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.

Bill C-257—Canada Labour Code

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I support the speech by the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, and particularly his argument regarding the immigration bill.

I will not repeat some of those arguments. It seems to me that really there are two issues that I do want to address and that you should take into account in making your decision on whether the amendments to Bill C-257 are admissible or not.

The first one is the general principle of what is within in the principle and scope of legislation. We debate that a lot in committee and occasionally in the House. The second issue that I believe you need to take into account is really the authority of the committee to control its own process. I would remind you of the number of times that you have indicated in the House how strongly you feel about the right of the committee to control its own process. I think this is an issue that has to be taken into account here.

Let me go back, though, to the primary point about whether these amendments are admissible or are outside the principle and scope of the amendments contained in Bill C-257. Again, in support of the arguments you have heard from the member of the Liberal Party and now from the House leader of the Bloc, I do not see these amendments doing anything in the way of changing the principle and scope. When one looks at them in a holistic way, they simply are clarifying what is the intention of the author of the bill, which is to make it very clear that in the amendments with regard to what we always call anti-scab conduct and anti-scab legislation, the intent is to simply clarify when this legislation is to be used.

In effect, the amendments are saying that when it comes to essential services, whether it is the Canada Labour Relations Board and I suppose even potentially the House with back to work legislation, we would conduct ourselves as if essential services were outside the scope of these amendments contained in Bill C-257. The amendments to Bill C-257 really just address that point. That is what they are about. It is simply a mechanism to clarify. We are certainly not changing the principle.

That is very clear, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the fact that the author of the bill was quite prepared to accept these amendments. They are not contrary to the principle. The real issue is whether they are outside the scope. Again, this is simply carrying out the intent of the author of the bill and nothing more.

With regard to the second issue of the right and responsibility of the committee to control its own process, as you have heard, all of the opposition parties supported these amendments and did so by having to overturn the ruling of the chair. They did that not out of any partisan basis or out of spite. They did it because there was an honest difference of opinion in how these amendments should be interpreted.

The chair of that committee saw them as being beyond the scope and ruled accordingly. The significant majority of the committee said no, this is simply about clarifying, and it is quite within both the principle and the scope of the bill, and all we are doing is clarifying what we intend these sections to do, and nothing more. On that basis, because of that difference of opinion, the majority on the committee, arguing and maintaining the position that it was simply clarifying, overturned the chair's ruling and proceeded to make those amendments and send the bill back to the House.

I have read the submissions made by the House leader for the government. I understood the arguments, which were similar to the arguments made at committee, but they are missing the essential point. We are not making changes to the Canada Labour Relations Act and Labour Code. We are simply clarifying what Bill C-257 is intended to do, nothing more than that.

Although the points were well made by the House leader for the government, the government is in fact missing that essential point of these amendments simply being clarification. On that basis, they are not beyond the principle and they are not beyond the scope of the legislation originally proposed in Bill C-257. They are well within the authority of the committee to make that decision, to make that interpretation and to make that decision to overrule the chair.

I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that you should honour that decision by the committee and allow these amendments to proceed.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I have more information to add to the arguments that I presented on Bill C-257 and the admissibility of the amendments that affect this bill.

During the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Thursday, February 15, the chair ruled on the admissibility of two amendments, and despite contrary opinions from the witnesses and the committee clerk, he nonetheless ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill.

The purpose of the amendments is essentially to include in the anti-scab legislation the concept of essential services for the maintenance of activities in labour disputes in clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the bill to amend section 94 of the Canada Labour Code.

The committee chair's ruling was overturned since three of the opposition parties, forming the majority in committee, felt that this concept was not beyond the scope of the bill.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons brought this up again in a point of order and went a step further in his argument than the chair of the committee did. He said that the three amendments proposed in committee were inadmissible.

Our current situation is rather unusual. Precedents concerning the admissibility of amendments proposed in committee are rare in this House. However, we note that, in 1992, Mr. Speaker Fraser faced a similar situation. The context was this: during a committee review of Bill C-54 concerning farm products marketing agencies, the committee chair ruled that three amendments were inadmissible, because two of them sought to amend the incorporating act, and the third amendment went beyond the scope of the bill. As in the current situation, the committee chair's ruling was reversed. Regarding the constraints imposed on the amendment process in committee, Mr. Speaker Fraser said:

It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it 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 this may be.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a clear example:

In some cases, this last cardinal rule is graphically clear. For instance, if a committee is examining a Criminal Code bill dealing with lotteries, a member cannot reach back to the parent act to propose amendments to those sections dealing with firearms. In certain other cases, this principle is more difficult to explain.

Based on this ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser, it is quite simple to demonstrate to the House that the amendments proposed to Bill C-257 concerning the provision of essential services in the event of a labour dispute do not go beyond the scope of Bill C-257.

Moreover, during this session, you yourself ruled on the admissibility of committee amendments to Bill C-14. These amendments sought to include an appeal process in the Citizenship Act (adoption). At that time, you reversed the decision of the committee chair. Your ruling was completely justified, because including an appeal process in a bill designed to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring that they be permanent residents was quite logical and, as in the case before us today, did not go beyond the scope of the bill. I want to quote your decision, which was very wise:

Having reviewed the bill as reported to the House, I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. In the view of the Chair then, the amendment is admissible in that respect.

The purpose of Bill C-257 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 bill also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence. In this particular case and in the original version of clause 2.3, which set out some exceptions for protection of property, specifically in cases of labour disputes, I do not see how stipulating situations where the new conditions should be relaxed could be considered going beyond the scope of the bill. These are additional clarifications, exactly as you ruled in the case I mentioned previously.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons initially said that we could not amend Bill C-257 by making reference to section 87.4, claiming that this section was not in the original bill. This is not true. In the original bill, we referred to section 87.4 in clause 2.1. I suggest that he reread the original bill. The argument by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons therefore simply does not hold up, because it is based on a falsehood.

In fact, this first amendment clarifies how section 87.4 is affected. Since the initial bill mentions subsection 94(2.1) and section 87.4 of the Code, this amendment merely clarifies how these two provisions relate to one another. It is very easy to understand.

Let us now move on to the clauses that posed problems in committee.

Bill C-257 amends certain sections of the Canada Labour Code, including section 87.6, subsection 94(2) and section 100. A reference to section 87.4 also appears in clause 2.1, as I was saying earlier.

Bill C-257 amends subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code to include additional prohibitions against employers using replacement workers during labour disputes.

By adding a reference to section 87.4 of the Code—the section that covers the maintenance of activities during a strike or lockout—we are specifying that maintaining certain activities is sometimes essential to public health and safety, even during serious labour conflicts.

Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code is known as the essential services section. Integrating this concept illustrates that we recognize the risks a labour conflict may entail.

In fact, as I was saying yesterday, the amendments introduced in committee do not go beyond the scope of the bill. On the contrary, they reduce its impact and have the same effect on the replacement workers bill as the board of referees has on the Immigration Act, a situation you considered acceptable.

This provides further clarification. To say that it is impossible to introduce amendments that limit the application of a bill, that define and clarify it, would be to say that all committee work is totally useless because it cannot change the application of any bill being studied anyway.

The main argument is, I repeat: how can anyone claim that these amendments go beyond the scope of a bill when the purpose of these amendments is, in fact, to limit its scope? These amendments fall within the framework of the bill; they do not allow the boundaries of the bill to be overstepped. All these amendments do is limit the application of this law.

In my opinion, given these additional arguments and the wisdom you showed in the decision I quoted earlier, Bill C-14, if you apply the same principles and the same logic, which is always unshakeable in your case, Mr. Speaker, you will find you must tell the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to redo his homework.

Bill C-257--Canada Labour Code

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the member, to the House leader and also you, as you make your ruling, that all the amendments made at the committee were friendly and appropriate. That is, they were consistent with the intent and the objectives of Bill C-257.

They would bring further precision to the manner in which the prohibition against replacement workers would be implemented and administered. These amendments do not negate the purpose, objectives nor substance of a bill. They ought to be accepted as part of the process by which bills are defined in committee.

The first amendment, which is introduced the phrase “Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout”, is consistent with the existing provisions of the code, which establish that there must be satisfactory resolution of all issues under section 87.4 before a strike or lockout begins. In fact, the CIRB, on many occasions, has interpreted section 87.4 to mean essential services. Therefore, it is not beyond the scope of the bill, nor beyond the scope of this section.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 once again are consistent with the objectives of the bill and simply seek to clarify the intent of the bill in terms of avoided any unintended effects. Amendment No. 4, once again, deals with the fine tuning of the objectives and intents of the bill.

All these amendments are within the principle and purpose of the bill. I would ask in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that you clearly look at them. I believe you would agree with me that it was within the intent of the bill and the principles and purposes that these amendments were made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to rise at this point to seek a ruling on whether two amendments to Bill C-257 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are in order.

Bill C-257 was reported from committee on February 21 with amendments. I submit that three of these amendments are out of order, namely, the committee amendments to the bill's proposed new subsections 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 of section 94 of the code.

These amendments are out of order because they are beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257 for two reasons. These amendments now seek to indirectly amend the application of section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, a section requiring the maintenance of services where interruption would cause immediate danger to health and safety, which is a provision that is not originally included as part of Bill C-257. In so doing, they would also dramatically expand and alter the effect of section 87.4 introducing the much broader concept of essential services.

Not only is this beyond the original content of Bill C-257, it is arguably contrary to its original purpose. These amendments do not relate to the purpose of section 94 of the Canada Labour Code, the original purpose of that section being to proscribe unfair practices.

In terms of subsection 2.1, the amendment to subsection 2.1 of section 94 of the code is out of order because it is beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257.

This amendment attempts to make the bill “subject to section 87.4” of the Canada Labour Code, which is a section, as I said, dealing narrowly with imminent danger to life and health in the event of a strike. Because section 87.4 is not referred to elsewhere in this bill, this is clearly a provision that attempts to reach back to this section. I therefore submit that the amendment is out of order.

The amendment to subsection 2.3 of section 94 of the code is out of order because it is beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257. That was the ruling of the chair of the committee on February 15 when this amendment was first put forward by the member for Davenport. However, this decision was overruled by the committee, which then adopted the amendment. Let me take a moment to explain why this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill.

Section 94 of the Canada Labour Code prohibits employers and unions from using unfair labour practices. This section would be changed under Bill C-257 by prohibiting replacement workers during a strike or lockout, and adding powers for the minister to investigate compliance.

The committee chair ruled that the amendment to subsection 2.3 was out of order because it adds the new concept of “essential” services to section 94 of the Canada Labour Code, which is not relevant to that section.

In order to understand the context of the committee's decision, it is important to note that on February 14 the member for Davenport proposed an amendment to section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code which sought to ensure the continuation of essential services in a strike given the ban on replacement workers proposed by Bill C-257. The chair ruled that amendment out of order because section 87.4 was not opened up in Bill C-257 as originally introduced.

Section 87.4 of the code addresses the obligations of employers, unions and employees to maintain certain activities during a strike or lockout. It does not use the word “essential” to describe these activities. Rather, it allows the Canada Industrial Relations Board to designate which activities, services and operations must be maintained in order to prevent an “immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

After the committee chair ruled on February 14 that amending section 87.4 was out of order, the member for Davenport moved an amendment on February 15 to add a new subsection 2.3 in section 94 of the Canada Labour Code to set out essential services which must be continued during a strike. However, section 94 of the code does not deal with the continuation of services in any way but simply lists unfair labour practices for employers and unions.

Adding the new concept of essential services in section 94 of the Canada Labour Code could affect the operation of section 87.4 by the back door by altering the way the Canada Industrial Relations Board would interpret section 87.4.

As this amendment also attempts to broaden the role of the board, this amendment both reaches back and broadens the scope of Bill C-257. It is therefore out of order on both counts. What is more, this new concept of essential services is not a defined term either in the previous statute or in the amendment. No definition is offered.

The amendment to subsection 2.4 of section 94 of the code is also beyond the scope and purpose of Bill C-257. The committee chair also ruled on February 15 that the amendment to subsection 2.4 was out of order. However, again the committee overturned the chair's ruling and adopted this provision. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code would add new powers to the Canada Industrial Relations Board regarding essential services during a strike or lockout. However, as noted earlier, section 94 deals with unfair labour practices, not the powers of the board for essential services. Therefore, the amendment to the proposed new subsection 2.4 significantly alters the nature of section 94.

I would also note that because section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code provides authority for the Canada Industrial Relations Board to maintain services during a strike or lockout, the new subsection 2.4 would affect section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code in two ways. First, it would provide the board with new powers to amend any agreement and it would supercede any decisions the board may take under this section. Second, because it introduces the new concept of essential services, it would undoubtedly change the interpretation of the board's existing powers for carrying out its activities under section 87.4.

I believe the committee chair's ruling was correct. Subsection 2.4 adds a new purpose to section 94 of the code and it is not relevant to section 94. It is not in the jurisdiction of the committee or the House to alter, by amendment, a private member's bill so an entirely new purpose is introduced. Therefore, the amendment is out of order and should be removed from Bill C-257.

I note that Marleau and Montpetit specify, at page 654, that an amendment must relate to the original matter of the bill. It states:

—it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or the clause under consideration. For a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Marleau and Montpetit also state that amendments must be within the principle and scope of the bill.

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

To sum it up, just as it is out of order to amend section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code because this section is not afforded by the original Bill C-257, it is also out of order to amend the same section through the amendment's indirect effect.

Subsections 2.3 and 2.4 are out of order because they do not relate to the original subject matter of Bill C-257 as introduced, and because they introduce new issues which were not part of Bill C-257 as originally introduced. The amended subsections 2.3 and 2.4 are therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-257 and should be removed from the bill.

Persons with Disabilities

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I am counting on you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you very much. That will allow me to propose an amendment.

Recently, in 2004, the Canadian government wanted to have even greater control over managing the file concerning persons with a disability, in relation to the provincial jurisdiction and Quebec's jurisdiction.

At that time the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to the plans for reforming the system, an amendment to ensure that the Canadian government would respect provincial jurisdictions. The government of the day rejected the motion in order to exercise even greater control over this area of provincial jurisdiction.

In my proposal, I maintain that we, as Quebeckers, find it quite appalling that every time the Canadian government interferes in aspects of those jurisdictions that should belong to the provinces and to Quebec, it fails in its duty to correctly assume this responsibility.

As I stand and speak here today, an election has just been called in Quebec. Every time there is an election, this issue of jurisdictions enters into the debate: our ability to be able to exercise our powers, to manage our own holdings and, of course, the money we send here to Ottawa, and the assurance that it will be used as it should be.

Employment insurance is one example. To date, the government has diverted more than $50 billion from employment insurance. At least a quarter of this amount belongs to Quebec.

Today, in ridings throughout Quebec, including my own, activists and other members of the public are meeting to discuss how to reopen this political debate during the election campaign, not just to focus attention on this issue, but to see how Quebeckers can eventually regain control over their own destiny. I want to commend the people who have already begun the debate.

In my opinion, it is important to point out to the hon. members of this House that we in the Bloc Québécois have always been open about our intentions, our goals and our vision of the future. Today, when we look at the issue of persons with disabilities, the federal government's responsibility for these persons, the way it has handled this issue and the government's negligent attitude toward monitoring support for persons with disabilities, we are sorely disappointed.

This study will also have to look at the issue of areas of jurisdiction.

The member for Kitchener Centre has called on us to examine all aspects of the treatment of the disabled. She would entrust this task to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

This is a matter that we must not take lightly and we need to take our time to study it correctly. At this time, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is studying several bills. We have just completed a review, after recommendations, of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). We have before us Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. This government bill deals with the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. We also have two bills pertaining to employment insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that I have two minutes left. All these bills will require a great deal of time to study.

If we want to do our job with regard to the motion before us, the following amendment should be made. I move:

That motion M-243 be amended by replacing “no later than May 2007” with “no later than November 30, 2007”.

I believe I require the consent of the member who tabled the motion, thus the member for Kitchener Centre, to amend the motion. She could second it, if she consents.

Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities regarding Bill C-257.

Opposition Motion--National Anti-poverty Strategy

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for the analysis and conclusions she has brought to this debate. I remember how passionately she debated Bill C-257, which will soon come up for third reading in the House of Commons. It, too, is intended to provide better tools to those members of our society who are the least organized.

My question for my colleague is this: no single measure can combat poverty. As we all know, over the years, the Canadian government, especially the previous Liberal government, has destroyed the social safety net that protected many of the most vulnerable members of our society.

I would like my colleague to comment on an approach that gives the Canadian government additional tools and responsibilities, even though it failed to fulfill its responsibilities in the past. Would it not make more sense to transfer the money being held here in Ottawa to the provinces, which are responsible for this matter?

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and thank him for raising the debate on poverty here in the House today. It has been quite some time since we have discussed this issue as seriously as this here in the House. The premises set out by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie are good, and he has accurately identified the causes, effects and consequences of poverty in Canada and Quebec.

I would also like to remind the House that, in 1990, a motion was unanimously adopted right here in this House, promising to eliminate child poverty within 10 years. That was in 1990 and the promise was supposed to be fulfilled by the year 2000. Yet, now, in 2007, the situation is even more appalling than it was before.

Once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for raising this debate on poverty and the working conditions I mentioned. As I said, the NDP premises are good. I believe they identified the causes correctly and gave a good analysis. The member for Sault Ste. Marie gave an excellent analysis. He is right: those least well off and most vulnerable are left to fend for themselves, especially by this Conservative government, this right-wing government whose main ideology is based on every man for himself and the law of the jungle.

We saw this earlier from the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, whose analyses were based not on compassion or empathy, but rather on a cold, economic analysis. Furthermore, I must add, this is not just a misstep by the government. It believes in this ideology. It feels compassion for the oil companies in Alberta. Indeed, we can see and feel that.

This government says it is getting things done. Of course it is. It reduced the GST by 1%, but a person needs to have money in order to buy things. This may be true for low income workers and students who want to succeed, as the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont was saying. It is true we have to give them a chance. Nonetheless, there are some people who did not get a chance at all and we have to help them. There are people who are unable to work—those who are disabled, those who are illiterate, seniors, young families, the homeless—who need this helping hand.

It is not good enough to tell these people that the oil companies in Alberta will get millions of dollars, but they can have the scraps. We must truly help other categories of people who are living below the poverty line. I am talking about the current Conservative government, but the Liberal government was no better. It made drastic cuts, to employment insurance in particular. It totally changed the program and turned it into a tax in disguise instead of making it a program to help the unemployed.

The Conservative government is hawkish. It is investing billions of dollars in war equipment and military expenses and cutting subsidies to the least fortunate. I will give some examples. This government bases its ideology on repressing people instead of helping them or providing funding for prevention. It is the sheriff of Nottingham instead of Robin Hood.

This government does not have the same values as Quebeckers. In Quebec we have developed a strategy to combat poverty, to provide a social safety net to help the less fortunate. We have compassion, empathy and sympathy. We understand the distress and anxiety of people living below the poverty line. We are trying to help them in every way possible to improve their situation, with a stronger economy, but we are also trying to help people who cannot make it on their own.

The Bloc staunchly defends the interests of the unemployed, older workers, women, minority groups and all Quebeckers, while the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has abolished or limited the programs designed specifically for low income earners.

The Bloc Québécois acknowledges the importance of a national anti-poverty strategy. When we use the word “national”, we are referring to the nation of Quebec. Thus, we recognize the strategy of the Quebec nation. The responsibility of the federal government is to provide adequate and temporary financial support—through transfers to Quebec—for the work of the governments, the provinces and Quebec in the fight against poverty.

The Bloc Québécois feels that, far from providing support, a pan-Canadian strategy established by the federal government duplicates what is being done in Quebec and in certain provinces.

The Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the minimum wage should not be the only aspect considered. There are other avenues used by the Quebec government—$7 child care, benefits for low-income families, the lowest possible tuition fees—that are achieving real results in the fight against poverty.

As for the minimum wage, the Bloc Québécois would prefer that the federal government take some of the measures that for too long it has refused to implement, such as improving the EI program, financing the older worker support program, using the huge CMHC surpluses to finance the construction of affordable housing, and restoring funding for women's and literacy groups.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois is asking the federal government to immediately take measures to assist aboriginal peoples who are truly living in poverty. Poverty is found in society but it is also found at work. Sometimes our work is not enough to lift us out of poverty.

That is why the Bloc Québécois takes workers' needs into account. For example, we have introduced—and will reintroduce—a bill on preventive withdrawal in order to avoid having two categories of female workers in Quebec. Some are entitled to only five months at 55% of their gross salary to withdraw from an unhealthy work environment and experience the joys of pregnancy and a new baby. Other female workers in Quebec benefit from a real preventive withdrawal program that allows women working in an environment that is not good for their pregnancy to leave the work environment with 90% of their net salary. That is the sort of program that should also be put in place for workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.

This government should have introduced another program. It is an NDP initiative that was reintroduced by the Liberal government and should have been brought in by the Conservative government last December. I am talking about Bill C-55, which sought to establish a wage earner protection program in case of bankruptcy. It is time this Conservative government reintroduced this bill in the House so that we can quickly adopt this protection for wage earners when the company where they work goes bankrupt.

Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), would also help workers. Workers are currently on strike at CN. The company is spending more time challenging the legality of the strike, hiring American scabs, creating dissent among the new workers by hiring retirees and using all sorts of stalling tactics than actually sitting down with the unions to negotiate proper, balanced conditions. Meanwhile, the scabs are getting involved in a dispute that has nothing to do with them. This is unacceptable, and it is time this House adopted the anti-scab bill.

As for the actual minimum wage, section 178 of the Canada Labour Code reads as follows: “—not less than the minimum hourly rate fixed, from time to time, by or under an Act of the legislature of the province where the employee is usually employed—”. Currently, the province, Quebec, determines the minimum wage. The Bloc Québécois feels that this is as it should be. We see no reason to change this, no reason to give the federal government another opportunity to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Quebec sets the minimum wage, and does a good job of it too. If there is any disagreement, we in Quebec discuss it with various unions, the FTQ, the CSN, social groups and the government. Together, we decide what the minimum wage should be. That way, we avoid creating two classes of workers—those who earn $8 an hour under the Quebec Labour Code and those who earn more or less than that under the Canada Labour Code.

That way, there is no problem. Minimum wage is the same for everyone.

In addition to creating two classes of workers, unfortunately, not many people would benefit from this legislation. We know that 267,000 workers in Canada are covered under the Canada Labour Code and only 1% of them—18,000 people—would be affected by the NDP's measure. Yes, it would help some people, but I think this work needs to be done on a provincial level.

As for poverty in society, let us talk about employment insurance. If this government wants to do something, it must fix the employment insurance program, stop using it as a hidden tax and return the $40 billion to the workers.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made 28 recommendations. All the government has to do is follow them. That way, we will be able to say that the government is really doing something to fight poverty.

I would also like to talk about the program for older worker adjustment, POWA. More and more, older workers are feeling POWA-less, if you will excuse the awful pun. The situation is getting worse and worse for older workers. We know that globalization is causing more and more workers to lose their jobs because more and more manufacturers are closing their doors.

Older workers, who sometimes have difficulty finding new jobs, need a bridge between when their company goes bankrupt, about when they are 55 or older, and when they begin receiving their Canada pension or Quebec pension.

I would also like to talk about child care. What the government did with respect to child care is an absolute scandal. At the federal level, there is a child care expense deduction. Canadians who pay the full cost benefit greatly. Conversely, since 200,000 children in Quebec attend day care centres at only one fifth of the cost—$7 a day—parents in Quebec can only receive one fifth of the federal tax credit.

Given its refusal to adjust its taxation for the $7-a-day child care program in Quebec, the federal government has thereby taken nearly $1.5 billion from parents since 1998. This amount, taken away from parents in Quebec, is compensated by the Government of Quebec, since it assumes 80% of the cost of affordable child care. When it comes to child care, Quebec pays and Ottawa pockets the money. Year after year, the federal government steals $250 million from parents in Quebec, or, on average, $1,316 per child. That is more than the $1,200, which of course is taxable, that the government proposed to give them in its last budget. This works out to a net loss of $116 per child per family. The Conservative government says it wants to give parents the freedom to choose.

The first thing to be done is to stop penalizing parents in Quebec for having chosen to set up an affordable child care system. The federal government's fiscal policies must stop penalizing Quebec for having created a child care program that is unique in North America. Furthermore, the OECD calls it the best program in Canada and one of the best in the world.

For years the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the federal government to transfer to the Government of Quebec the money it is saving on the backs of Quebec families. This transfer would allow the Government of Quebec to invest in its family policy. When the federal government includes child care funding as part of resolving the fiscal imbalance, as the Minister of Industry promised to do in February 2006, it should also take into account the punitive effects of its tax system on Quebec parents. Resolving the fiscal imbalance should be comprehensive; but to be fair, it should not be uniform.

Let us now look at another aspect: the guaranteed income supplement for older persons. This is another Liberal government scandal and the Conservative government is heading down the same path.

In 2001, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities identified, remarked and underscored that 68,000 people in Quebec were not receiving their guaranteed income supplement. The least fortunate in society receive a minimum and minimal pension. The federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—through its management of this program, is preventing tens of thousands of people from receiving the guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled. It is a real scandal.

The Bloc Québécois—thanks to our former member for Mauricie—launched a major campaign throughout Quebec to try to reach the least fortunate, the isolated, the sick, people who are unable to read or who do not speak either of the two official languages.

These are the most vulnerable individuals in our society. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, today they receive the guaranteed income supplement of $6,600.

This Conservative government should pay them what they are owed, because it used these delaying tactics to avoid paying them earlier.

If this Conservative government wants to do something for the most disadvantaged, it should pay the retroactivity to seniors who need this guaranteed income supplement, because the government owes it to them.

As you are rising, Mr. Speaker, I assume I have little time left. However, I have yet to speak of social housing.

Textile and Clothing Industry

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about job losses in any manufacturing sector in our country. We have begun the long trek back to get the economy rolling again, with tax cuts and job creation programs about which the Liberals forgot.

All the Liberals want to talk about is Kyoto. They do not even want to mention Bill C-257, which would exonerate the programs that we are trying to put in place.

Canada Labour Code

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain again to this House that the federal government has responsibility for sectors that are vital to the smooth running of the country: rail, marine and air transportation and telecommunications.

We also have other services, and hon. members should know that Bill C-257 would no longer allow the use of replacement workers. Any subgroup within any one of these sectors could completely paralyze the country's economy.

Statements by Members

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, during statements by members, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert said that the 911 service is not linked in any way to federal government jurisdiction.

We know that currently in Parliament, in the standing committee in particular, we are considering Bill C-257, commonly referred to as the anti-scab bill.

This bill is extremely important, since it would destroy the balance with respect to Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the use of replacement workers. If that is done, it should not be done with the intention of undermining union representation.

Yesterday, in the standing committee, I also reminded the committee members that the federal government is involved in vital jurisdictions in Canada, among others, in transportation: air transport, rail transport, sea transport, and also in matters of banking and telecommunications. As far as telecommunications are concerned, this covers all the services offered throughout the—

Canada Labour Code

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

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

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07

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

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

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

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