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.

Employment Insurance Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to get up and talk about Bill C-269 today, not so much for what the bill says, but just to talk about some of the things our government is doing and why we believe that Bill C-269 is not required at this time.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today at the third reading of Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. I would also like to thank all my hon. colleagues in this House for their contributions on this very important issue.

I want to start by saying that this government is committed to providing opportunities for all Canadians to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

The economy is booming. Canada's new government and the Minister of Finance have created the winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages and a brighter future can be delivered to all Canadians.

I want to point out for the sponsor of this bill, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, who I know feels this is a very important issue for her, her riding and Quebec, that in Quebec alone the employment growth so far this year has been above the national average at 2%, with the unemployment rate at its lowest point in 33 years at 6.9% in Quebec.

The figures for Canada on a whole are equally optimistic. During the first quarter of 2007, employment grew by an estimated 158,000 new jobs, more than 500,000 jobs since this government took power. Canada's unemployment rate fell to only 5.8% in October. The great news is that these new jobs are paying more. The average hourly wage rose by 6% between August 2006 and August 2007.

Despite these record employment statistics, the opposition has proposed fundamental and sweeping changes to the EI program. These changes include lower entrance requirements, large increases in the duration of benefits and increased benefit rates, changes that are simply not justified by these numbers.

It is estimated that these changes would have a combined cost to the EI program of $3.7 billion annually. The opposition has done this without providing the House or the HUMA committee any evidence to show that these changes are actually required or warranted.

The opposition spent a mere one hour studying this bill, an absolutely shocking amount of time to spend on a bill that proposes this level of spending of taxpayers' dollars. That amounts to more than $1 million per second of study for this bill. Although shocking, it is not surprising considering the opposition's record of proposing bills with billions of dollars in new spending with little or no study.

In addition, the opposition members on the HUMA committee refused to consult with business leaders and other stakeholders who will be affected most by these changes.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, the president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, stated that this additional $3.7 billion expenditure would return the EI system to a deficit and may result in higher premiums for both workers and employers. He further stated in no uncertain terms that these higher premiums are good for neither the working family nor business owners.

Certainly, one of the things I have heard as I have talked to business owners in my riding is that they would like to find a way for us to be able to cut EI premiums, not only for businesses but for individuals as well, so this bill would have us going in the opposite direction.

One would have thought that Mr. Kelly-Gagnon's opinion would have been of interest to the committee. However, the opposition decided that no employers should be consulted in the drafting, the debate or even the study of the bill. In fact, the opposition decided not to hear from any witnesses before committing to billions of dollars in new annual expenditures.

There are currently 19 bills at various stages before this House that propose changes to the EI program. The cost of these bills is expected to be well in excess of $11 billion annually. I think it is fair to say that some opposition members have proposed bills or advocate for changes to programs for political purposes without examining what the ramifications are for the taxpayer, without thorough study, and without an idea of what the true cost would be.

Another good example of this would be Bill C-257, which was handled in the same sort of fashion when we had the Bloc propose this bill as a private member's bill to issue sweeping changes to federal jurisdiction and federal legislation when it came to anti-replacement workers, when the Bloc suddenly had an interest in federal issues. I found it remarkably interesting that suddenly the Bloc had a new love for federal issues.

Once again, this was another bill that they tried to ram through committee. I can assure the House that if there had not been the time for thoughtful study on the bill and a chance to hear from witnesses, there would have been a problem that would have cost taxpayers millions in time as well as, probably, lost services.

Thankfully, we have a labour market in which more Canadians and certainly more Quebeckers are working than ever before, and the demand for labour is strong. We are at a great place in the economy. Opportunities are certainly abundant. We are currently experiencing labour shortages across the country. Certainly as we look to B.C., Alberta and Ontario, they are having a hard time not only with skilled labour but with unskilled labour as well.

Coupled with this strong labour market is evidence that the EI program is working well. It is meeting its objectives to help Canadian workers adjust to labour market changes.

I stated earlier that the evidence to support the proposed changes that Bill C-269 proposes was not presented at the HUMA committee. It was not presented because, I would have to say, it does not exist.

The evidence that does exist, though, indicates that the current EI program is meeting the needs of the unemployed Canadians for whom the program was intended. Eighty-three per cent of those who pay into the program and have a qualified job separation are eligible for benefits. This figure increases to over 90% in areas of high unemployment. Let me just repeat that fact again for those who may not be aware. For those who are in qualified job separations who are eligible for benefits, that figure is over 90% in areas of high unemployment. Those people are able to receive their EI benefits.

The evidence also indicates that both the amount and duration of EI benefits is meeting the needs of Canadians. On average, individuals use less than two-thirds of their EI entitlement before finding employment. Even in high unemployment regions, claimants rarely used more than 70% of their entitlement.

If all this evidence suggests that the current EI program is meeting the needs of individuals who use the program, why has the opposition proposed such wide, sweeping changes?

One of the EI program's chief goals is to encourage a return to the labour market. In other words, the program is designed to provide temporary income support while encouraging Canadians to seek and retain employment. We cannot and will not go back to the problems that existed with the EI under previous governments.

Our approach to EI reform will continue to be based on building on the strengths of Canada's economy and the growth in our labour market. That being said, Canada's new government has acted to make changes to the EI program where the evidence supports the need for change.

For example, our government has expanded the eligibility for compassionate care benefits, which is certainly something we heard about during the last campaign. It is something we have been able to put into place.

We have launched a pilot project to examine the effects of providing additional weeks of benefits for those in areas of high unemployment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm not sure exactly what Ms. Savoie was asking. Was it whether we would just adjourn the meeting and come back some other time? What was the request? We're sitting here; we're supposed to be doing clause-by-clause consideration on this, and it seems that there is a pretty major issue.

I would note that we have many very important things we should be doing as a committee, and this is the third time we have been dealing with a bill that has some serious issues associated with it. We had the Bloc's Bill C-257. We had the NDP's Bill C-304. Now we have the Liberals' Bill C-284. All of them had things in them that were clearly not completely thought out before they came here. In every case there is an urgency for discussing these bills.

Of course, I understand that a private member's bill is never going to be perfect and there are always going to be things that you have to deal with in committee, but in each of these cases they had major flaws that probably should have been discovered by the parties sponsoring the bills.

It comes down to the fact that we have this employability thing that we're supposed to be doing. We have a poverty study that we're all on side with and want to get into. If we adjourn this meeting and then come back and have to have another meeting on this, it just seems like a crazy way to go about it.

I'm not sure what Ms. Savoie is talking about. Is that what your suggestion was, that we put this on the side and come back? If we do that, does it end the meeting and we waste another two hours?

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a fishery in my riding, it does border on Lake Ontario where there is a fair bit of recreational fishing going on. I listened to the debate this morning and there obviously is some disagreement among the members with regard to the appropriate process which Bill C-45 should undertake. Let me address a couple of the points that have been raised in debate which deserve some comment.

First of all, the issue of a bill going to committee prior to second reading has been the representation of a number of members with regard to this bill. It has to do with the fact that the bill has not been amended in some 36 years. It has to do with the fact that there are numerous stakeholders. Fisheries in Canada are extremely complex and there are many stakeholders as has been pointed out.

We have heard the argument that the bill should be hoisted and go to committee for some consultations. The allegation is there have not been consultations and it would appear that representations made by various stakeholder groups would tend to support that allegation, that consultations should have taken place. I should note that even in the summary of the bill it is stated:

This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.

I do not know how some members define collaboration, but I would suspect that it does constitute to some extent, maybe a great extent, that there has been ample consultation with regard to a draft text or at least the principal issues.

The question with regard to second reading has to do with once the House has passed a bill at second reading, Parliament has given the bill approval in principle. The bill then goes to committee where witnesses are called. There is an opportunity at committee stage to propose amendments from time to time. Sometimes there are an enormous number of amendments made and many of them are ruled out of order. The reason they would be ruled out of order is that they would be contradictory to the decision of Parliament that the bill had received approval in principle. Effectively committee stage amendments are meant only to correct errors or to make certain modifications which are compatible with the fundamental principles of the bill.

Today in debate members have provided a number of examples of changes they would like to see to the bill as it is right now as we debate it at second reading, which in their view and I suspect in the view of the committee clerk, would be out of order because they are beyond the scope of the bill or amend the fundamental principle of the bill which has been approved by Parliament.

It is a very important question. I wanted to comment on this because the fisheries minister himself rose in the House in posing a question in which he dismissed referring the bill to committee prior to second reading. Subject to checking the record, if I could recall his statement, it was basically that it would be an opportunity for a whole bunch of people and virtually everybody would want to come before committee and hijack the process and we would be subjected to listening to all the input from various stakeholders who might be environmentalists, fisher persons, regulators, jurisdictional representatives from the provinces or whatever.

I have two points to make. The first point is that is consultation. That is listening. That is an important part of the process of making good laws and wise decisions. On my second point, I would refer to what the member who is now the Deputy Speaker said in the House, that delay is an essential part of the legislative process. It is part of democracy to filibuster, to debate fully, to raise as many questions as one may have. To some it may be viewed as disruptive to the flow of business, and apparently the minister views it that way.

When members feel strongly enough about an issue related to a bill, they have tools they can use. They have the tools of debate. They have the tools to make motions. They have the tools to call witnesses. Under our Standing Orders, they have the tools to be very thorough and exhaustive in their attention to a piece of legislation.

The minister has made it clear on the record that he does not want to hear from all the stakeholders in any great detail. This bill was tabled in December 2006 and has been languishing around. I do not know why it did not come up sooner, because it is an important bill. There are a number of outstanding issues and it is very important that they be dealt with. The minister clearly did not want to hear from all of the stakeholders who would have all kinds of questions, ideas and concerns. That is what the legislative process is all about.

I dare say that many members in this place will not have had an opportunity to read Bill C-45 in its totality. It is over 100 pages long. This bill replaces the existing act fully. It repeals the old act. If we are going to do the job properly, we have to go through the bill clause by clause to determine what has changed and to determine whether or not there is an understanding of why it may have changed. It is very difficult. Even in the brief 20 minutes that each member is given to speak at second reading, a member would not get into very much in terms of the essence of some of the details.

The first speaker raised some very important points. One had to do with transferring a licence on retirement. Another was the role of the tribunals. Another one that I thought was quite interesting was the delegation of the minister's responsibilities to DFO officials. This is a whole new regime. There was a suggestion that there have been cases in the past of abusing that authority to grant or to refuse licences.

If we think about it, there is a lot on the table for parliamentarians. There is a hoist motion, which basically asks Parliament to cease this process at second reading and to send the bill to committee for consideration. Interesting enough, when the minister made his argument on why we should not do that because he did not want to hear from all the stakeholders, from the various groups, aboriginals or commercial fishermen or jurisdictional individuals, et cetera, he forgot about bills like Bill C-30.

Bill C-30, when it was first tabled in the House, was the government's alternative to Kyoto. It is the environmental plan. It was leaked to environmental groups so that they could have an opportunity to respond. A week before the bill was even tabled in the House, they critiqued it in its totality and it was unanimous that Bill C-30 was a failure and it was never going to get anywhere. The bill was tabled in the House, but we did not have a debate on it. We have never had a debate on that bill because the government decided to send it to committee before second reading.

As we know, Bill C-30, a very bad bill, the clean air act, was totally rewritten by parliamentarians who heard a plethora of witnesses to make sure the bill was going to deliver in terms of our international commitments, and the appropriate processes and targets for our greenhouse gas emission undertakings.

That bill was totally rewritten by the committee. It was based on expert testimony and the best work possible by the members who were selected by each of the parties to be on this special legislative committee.

If consulting with Canadians on the clean air act is appropriate before second reading because it is complicated, there are a lot of diverging views, there are areas in which it is not overtly clear to members why certain steps have been taken, sending it to committee is the place to do it.

The minister makes his argument about it not going to committee before second reading because the Conservatives do not want to hear from these people and yet the government itself referred another bill to committee before second reading. In fact, that is not the only one. One cannot have it both ways. One either recognizes the circumstances a bill is in or one risks losing the bill and having to find another way to do it.

We cannot afford, quite frankly, to lose this new Fisheries Act because there are many changes that have taken place and many new areas that should be dealt with that are currently not in the existing legislation. One that I happened to notice and something that I have spent a fair bit of time on in my involvement with the International Joint Commission has to do with alien invasive species. In part 3 of this bill it actually refers to aquatic invasive species.

Canadians may be familiar, for instance, with zebra mussels, which are an alien invasive species or what is called an aquatic invasive species. I understand there are some 30 of these species in the Great Lakes system and they destroy the fish habitat. In the work that is being done so far, for every one alien invasive species that is treated, dealt with and gotten rid of, another one appears. How does it appear? There is certainly speculation about how they come in but it has to do with ship ballast. They are brought in by ships that come from abroad.

I noted in this area that it is an offence to transport an aquatic invasive species. I wonder what would happen if a ship coming to Canada has a listed aquatic invasive species that it is not aware of but is discovered. I am going to be very interested in seeing the regulations on how to deal with it. I suppose it could even involve a court case in terms of whether the ship owners knew or ought to have known that in the normal practice of managing the ballast of a ship, they would have probably collected certain species that would be classified as an aquatic invasive species.

There is certainly that area. The International Joint Commission is a group made up of representation from Canada and the United States which share common waterways. It is responsible for conducting studies and making observations to determine what the issues are and to suggest and discuss possible solutions.

The only problem with the IJC though is that it has no authority and no power because half of its members represent the U.S. government and the other half represent the Canadian government. It cannot unilaterally take charge of a situation and do something about it, so it takes a lot more work. I would be very interested to see how the responsibilities and the authorities that the minister has in the bill would be able to dovetail with the responsibilities of the IJC.

In part 3 clause 69.(1) states that: “No person shall export, import or transport any member of a prescribed aquatic invasive species”. When I read further, clause 70 states:

The minister may, subject to the regulations--

And regulations will be made at some future date.

--destroy or authorize any person to destroy, in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Minister, any member of

(a) a prescribed aquatic invasive species; or

(b) any other species that the Minister considers to be an aquatic invasive species as defined in the regulations.

I would think that this may be a problem because when the minister now has the authority to designate any other species to be an aquatic invasive species, we are probably making law through regulations and I am not sure that is going to get by the scrutiny of regulations committee but we will have to see on that.

In any event, even the small section which is only about four clauses in part 3 on aquatic invasive species, I could think of numerous questions that I would have of the IJC, that I would have of those who import and export and have ships using the waterways of Canada.

The other area that I want to comment on has to do with what was raised by one hon. member as an example of what can happen during second reading. As the member had indicated, we had Bill C-257 which was a bill related to replacement workers. It was to be amended at committee. There were some amendments. Ultimately, it came back that in the opinion of the Speaker, in consultation with the clerks, that the amendments made at committee were beyond the scope of the bill. Even though they were certainly directly related but what they did was they touched upon another bill which was not mentioned in Bill C-257.

Therefore, there are even good amendments which do not get incorporated into a bill on technical reasons. This is a very good example. In fact, right now a new bill on the same subject matter related to replacement workers, Bill C-415, has been ruled to be non-votable by a subcommittee of procedure and House affairs for the reasons that it is same or similar.

I can understand the argument that the vast majority of Bill C-415 is identical to Bill C-257 which was defeated by the House. Therefore, we could argue that the majority of that bill has already been defeated by the House and to put the question on those provisions again would be redundant and therefore the bill in the subcommittee's view is not votable.

It has now been appealed and it is still under review, but even something as simple as a reference to another piece of legislation may be enough to undermine the acceptability of changes at the committee stage.

I have to say in my experience of almost 14 years now that it is extremely difficult to get changes made at committee which are substantive. I think the members know that. I think the minister knows that. I think the minister also knows that should we have the kind of consultations that members have been asking for, that changes are going to be required here. He should also know that there is a great deal of support for the vast majority of the bill but there are some areas of weakness and members have raised those.

I believe that in a minority situation, this is a prime example of where the parties should be collaborating on the areas in which the bill can be improved. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Briefly, Chair, in response to what Mr. Godin was saying, I just want to get it on the record that even though I might have inferred this, or perhaps I even misspoke, I don't want to let Monsieur Godin think that I'm suggesting we rubber-stamp any of the subcommittee's decisions. But I do agree with what Mr. Reid was saying. I think it's imperative that this committee as a whole not vote on the subcommittee decision based on whether they like the bill or not. That would be a very dangerous precedent.

The subcommittee made a decision. They examined both bills—Bill C-257 and Bill C-415—extensively and diligently. They came to a conclusion that there was sufficient similarity that Bill C-415 in this session should not be voted upon because of the similarity concerns. So I think it would be highly inappropriate if this committee decided to reverse that decision just based on the fact that they like the bill, that they like a bill dealing with the ban of replacement workers.

That's not what we're here for. We're here just to determine whether or not the subcommittee's decision was an appropriate one, because there's always an opportunity for this same bill to be introduced in the next session. But our job as parliamentarians—and as commented on by Mr. Reid—is to respect the Standing Orders.

With respect to Monsieur Godin's suggestion that the former Alliance Party had said that all bills should be voted upon, what they had said was—and we certainly supported that—that all private members' bills should have the ability to be voted on, but still respecting the Standing Orders, which say except in the case of two bills being so similar that only one can be debated and voted upon per session. We're still consistent with our position on that. We're just saying that this is too similar to Bill C-257. It is too similar to Bill C-257, and that is the decision the subcommittee came up with.

We charged the subcommittee with the responsibility—and I know they took it seriously—of examining those bills that were similar in content to determine whether or not they should be votable or non-votable. That's what I think we need to respect, not whether the content of the bill is something that I approve of or disapprove of.

So with those two points on the record, I'll turn it over to Ms. Redman.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I don't think that's a secret. It was in the Standing Orders.

It was in camera, Mr. Chairman. We were dealing with the issue of similarity. There were a number of issues, but I think we all know that similarity was the relevant consideration here.

It seems to me that it's possible to start getting some things mixed up in our discussions. In particular, it's possible to start mixing up the ruling of the Speaker, the ruling under which he was operating, and the less tight rule, vis-à-vis similarity, that governs our decisions. And it was the cause of the subcommittee ruling as it did.

Again, I'm being respectful of the in camera rule when I simply refer to the rule itself. It talks about substantial similarity, and a review of the two bills makes it clear that there is substantial similarity.

The Speaker's ruling against finding similarity according to the tighter criteria he was working with was based on having made, at an earlier point in time, a ruling that there was a substantial difference between having something that deals only with replacement workers and having something that deals with replacement workers with reference to an exemption for workers in essential services. And that was the distinction he made. He said, having it in a previous ruling, I would then have to follow through and keep that ruling consistent as I deal with the bill and the standing order on which I'm ruling—“I” meaning him.

In our case, we were looking at this without being bound by a previous ruling that we ourselves had made. As I say, we were dealing with a wider range of similarity. I want to point out that if you take a look at the two bills and you go through them, what you'll see is that most of the paragraphs are actually identical. A couple of clauses are different, but for the most part they are absolutely identical.

You can see that effectively this really is the same bill. People who doubt that this is the case I would invite to look at the legislation in the province of Quebec on the subject of replacement workers, which is essentially on the banning of replacement workers in Quebec. You can see that there really is a substantial difference between that legislation, although it's on the same general topic, and the legislation that was introduced in the House, whether it's Bill C-415 or the...I'm sorry, I've forgotten the number of the law.

It's Bill C-257.

You can see that there's a pretty substantial difference. There are many pages--I believe it's 80 pages, if memory serves, or thereabouts--of descriptions of the kinds of services that are exempt. There is great detail going into trying to ensure that the ban on replacement workers will exist while all the services that could be regarded as being essential for the function of the economy, for public safety, and so on, are dealt with.

Had a piece of legislation like that been written, I think it would have been pretty substantially different from either Bill C-415 or Bill C-257, and it might have received a very different reception from the committee. I can't say for certain, of course, because we didn't receive such a bill. But my inclination would be to think that it would be substantially different as opposed to being substantially similar. If you take a look at the two bills, and I have them in front of me, you'll get a sense of what I'm getting at.

The clause numbers are different, Mr. Chairman, in some cases, but often it's the same thing. You really have to look not at the clause numbers of the bill but at the sections and subsections of the Canada Labour Code that are being referred to. Then you get a sense of this.

I'll just look down here and try to find examples so you get the point. Just give me a moment.

In clause 2 of Bill C-257, it says that subsection 94(2.1) of the act is replaced by the following. I'm also referring to Bill C-415, clause 3. So far the wording is identical.

In Bill C-257 it says:

(2.1) Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout declared in accordance with this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) use the services of a person to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out, if that person was hired during the period commencing on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout;

(b) use, in the establishment where the strike or lockout has been declared, the services of a person employed by another employer, or the services of a contractor, to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out;

If you go back and look at the same thing in Bill C-415 you'll see very similar language in clause 3:

(2.1) Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout declared in accordance with this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) use the services of a person to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out, if that person was hired during the period commencing on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout;

(b) use, in the establishment where the strike or lockout has been declared, the services of a person employed by another employer, or the services of a contractor, to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out;

You'll notice here that on the surface these two clauses, if you're looking at them side by side, look more different than they actually are. If you put them right beside each other so you have the same language versions, you'll notice it's just the way they were drafted that gives a superficial appearance of greater difference. Underlining occurs to a larger degree in Bill C-415, where all the words in proposed subsection 94(2.1) from “Subject” all the way down to “Part” are underlined. You can actually see that the words that will appear in the act as rewritten will be identical.

Similarly--and I'm not sure I can tell you exactly why this is--the paragraph letter (a) is underlined in one and not in the other, but it's the same thing. The words “who is a member of” are underlined in one and not the other, but they're going to be the same when rewritten. In one you're talking about changing the wording and showing the detailed changes to the words. In the other you're simply showing the section as rewritten; you're eliminating the underlining. But they are in fact exactly the same thing. They're just different styles of legislative drafting. I suppose it would be an interesting matter to find out if the same legislative counsel worked on both of these together.

The use of that continues, with “during the period commencing” underlined in one and not the other, but the words are still there. The word “day” is in line 35 of Bill C-415 but not in the corresponding line 23 in the other bill--similarly the final words of this paragraph, “under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout” .

In legislative drafting, if you're adding a whole new paragraph, rather than underlining every line, which would make it hard to read, a line is put down the left-hand side to indicate the new material that's being put in. That was done in one bill but not the other.

In Bill C-415 this was done, but not in Bill C-257. But when you look at it, once again you see that exactly the same wording is in use. I mentioned proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code. Here you see all the same wording.

But again, superficially it looks different. You notice I was stumbling a bit at the beginning, trying to find the examples, because I myself was thrown off by the superficialities that have nothing to do with the substance of the bills but are in fact simply a question of the drafting style.

Not everything is identical. I don't want to leave the false impression that absolutely everything is identical here. If you continue, proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(b), as far as I can see, is identical. That's a paragraph I already read. But if you go to proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(c), there is at this point, I believe, a change. So there are some distinctions. I'm not trying to say that everything is identical, but the differences that appear on the surface are not as great as they might appear to be.

Looking ahead, here's another example: proposed subsection 94(2.4) is changed. It appears that in this case there is an alteration that is actually different. The two are substantially similar. They're not identical.

Proposed subsection 94(2.4) in one bill would read:

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

This actually is different. Excuse me for a moment. I think I have the right subsection. Yes, I do. Yes, they're quite different.

The other one reads:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) are being met.

But even here, we find that there's a great deal of similarity. We're just continuing. You'll see that largely this is the result of a renumbering of proposed subsections in one compared with the other, which I suspect is the reason for the line down the left-hand side showing that sections have been replaced.

Proposed subsection 94(2.5) in Bill C-257 becomes proposed subsection 94(2.4) in Bill C-415, where you'll immediately see that the wording is actually identical. Once again, I myself, when trying to make the argument that these are similar, was thrown off and was indicating that they're more different than they actually are.

Here's what proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the one bill says:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) are being met.

It changes, in the other bill:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) are being met.

It's the fact that (2.4) is removed from one and is included in the other that gives the impression that all the other paragraphs are actually different, when in fact just the numbering is being changed.

Then we go back. There's proposed subsection 94(2.5) in the one bill; that's in Bill C-415. Now we're back to being identical, word for word, with proposed subsection 94(2.6) in the other piece of legislation:

The investigator may visit the work places at any reasonable time and be accompanied by a person designated by the certified trade union, a person designated by the employer, and any other person whose presence the investigator considers necessary for the purposes of the investigation.

It's absolutely identical, word for word.

Proposed subsection 94(2.6) in the one is identical to proposed subsection 94(2.7) in the other. I think the rule of thumb to follow here is that for this part of the bill, Bill C-257 has one number extra, one more proposed subsection than Bill C-415. So proposed subsection 94(2.6) in Bill C-415 is proposed subsection 94(2.7) in Bill C-257.

Again, identical:

The investigator shall, on request, produce identification and a certificate of designation signed by the Minister.

It's the same thing with the next clause:

The investigator shall, immediately after completing the investigation, make a report to the Minister and send a copy of the report to the parties.

And you can see the next paragraph, where you have identical wording again, it's clause 2.8, and then the other:

The investigator has, for the purposes of the investigation, all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, except the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

With regard to clause 3 of Bill C-257, we see that it's essentially identical to clause 4 of Bill C-415.

The point I'm making is reasonably clear. I can continue and go through the entire bills--they're not long bills--but nonetheless I think the point is made pretty clearly, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing I wanted to draw to people's attention--as we work together and often agree with each other, particularly in the same caucus--is that I'm not as worried as Mr. Lukiwski that a dangerous precedent could be set if we overruled a previous ruling of a subcommittee, particularly when that subcommittee has met in camera. Unless we go in camera ourselves, we don't have full access to what was discussed and it seems reasonable to have to make certain assumptions. So I would differ with my colleague on this point.

But I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent—and here I think he would be in agreement with me—if we were to try to make our vote on this bill contingent on any consideration other than what the rules say. And if anybody here is voting based on the merits of replacement worker legislation, whether there should be such legislation or, if there is such legislation, whether or not it should make provision for essential services, these are questions of policy and they are utilitarian questions, the kinds of questions that as parliamentarians we are asking ourselves all the time, because our goal is to make good laws for the governance of the country.

In this committee we have to act much more as a court acts, not as utilitarians but as contienes, looking at what the rules say, what our prime directive is. And our prime directive is ensuring that the Standing Orders are followed as closely as they can be, without regard to the actual merits or demerits of specific pieces of legislation, but rather with consideration of the relevant rule and the relevant mandate we have. And that mandate is to make sure any bills that are substantially similar to other bills that have been before the House not be permitted to move forward; and of course, that if they are not falling afoul of that rule or the other rules that govern our actions, we allow them to go forward.

So I urge all members of this committee to base their votes on the facts and on our mandate to follow the rules laid out under the Standing Orders.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That was a great question. I suppose we could suspend.

Perhaps there's a dictionary very close to this room. It might not be my Oxford English Dictionary; it might be one of the other great dictionaries of this land. Funk & Wagnalls—that's exactly it. We could get one of those.

Perhaps you'll allow that my version of “substantially” is okay for now. We'll argue the differences at a later time—maybe later on in this same dissertation. But right now we'll go back to where I was.

I also brought Ms. Bell's bill, which was ruled to be very similar to this bill by our subcommittee, and by reference then, by this committee. I just thought I'd bring it because they look the same from a distance. They're like those Mustangs, aren't they?

That brings us to Bill C-415, Mr. Silva's bill, which we as a subcommittee ruled to be also substantially similar. I'm looking at the front cover, and other than the numbers on it and the names at the bottom, it's “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”. If I read the other one, it says “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”.

I'm telling you that sounds substantially similar to me, because that sounds exact. So it doesn't even meet the criteria of “substantially”; it means the criteria of “exact”. If I'd brought the whole dictionary I could move back to “e” and look up “exact” and we would be discussing that at this point. I should have done that. I'll get better at this as I spend more time in this place.

But truly, when it comes down to it we're dealing with whether they are substantially the same, and we're not talking whether there are any differences, because under “substantially” it doesn't say they must be exactly the same. I'll read it again. It says “to a great or significant extent”. So there have to be some similarities, I guess, for the most part. If we look at “for the most part”, I think we'll find that Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 clearly have the same purpose. It says right there “An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)”. They have the same purpose, namely to ban the use of replacement workers. That's clearly what this is saying here—the banning of replacement workers.

They both amend the Canada Labour Code and they're identical, other than one clause and one subsection. So we have one clause and one subsection different in one from the other. I think that meets my “substantially” rule here. We're talking about them being substantially the same.

Mr. Chair, I know I'm to put all my comments through you, but I seem to be losing my audience. As an amateur actor, I'd feel bad if they'd all gotten up and walked out on me. Okay, I understand they're listening now.

They both contain an identical paragraph in their summaries, stating their purpose:

—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.

Maybe I should say it twice, because it says it in each of them:

—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.

So both bills say exactly the same thing in their purposes and in their final paragraphs. Other than the word “essential” added a couple of times in one and not in the other, these bills are substantially the same—thus the ruling by your subcommittee after diligent work. I have to tell you, finding the word “essential” in there a couple of times made it fairly easy. That was the only thing that was different. So that's the ruling there.

Mr. Silva also brought it to our attention that the Speaker made a ruling. I think I spoke about this the other day, and I'll speak to it again. I had the Speaker's ruling in front of me, because when you can't sleep well at night you can grab things like the Speaker's rulings and they'll certainly cure your insomnia. If you want to read a few Speaker's rulings you can get to sleep a lot better.

This is the Speaker's ruling on Bill C-415, and I've searched and searched all through it. I've looked on every page, because there are three pages. Non-votability is not mentioned once by the Speaker. That isn't what the Speaker was charged to do. The Speaker was charged with determining whether the bill was in order or not. We're not ruling this bill out of order. As I've said, Mr. Silva's bill is still very much in order. He can take it to the House and have it debated, because it is a bill that's in order and can be discussed. But it can't be voted on, because we've ruled it non-votable.

I'd like to go back to “substantially”, because we've talked a bit about it. That truly is the criteria we're dealing with here. I brought a couple of my favourite pens, because I couldn't bring the Mustangs inside. We could have parked them outside, but I would have needed the chair's permission for us all to go outside and look at them. I'm not sure I'm allowed to use props, Chair, but I will until you tell me I can't.

These are two of my favourite kinds of pens because they write on photographs and on paper.

You brought the dictionary, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Does it say “substantially” is pretty much what I said?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Earlier, I had suggested the idea that we ought to be willing to look at in camera evidence if we took the whole committee in camera, and there were a number of objections, but I think they're mistaken. I think you can do this. The privilege of going in camera, it seems to me, for the subcommittee derives from the larger committee, and for the Committee of the Whole it's from Parliament. So I can't see why we couldn't do this.

There have been some suggestions that discussions in camera were of a nature that would have made a profound difference to Mr. Silva's ability to make his case before this committee. I can't reveal exactly what happened in the committee, but we know certain things. We know it was relating specifically to the issue of his item being substantially the same or dealing with substantially the same subject matter as a previous piece of legislation, Bill C-257, I think. It was not about the other things. Nobody's suggesting it violates the Constitution. Nobody's suggesting it's an item outside of federal jurisdiction. So we already know a fair bit about this.

I have to be honest and say I don't think there have been tremendous procedural difficulties either with going in camera or, frankly, that there's any suggestion that any particular discussion has occurred that makes this particular hearing in some respect in violation of the normal rules that would allow him to have an open and fair hearing of what he's saying.

We could have the option of going in camera, and I still think that would work, notwithstanding the concerns that one or two of my colleagues have. But I don't see, given the nature of the discussion, how this is damaging to Mr. Silva's interest in making his presentation.

Perhaps I'll just leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Right. And my recollection of her responses is that it was extremely difficult to address just one provision, i.e. replacement workers, without touching on essential services. As I recall, she made some very strong arguments that the definition of essential services would have to be included for a bill to move forward. As I said, she can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding of the comments she made. Yet now, if I'm understanding her arguments correctly, she seems to be arguing in favour of making this bill votable because in her mind it's substantially different from the previous bill.

I'm trying to square the argument with the arguments she has made in the past, because it's not difficult for any of us to foresee that quite possibly this bill.... For argument's sake, let's say that the committee did decide to make it votable and that it passed second reading. Now, those are a lot of hypotheticals, but just for argument's sake, let's say that happened and it went off to committee. And following up on Madam Robillard's and many others' arguments in the past that you cannot in all good conscience touch this part of the Canada Labour Code without defining what essential services are, this bill does not do that. It does not define.

So we could end up in a similar situation, Mr. Chair, where we're at committee and Madam Robillard herself or someone else brings forward a definition of what essential services are. It might be one clause long, it might be 64 pages of definition. My understanding is that in Quebec labour law, the definition of what constitutes essential services is quite lengthy. It's quite involved. They tried to cover off everything possible, and that in itself is its own minefield of what you put in there and what you exclude.

So it wouldn't be difficult to follow this through. Someone would make those amendments, those amendments would be ruled out of order, and the bill would fail because the definition of essential services wasn't included. So the bill is voted down, similar to what happened to Bill C-257. Another member says, to use Madam Robillard's argument, oh well, the amendments should have been allowed but they weren't, so I will put my definition of what constitutes essential services into a new bill, I will introduce it in this same Parliament, and I will hopefully get it votable. And we could go through that whole process all over again.

So then we have a definition of essential services, and we could be back in the same situation, where some other well-intentioned member, like Mr. Silva, would bring forward a bill but try to correct the problem of the previous bill, which in this case would be Bill C-415, which was trying to correct a problem of a previous bill, which was Bill C-257. We end up in the situation where Bill C-415 is hopefully corrected, in the sense that it has this definition built into the new bill, but then ultimately the committee or the subcommittee rules it is votable. Off it goes again, gets to committee, and somebody brings forward amendments. Wait a minute, that definition isn't inclusive enough; we have to try to amend the bill. Well, somebody rules that no, wait a minute, when you start to amend and bring in other services as your description of essential services, that's beyond the scope of this particular bill. They're out of order. You know, this could go on and on and on in the same Parliament.

I get back to my earlier point: at what time does Parliament say that we've had a good, fulsome, healthy debate on this subject matter? In this particular case it's on the subject matter of replacement workers. The House has spoken. The House in its wisdom decided to set this issue aside. That's not saying that in a future Parliament it won't be dealt with.

I suspect that given the track record on replacement workers—I don't remember, I think Mr. Preston or Mr. Lukiwski said it was 11 times, or maybe 13 or 17 times, or whatever the number was—it just continues to come back and come back. So I suspect that we haven't heard the last of this legislation. If we uphold the rule of the subcommittee and make this non-votable, I suspect it will come up in a future Parliament, and all of us—well, those of us who are back—will be sitting here debating the same issue again.

That's what I'm proposing to Madam Robillard, and what I'm trying to do is square the thoughts that she put in, in the past, to the need to have essential services defined in labour legislation and in the Canada Labour Code; and if she disagrees with what she said a few years ago, how she squares that with this particular legislation, which doesn't define “essential services”. Doesn't she at least believe that my scenario is quite possible, whereby this legislation could go off to committee and indeed someone, any member, could bring forward amendments to try to define what constitutes essential services in Canada under the Canada Labour Code? Then we could be into this big mess all over again, where some member decides, oh well, the Speaker ruled that was beyond the scope of the bill, so then they try to correct that by drafting a new bill. We'd be right back here all over again.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I want to reiterate some of the procedural arguments I raised originally, and I want to speak to Mr. Owen's point.

Yes, I totally agree there's at least an apparent contradiction in what we're doing here, because of the Speaker's ruling that Bill C-415 contained elements of the bill that are beyond the scope of Bill C-257. One could then argue--as have Mr. Owen, Madam Robillard, and Ms. Davis--that this clearly means they are two different bills. I think that type of situation perhaps has to be addressed, but at some time in the future. I don't think it's incumbent upon this committee to try to address that situation right now. I agree there seems to be a bit of a problem there, and somehow Parliament has to work out a system in which there can be consistency rather than inconsistency in a ruling of a Speaker, as opposed to a ruling of a subcommittee. However, I don't think this committee is charged with that responsibility right now.

What we have is a situation where the subcommittee, charged with the responsibility of determining votability or non-votability, came back with its decision that Bill C-415 was non-votable. I would like to have been part of the discussion, or at least had knowledge of the decision and how the subcommittee came to it. Obviously Mr. Silva would like to know that as well. If we had been able to understand the decision-making process, it might have made this discussion at little easier and perhaps influenced some of the members a little more appropriately.

But we don't have that luxury, and we always need to remember that a decision made by a subcommittee really should not be overruled unless there is overwhelming and compelling new evidence and new information, and it can be demonstrated that the subcommittee was perhaps unaware of it at the time of their decision. I don't think it's sufficient to just say we disagree with the decision of the subcommittee, for whatever reasons. It is incumbent upon this committee, if they wish to overrule the subcommittee's decision, to come up with some very substantive reasons why--not just “I disagree”, but that they erred in terms of substance or lack of information, or they had some piece of information denied them that might have changed their decision-making process.

I am convinced, without the benefit of knowing what happened in that committee, that the subcommittee took its work seriously, examined all aspects of the two bills in question, and came up with a majority ruling that should be upheld by this committee.

I would also point out the obvious: that the subcommittee is comprised of members from all four political parties. So there really isn't an argument to be made that they were unduly influenced by one political party, one political view. Some members of that subcommittee represent parties that like replacement worker legislation, some don't like it, and some are divided. But representatives from each of the four political parties carefully considered the question and came up with a ruling.

Before anything else, we should take the view that we will respect the subcommittee's decision unless there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they did not have possession of information that could have changed their decision. I've yet to see any discussion at this table that suggests to me they did not have all of the information at their disposal. I believe they did. I believe they carefully considered both Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 and came to a decision that they thought was the correct one.

I also want to point out that from a procedural standpoint there is a reason why private members' bills are only allowed to be brought forward once in a session. I don't know how many years this replacement worker legislation has been brought forward, but I think similar bills have come forward before Parliament about eleven times. They have been voted against every time.

Several times, I'm sure, when the Liberal Party was in government, they would have considered replacement worker legislation that came before them, even in private members' legislation. I'm sure if we went back to the voting record of some of the members on this committee, we would find that they voted against replacement worker legislation. Everything being equal, they certainly have a perfect right to change their minds and vote in favour of a piece of legislation that they previously voted against.

The point is that private members' bills should only be brought forward once every session, and this is substantively the same bill, even though there are elements of it that are quite clearly different. The essential services portion of this private member's bill is different, but I believe it is substantively a similar bill, and only one bill of its kind can be discussed in one session.

However, Mr. Silva's recourse, as correctly pointed out by the chair, is that there is yet another option. That is to bring this for appeal to the entire Parliament, where that bill can be voted upon by secret ballot. I think we need to respect the procedures we currently have in place and the decision of the subcommittee, because they do not deny Mr. Silva the right to further pursue his quest to get this bill deemed votable. He can still take it.

Frankly, if the general will at that time is completely out of the hands of this committee and in the hands of all parliamentarians, it will almost be like having a vote on the original bill. I'm quite sure that if a majority of the House deems this bill to be votable, when the bill comes to an actual vote you will see the same results.

So I think Mr. Silva does have options before him, and therefore I do not think this committee needs to overrule a carefully considered decision by a subcommittee.

Thank you, Chair.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

It's simply to answer a couple of points, and I do agree with Mr. Owen. I take no offence to what he's just said, but even at the outset of this meeting the criterion that was used and why the subcommittee ruled the current matter non-votable were stated, so it's not as if what criterion was used or how it was arrived at is an unknown factor.

I understand that because it was an in camera session it sure seems that way, but we do at least come out with the criterion as to what happened there.

I would also like to refer to the fact that the similarity between these two bills is what we're trying to discuss today. But I would remind the group that we got here somewhat a different way too, because Bill C-257, which we're preparing, was also similar to another bill. Bill C-257 was Mr. Nadeau's bill and the other one Ms. Bell's, and we were even charged by the Speaker to come up with a way of making sure this doesn't happen again, so that we find it non-votable at the appropriate time in the process rather than both of them getting to the House and having to be ruled out of order there--to come up with some remedy. And that's truly what happened with Ms. Bell's bill, which was substantially similar to Mr. Nadeau's bill. We couldn't find one of them non-votable, so we had to rewrite the criteria.

We've now rewritten the criteria so that we catch it at the appropriate spot in the process so it can't happen again, and we've tried to write--and it's been accepted as a report of this committee---the remedies for how we could address it if it does happen again.

We certainly have spent a lot of time on the subject matter of a bill respecting the Labour Code/replacement workers. We've seen three bills in the House that came forward with some substantial similarity on that, and that's why we looked at it that way.

To answer one of the questions that Mr. Silva brought forward about some previous Speakers' rulings--I understand that there are some there--as Mr. Hill said, some of these rulings took place during the time when private members' bills were treated substantially differently from the way they are treated today. So I recognize that a ruling made in 1980 was maybe under the rules that Mr. Hill was talking about, where you went and pleaded your case before whole committees and so on, and so I'll have to assume that maybe it was before the time....

To address Mr. Hill's point, I believe that the subcommittee will not take it personally but will certainly keep in the back of its mind that this committee is here for us to report to, and that's why the levels of appeal first bring it back to this committee for right of appeal. However, if that's just going to be the case each and every time, then why does the subcommittee actually exist and why don't we do the business at the full committee?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you. I have observations from the comments that have been made by the members.

Whether or not the issue is the same subject is in fact irrelevant, because there have already been several rulings by Speakers saying that it's not the question of the subject being the same, but whether the content is different. Bill C-257 did not deal with section 87.4, which talks about the issue of a central service. My bill addresses section 87.4. That really is a major difference in the code. The Labour Code is extremely vast. It deals with several different sections. You can have 15,000 bills dealing with the Labour Code. If all of them deal with a different section, a different part of it, then it is votable.

It's the same thing, to use the analogy of the car. You can talk about 15 bills on a Mustang, but if all of them address different issues, whether it be tires, seat belts, or whatever, it's still different issues that you're dealing with, even though the subject may be the same. That already has been ruled on.

I've quoted you from Speaker Fraser, where he said that “there could be several bills addressing the same subject but if the approaches to the issues are different, the Chair could deem it to be sufficient and distinct.” That's a ruling of the Speaker in 1989.

Mr. Chair, I just want to appeal to the committee. Notwithstanding the fact that you could have the same subject, if the issue and the content are different, which is what I'm trying to address in my remarks, then it is votable.

Finally, I would say, quite frankly--and this is a totally different issue, Mr. Chair--that I don't understand the nature of the subcommittee and why it deals in camera. I don't see why it's so confidential that members who put a bill forward cannot even attend these hearings to defend their own bill. I don't know what the arguments were that were used in the committee, for and against my bill. Quite frankly, I was a little stunned by the fact that there is even a subcommittee that meets in camera, that does not inform the authors of the bill that they're having a meeting, and you cannot even present arguments.

I think this committee should in fact look at changing that. I don't think it's fair that there's a committee that meets out there, in camera, and you can't, as a member of this House, bring arguments forward to support the votability of your own bill.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to re-establish some facts. The subcommittee was divided on the question of whether it was votable or not. In my view, it was votable because it was different from Bill C-257. Bill C-415 deals with essential services while Bill C-257 does not.

We wanted to make amendments, as Ms. Robillard explained. The Speaker said that that exceeded the scope of the bill. We came back with a bill that dealt with replacement workers, and that in addition dealt with essential services, which was not the case for the other bill. At the subcommittee, we were not in agreement because the chair had to make the decision. That is what happened. I am still in favour of Bill C-415.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to advance a procedural argument. It is to say that the subcommittee had already ruled on this. Obviously the discussion the subcommittee had was in camera, so we're not privy to what their discussions were and why they came up with the decision they did; suffice it to say that they determined this bill was non-votable. Even though Mr. Silva has a perfect right to appeal to this committee, the larger committee, I think we should advance with a great deal of caution, because clearly there are political agendas at work here. It's no secret that the NDP would like to see this bill enacted in any form, because they don't want to see replacement workers during a strike under any circumstances.

For a standing committee to overrule a decision by a subcommittee is something we should take very seriously. Unless there is an entirely compelling reason for us to overrule it, I think we are bound to uphold the ruling of the original subcommittee. That's why they were put in place--to decide these matters, to begin with. Unless arguments can be advanced to demonstrate clearly that the subcommittee did not consider a certain aspect or a certain argument, I don't believe this committee should be in a position to arbitrarily overrule the subcommittee decision just because they have a political agenda at work.

Again, we are at a bit of a disadvantage because we don't know the discussion that took place--it was in camera--but I do feel comfortable that the subcommittee carefully considered both Bill C-257 and Bill C-415, spent a great deal of time examining the criteria established as to votability and non-votability, and came up with a decision based on those criteria. For this committee to arbitrarily say we want to overturn that because we like the bill in whatever form it may take is something we should avoid.

I believe the subcommittee did its work. I have not yet heard an argument around this table that demonstrates to me that there was an aspect of the bill that was not considered by the subcommittee; therefore, if they did their work with all due diligence, I think we should respect their opinion and their decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'd like to start off by thanking Mr. Silva for coming to make his presentation today and for trying to shed some light on this.

I know my colleague Mr. Reid is talking about the two different sets of standing orders that are driving this.

It's my thought, and I think it's accurate, that Bill C-415 is substantially similar to Bill C-257 in the sense that they both have the same stated purpose. They're both acts to amend the Canada Labour Code for the use of replacement workers in a strike. If on the surface that doesn't make them substantially similar, and we only have to meet a criterion of substantially similar, they both attempt to accomplish the same thing, which is the use of replacement workers in the case of a strike. Full stop.

That starts me off by saying we've already met the criteria. They are substantially similar because they're trying to accomplish the same thing. But let's take it a little further.

In this case, I'll take the example of two beautiful, candy-apple red Mustangs sitting in a parking lot. I know that I love them both, and I'll even take the red colour. One has a CD player, and of course, the other has a satellite radio. They have some different options, but I think anybody looking at them would say the two cars are substantially similar, even though they have a couple of different options.

I look at these two bills in a similar way. They accomplish the same thing. They look to accomplish the same thing. They are substantially the same thing. There are a couple of different options built into one.

To address the other piece, I know Mr. Reid has the standing orders that talk about this. But talking about the Speaker ruling it out of order in the case of Bill C-257 or ruling it in order in the case of Bill C-415, it's exactly that. It's ruling it in order or out of order; it's not ruling it votable or non-votable.

Many bills that come forward in this House are ruled in order and out of order. They're still discussed during private members' business to the point of talking about which way they were voted on. It can certainly be in order in the sense that it's in order and it can be discussed in the House.

But the criterion of the subcommittee on private members' business and the work of this committee today is on whether it is votable or not. It's not whether it's in order or not. The Speaker rules on whether or not it's in order. This committee is only ruling on the fact of whether or not it's votable at the end of the day because it is substantially similar to another bill that we've already voted on in this House.

I give to you the point that it is, and I'll stop at that point.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, thanks to Mr. Silva for being here and putting forward such a cogent brief for us to be able to crystallize exactly what we're talking about and to understand what's occurred.

Yes, there may be slightly different criteria that the Speaker would use and the subcommittee on votability would use. Although there seems to be a stunning contradiction if we say the amendments to Bill C-257 were out of order and went beyond the original scope of the bill, yet we also say Bill C-415 is non-votable because it's substantially the same. There seems to be a logical gap there for amendments being beyond the scope of the bill, and the new bill that actually seeks to put forward those amendments is not substantially different.

Perhaps Mr. Silva can comment on it. If I understand his presentation correctly, we seem to have two contradictory results. If it's within the power of this committee to correct what would be an illogical situation, I think we should discuss if it is possible to do that.