Bill C-257 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.
The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you for the opportunity to present before the committee.

The CLC brings together national and international unions, provincial and territorial federations of labour, 137 labour councils in every community. Our members, of course, work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all parts of Canada. So it's quite an extensive membership when you think of the broadness of the CLC.

Bill C-257 addresses a critical subject in federal labour law, one that has yet to be resolved despite years of discussion, research, and bitter experience. The issue concerns replacement workers and whether federal sector employers can use them during strikes or lockouts. In our view, the evidence shows replacement workers are bad for working families, bad for business, and bad for Canada. Replacement workers undermine core labour rights, encourage a few destructive employers—and I say few—and damage the productivity of Canada's economy.

The CLC holds strongly to the view that strikes and lockouts that are accompanied by the employer's use of replacement workers give rise to several negative and unnecessary strains on the labour-management relationship.

[Santo Alborino]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in this public hearing on Bill C-257, which is about replacement workers.

Just a couple of statistics. We represent 54 chartered banks, which employ over 249,000 Canadians, 218,000 of whom fall under federal jurisdiction. In addition to our employees, we also represent the interests of literally millions of customers across the country. These are Canadians who depend on the banking system 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The CBA is strongly opposed to this bill. We believe it is seriously flawed and should not be passed. I would like to highlight just four items that are of concern to us.

First of all, financial services in the 21st century are very much reliant on the telecommunications industry for the delivery of banking services and operate on the interbank payments system. The clearing and settlement system is largely managed by the Canadian Payments Association, and the ability to enable payment exchange is the core of the payments system.

The banning of replacement workers by Bill C-257 poses a high degree of operational risk in financial services in the event of a strike in the telecommunications industry, if telecommunications companies are not able to make use of replacement workers. In such situations, where telephone or data transmission lines are not maintained and become disabled, there could potentially be severe repercussions on consumers and business customers. We are really talking about the everyday Canadian here. We're not talking about the banking industry as such. It touches every one of you.

Banking services have been revolutionized by advances in telecommunications technology over the past several decades, so the geographic barriers that existed have been dismantled and the network of electronics has made banking possible to almost every Canadian, regardless of the vastness of our country. It really has been a benefit. Canadians have embraced this and have made this choice out of convenience and have opted to use these banking services through the Internet and through all kinds of electronic means. We strongly believe technology will continue to grow and become widely used by Canadians through Internet access.

Electronic financial services delivery is provided through various networks. Our written submission will provide you with a partial list of those systems, but let me just mention a few.

The Canadian Payments Association manages four major networks provided by major communications carriers. One of these networks supports electronic fund transfers--mainly business to business--company payrolls, pre-authorized debits, and bill payments. Again, it impacts every one of us. Literally millions of messages are exchanged on this system on a daily basis. A strike by carriers that provides these lines, regardless of how small or how remote they are, could have major consequences--and I say could--if the line was not maintained or was allowed to fail for some reason.

While there is a backup system, it is manual and does not function as effectively as the main system. Telephone dial-up lines, credit and debit point-of-sale terminals for the provision of goods and services to Canadians--we're talking about Canadians, not the banking industry. Canadians are the world's top debit card users. The Interac direct payment service allows customers to use their debit cards to pay for purchases at retail stores. Services provided through Interac's financial institution members offered by 391,000 retailers who use this system across Canada would be really affected.

Quick statistics when we talk about the impact on the economy: in 2005, over three billion direct payment transactions valued at more than $137 billion were processed through the IDP system.

Internet banking uses the services of large Internet service providers who in turn rely on the provision of telecommunications. A 2006 survey by the Canadian Bankers Association indicates that 27% of Canadians rely on this method to do their banking, and 45% of Canadians did at least some of their banking through the online system. As I mentioned before, we believe these figures will continue to increase as the wide spread of Internet and technology goes forward.

The issue is this. The Canadian Payments Association has indicated the possibility of telecommunications failure as a major operational risk for the Canadian payments system. Delays in the payment system, let alone failure, can be devastating for businesses and for customers. The ability to use replacement workers in a telecommunications strike, whether at a regional or national level, would be essential to maintain the integrity of the system.

The second major concern is that the bill does not recognize the unique, national role of the federally regulated industries. It ignores the fact that they constitute the infrastructure that provides stability and keeps the Canadian economy running. All of the federally regulated industries are essential to the business operations of the country through their sometimes complex, highly integrated networks of transportation, of telecommunications, and of financial services. A failure in any one part of these federally regulated industries, such as airlines, or—I think we mentioned it before—ports or financial services, may have business and/or consumer impacts of a national scope. The ability to maintain a minimum level of service is critical.

Statistics that have been put forward by supporters of this bill have been selective and do not reflect the true picture of labour unrest and strike experience in the provinces where there is currently a ban on replacement workers.

We have consulted statistics that are publicly available, by the way, on the website of Human Resources and Social Development Canada's Workplace Information Directorate. Our objective was to determine whether legislation limiting the use of replacement workers in Quebec and B.C. has produced more harmonious labour relationships in those provinces when compared with Ontario, which with the exception of a few years between 1992 and 1995 has not banned the use of replacement workers. We looked at 30 years of data, from 1976 to 2005, and avoided the simple year-to-year comparisons, which are potentially misleading, depending when the contracts came due or when they were negotiated.

You will find graphs demonstrating our findings in our written submission. The time is brief, so I will skip the statistics.

Over the 30-year period, workers in Quebec were two and a half times more likely to be on strike than workers in Ontario. The same goes for B.C. And over the same 30-year period, the duration of strikes in Quebec was 87% longer than the strikes in Ontario, while the duration of strikes in B.C. was twice as long.

There is one last statistic in respect to this. The number of strikes in Quebec per 1,000 workers was higher than in Ontario for every year, by about 90% on average, while in B.C. it was only 8%.

Fourth, and fundamentally—I am at the end of my presentation—the bill ignores the employer's right to maintain operations while in a strike or lockout position, to serve its customers, and thereby to maintain their loyalty and the business. There were two very important task forces 30 years apart, the Woods task force and the Sims task force, in 1996. Both came to the same conclusion: that replacement workers are necessary and should not be banned.

Why is it—and I ask you this question—that only one province other than Quebec, which is B.C., has seen fit to adopt this type of legislation in over 30 years?

In conclusion, the careful research balance and the code achieved in 1999 are not to be taken for granted and dismissed out of hand.

We urge members of this committee to reflect carefully and without haste on the potential ramifications of Bill C-257. The ban against replacement workers would destroy the current balance that is working in the interest of employers, unions, and the Canadian economy, most importantly. It will set back labour relations in this country significantly. Instead of looking to the future and building on the constructive relationships that there are, it looks to the past and the bitter disputes of former decades.

There is no need to alter what has worked well. I would urge you not to pass this bill.

Thank you.

[Don Brazier]

I only have two minutes left? Gee, I've hardly started. Well, if I only have two minutes left, I'm just going to go through a couple of other points.

This would be the most draconian legislation we have federally. I listened this morning to everybody talking about the essential services provision. That would be the equivalent of section 111.17 in Quebec, and section 72 in B.C. There's nothing in here. There's nothing. There's not a thing in here. Everybody can talk about it. Of course you can have an essential services provision, but where is it? There is no essential services provision. This is more draconian than B.C. Even Blouin--and you quoted it--would have allowed contracting out of work that is prohibited by Bill C-257.

By the way, I'm not going to talk about the numbers. I think there has been too much discussion about numbers. This bill isn't going to be determined or judged on different numbers. But Blouin himself, on page 174 of his report, indicated that the data are inconclusive as to the impact of replacement worker legislation. That's right in his report, on page 174.

The only other thing, if I'm running out of time, is that I would certainly never suggest that this is the proper way to amend the Canada Labour Code. But if one were actually to even consider this, there's a whole pile of other areas you would have to take into consideration. The workload on the CIRB will increase considerably as a result of this. There will be multiple requests under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code.

One very significant and controversial amendment to the code, in 1999, was the 60-day conciliation procedure. Nobody believed it worked. It was really controversial. As a matter of fact, we were really pushing the envelope by putting that kind of provision in, because it was felt that this would increase strikes. I would suggest that you have to give serious consideration as to whether that is an appropriate provision when you have a ban on replacement workers. You'd have to look at the rules dealing with strikes and lockouts, and of course the one I mentioned, and that is the fact that there's no essential services provision.

As I indicated before, if passed, this would make this the most draconian piece of labour legislation in the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on October 25 and to the motion adopted by this committee on November 23, the committee will now resume its study on Bill C-257.

The meeting will go for a maximum of 75 minutes. The witnesses will have seven minutes to make their presentation. There will be two tours of questioning, one of seven minutes and a second round of five minutes.

I will once again try to keep a close eye on the clock. It's such a tight timeline. We are already 15 minutes behind, which just means that some of the members will be eating their lunch on their lap probably sometime a little bit later on.

I do want to remind everyone, though, that the questions should come to the chair. I'm going to start with Mr. Brazier, for seven minutes, and then we'll move all the way around the table.

Mr. Brazier.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Did it occur to you that if Bill C-257 were adopted by the House of Commons, people could resort to extreme behaviour because the country's economy would be completely paralyzed?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable members, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill C-257, An Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (Replacement Workers).

As you know, if adopted this bill could have serious consequences for the conduct of labour-management relations in the federally regulated private sector, and I think that it is important that we all take a considered look at these consequences before any irrevocable decisions are made.

Labour legislation obviously impacts both labour and management and any law affecting their relationship must take into account the aspirations of both parties. But the impact of labour management relations goes beyond the domain of the two parties; they affect national economic and social outcomes. They affect production, employment, wage gains, profits, individual income, productivity and competitiveness, to name a few of the key elements of an economic and social system.

Mr. Chairman, our government is based on principle. In the context of labour management relations, there are two key principles that apply: balance and evidence.

The current provisions of Part I of the Canada Labour Code came into being after a long and considered study that included a Task Force chaired by Andrew Sims, a former chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The Task Force report, entitled Seeking a Balance, attempted to do exactly what its title said—to balance the interests of both employers and employees fairly. Even the Task Force did not reach unanimity on the issue of replacement workers, but the majority report recommended a provision that would give employers the flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, while preventing them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.

I am going to repeat these three short lines because they are important: allow employers to meet their operating responsibilities while using replacement workers, but not in a fashion that would undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. That's what you call balance.

The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code are based on this very reasonable compromise recommended by Mr. Sims. Part I of the Code is the product of a considerable effort to address the interests of all stakeholders, not just the interests of one stakeholder at the expense of all others. Bill C-257 would substitute a very one-sided approach, and would undo the years of work that went into developing fair and balanced labour legislation at the federal level.

The industries that fall under federal jurisdiction operate in many essential sectors such as telecommunications right across Canada, not just in one province; transportation Canada-wide; grain handling; and longshoring. A work stoppage in any of these industries causes significant disruption, not just for the employer but for the many Canadians who depend on the effective and efficient operation of these key infrastructure industries.

Before the 1999 amendment to the Code, there were numerous work stoppages in the federal jurisdiction that required Parliamentary intervention in the form of back-to-work legislation, in order to ensure that these important services continued without interruption. Since the 1999 amendments, there has been no such need for Parliamentary intervention—a fact that I submit, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the right balance between the competing interests of labour and management has been found, and should be maintained.

Bill C-257 would disrupt this fragile balance. It would remove the economic discipline that obliges unions and employers to negotiate reasonably. The balance found in the current legislation enables unions to put pressure on employers while simultaneously allowing employers to operate at some level during a labour dispute, without overly compromising the quality of services provided.

In other words, imagine there was a strike in Canada's port or railway services sector. That would have an impact throughout the entire country and would affect the economy from coast-to-coast. It is for this reason that we must consider maintaining the current balance when it comes to using replacement workers. The employer must not undermine the union's representativeness. Should the union deem this to be the case during a strike, it may lodge a complaint against the employer, before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

Take air transport, for example. It is an important public service which has a major impact on Canada's economy. No one would dispute this. Let's imagine the baggage handlers and flight attendants of a particular carrier decide to go on strike. If all of a sudden these groups go on strike, the airport authorities will make an effort to continue to provide services to certain destinations, both domestically and abroad, and maintain some services, while being fully aware that things could not continue to operate that way for very long. And it wouldn't be in the interest of flight attendants or baggage handlers to unduly prolong the dispute. They would be aware of the stakes and what they might lose both at the bargaining table and with respect to the public's opinion should the conflict drag on. Both parties hold some sway in such a confrontation and this is exactly what strikes the balance we enjoy under the current legislation, which was enacted in 1999.

The use of replacement workers helps to maintain this balance without giving either party too much power. The proof is in the pudding: 19 complaints have been lodged with the Canada Industrial Relations Board over the past seven years, and only two are still being considered.

Yes, the system works. Some people who agree with me, however, maintain that air transport does not provide essential services such as those dispensed in hospitals and that air transport is not a matter of occupational health and safety. Nevertheless, no one can deny that air transport is an important service which, if not provided, will have nation-wide economic ramifications.

The economic impact of a strike in the port of Montreal or Vancouver, or a strike in the rail sector, whether we are talking freight or passenger transportation, would be just as devastating as the examples I referred to earlier.

What would we do in Canada if the 911 service went on strike? Do we have any essential services? The current bill does not include any. Everything would be paralyzed.

A failure to recognize the Canada-wide economic repercussions of a prohibition on the use replacement workers amounts to a failure to acknowledge the realities of federally regulated workers. If we ban employers from using replacement workers during a strike, we take away their right to continue to operate in an attempt to keep their business and the employees. This means potentially going under or having to lay off employees.

Where the use of replacement workers during a strike prohibited, as is suggested in Bill C-257, both employers and employees will suffer. The balance will be disrupted, and both parties' right to choose is taken away from them. How can you take away both parties' right to make a choice and still say that Bill C-257 has unanimous support? It simply isn't the case, and if you need to ask the question, you've got your answer.

A second principle that must be taken into account in determining whether a law should be modified or not is the principle of evidence. Before a law is modified, there should be clear evidence showing that the change will be beneficial. Mr. Chairman, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to show that the changes contained in Bill C-257 will bring any benefits to the labour-management relationship or to the national economy.

Contrary to the claims of supporters of this Bill, there is no evidence that replacement worker legislation reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have significantly more work stoppages per employee than Ontario, a province with a comparable economy that does not prohibit the use of replacement workers.

Secondly, in jurisdictions where legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers is in place, there has been no decrease in the average duration of work stoppages. In fact, independent academic studies have concluded that prohibiting the use of replacement workers during labour disputes is associated with more frequent and longer strikes.

Mr. Chairman, our collective bargaining system is built on the right of both parties to periodically test their respective economic strength, and the collective bargaining outcomes that result reflect the true worth of the employees' services in a free market place. If this discipline of economic reality is removed from the collective bargaining arena, then the possibility is heightened that one side will pursue a position that is so unreasonable that it cannot be sustained, and the enterprise will fail. Is this environment that we want to create for our key infrastructure industries? I say no, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the lack of evidence.

In closing, I reiterate that the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code represent an appropriate balance, they have worked well for the last seven years, and there is no evidence that legislation banning the use of replacement workers will reduce the frequency or duration of work stoppages. We are risking economic havoc if we tinker with the current legislation in the manner proposed by Bill C-257.

I therefore urge committee members to put partisan politics aside, to consider what is in the best interests of all Canadians and the free collective bargaining system that we all believe in passionately, and to refuse to proceed any further with this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The clerk informs me that we are in Bill C-257. That is the order of business, so anything that pertains to that is fair game.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll start right away with a presentation. Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), also called the anti-scab bill, should be adopted by the House of Commons. The reason is quite simple: replacement workers or strike breakers have no place in labour relations.

To this end, I'd like to quote an extract from the 1996 minority report by Rodrigue Blouin, a member of the task force responsible for reviewing Part I of the Canada Labour Code which stresses the illegitimacy of replacement workers:

The use of replacement workers undermines the structural elements that ensure the internal cohesion of the collective bargaining system, by introducing a foreign body into a dispute between two clearly identified parties. It upsets the economic balance of power, compromises the freedom of expression of workers engaging in a strike or lockout, shifts the original neutral ground of the dispute, and leads eventually to a perception of exploitation of the individual.

There certainly are naysayers when it comes to anti-scab legislation. For example, the Fraser Institute and the Institut économique de Montréal, two right-wing think tanks which twist the figures and make them say what employers want to hear. Unfortunately, our labour minister, relying on such partisan points of reference, stated the following in the House on September 22, and I quote:

There is no evidence suggesting a ban on the use of replacement workers will benefit workers in any of the ways claimed [...]

And yet, 29 years of anti-scab legislation in Quebec indicates the very opposite. The same is true of the anti-scab legislation in British Columbia which was enacted in 1993. Such legislation allows for civilized negotiation in a labour dispute, whether it be a strike or a lockout, reduces violence on the picket lines as well as the social upheaval and psychological problems caused by stress during such conflicts. It helps reduce employees' resentment when they go back to work, and promotes balance and greater transparency in negotiations between employers and employees.

This bill will ensure that labour and management negotiate on an equal footing with a view to reaching a fair solution as soon as possible. It reduces the number of lawsuits filed during a conflict, and helps to shorten the duration of disputes, which has the effect of minimizing employees' loss in income and employers' loss in profits.

Here are a few telling figures. Quebec workers whose employer falls under federal jurisdiction are virtually always under-represented in terms of the number of days of work lost. Therefore, although they constitute less than 8% of Quebec's labour force, they account for 18% of the person-days lost in 2004 and 22.6% of the person-days lost in 2003. This percentage peaked in 2002 at a time when 7.3% of Quebec workers employed by federally regulated organizations were responsible for 48% of the workdays lost due to labour conflicts.

The number of workdays lost due to labour conflicts disputes is less under anti-scab legislation. Let's take the legislation passed in 1997 in Quebec as a point of reference. The average duration of work stoppages in 1976 was 39 days, 33 days in 1977 and 27 days in 2002, which is even less.

In British Columbia, following the adoption of anti-scab legislation in 1993, the amount of time lost dropped by 50% between 1992 and 1993. The average number of working days lost from 1992 to 2002 was 16 days under the Quebec Labour Code, and 31 days under the Canada Labour Code.

The number of days lost per 1,000 employees from 1992 to 2002 was 121 days under the Quebec Labour Code and 266 days under the Canada Labour Code.

The Vidéotron conflict which lasted over 10 months alone led to 355 workdays being lost in Quebec in 2002. This is more than a third of the total work days lost in Quebec in 2002 due to a strike or a lockout.

The year 2002 was a record year when it comes to the number of person-days lost. It's important to note that this unfortunate fact is largely attributable to strikes in federally-regulated organizations, which are much longer.

As for the changes that need to be made to the current Canada Labour Code—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to an order of reference of October 25, 2006, the committee will now commence consideration of Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on replacement workers.

Just before I give the floor to Mr. Nadeau, I want to indicate some of the following items to our members who are present here.

The Minister of Labour could not be with us today, but he will be with us for an hour on December 5, at 9 o'clock.

I also want to welcome, in the name of the committee, Mr. Marc Toupin, who is the assigned legislative clerk who will be assisting the committee in its work regarding the bill that we have before us.

I also want to mention that we've received three new motions that have had their 48-hour notice, so we will reserve some time at the end of the meeting, scheduled for 90 minutes, to discuss motions with the members.

And I just want to remind all members again that the subcommittee will meet after the full committee, in this room, in camera, to select the list of witnesses who will be appearing before the committee next week.

Mr. Nadeau, I want to welcome you here. You have the floor for ten minutes, sir.

Canada Labour Code

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour to table here nearly 1,500 signatures in support of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). As we know, antiscab legislation can shorten labour disputes, improve the atmosphere in the workplace and provide a balance in means of exerting pressure during negotiations for both management and employees.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(6), today I am tabling in this House a petition containing several signatures by constituents of the riding of Manicouagan.

This petition is in addition to the numerous petitions already tabled in the House in support of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). The prohibition against using replacement workers—or strikebreakers, to use the petitioners’ term—contributes to the establishment and maintenance of civilized negotiations during labour disputes. This is the reason why the petitioners are asking Parliament to support Bill C-257, so as to prohibit employers covered by the Canada Labour Code from using replacement workers or fulfilling the functions of employees on strike or lockout.

Alleged Similarity of Private Members' Bills--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River on November 1, 2006, concerning Bill C-257, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau, and Bill C-295, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Both bills amend the Canada Labour Code in relation to replacement workers.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised this matter and the hon. member for Vancouver East for having made a submission.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River argues that these bills are substantially the same, except for some minor differences relating to fines. A decision was taken by the House on October 18 to adopt Bill C-257 at second reading and refer it to committee. The hon. member argues, in light of this decision, that debate should not continue on Bill C-295 and that the bill should be removed from the order of precedence.

The hon. member for Vancouver East contends that although both bills deal with the same subject, they are different and, therefore, Bill C-295 should not be removed from the order of precedence.

Let me first clarify our practices with regard to items of private members’ business which are similar. Standing Order 86(4) states:

The Speaker shall be responsible for determining whether two or more items are so similar as to be substantially the same, in which case he or she shall so inform the member or members whose items were received last and the same shall be returned to the member or members without having appeared on the notice paper.

When this Standing Order was first adopted, private members' business operated very differently than it does today. The Standing Orders provided for only 20 items of private members' business to be placed by lottery on the order of precedence and provided that, of those, only three bills could come to a vote. Realistically, then, there was little chance that bills considered substantially the same would ever be drawn together and placed on the order of precedence, let alone be debated and voted upon. Given those odds, Standing Order 86(4) came to be involved only rarely: only when a bill was identical to one already introduced would it be refused. This generous interpretation is referred to in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on November 2, 1989, at pages 5474-5 of Debates, where he states:

I should say that in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if, first, they have the same purpose and, second, they obtain their purpose by the same means.

Accordingly, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if they took a different approach to the issue the Chair would judge them to be sufficiently different so as not to be substantially the same.

The intent...was to give members an opportunity to put before the House items of concern to them, but to prevent a multiplicity of identical bills being submitted....

As Mr. Speaker Fraser explained, this interpretation had the practical effect of giving a member an opportunity to bring forward a legislative proposal on any subject, regardless of what other members might be doing. This practice has served members well until the present case.

The current Standing Orders, which were first adopted provisionally in May 2003, provide for a single draw of the names of all members at the beginning of a Parliament. On the 20th sitting day following the draw, the first 30 members on the list who have introduced a bill or given notice of a motion on the notice paper, constitute the order of precedence. Following the draw, the subcommittee on private members' business needs to determine if any of the items should be designated non-votable pursuant to Standing Order 91.1. In determining whether any of the items should be deemed non-votable, the subcommittee considers whether or not any of the bills or motions are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session.

In the case at hand, a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that is, to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. The following minor differences distinguish them: First, Bill C-257 provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each day that an offence occurs, whereas Bill C-295 provides for a fine not exceeding $10,000; second, Bill C-257 contains subparagraph (2.1)(f) in clause 2 concerning prohibitions relating to the use of replacement workers, text that is not found in Bill C-295; and third, subclause (2.2) in Bill C-257 appears as subclause (2.9) in Bill C-295.

Other than these three differences, both bills are identical in terms of their legislative and procedural impact. The only concrete difference between them relates to the sum of the fines. While this is an important matter, it does not make the bills into distinctly different legislative initiatives. The Chair must therefore conclude that both bills are substantially the same and achieve their objectives through the same means.

The question then becomes, should the second bill, Bill C-295, be allowed to proceed?

It seems to the Chair that there is considerable risk involved in allowing bills that are substantially the same to be debated. It puts at risk a key principle of parliamentary procedure, namely, that a decision once made cannot be questioned again, but must stand as the judgment of the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 495, explains that the principle exists for very good reason.

This is to prevent the time of the House from being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

In the present case, we have an unusual convergence of circumstances. Not only were the bills sponsored by the hon. members for Gatineau and Vancouver Island North both placed on the notice paper, their names were also among the first 30 drawn for the order of precedence. Moreover, the subcommittee on private members' business faced with the fact that debate had yet to begin on items of private members' business could not deem one of the bills to be non-votable since the House had not yet taken any decisions on such business.

Today, the Chair has found itself in an unprecedented situation. I have concluded that Bill C-295 is substantially the same as Bill C-257. Ordinarily, I would order Bill C-295 to be dropped from the order paper in conformity with this standing order. However, given that this situation has never arisen before, I am reluctant to make a final ruling since this may be the only opportunity in this Parliament that the hon. member for Vancouver Island North gets to have an item on the order of precedence. At the same time, the Chair cannot allow the bill to go forward for its last hour of debate and the vote that would follow.

So, instead, in accordance with Standing Order 94(1), which provides the Speaker with the authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of private members' business, I am ordering that Bill C-295 be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

This delay in the consideration of Bill C-295 is designed to provide the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with sufficient time to examine this matter and suggest some resolution to the situation for the sponsor of the bill. The committee should also consider whether our practices in relation to the application of Standing Order 86(4) continue to serve the House in an effective manner given that our rules respecting private members' business have changed since this Standing Order was first adopted.

In the absence of a solution to the predicament of the sponsor of Bill C-295, the Chair will have no option when the bill next reaches the top of the order of precedence, I will order that debate not proceed, that the order for the bill's consideration be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the order paper.

Once Again, I thank the hon. members for Scarborough—Rouge River and for Vancouver East for having brought this situation to the attention of the Chair and of the House. It is an important contribution to the evolution of private members' business.

I believe the effect of the ruling will be that there will be no private members' business taken up this evening.

Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I realize that, even when I restate my questions so that they are simpler, I do not get an answer. I do understand, however, that the minister is not making any promises and I am quite worried about what will happen next.

Since I am an incurable optimist, I will nevertheless ask my second question.

Will the minister promulgate Bill C-257 when adopted at third reading? I would like a yes or no answer.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Let me get right to the questions.

Does the minister plan to give parliamentarians what they want by asking his government not to slow down the work in committee and to enact Bill C-257 when it is passed at third reading?

Alleged Similarity of Private Members' Bills

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I did not hear the beginning of the comments of the member who has raised the question about Bill C-257 and Bill C-295, but I have the general gist of it. There are a number of issues here as well as concerns that we would want to put forward, because it is our member who has introduced Bill C-295.

The first point I would make is that when these bills were introduced they were approved by the Table. They both came forward in good faith, so certainly to suggest now that through some other arbitrary measure or ruling by the Speaker or that you somehow make a decision that one bill would be removed, I think that would very much place this member in limbo.

The fact is that these two bills, although they deal with the same subject matter, that is, replacement workers, are different bills. There are differences between the two bills, for example, in the question of penalties. I do not have the two bills before me so I cannot go through them clause by clause, but there are differences in these bills. That is why they were permitted in the first place.

If you made such a ruling as requested by the member from the Liberal Party, what would happen to that member who has the second bill? She has proceeded in good faith. She is about to go to a second hour of debate. If she chooses to make some other arrangement with a member in terms of the order in which things come up, that is her prerogative, but to have that decided by a third party, whether it is you or somebody else, I think would be very unusual. I do not know on what basis that would be done. I would be very concerned that she would lose the position she has. I think that would actually set a precedent, because then where else would it happen in private members' business?

I understand the concerns of the member, but I think to take such an action through the Speaker and to remove that member's place would be highly unusual and very problematic. The bill is now here and it is in effect the property of the House. I really question whether or not what the member is suggesting is a wise thing to do in the long run and so I would ask you to take that under advisement if you are going to consider this question.