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.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's quite all right, Mr. Chair.

I'm here basically to appeal to the wisdom of this committee to in fact have my bill proceed in the House.

As I was mentioning to you, Mr. Chair, I had quoted the government House leader. The Speaker now has, also in relation to my amendments to Bill C-257, basically said that the amendments deal with three sections in the Canada Labour Code: section 87.6, section 94, and section 100. The section dealing with essential services was basically dealing with section 87.4, which is the provision on essential services.

Basically, the Speaker concluded that, “Therefore, on strictly procedural grounds, the Chair must conclude that the ruling of the chair of the committee was correct: these last two amendments do go beyond the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading and are therefore inadmissible.”

In other words, the Speaker declared that by “importing the new concept of essential services” and by seeking to “reach back to the parent act and import into Bill C-257, the terms of reviews of orders made by the board under subsection 87.4(7), concepts not found within the bill as adopted at second reading”, the amendment went beyond the scope of the original bill. Therefore, in order to address these issues, an entirely new bill would need to be drafted to incorporate these concepts.

As noted, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 both address the issue of banning replacement workers, but they do so by using different means. And Bill C-415 is larger in scope than Bill C-257.

According to the ruling in 1989 by the Speaker of the House, a bill that addresses the same subject but achieves its goals by different means is sufficiently distinct to remain votable.

In a 1989 ruling, Speaker Fraser clarified that for two or more items to be substantially the same, they must have the same purpose and they have to achieve their same purpose by the same means. Thus, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if their approaches of the issues are different, the Chair could deem that to be sufficiently distinct.

This is from page 898 of Marleau and Montpetit, lines 23 to 27.

Bill C-415 meets the requirement of uniqueness and should remain votable. Given all the evidence, it is clear that Bill C-415's inclusion of the two essential service amendments makes it distinct from Bill C-257, by the Speaker's own ruling. The rules of the House clearly dictate that bills dealing with similar issues but addressing them using different means are votable.

The Speaker of the House, upon examination of the amendments, ruled them to be out of order, as were the amendments that I put forward. But dealing with section 87.4, which is a new section, in fact, makes this bill, in my mind, votable.

Given all these facts, I appeal to this committee to agree that Bill C-415 proceed and is in fact votable.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

First, I'd like to begin by saying that although prima facie both bills seem to be dealing with the same topic, it is important to note, Mr. Chair, that they are materially different, both in scope and in the content of the bills. In fact, it is important, for me to outline these differences, that I quote both the comments made by the government House leader in the House of Commons and the comments made by the Speaker, so that we could determine that both the Speaker and the House leader had ruled that the amendments I put forward initially in relation to Bill C-257 went beyond the scope and, in fact, change the content of the bill.

The government House leader challenged some of the amendments on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill, as outlined in Marleau and Montpetit, lines 9 to 11:

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:

it is not relevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion or exceeds the scope of the motion, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice);

This is a quote from the government House leader in relation to my amendments to Bill C-257.

The Speaker of the House, upon examination of the amendments, ruled them to be out of order:

Bill C-257 amends three sections of the Canada Labour Code: section 87.6 dealing with the reinstatement of employees after a strike or lockout, section 94 dealing with prohibitions relating to replacement workers, and section...

Opposition Motion--Finance

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

I will start off my comments by saying I find it almost amusing to hear some of the comments coming from the members opposite, particularly the member for Scarborough Centre, who just finished speaking. He made many comments quoting campaign commitments that this party and this government made in the last campaign with respect to income trusts.

He is quite right. We said that we would not tax income trusts. We ended up doing just that. The Prime Minister has stated publicly for the record that it was the toughest decision he ever had to make, but he also explained the reasons why. We were rapidly moving into an income trust society with the announcements from BCE and Telus that they were planning to move into income trusts.

What the member for Scarborough Centre continued to say, and the example he tried to present, that once we make a commitment, we cannot, come hell or high water, go back on that commitment. He used example after example.

I am confused. I remember back prior to the 2006 election when the former finance minister, the hon. member for Wascana, mused out loud whether the government at the time, the former Liberal government, would want to tax income trusts.

We all know the story. The markets went crazy. Insiders on Bay Street seemed to profit from his announcement. He finally came back and, in my opinion, due to a lack of political courage, made the statement, “We will not tax income trusts”. It was a commitment. Yet now, in the motion before the House, the official opposition is talking about a 10% tax on income trusts, not the 31.5% tax that we had said, which would level the playing field between trusts and other corporations. The Liberals are saying that they would tax it 10%.

The member may not be in a position to answer this question. How do we square that circle? On the one hand he is accusing the government of breaking a commitment that he says should be firm and cast in stone, not to tax income trusts. Yet the Liberals made the same commitment, but now they are saying that they will tax it at 10% only.

Are the Liberals breaking a commitment by degree? Are they suggesting that perhaps on the one hand the government of the day, because the Liberals happen to be in political opposition, cannot break a commitment, but they can, that it is okay as long as it is less than the taxation system the Conservatives want? It does not make any sense. He is saying a commitment is a commitment, yet with the Liberals apparently a commitment is not a commitment.

We have seen this act before. I have seen this movie many times before, flip-flop after flip-flop. We see it continually in the House every time we seem to have a controversial vote. The opinions and the position that the Liberals took when they were in government is contrary to the position they are now taking as the official opposition.

A case in point is the recent Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-257,, which dealt with replacement worker legislation. This type of private member's bill, this initiative, has been before the House over the past number of years at least 11 times. When the Liberal party was in power, when it was the government of the day, every time that private member's bill, or that suggestion came forward to ban replacement workers, that party opposed it, vehemently, vigorously and without question.

However, now that the Liberals are in opposition, they support it. In fact, even though Bill C-257, was defeated, a Liberal backbencher is now introducing yet another private member's bill calling on the ban of replacement workers.

For anyone on the Liberal side of the House to suggest that this government has a problem honouring its commitments, I suggest they take a good hard look in the mirror.

It is not just Bill C-257. We have seen time and time again the Leader of the Opposition, since he has been elected leader of the Liberal Party, continually change his opinion on very important matters. This speaks to the lack of credibility that I think most Canadians have with the Liberal Party these days.

Let me give members a few examples. First, let us talk about what seems to be the favourite subject of the Leader of the Opposition, which is Kyoto. There was a time not too long ago, and of course we have all the quotes if the members opposite would care to listen to them once again, when the leader of the official opposition party said that--

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

I want to reiterate what my colleague was saying. This is not the way to legislate. We're going back to the same opposition gong show that we had with Bill C-257. Again, we're dealing with an ad hoc piece of legislation. I cannot believe that the NDP is making 12 amendments to their own bill. That's astounding to me. We're down to 55 minutes to try to go through this all and we're still on the first amendment.

Do we have a copy of the amendments yet? Have we been provided with a copy of Ms. Chow's amendments?

Bill C-415--Canada Labour Code--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on May 1, 2007, concerning Bill C-415 standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport and Bill C-257 which, until recently, stood on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau. Both bills amend the Canada Labour Code in relation to replacement workers.

I would like to thank the hon. Government House Leader for raising this matter, as well as the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for his intervention.

The hon. government House leader began by reminding the Chair that it has already been obliged to rule on the issue of the similarity of another bill, Bill C-295, to Bill C-257. He commented that Bill C-415 is thus the third bill banning the use of replacement workers introduced in this Parliament alone.

The hon. government House leader expressed the view that Bill C-415 and Bill C-257 share the same purpose, namely, the banning of replacement workers; that they both accomplish this purpose by amendments to the Canada Labour Code; and that they differ only in one clause and one subsection. He reminded the Chair that Standing Order 86(4) prohibits the consideration of two items of private members' business “so similar as to be substantially the same” and cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 476 and 477, to the effect that, “two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of”.

The hon. government House leader referred again to the ruling delivered on November 7, 2006 with respect to the alleged similarity between Bill C-257 and Bill C-295. He argued that the principle underlying the Chair's decision not to allow further consideration of Bill C-295, that the two bills “have exactly the same objective”, is equally applicable to Bill C-257 and Bill C-415. He dismissed provisions of the latter bill safeguarding essential services during a strike as ancillary to its purpose and cautioned the Chair that a decision to permit further consideration of Bill C-415 would amount to a revisiting of its ruling on Bill C-257.

In his brief submission, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River pointed out that a determination, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to the votability of Bill C-415 is imminent and may be material to the disposition of this point of order.

Having reviewed these submissions with care, the Chair takes the view that the fundamental question before it may be phrased this way: Would any motion or decision of the House in connection with Bill C-415 be out of order because of the bill's similarity in substance to Bill C-257?

Of considerable relevance in this regard is the ruling delivered on February 27, 2007 with respect to the admissibility of several amendments to Bill C-257 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was the hon. government House leader who presented so persuasive a case against the admissibility of those amendments that the Chair accepted his arguments. Ironically, his very persuasiveness on that occasion presents considerable difficulty to the case he is making today.

Two of these amendments to Bill C-257 provided for the maintenance of essential services in terms similar to specific provisions found in Bill C-415 and, of course, not originally included in Bill C-257. My ruling determined that these amendments exceeded the scope of Bill C-257 and I declined to accept arguments that they served only to clarify the bill's provisions with respect to replacement workers.

On April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, Mr. Speaker Fraser warned that a committee:

—cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

In his point of order, the hon. government House leader claimed that the two bills “have exactly the same objective”, relying in part on the fact that both bills accomplish their objectives by means of amendments to the Canada Labour Code. While this is certainly the case, only Bill C-415 amends section 87.4 of the Code which deals with the concept of essential services. It thus incorporates provisions not originally contemplated in Bill C-257 whose scope, as confirmed by my earlier ruling, was judged to be limited to measures regulating the use of replacement workers during a strike. In the view of the Chair, the amendments to section 87.4 of the Code included in Bill C-415 also invalidate any claim that the two bills, in Mr. Speaker Fraser's words, “obtain their purpose by the same means”.

A bill regulating the use of replacement workers need not deal with essential services. Providing for essential services in the event of the strike could quite legitimately have been the objective of a separate bill. Because of the inclusion of essential services in it, Bill C-415 has a broader scope than Bill C-257, despite similarity in addressing the issue of replacement workers.

Consequently, in fulfilling its duty pursuant to Standing Order 86, the Chair does not find that Bill C-415 is substantially the same as Bill C-257 and accordingly, the consideration of Bill C-415 may proceed.

I would like once again to thank the hon. government House leader for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I understand completely what you are proposing. By way of corroboration, I am going to tell you about a precedent. Precedents can guide our decisions.

Bill C-257 was approved in committee. Amendments had been made, and there was consensus among committee members that the amendments were in order, despite the view of the chair. A vote was taken and the ruling of the chair was overturned. When the bill went back to the House, the Speaker felt that the changes went beyond the scope of the original bill. The amendments were not accepted, and we went back to the original bill that had been tabled in the House to begin with.

So I would like to know if, based on the precedent of Bill C-257, the same thing could happen to the bill we are considering today.

Bill C-415—Canada Labour Code

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two very short points that may be helpful or not helpful, depending on the outcome.

First, Bill C-257 is not now on the order paper. Bill C-415 is. Therefore, there is not, on the face of the order paper, a conflict between these bills.

Second, you will probably be aware that the private members' business bundle of which Bill C-415 forms a part is still yet to go through a private members' business subcommittee, a procedure that would look at all private members' business for votability. It might be that your decision could await the outcome of that procedure, which I believe is imminent. I do not believe that any of these new bills in the private members' business envelope will be coming before the House in the imminent future. They will come at a later date.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order regarding Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

I would first like to point out that bills to ban the use of replacement workers have been introduced six previous times since 2004, and defeated twice. In this Parliament alone, it is the third attempt at similar legislation, and the House has already voted against this idea.

Given that this bill is virtually identical to Bill C-257, with only one new clause and one new subsection, I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify two points.

First, I would ask for you to clarify whether it is in order for Bill C-415 to have been introduced. Standing Order 86(4) provides that the Speaker is responsible for determining whether two or more items that are similar can be placed on notice.

Mr. Speaker Fraser stated, on November 2, 1989, that a bill would not be placed on notice if it had the same purpose as another private member's bill before the House and if it met this purpose by the same means as that other bill.

Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 clearly have the same purpose, namely to ban the use of replacement workers. They also seek to meet this purpose by virtually the same means. They both amend the Canada Labour Code and are identical apart from one clause and one subsection. They contain the identical paragraph in their summaries, stating that their purpose:

—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.

Since Standing Order 86(4) does not specify that bills must be identical but they must “so similar as to be substantially the same”, I submit that Bill C-415 is so similar as to be substantially the same as Bill C-257, and I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, clarify this issue for the House.

The second issue on which I request your ruling is whether this bill can be called for debate and vote. Marleau and Montpetit indicate at page 495:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House. Thus, for example, if a bill or motion is rejected, it cannot be revived in the same session.

Allowing Bill C-415 to proceed to a vote would be inconsistent with this rule and with the rule of anticipation. As Marleau and Montpetit note, at page 476:

—two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn, the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with.

On November 7, 2006, respecting Bill C-257 and Bill C-295, you ruled that the second bill could not proceed because:

—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.

There we were dealing with a question of similar legislation. Bill C-295, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415 are aimed at the same objective on replacement workers.

I would argue to you, Mr. Speaker, and suggest to you with respect, that your ruling on November 7, 2006, applies equally in this case to Bill C-415. You indicated that you were at the time ruling on the issue bearing in mind Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling of November 2, 1989.

I reiterate that Bill C-415 has exactly the same objective as Bill C-257, which the House rejected at report stage on March 21. As a result, allowing Bill C-415 to proceed would mean that the House would reconsider its decision with respect to Bill C-257.

The purpose of Bill C-415 is exactly the same as that of Bill C-257, namely to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees during a strike or lockout.

Bill C-415 seeks to do so by the same means as Bill C-257, namely by amending subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

Members opposite may suggest that the bills are not similar and that Bill C-415 differs because it refers to the preservation of essential services during a strike. However, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to ban replacement workers.

The apparent difference from Bill C-257 is not in fact a material one. Bill C-415 would not create a new category of essential services. Nor would it designate a group of workers to perform this work. Rather, it simply recasts as “essential services” existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which obliges services to be maintained during a strike or lockout in order to “prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

Since Bill C-257 would not have affected these existing protections in the code, simply adding a provision about essential services to Bill C-415 does make it substantively any different than Bill C-257.

Therefore, the purpose of both these bills is simply to ban the use of replacement workers. As I have already indicated, Bill C-415 does not alter the means to use to achieve this purpose which is primarily by amending section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

By allowing Bill C-415 to proceed, Mr. Speaker, you will be asking the House to revisit its decision on Bill C-257, which is not permitted. I submit that it should not be called for debate or for a vote and would ask that you rule on that question.

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

Okay.

Moving on, then, we have a bit of a history of ad hoc legislation coming through this committee. We dealt with it on Bill C-257 and we dealt with it on the Bloc EI bill, and this strikes me as very similar. You made a comparison earlier to the Canada Health Act, and I'm wondering, compared to this legislation being brought up in quite a murky private member's bill, can you maybe compare that to...?

You know, how long did it take to negotiate the Canada Health Act? Do you have any idea? Was it a couple of weeks, or years and years maybe?

Bill C-52—Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond today to the point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River concerning Bill C-52, the budget implementation act.

The member argued that clause 13(1) of the bill respecting the application of the definition of “SIFT trust”, which is a specified investment flow-through trust, is not in keeping with the practices and customs of this House. In his view, the provision represents an inappropriate delegation of subordinate law and the member has asked that the Speaker rule that the clause be struck from the bill and the bill ordered reprinted.

As the Speaker has noted, this is a complex issue.

I appreciate the expertise of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River on matters of subordinate law. However, I submit that this is not a valid point of order, as there are no procedural authorities that preclude the House from legislating in this manner. In short, this is a matter for debate, which would be better dealt with by members in the House and at committee, rather than a procedural question for the Speaker to resolve.

Let me first briefly provide some background to this issue in order to assist the Chair.

The provision in question provides a rule for the application of the definition of “SIFT trust”. In particular, the provision sets out when a trust will be subject to the new rules pertaining to the taxation of income trusts.

Under the bill, a new trust will become a SIFT trust and therefore subject to the new rules for the taxation year in which it first meets the definition. However, for an existing trust, the SIFT trust definition will not apply, and therefore the new rules will not apply until the earlier of the 2011 taxation year, and the taxation year in which the trust exceeds the normal growth guidelines issues by the Department of Finance on December 15, 2006, unless that excess arose as a result of a prescribed transaction. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is quite technical.

To achieve this, the provision in question contains an incorporation by reference of the normal growth guidelines issued by the Department of Finance, to which I just referred. Incorporation by reference is a proper and legal approach to enacting legislation. It is neither rare nor unusual in legislation. An examination of Canadian statutory law would reveal many instances where incorporation by reference has been used in just this fashion.

For example, sections 181.3 and 190.13 of the Income Tax Act refer to the use of risk-weighting guidelines issued by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in order to determine the amount of capital of an authorized foreign bank. These guidelines are defined in section 248 of the Income Tax Act and are issued pursuant to section 600 of the Bank Act. I could go on with other examples, but I am sure the Speaker would find that a tad tedious.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon for legislation to allow documents incorporated by reference in legislation to be changed from time to time. For example, section 11 of the Customs Tariff incorporate by reference the Compendium of Classification Opinions to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System published by the Customs Co-Operation Council, as amended from time to time.

Therefore, it is not just in the Income Tax Act, but in other legislation as well that we see this same approach. As I said, we could go on at length, but I shall save us and save the House that lengthy example. I think the Speaker has ample precedent there.

In terms of procedural arguments, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River essentially made three points. He has argued: first, that the provision is not in keeping with the practices and customs of this House; second, that the clause attempts to exempt itself from rules regarding parliamentary scrutiny of subordinate law; and third, that the clause does not comply with the government's own internal rules on legislative drafting.

Let me address each point in turn.

On the first point, the practices and customs of the House, the essence of the member's argument appears to be that the clause does not conform to the rules of the House. The government submits that Bill C-52 and all of its provisions are properly before the House. The provision in question was included in a detailed notice of ways and means motion tabled on March 27, which was adopted by the House on March 28.

The ways and means motion adopted by the House on March 28 included the identical provision that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River questioned. Therefore, the provision in question is consistent with the rules governing financial procedures.

I submit there are no procedural grounds for the clause to be ruled out of order. Rather, this is an issue that would be more appropriately considered by the Standing Committee on Finance in its review of the bill. Should the member wish to improve the text of the bill, he and his colleagues are free to propose amendments to the bill in committee.

Citation 322 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's states that:

When a bill is under consideration, points of order should not be raised on matters which could be disposed of by moving amendments.

This clearly falls into that category.

With the exception of very limited circumstances, it is clear that only the House itself can decide to alter the content of bills

The 22nd edition of Erskine May states, at pages 544 and 545, the following:

Throughout all these stages and proceedings the bill itself continues in the custody of the Public Bill Office, and, with the exceptions mentioned below, no alteration whatever is permitted to be made in it, without the express authority of the House or a committee, in the form of an amendment regularly put from the Chair, and recorded by the Clerks at the Table or by the clerks from the Public Bill Office in standing committee.

As Marleau and Montpetit note, at page 620:

The Chair has clearly ruled in the past that when a bill is in possession of the House, it becomes its property, and cannot be materially altered, except by the House itself. Only “mere clerical alterations” are allowed. By issuing a corrigendum to the bill, the Speaker may correct any obvious printing or clerical error, at any stage of the bill. On the other hand, no substantive change may be made to the manner in which a bill was worded when it was introduced, or when a committee reported on it, otherwise than by an amendment passed by the House.

There would appear, Mr. Speaker, to be only two circumstances where the Speaker can make alterations to a bill: first, where the Chair has ruled that amendments adopted by a committee are beyond the scope of the bill, as you had recently ruled with respect to committee amendments to Bill C-257, the replacement workers bill; or second, when there is a clear printing error. As you noted in a ruling on February 23, 2004, this is only done in rare cases where there is a manifest error in the printing of the bill.

Apart from these limited instances, I submit that it is up to the House to decide whether or not to adopt a bill with our without amendment.

Even if you were, Mr. Speaker, to conclude that the provision of the bill as currently drafted is unacceptable, I would submit that the House and the committee should, first, have an opportunity to review the matter and consider possible amendments to improve the text of the bill.

In the event the provision in question remains in the bill at third reading, I submit that it is at that point when the Speaker should intervene on this matter in the unlikely case you think it is necessary.

It is analogous to the procedure that we use with private members' bills when we have those flaws. Committee exists and represents an opportunity for the flaws to be cured. If this is a flaw, indeed, that would be the place at which it could happen. The Speaker, if faced by a change that is unacceptable, does not need to put the question on that clause at third reading.

On the question of the review of statutory instruments, the hon. member has also suggested that the provision of the bill exempts itself from the rules of the House regarding parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. It is not uncommon for bills to establish forms of delegated legislation that are not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act. It is perfectly within the prerogatives of the House to pass legislation to that effect. As I have indicated earlier, it is not the role of the Speaker to decide whether such legislation is appropriation.

The third point is the government guide for drafting.

The hon. member also suggested that the provision in question is not consistent with the government's “Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations”.

The guide sets out principles for making legislation and regulations, as well as government processes for ensuring that statutory and legislative changes are made in an effective way.

Apart from the fact that this guide is by no means a procedural authority, I would also point out that the guide does not prevent the government from introducing legislation such as the provision in question, provided that the cabinet has authorized such legislation.

In conclusion, I would submit that clause 13(1) of Bill C-52 is properly before the House. This is a matter for debate. The issue is properly in the hands of the House and the finance committee will be better placed to examine whether this section of the bill is appropriate or whether it can be improved.

As always, I understand that the Minister of Finance is prepared to discuss this matter, and all matters related to the bill, further in committee. Indeed, if there is any flaw, committee can certainly be curative in so doing.

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

Based on how much it gets talked about in the House, I want to say that this is obviously an issue that's really, really important. It's an important issue in each of our ridings. There are strong feelings on all sides and many, many different viewpoints. I know that in my riding it's a very significant issue.

I take a bit of contention with Mr. Lessard's characterization of everybody coming to testify willy-nilly. There are a significant number of parents in this country who unfortunately do not have a large organized lobby funded by the former Liberal government. They may want to testify. They have a viewpoint that needs to be heard. I think it's important that they have their views heard.

This is not a mad rush. We gave many days to Bill C-257. Obviously I'm not looking to have a situation where we sit for as long as we did on Bill C-257; we have other things we need to consider. But this is really important for people on both sides of the issue. It is something that Canadians are very passionate about, and we need to give this a proper hearing.

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

It seems to me it would be best to add a couple of days. I'm sure there will be more witnesses, and we already know of some who will want to take part in this. As we remember from Bill C-257, it got to the point where we had so many witnesses that you didn't have a chance to hear from everybody.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would be in favour of that.

Can we just add a couple of witnesses, then? I have, in my province, people who set up their own day care with government help, and they would like to put their position on record, so I wonder, if we're going to extend it, whether we can extend by a couple of witnesses.

We were a little lax on this end: we were so caught up in employability and Bill C-257 that this slipped by us.

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague mistook me for my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who asked a question about the amendments his party might want to put forward during the committee review.

I would just like to emphasize that in my speech, I said that the vote on second reading of Bill C-257 led me to believe that most of the members of this House agree with the principle of the bill, and that I welcome the idea of passing a bill to that effect. I believe that my colleague and I agree that we will soon see a private member's bill to abolish the use of replacement workers for employees and employers under federal jurisdiction. However, I do not agree at all with what my colleague said about improving the employment insurance regime.

Need I remind my Liberal colleague that it was the Liberal government that slashed this program so drastically and ruthlessly? The Liberals are the reason we are now forced to do whatever we can to improve the program. For many years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking for the creation of an independent employment insurance fund that would enable employers and employees to manage their contributions to the program themselves.

I would like the member to say that she would support a bill to create an independent employment insurance fund. I am very eager to hear her say it. All of my Bloc Québécois colleagues are very eager for the Liberal Party of Canada to finally decide to hand over complete control of contributions to employers and employees in order to help workers who need help when they lose their jobs.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for his remarks on Bill S-2 and assure him that we agree with him on several of his points, one of which was about the primary nature of the safety of every worker in Canada, and I believe that most if not all members of the House agree.

We also believe in the dignity of all work, which leads to his idea, stated rather well, that the efforts of all workers, no matter how high or low their station, pool together in a richness that improves the quality of life for all.

I will disagree with his interpretation of the history of Bill C-257, though. He knows very well that most members in the House were in favour of the principle of the bill, but testimony at committee suggested that it was unworkable in the form it was in. In order to support the principle of the bill and get around the unworkability, the Liberal critic at committee presented a series of amendments. Unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order as being beyond the scope of the bill and therefore Liberal members had to vote against the bill when it came back to the House.

However, as proof of our commitment to the principle of Bill C-257, the Liberal member for Davenport tabled another bill the next day with the same principle, but with a more solid underpinning of detail that would make the bill workable, and therefore we would achieve the principle desired.

The member also said that on EI reform it makes no difference whether the government is Liberal or Conservative. I am not sure where he was last night, but just last evening we voted on a private member's bill put forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, an NDP member, and he could have seen the split in the House on that. The Liberals all voted in favour and the Conservatives voted against, so his rolling together of the two parties in his description was proven untrue only last night.

In his questions earlier in this debate, the member raised the possibility of amendments at report stage, and he asked me whether my party would consider them, but I did not hear any suggestions in his speech. At this time I would like to ask him if he is planning to present amendments at report stage. If so, would he like to describe one or two of them?