democracy.
I move that Bill C-7 be amended in clause 33, on page 18, by replacing line 3 with the following:
"group only if it is satisfied on the basis of the results of a secret ballot representation vote that a majority of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who have cast a ballot have voted to have the applicant employee organization represent them as their bargaining agent and that the employee organiza —''.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, you have heard the motion. Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, do you have an amendment to this clause as well?
Senator Kenny: Yes, I do, chair.
The intention is to remove the eight exclusions from the bill, and the purpose of that is to provide for more robust communication between management and the union that is to come. We've taken a look at a range of other police services that do not have exclusions listed precisely like this.
We had the benefit of testimony yesterday from the commissioner, who made a point of telling us that these exclusions are superfluous and that he feels they are covered elsewhere. If that's the case, I don't see any reason to keep them here in the bill, other than that they would severely inhibit a union in arbitration or in its normal course of operation.
For that reason, I will go ahead and read the amendment.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Senator Kenny: I move:
That Bill C-7 be amended in clause 33
(a) on page 19, by deleting lines 29 to 39; and
(b) on page 20;
(i) by deleting lines 1 to 19, and
(ii) by deleting lines 33 to 37;
(c) on page 21, by deleting lines 1 to 34.
I don't know if you want to go ahead with a discussion on this, chair. Do you want me to deal with —
Senator Jaffer: We agree.
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Kenny. You had a question.
Senator Kenny: Or whether you wanted me to proceed with the consequential amendments.
The Chair: I think we'll do those in sequence.
You've heard the amendment. Is there any debate?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I want to make sure that I understood what Senator Kenny was saying. According to Commissioner Paulson, evaluations and probation periods will be debated elsewhere and will be excluded from Bill C- 7. Did I understand correctly?
Senator Carignan: That was the commissioner's interpretation.
Senator Dagenais: That is this morning's amendment. I am not sure it is necessary that we withdraw this amendment from Bill C-7.
Senator Carignan: In the commissioner's opinion, certain parts of other laws may offer some framing. In the context of a collective agreement, negotiations have to include the essential elements that make up working conditions, such as transfers, relocations and dismissals. All of this must be part of the complete negotiation process. In short, we absolutely must eliminate that. Moreover, the commissioner stated that it was not necessary to include these points. Both the workers and the commissioner agreed to remove that from the negotiating table.
Senator Dagenais: I wanted to make sure that I had understood correctly before I gave my approval.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I have a comment. With the commissioner's statement yesterday, they do not need to be listed in this fashion. That the RCMP gave the advice to list them makes me agree with Senator Carignan. This has always been a sticking point. This has always been the point where we were advised that if there were to be a constitutional challenge, it would be on this point.
By removing them, we're not taking anything away from management, and we are, I believe, effectively negating the need for yet another constitutional challenge on this. So I support this.
The Chair: Colleagues, I would just make a comment in respect to the amendment we debated earlier, proposed section 7.1, which recognizes the right for the management to manage as per the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I think it gives comfort from the point of view of the collective agreement that we would be going forward with to ensure that everybody understands their responsibilities.
Is there any further debate? Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Carignan, do you have another amendment?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We are amending clause 33, regarding grievances, on page 22,
(a)by replacing lines 20 and 21 with the following:
"pretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(a) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment.'';
(b) by replacing lines 26 to 29 with the following:
"employee's satisfaction.''
This amendment ensures the compliance of all of the current provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The adjudicator will be able to interpret the act. The provision having to do with grievances was limited to the interpretation and application of the collective agreement. This led one to believe that an adjudicator would not be authorized to interpret the legislation. This change is essential, since many laws will be taken into account, such as the RCMP Act. It is important that the adjudicator be able to interpret the RCMP Act in settling a dispute in the wake of a grievance.
So the main objective of this amendment is to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. If I am not mistaken, section 62 refers to the adjudicator's power to interpret legislation. It is a fundamental point.
[English]
The Chair: Any other debate?
Colleagues, shall the clause carry, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Now, shall clause 33, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Could we now turn to clause 17? Senator Kenny, I believe, has an amendment.
Senator Kenny: Page 6 in the bill, colleagues. This is a consequential amendment that is necessary to complement the change we just made on page 20. I move:
That Bill C-7 be amended on page 6, in clause 17, by replacing line 15 with the following:
"144(1) Subject to section 150, after estab-''.
And it's "after establish.''
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 17, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 34 through 39 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 40 carry?
Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Before discussing the consequential amendment, I would like to correct something I said. Earlier I referred to section 64 or 68 regarding the right of public servants to submit grievances. I would like to specify that it was subsection 208(1), paragraph (a), subparagraphs (i) and (ii), in order to ensure the accuracy of information in the transcripts.
This does not at all affect the substance of the amendment; it was only the reference to the section in the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was erroneous.
I am going back to the consequential amendments.
It is moved that Bill C-7 be amended in clause 40, on page 29, by replacing line 5 with the following:
"collective agreement or an arbitral award, or of a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment must be presented''.
This is a consequential amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Senator White?
Senator White: Just so I understand, is this under the limitation? Is that where this is?
The Chair: It is page 29.
Senator Cowan: At the top.
Senator White: Thank you.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 40, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 41 through 50 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 51 carry? Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: Colleagues, this is the second consequential amendment. I refer you to page 32 of Bill C-7. I move:
That Bill C-7 be amended on page 32, in clause 51, by replacing lines 12 and 13 with the following:
"compensation may not be inconsistent with section 113 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations''.
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 51, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 52 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The consequential amendment? Is it here? No? It is the other one? I am not used to the clause-by- clause studies.
[English]
The Chair: On page 32, senator?
Senator Carignan: No, it's page 40 for me, the next one.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are getting out of sequence. I would like to deal with clause 52 before we go to 53, so shall clause 52 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 53 carry? I understand there's an amendment for clause 53. Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: This is another consequential amendment. I move:
That Bill C-7 be amended on page 32, in clause 53, by replacing line 29 with the following:
"section 150 of the Act, make an arbitral.''
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 53, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clauses 54 through 61 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 62 carry? Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Once again, this is a consequential amendment.
I move that Bill C-7 be amended in clause 62, on page 40, by replacing line 14 with the following:
"lective agreement or an arbitral award, or of a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, is deemed''.
It is the introduction, in the paragraph.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 62, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 63 through 67 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 68 carry? Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: In the same vein, this is a consequential amendment.
I move that Bill C-7 be amended in clause 68, on page 46, by replacing lines 35 and 36 with the following:
"be, of a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award, or of a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, and alleges that the employer has engaged in a dis-''.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 68, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 69 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I must read the entire amendment, I expect?
I move that Bill C-7 be amended in clause 69,
(a) on page 49,
(i) by replacing lines 33 and 34 with the following:
"or application, in respect of the employee, of
(a) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment.'',
(ii) by replacing lines 39 and 40 with the following:
"for the bargaining unit, unless the grievance''; and
(b) on page 50,
(i) by replacing lines 1 and 2 with the following:
"alleges that the employer has engaged in'',
(ii) by replacing lines 6 to 8 with the following:
"(2), an individual grievance that al-'',
(iii) by replacing lines 30 to 33 with the following:
"employee's satisfaction, whether or not it alleges that the employer has'', and
(iv) by replacing lines 40 to 43 with the following:
"in the adjudication proceedings, unless the grievance alleges that the employer has engaged in''.
Once again, these are consequential amendments.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 69, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clauses 70 and 71 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Colleagues, thank you very much.
We have one more item of business, and that's the question of the proposed budget for the visit this coming fall to the United Nations in New York to discuss the question of peace operations and how they operate with those authorities who are involved.
I should point it is at the request of the Government of Canada that we're doing this study of the question of Canada's future involvement in peace operations around the world. So it's important that we have the opportunity to meet those individuals directly involved.
Senator Kenny: Yesterday, chair, there was a discussion about the authorization to meet from June to September, even though the Senate may be adjourned. Have you had an opportunity to determine how many days that will be or when they are likely to be?
The Chair: That's a good question, senator. At this stage we are not planning on having any hearings over the summer months. We have a full slate of hearings here for Friday and the coming Monday. My hope is that we're going to receive enough information that will give us the basis for the start of a report for our analysts to work on over the summer months. I would say that the visit to New York would take place in September. At this stage, there are no plans to meet during the course of the summer months.
Senator Kenny: This is the first I've heard of a Friday meeting. Could you tell us when you're proposing we sit and who the witnesses are?
The Chair: We have a list, and I believe that has been sent out to everybody. Is that not correct?
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: That is not correct. We have been booking witnesses. I can certainly tell you at this point that former senator and former Lieutenant-General Dallaire is confirmed for Friday, along with former Major-General Lewis McKenzie.
We have been in touch with some like-minded embassies in order to get an international experience, and there are a number of other interested groups, academics and former military personnel that we are attempting to bring in.
We're still in the process of confirming timing for Friday and Monday.
The Chair: So the length of the period of time will be subject to the number of witnesses that will be able to appear before us.
I should point out, senator, that the immediacy of having to deal with Bill C-7 set us back a day, obviously, with respect to our schedule. Subsequently, we did have the agreement of witnesses to attend yesterday, but obviously we had to cancel because of the work that we were doing.
Senator Kenny: I'm not being critical, chair. I'm trying to figure out how to schedule time. What time do you expect to be done on Friday?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, right now I can say we would be starting at 10 a.m. on Friday, and I have witnesses confirmed up to approximately 2:00. I'm trying to add one and perhaps two more panels to that afternoon.
Senator Jaffer: I have another question. Are we sitting on Friday on Bill C-14?
Senator McCoy: I thought there was some indication there was a possibility.
The Chair: What I thought was that we had an understanding that we would be able to sit on Friday for the purposes of our hearings.
Senator White: This Friday?
The Chair: Yes, this coming Friday.
Senator Jaffer: Are we not sitting for Bill C-14 on Friday?
Senator Carignan: I think Bill C-14 will probably be done tomorrow, so we will be able to sit in committee. I don't think that we will need to sit in the chamber Friday. It will depend on where we are with the legislation, but I think it will be okay.
The Chair: Senator, I will do the best I can, with the help of the clerk's office, to get the information that you've just asked for when it's definitive, and also let you know the timing for the purpose of scheduling.
Senator Kenny: Is there any information you can give us about Monday at this point?
Mr. Thompson: At this point, I'm not able to. We were discussing starting at 10:00 on Monday as well, but we're still determining witness availability.
Senator Kenny: Okay.
The Chair: Colleagues, could we have a motion to accept the financial —
Senator Jaffer: No, I have questions. Regarding transportation to New York, $2,000 is a little rich.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, that's budgeting based on full fare. Of course, when it comes time to purchase tickets, we always endeavour to get reduced-fare tickets. My experience has been that we have been able to do that, but as we have not set dates, we budget for the worst case and spend as little as we can.
Senator Jaffer: I respect that, but I go to New York a lot, and I often get full fares and I have never paid more than $1,000. You must have updated fares, but I'm concerned that $2,000 is really rich. Going to Internal, this is going to be questioned, so I just want to be sure.
Senator White: If I may, I have the same question. This is for business class tickets, is it?
Senator Jaffer: No, there's no business from Ottawa to New York.
Senator White: That's a business class price.
Mr. Thompson: That is a business class ticket. I'd have to look again at the estimates that we were using. But certainly we always try to get reduced fares.
Senator Jaffer: But also we can't go business on an hour-long flight. We're not allowed.
Senator White: Everywhere else is three hours.
Senator Jaffer: It's an hour-long flight. We can't go business.
I don't want to approve this until we have given the clerk the authority to check on it, because I know we will have challenges.
The Chair: Colleagues, could we have a motion to accept the report subject to the clerk reviewing the allocation for the purposes of the —
Senator Jaffer: No, I still have questions.
I'm sorry, this has not come to steering, so that's why, because we've had so much happening. We haven't had steering meetings, so that's the problem.
My other question is regarding the $500 per night. I understand that it's New York, but that is also very steep.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I would say that that factors in not just the fact that it's New York, but as well currency fluctuations. We had previously done a budget for Washington and were quite shocked at the prices we found.
Again, that is the budget, and certainly every effort is made to find the most reasonable accommodation possible.
Senator Jaffer: That's acceptable.
The Chair: Colleagues, could we have a motion accepting the budget subject to the review of the allocation of dollars for transportation?
Senator Jaffer: I would say subject to steering approving this budget.
Senator White: I would put that motion forward, subject to steering approving it.
The Chair: Is there any further debate? So moved by Senator White. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
(The committee adjourned.)