Bill C-415 (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. It extends the obligation to maintain essential services.
The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

Replacement Workers

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to this motion.

Today the House is debating a motion tabled by my hon. colleague, proposing to make significant changes to key sections of the Canada Labour Code. This motion, if passed, will ban the right of federal employers to use replacement workers during a labour stoppage.

These proposed measures should not be treated lightly. This motion is the most recent of a series of attempts by some members of the House to try to bring wholesale changes to federal labour law in Canada without consultation or compromise.

Let me be clear. We remain firmly opposed to the motion, just as we have been opposed to similar legislation or legislative efforts introduced previously in the House. Our position is clear. We do not support the proposed amendments in Motion No. 294, and there are four compelling reasons why.

First, our modernized Canada Labour Code works well. It provides adequate protection to employees involved in a legal work stoppage.

Second, the motion, if passed, will disrupt the balance that was achieved when the Canada Labour Code was modernized back in 1999. It will leave federal employers unable to operate at minimal levels during a strike or lockout. This in turn could result in productivity losses to our national economy at a time when Canadians can least afford it.

Third, it would make labour relations more adversarial in the country. Energies and resources should be focused on solving labour relation issues in a peaceful manner. This is a situation that no one can afford to have happen during times of economic uncertainty both in Canada and around the world.

Fourth, we do not see any compelling evidence to support the argument that a ban on the use of replacement workers would reduce the number or duration of work stoppages and benefit workers in a federal jurisdiction.

As I mentioned earlier, the motion is the latest in a series of similar legislative efforts. It is worth taking a moment to take note of that fact, because they share some of the common characteristics and deficiencies of previous legislative efforts over the last number of years.

Over the past two decades, the House had debated numerous private members' bills on the matter of replacement workers in the federal domain.

First, there was Bill C-201, tabled in April of 1989. Next, there was Bill C-317, tabled in June of 1995. There were two more attempts between 2002 and 2005 in the form of Bill C-328 and Bill C-263, the latter of which was defeated after second reading. Next, there was Bill C-257, tabled in May of 2006. It was also defeated on third reading. Finally, there was the predecessor to the motion before us today, which was Bill C-415. It died on the order paper at the dissolution of Parliament in September of 2008.

All these bills were defeated because a majority of members of the House recognized that what each bill proposed would be ineffective and would have negative effects on labour relations and on the economic health of Canada.

A common characteristic shared by some of the more recent legislative efforts is that they do not fully consider just how vital it is that a middle ground be maintained between unions and employers on the matter of replacement workers. They overlook what was accomplished when the Canada Labour Code was modernized in 1999. The existing replacement worker provision in section 94(2.1) of the Labour Code was the product of much consultation with stakeholders. It also provided an ever important characteristic, one that is the backbone of this country, and that is compromise.

Existing provisions do permit employers to at least try to carry on basic operations during work stoppages. However, it also protects the union's right to strike and its bargaining authority. The balance would have been lost if any of these private member's bills had been passed by the House to eventually become law.

Motion No. 294 before this House today is no different in terms of the disruption that it would pose to labour relations and the economic health of our nation. As with the private member's bills that have preceded it, this motion stands in complete opposition to the well-established facts about replacement worker legislation.

I will review these key facts in the House right now.

First, legislation of that nature is rare in Canada. Only two provinces have legislation that restricts the right of employers to use the services of replacement workers during work stoppages. Quebec implemented its legislation in 1977. In 1993, British Columbia passed its own regulations. Ontario had enacted similar provisions in 1993 but they were repealed in 1995.

That leads me to my second point of fact. After nearly two decades of experience with this kind of legislation in Quebec and in British Columbia, the results are not encouraging for Canadian workers. Statistical data analysis provided by the labour program suggests both of these provinces continue to experience work stoppages of long duration and the length of their work stoppages is not that much different from other jurisdictions in Canada that do not have the replacement worker legislation.

For instance, in the period from 2005 to 2007, the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 43.8 days compared to 43.6 days in Ontario and 41 days in the federal jurisdiction. This data supports independent findings which maintain that statutory prohibitions on the use of replacement workers are not necessarily effective in reducing the duration of a work stoppage.

That takes me to the third key fact that I want to share with the House this evening. Since the 1980s, over 90% of disputes in federal jurisdiction have been settled without a work stoppage, and that is often with the assistance of federal mediators and officers. In the majority of cases, employers do not employ external replacement workers to keep their operations functioning. Instead, they reassign management and other non-bargaining unit personnel.

What does Motion No. 294 seek to accomplish? In light of the facts that I have shared with the House, it is unclear what the drafters of Motion No. 294 are seeking to accomplish with this latest in a series of legislative attempts to drastically revise the Canada Labour Code, the outcome of which would essentially outlaw any use of replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction. It cannot be to bring about balance and fairness to labour relations in Canada. The proposed amendments would undo what has been achieved over the past decade. It cannot be a solution to help reduce the number of work stoppages. The experiences in the two provinces with anti-replacement worker legislation show us that they continue to struggle with lengthy work stoppages. It cannot be a solution that would help boost Canada's ability in today's competitive environment.

The proposed amendments call for changes that would bring instability and uncertainty to Canadian labour relations and would do so in the midst of significant global economic difficulties.

The facts and the risks posed by anti-replacement worker legislation are just as clear today as they were in the past. As with each previous legislative attempt introduced in this House, this motion calls for amendments that would ultimately harm workers and undermine the labour peace that both sides have enjoyed for years.

For those reasons, I remain firmly opposed to this motion.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is for Mr. Lazar or Mr. Beatty.

Mr. Lazar, I heard your description of the forest industry. In Quebec, my province, there are a lot of forest product companies that come under the federal Labour Code. Transportation, railways, air transport, telephone services and even, in some cases, water transportation such as barges and ships are regulated under the Canadian Labour Code.

You have kept saying this morning that our dollar is too strong, that it rose too fast and that this has caused all sorts or problems.

What do you think of the fact, Mr. Lazar, that the Liberal Party tabled a bill called Bill C-415, An Act amending the Canadian Labour Code (Replacement workers)? If the high dollar causes you a problem, imagine what would happen if you had a strike on your hands and were unable to do anything about it.

I would like to hear your opinion. People talk about partisanship. But you are here representing employers, and these employers obviously have employees. Are we not erecting barriers for businesses? I cannot put this question to Mr. Nantais since his company is entirely unionized. But you may still have some room to move, an opening. But his industry is completely unionized.

So I would like to know your opinion and that of Mr. Beatty on this subject.

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni. There will be seven minutes left when Bill C-415 returns.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating the contents of Bill C-415, legislation that would bar the ability of employers governed by federal regulation to use replacement workers during a labour stoppage.

Earlier this year we debated a similar legislative effort, Bill C-257, which sought to achieve the same goal. I cannot help but think of Yogi Berra's famous line, “It's déjà vu all over again”.

With Bill C-257, I think there have been 11 previous attempts, and this would be the 12th attempt, to try to move the yardstick in this labour negotiation effort. The previous 11 attempts have all been defeated in Parliament.

There are some serious shortcomings to Bill C-415. It is really no different from its predecessor, both in substance and in the threat it poses to the good health of Canada's economy and to labour relations. Both the current and previous bills call for an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. They contain identical summary paragraphs. Despite assurances by supporters of the bill, I see nothing in what has been proposed that could be considered an improvement on what we debated earlier this year, a bill which we opposed vigorously and which was defeated in Parliament.

Drafters of this bill have added a provision that would have us believe the issue of essential services has been resolved. However, it is a very complicated issue when we deal with essential services. We are talking about services in the transportation sector, particularly, interprovincial transportation, communications, banking and emergency services that are federally regulated.

However, would Bill C-415 define what is meant by “essential workers”? My answer is it would not.

Bill C-415 would not create a new category of essential services. Nor would it designate a group of workers to perform the essential work. There would be no material change at all to the existing requirements in the Canada Labour Code to maintain services or activities that are necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or the health of the public. In other words, the bill would not make any new services essential.

Under the current provision on essential services, questions have to be answered by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when the parties cannot agree on what services have to be maintained. The board is then required to make a determination on what is essential to ensure the health and safety of the public.

I will wrap up with this statement. It took the board seven years to make that determination with respect to a case involving NAV CANADA and its unions.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that Bill C-415 addresses is a very complex and difficult one. As we have heard across the House today, it is fraught with different viewpoints and challenges.

I think all of us here would say that we are very supportive of the collective bargaining process. We want to make sure workers' rights are protected. We want to make sure that people have freedom of association. We clearly want to make sure that workers are not abused in the manner as happened in British Columbia in some cases, and about which my colleague spoke. On the other hand we have a responsibility as legislators to make sure that things are not done that would harm society in general, and I include the workers who would be affected by the bill.

At the heart of this issue is a balance one wants to strike. On the one hand there are the rights of the workers to ensure that their concerns are dealt with effectively, that an employer cannot use the situation to be abusive against the workers. On the other hand we have to ensure that essential services are protected in our society. If they are not, if those services fall apart, it could damage everybody. Those services form the spine of our country.

This bill affects federally regulated services, such as transportation, banking, air transportation and telecommunications. Imagine if any of those services were affected. For example, if baggage handlers were to go on strike, it would grind the whole air transportation system across the country to a halt. It happened in trucking. Imagine if it happened in telecommunications. Imagine what would happen with respect to hospital services and access to emergency services. Those would all fall apart.

It is interesting that there are two definitions. Emergency services have been defined as the operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public. That is how essential services were termed in the previous bill to this one, Bill C-257. It is a definition that the NDP likes very well.

I would submit that definition is far too narrow and would not deal with true essential services. They ought to be defined in the following way, and I will take a leaf out of the Quebec labour code, section 111.17. The Quebec labour code very clearly states that essential services are “a service to which the public is entitled”.

The distinction may seem subtle, but it is very important. Imagine that someone was working in a union dealing with a very difficult labour negotiation with an employer involved in banking, telecommunications, trucking or air transportation. If the service ground to a halt, what would happen to those federally regulated employees who could not receive their cheques? What would happen if there was a family emergency and they could not travel? What would happen if the company could not move the goods and services that are required for our country to continue to be effective economically?

All workers would be affected negatively, including the ones who this pieces of legislation is supposed to address. That is the conundrum we have in the House. How do we ensure that we protect workers while ensuring that those same workers are protected in terms of their health, welfare, safety and economy? If people cannot bank, travel or use telecommunications, it means that everybody in our country is hurt, including the people who are directly affected by the so-called labour strike.

It is important for the workers who are listening to this debate to understand the distinction. Nobody in the House is against them. All of us want to ensure that we are able to serve them and to make sure that workers' concerns and rights are addressed effectively and in a timely fashion and that no employer can use the power of a legal structure against the workers.

I remember in my province when the hospital employee unions were on strike. I was on the picket line. I was working with the people on the picket line and their union representatives to liaise with our provincial government, to come up with solutions that would work well for the workers who were on strike, workers who were working in the hospitals treating patients so that the situation would be resolved quickly and effectively.

Maybe one of the solutions is binding final offer arbitration. That could be incorporated.

Another group that needs to be spoken for is the RCMP. The RCMP, understandably, cannot form a union, but its members also do not have the power as a group to articulate concerns for their collective. RCMP members work day in and day out in the service of our country, as all police forces do across the country. They give their lives sometimes for us and they do it with courage and distinction across our nation. They have concerns also, but the men and women in the RCMP who serve us cannot articulate those concerns in a way that is productive.

In looking at this bill, maybe we could look at all workers, including RCMP officers and federally regulated employers, who form part of the spine of our nation. We should come up with solutions that will enable all workers to have their concerns addressed in a timely and effective fashion.

With respect to the Telus workers, clearly what some of them were subjected to was dead wrong and should never be allowed in our country. I am talking of the use of workers from the United States and the types of abuses that took place against workers on the picket lines. That should not ever happen.

The concerns of the workers need to be addressed in a timely fashion and in a way that does not affect the industry itself, because if it affects the industry, it affects the spine of our nation and if it affects the spine of our nation, it can be catastrophic to every single person in our country, including people who are working for an affected employer and are supposedly going on strike.

The NDP should stop hiding behind its rhetoric and start talking about workers instead of unions. That is, in effect, what it is doing. That party's rhetoric belies its true colours. Oftentimes it talks about supporting union leadership instead of about supporting workers. Maybe the NDP should talk about workers having the right to a ballot vote as opposed to raising their hands and the ability to have right to work legislation.

I looked at this issue a few years ago and it is interesting. Right to work legislation is fascinating. When workers have right to work legislation in their jurisdictions, they are able to earn, on average, $3,500 more per person. They are also able to control their unions a bit better in their best interests. It also enables union leadership to work better for the people it represents.

The government should look into these types of solutions. The NDP should consider championing solutions that work for the betterment of the worker, not necessarily for the political structures that those workers labour under. The NDP ought to listen to some of the concerns of workers' who are in unions about the structures that some of them labour under. Some union leaderships are wonderful and work very effectively for the people they represent, but there are some that do not. There are clearly structures in our country that work well for employees and other structures that do not. I strongly encourage all members of the House to look into that.

On the issue of labour, the government needs to come up with a plan. In short, there is a critical labour shortage as the population ages. Right now, 16% of Canadians are over the age of 65. That will double in the next 25 years. There are critical shortages in medicine, the skills trades and other areas. The government should increase the percentage of people coming in to the skilled trades workforce. It should expand the workforce through enabling those who are older to stay in the workforce. It should work with the provinces in terms of skilled retraining, access to training, and such.

I encourage all members of the House to work together for solutions that will work well for employees from coast to coast.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

This is legislation that New Democrats believe is long overdue. We have debated it many times, have had many votes on it and it is time we actually passed the legislation.

New Democrats will be supporting the legislation again in the House, as we did when we supported the last attempt to deal with the issue of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts in federal jurisdictions, which was Bill C-257 in the first session of this Parliament, a bill tabled by the member for Gatineau.

Our resolve to see this issue dealt with successfully is very strong. We want the legislation to go through because prohibiting replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout is an essential piece of guaranteeing labour peace and economic stability in Canada. This would be an important piece of legislation.

The fight for workers' rights has been a long one in Canada and the key victories in that have been the freedom of association, free collective bargaining and the ability to withhold services if collective bargaining fails. Those are very essential to our labour movement and to workers in Canada. It is also important to workers in federal jurisdictions.

This legislation, which deals with replacement workers or strikebreakers in a legal strike or lockout, would level the playing and ensure some fairness between employers and workers in that difficult situation when there is a strike or a lockout.

We have had other attempts at this. I mentioned the one by the member for Gatineau. The member for Vancouver Island North, the New Democrat member, also has legislation tabled regarding the issue of replacement workers. If the bill should fail again, we will be on it to ensure that we have another opportunity to debate this important issue and, hopefully, finally get this legislation through Parliament.

The ability to negotiate fair wages, a safe workplace, pay equity, health care and pensions is crucial to many families in Canada. Those who are lucky enough to be represented by a union and have a collective agreement know the importance of that collective agreement to all of those issues and to their lives here in Canada. Therefore, we want to ensure there is a level playing field when it comes to collective bargaining and strikes and lockouts in Canada.

If I were a Liberal, I would be embarrassed to table this kind of legislation. I think the member for Davenport should be embarrassed to table this legislation because if it were not for the Liberals changing their votes the last time this came before the House, the vote on Bill C-257, we may well have been farther down the road and have enacted this kind of legislation.

Unfortunately, when Bill C-257 came to a vote in the first session of this Parliament, 29 Liberals, who had supported it at second reading, switched their vote from yea to nay. That meant that almost 80 Liberals and 20 Conservatives voted in favour of this at second reading but many of them changed their vote so that close to 30 Liberals, including the Leader of the Opposition, followed the government's lead to kill the bill.

That is tragic because we were so close to seeing this important change made in our labour law in Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberals played a major role in seeing that attempt go down the drain.

The Liberals should be embarrassed for tabling this legislation and embarrassed for tabling it the day after the previous legislation went down to defeat. There is just no excuse for that. We will be watching very carefully to see what happens with the Liberals when the bill comes to a vote.

Prohibiting replacement workers in a strike or lockout is very important because two provincial jurisdictions in Canada have long-standing experience with exactly this kind of legislation.

Quebec passed legislation to this effect in 1977. British Columbia passed legislation banning the use of replacement workers in 1993.

It was a New Democratic government that introduced that legislation in 1993 in British Columbia. The interesting thing is that there has been a change of government in British Columbia. Now the B.C. Liberal Party is in power, a coalition of conservative parties in British Columbia. They have made many changes to labour law in British Columbia that have been very controversial and I think detrimental to working people in British Columbia.

One piece of legislation that they did not change is the legislation regarding replacement workers. Even the conservative-liberal B.C. government knows that legislation has improved the labour climate in British Columbia. It has improved the ability of labour and management to come to successful agreements. That has been a good thing for the economy of British Columbia.

I do not think there is any excuse for saying that this kind of legislation will ultimately hurt the economy. We have two excellent examples, British Columbia and Quebec, where it has had exactly the opposite effect and where it is supported soundly by employers and workers because they know it has a positive effect when it comes to settling an agreement.

Replacement workers increase tension in labour disputes. They prolong strikes. They add to instability in the search for a settlement in a strike or a lockout. None of those things do anything to benefit the economy. None of those things do anything to benefit the families of management and workers who are affected by a strike or lockout.

Taking this step to ban replacement workers, to ban strike breaking is a very significant one to ensure that there will be a successful settlement.

This morning as we were listening to other members in this debate, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore pointed out that the use of replacement workers is also a very dangerous practice from the perspective of the health and safety of those workers who are sent in to do jobs that they know very little about. They are often sent in to operate dangerous machinery or to work in difficult situations without the appropriate training for that kind of work.

If for no other reason than the concern about the people who are sent in as replacement workers and for their safety, I would hope that other members of the House might support this legislation. It is a minor issue, but I think it is an important issue to note.

Many Liberals used the excuse that they were voting against Bill C-257 in the first session of this Parliament because it did not deal with the question of essential services. That is in fact not the case. Essential services are dealt with in the Canada Labour Code. Section 87.4 states that unions and employers prior to a dispute should work on the issue of designation of essential services. That is already a provision of the Canada Labour Code and not something that was missing from the legislation.

It is also possible under the existing Canada Labour Code for the Minister of Labour to ask that essential services be designated at the time of a strike or lockout.

The Liberals were hiding behind a false issue at the time because the current Canada Labour Code speaks very clearly about the designation of essential services. There was no doubt that it was already dealt with. To say this new bill was necessary because of that I think is completely erroneous.

Shortly after I was elected in 2004 there was a lockout of Telus telecommunications workers in British Columbia and Alberta. It was a very serious lockout. Replacement workers, outsourcing, contracting out and strikebreakers were all used in that strike. It increased the tension and the length of that strike dramatically. It had a serious effect on the workers involved, on the managers involved and on the morale of that workplace. It also was a significant hardship for the community. I spoke to a number of small businesses that were directly affected because of that lengthy lockout and the tension surrounding it.

In this corner of the House, New Democrats will be strongly supporting legislation that bans the use of replacement workers in strikes or lockouts in the federal jurisdiction.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, during the last session of Parliament, the opposition members repeatedly tried to convince this House to adopt a bill that would make changes to the Canada Labour Code, with a view to prohibiting federal employers from using replacement workers during a work stoppage.

Our government has opposed such measures in the past, and we are opposed now to Bill C-415, which is before this House. This bill may include a new provision, but the wording remains essentially the same as in previous versions introduced in the House. Most importantly, the threat this bill poses to the health of the economy and labour relations in Canada is more real than ever.

The members of this House who support this bill say that it represents a real improvement over the previous version, Bill C-257. However, the facts do not support this assertion. The bill's supporters claim that adding the concept of essential services to Bill C-415 helps make up for the serious deficiencies in the previous bill. They also state that this bill would appropriately meet the need to maintain services essential to public health and safety in the event of a labour dispute, but none of these arguments holds water. In fact, this bill is no different from its predecessor in its goal or its consequences.

Adding the word “essential” to an existing section of the act, which already requires that the employer and the union maintain services deemed necessary to prevent an immediate danger to public health and safety, does not change the essence of this provision. Bill C-415 does not define “essential services”, which could lead to confusion and uncertainty. One has to wonder why the drafters of this bill did not provide a clear definition of the concept, instead of leaving it to Parliament. As legislators, we could have been accountable to Canadians.

Advocates of Bill C-415 do not know how this bill will affect the health of Canada's economy either. In the meantime, our government has very clearly stated why it is opposed to this type of bill.

As we have already said in this House, attempts to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers could have serious consequences for Canadian companies, industries and workers.

The provisions of Bill C-415 state that only managers of a company affected by a labour strike are authorized to replace employees who are on strike or who have been locked out. A few months ago, Canadians saw for themselves the consequences of a work stoppage affecting a federal government service.

In February 2007, when CN workers went on strike, Canadians clearly saw the devastating effects of a work stoppage on a fundamental service in a federally regulated sector. Merchandise was no longer being transported across the country, as it should have been. In just a few days, this is what happened.

Sawmills on the Pacific coast were faced with the possibility of laying off employees or closing their doors. Assembly plants in Ontario ended up with surplus stock. The same thing happened at the port of Vancouver. Producers from the Prairies had to find new ways to send their products to market. Remote communities had to wait for vital supplies to be delivered. The Canadian Wheat Board was paying $300,000 a day to keep ships in port until the grain arrived.

This brings me to my next argument on the shortcomings of Bill C-415. It does not protect services in the sectors regulated by the federal government that are essential to Canada's economy.

I am talking about sectors affecting a wide range of products that are fundamental to businesses, industries and the growth of this country, namely, transportation by rail, air and land, the ports, certain telecommunication and broadcast services, financial services and commuter services in certain regions.

These services are fundamental to our economy, but they have not been considered essential in the general meaning of the word. This bill does nothing to ensure that railway services or telecommunication services are maintained during a work stoppage. Canadians have learned from recent experience with the CN strike the extent to which a labour dispute in a federal sector can quickly harm other sectors of the economy. With a direct ban on hiring replacement workers, a work stoppage in one sector of Canada's transportation network could have serious consequences. What would be the cost? Who would assume responsibility for damages in the event of a work stoppage? Bill C-415 does not provide any answers to these questions.

It is also important to note that the Canada Labour Code is already very specific on the matter of responsibility of federal employers and unions in the event of a strike. It requires the parties to maintain the services necessary to prevent immediate and serious risk to public health or safety. This applies to all employers under federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-415 raises some other concerns for our government. Rather than helping workers, this legislation would be detrimental to healthy federal labour relations in Canada. The current provisions of the Canada Labour Code are working effectively. In 2006, the majority of conflicts governed by the Canada Labour Code—some 97%— were resolved without work stoppages. Consider also the findings of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Since 1999, of the 18 complaints filed concerning the allegedly inappropriate use of replacement workers, 13 were withdrawn, three cases were heard and dismissed by the board and the other two are still waiting for a ruling.

One thing is clear: the updated Canada Labour Code strikes a crucial balance, which is something that deserves to be protected. Each party has the same interest in maintaining good labour relations, as well as the same power of influence. Just as unions have the power to advise their members to exercise their right to strike, employers have the right to try to maintain their operations, even if in a limited way, during a work stoppage.

To sum up, it seems clear to me that this bill is no different from its predecessor. It could have a serious impact on our economy, our workers and labour relations in this country. Many members of this House have acknowledged this fact, which is why they are joining us in saying no to this kind of legislative measure. All members must appreciate the real consequences of this bill and determine whether Canadians want to see this kind of legislation from their government.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved that Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to present Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) to this House.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit federally regulated workplaces from hiring replacement workers during legal strikes or lockouts. The bill would also ensure that essential services are protected during any labour disruptions. Bill C-415 is a fair and equitable balance between the rights of working people in this country and the need to protect essential services upon which Canadians rely from coast to coast to coast.

My colleagues in the House may recall that Bill C-257 was recently before this House and while it proposed a ban on replacement workers, it failed to address the needs to protect essential services. As a result, many concerns were raised by a variety of individuals and groups that during a strike or lockout essential services would not be provided for Canadians.

In fact, I introduced amendments to Bill C-257 which I hoped to see adopted. These amendments would have protected essential services of which I speak while still banning replacement workers. Unfortunately, these amendments were ruled out of order.

As legislators, it is important that we take into account the concerns of all individuals and groups as we consider legislation and changes to current laws. In particular, there was a considerable number of individuals and groups who expressed their belief that it was important to ensure that essential services be protected in the event of a strike or lockout.

I recall there was reference to remote communities, for example, who rely for their survival on federally regulated services like railroads and air travel. In regard to these issues, I can certainly understand their concerns about ensuring that a ban on replacement workers also protected the essential services upon which they rely.

It is for this reason that this new bill addresses these issues and more importantly, it achieves a balance that every reasonable party can certainly accept. One might ask why the need exists to ban replacement workers. The answer is simple. The use of replacement workers for long strikes and lockouts in many cases raises the level of animosity to the point of altercations and sometimes violent altercations.

Working people have struggled over many years for reasonable working conditions, fairness and the right to bargain collectively. The right to withdraw their labour during a legal strike or lockout is fundamental to the balanced relationship between employers and employees.

Replacement workers reduce the bargaining power of unions or workers involved in a legal labour dispute to an extent that undermines fairness in the collective bargaining process. Such practices tend to leave a bitter taste and a sense of injustice in the minds of employees long after a strike or lockout has ended. It is an unfair bargaining tool placed upon the hands of employers. Clearly the employers who elect to utilize replacement workers may do so in order to reduce pressure upon themselves while at the same time increasing pressure for settlement on the part of their striking employees and their labour representatives.

I would also point out that experience has taught us that the vast majority of federally regulated employers do not elect to use replacement workers during the course of a labour dispute.

This is, in part, due to the nature of the work performed by many federally regulated employees. The time that is required to train and certify a replacement worker simply makes such a course of action impractical.

The reality is that the bill is designed to address, for the most part, circumstances where employers have less than honourable records when it comes to dealing with their employees in a fair and equitable manner during the course of a labour dispute.

Some have argued that under the current Labour Code there are provisions to prevent employers from undermining the collective bargaining process. In fact, the ability to prosecute an employer for violations of this kind is so limited that, to my knowledge, there have been but one or two successful prosecutions.

The process by which prosecution takes place with respect to this rather broad legal provision is so cumbersome and practically unenforceable that in practical terms it is, for the most part, ineffectual and may indeed contribute to even more entrenched bad feelings following a labour dispute.

In banning replacement workers, my bill would ensure there is respect for workers, respect that they both deserve and have worked so hard to attain.

Bill C-415 would also address the restrictions that would be placed upon management with respect to the kind of work that would be undertaken during a labour disruption.

In its original form, Bill C-257 placed what I believed were unreasonable restrictions on management activities during a strike or lockout. Bill C-415 would allow managers to perform tasks without such unreasonable restrictions. Once again, there would be a balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers.

While I am opposed to the use of replacement workers during a strike or a lockout, I believe that our first responsibility is for the protection of Canadians during any labour disruption. Bill C-415 would ensure that essential services are clearly and unequivocally protected during a strike or a lockout.

Once again, balance would be achieved; a balance between essential services Canadians need and deserve, and the rights of working people across the country. It is for this crucial reason that the bill would ensure that essential services are protected.

In some instances, a strike or a lockout could pose an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

While there are provisions in the Canada Labour Code that provide for the protection of essential services, Bill C-415 would clearly and without doubt protect essential services at the same time that it would ban replacement workers.

The current provisions could be difficult and cumbersome in that much of what is determined to be an essential service or who is designated as an essential worker would be determined far in advance of an actual labour dispute and could create difficulties, in practical terms, through a systematic inflexibility in the current law.

Bill C-415 is about balance and fairness. My colleagues and keen observers will know that this bill has been a long time coming.

There have been comparisons between Bill C-415 and Bill C-257. The fact is that Bill C-257, while well-intentioned, encouraged many to argue that it failed to meet the basic test of fairness, balance and the need to protect public interest.

Having engaged in extensive consultations with unions, business workers and policy makers, it is clear that legislatures banning replacement workers must include the protection of essential services.

Some of my colleagues in other parties believe this exemption was unnecessary, but it would have been irresponsible to assume that this could be dealt with by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when legal options made it clear that this was not necessarily the case.

The importance of this point is increased when we ban the use of replacement workers. The principal objective of Bill C-257, the banning of replacement workers, is realized in my Bill C-415. Under the bill replacement workers would not be permitted during strikes and lockouts at federally regulated workplaces. Therefore, in bringing forward Bill C-415, I have worked to achieve balance and fairness.

The bill would ban replacement workers in the event of a strike or lockout. The bill would protect the essential services Canadians need. The bill would ensure that managers can continue to work during a strike or lockout. Bill C-415 brings balance and fairness, and that is beneficial to Canadians, working people, the collective bargaining process and employers.

I encourage all members to recognize the need to protect the most fundamental rights of federally regulated workers to withdraw their labour during a strike or lockout without having to worry about their jobs going to replacement workers. Furthermore, I encourage all members to recognize the need to protect essential services.

I ask all members to support Bill C-415 and in so doing, to support labour fairness and balance in federally regulated workplaces.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Bill C-415.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(b) the committee hereby reports that it does not concur in the second report of the subcommittee on private members' business and is of the opinion that Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), should remain votable.

Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to Standing Order 92, a private member's item may only be considered by the House after a final decision on the votable status of the item has been made.

Although the House was to consider Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), today, no report on the votability of the bill has been submitted or passed, as required before a bill can become the subject of debate.

I am therefore directing the table officers to drop this item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence and accordingly private members' hour is suspended today.

(Bill C-415. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

March 22, 2007--Second reading of Bill C--415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers)--the hon. member for Davenport.

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The minister may, subject to the regulations--

And regulations will be made at some future date.

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

(a) a prescribed aquatic invasive species; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we take from that that the report would then say that the committee supports Bill C-415 being votable?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have no one left on my list. Is the committee ready for the question?

It appears we're ready for the question on the motion. I'll read it to you once again. Colleagues, we're voting on the following: “That the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be concurred in.” For further clarity, we're voting that Bill C-415 be designated non-votable.

It's always difficult with these double negatives, but it looks as if everybody understands. I'll read it again, and then I'll ask for the vote.

Colleagues, all in favour that the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be concurred in.

(Motion negatived)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe that in the last meeting of this committee I discussed a great deal of what we needed to talk about for this bill, so I'll try to be far briefer and succinct today and get to where we're headed.

First of all, I want to thank the subcommittee, and Mr. Reid, of course, as part of it, and Madam Picard and some others, for doing the work that we've done on this bill, and on whether it's votable or non-votable. Mr. Reid has pointed out, in his conversation just now, the similarities between these two pieces of legislation, Bill C-257 and Bill C-415. I think he's done it in as fine a way possible, comparing clause to clause. Really, as a committee, we were faced with simply trying to determine the votability based on the similarities of the two pieces of legislation.

That's what the subcommittee was faced with. That's what we looked at. It isn't about content. This bill could have been about anything, but if it had already been voted on in this House....

At that same meeting, we did rule another piece of legislation non-votable because it had already been voted on in this House. It was very clear. It came through. It was similar to another piece of legislation that had already been voted on. That has not come back to this committee and this committee is not discussing that today, because it was found to be substantially similar and had already been voted on in the House. Therefore, it met the criteria.

I guess the real piece that I would like to point out and really emphasize again is that non-votable does not make it non-debatable. Non-votable does not mean that this piece of legislation is killed. It simply means it's not voted on at the end of the day. It can still be debated in the House and brought forward. We often look forward to our time in presenting a piece of private member's legislation and getting a point forward that we really feel dearly about and getting it discussed in the House.

Non-votability is not the end of it. Non-votability is, at this level, simply one more step along the way. It can be appealed a different way. It can be brought to the House as a non-votable piece of legislation. There are still plenty of other opportunities there. So I challenge this committee to remember that and look at it from that point of view.

I'm also reminded at this point of Ms. Bell and her bill, which was ruled to be substantially similar to Bill C-257, the original piece of legislation that we're comparing Bill C-415 to. This is as much a triangle as it is two bills being ruled substantially similar. We've already been faced with two bills being substantially similar before this.

On the two bills, Bill C-257 and...I'm sorry, I cannot remember the number of Ms. Bell's bill, but her bill was on the use of replacement workers and the Canada Labour Code. I wonder how she would feel if we now changed our minds and found another bill to be votable. We went through a great deal of trouble to discuss her bill, and to make it...that may be Ms. Bell now, wanting to know why we ruled her bill non-votable.

On one hand, the subcommittee brought forward a recommendation on hers that it was non-votable, and it was accepted well. We were charged by the Speaker then to come up with some remedy for her, as to what we could do differently. She in fact was able to put in another piece of legislation. Since this was her first one, perhaps she felt pretty dearly about it too. We really did end up telling her she couldn't do it. It was non-votable because of similarities.

We move forward now to another piece of legislation that's saying exactly the same thing, substantially similar to one that's been voted on, Bill C-257, and here we are. We're going to say something different. Mr. Reid said it very clearly and succinctly, so I think I had better say it again. This isn't about the content of the bill. This isn't about changing legislation, whether we're for or against whatever the content of the bill is. This is simply us being held by our own regulations, our own rules, our own Standing Orders, in determining what is votable and what is non-votable.

There we go. That's what it's truly about.

We've had other cases already in this Parliament--for instance, the case of Mr. Benoit. His bill was ruled non-votable. He came forward and appealed it to this group. This committee upheld the rulings of the subcommittee at that time and said the subcommittee did its work well and diligently, and we were correct.

In the case of Ms. Bell, this committee said the same thing. This committee did its work well. The subcommittee did its work well. I don't understand why, in this case, we're suggesting that the subcommittee somehow has had some sort of inability to do its work. What we're really saying here is that the subcommittee has said it's followed its own procedures. It got this far, and it came to the conclusion under our own Standing Orders that this bill was non-votable, and that's where we are.

So we're here today at that point. We have to eventually come to the conclusion that we are now at the point where this committee has to back up the work of the subcommittee and suggest that either it's followed through on the job it was given or it has not.

Mr. Chair, I think I can say pretty clearly--we spoke at length the other day on this--that we're at the point now where all has been said that needs to be said on this bill. I see the bright eyes across the room when we make a statement like that. But I think we're truly at the point where this committee needs to stand behind the subcommittee, which did hard work and did what it was supposed to do, and clearly asks itself what its purpose is if indeed we're not going to support the recommendations or follow the Standing Orders or do what we're supposed to do.

Mr. Chair, I'll end with that and say, as the chair of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, that we work hard against a certain set of criteria. In this case, we believe we've done our job properly.

I would then move the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, moving this item, a piece of legislation, that Bill C-415 is non-votable. I would move this report to this committee and ask for its acceptance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Bill C-257.

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

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

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

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

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

In Bill C-257 it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other one reads:

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

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

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

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

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

It changes, in the other bill:

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

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

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

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

It's absolutely identical, word for word.

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

Again, identical:

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

It's the same thing with the next clause:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I appreciate your comments. However, I'm looking at the will of the committee. The committee is to go with a legislative bill that's before the committee and was not completely dealt with in the past.

As is historically the case on committee, we deal with legislation prior to motions--all of which are important, no doubt. But we'll go to Bill C-415 at this point and we'll stay in public for this discussion.

Mr. Lukiwski, I just saw your hand up. However, I have Mr. Preston and Mr. Reid on my list. Are those outstanding?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What is more important right now? Bill C-415 or the meetings this committee must hold under our Standing Orders?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, that's duly noted. Again, as I say, let's deal with Bill C-415 first. That seems to be the will of the committee. And then we will come right back to this list and we'll debate that out as soon as that's done.

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

I think there are still things to be said on Bill C-415.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I won't make a motion, but it would seem to me that Bill C-415 was before us. I personally have no problem continuing with that, but I would be open, obviously, to the consensus of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

If we're going to go with Bill C-415, we'll stay in public. Does that make sense? To discuss committee business, what we might want to do is go in camera. So I'm open right now to see if we're going to deal with Bill C-415, and we'll stay in public to deal with that, then we'll discuss what items we need to discuss after that. Does that make sense?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

Just as a point of reference, why are we going in camera for Bill C-415? Is that not a motion before the committee right now? It's a public item.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, please. Did we hand this out? Yes.

Colleagues, you have in front of you a list of outstanding issues that we need to deal with. We did not have a steering committee to help decide what priorities these are. Perhaps I could just ask the committee if we should go in camera to deal with Bill C-415 and then go back to deal with these issues after that. I'm open for suggestions on this.

Madam Redman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's bring the meeting to order today. We are starting this meeting in public—just so you know—but we don't have a specific agenda item today to deal with, although I will leave it to the committee.

We have a number of items that we have to deal with as a committee, and I want to remind folks that we have about four weeks left.

Colleagues, we ended the last meeting still discussing Bill C-415. If that's the direction we should take—and it makes sense, it's a piece of legislation and we might want to try to dispose of that—then I would request that we go in camera and deal with that first.

Are we going to get into a discussion on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

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

—to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's begin our meeting this morning. We do have quorum, so we'll proceed right away.

I would like to advise members that today's meeting is in public.

If members recall, at the end of our meeting on Tuesday, the committee—We will resume where we left off at the conclusion of that meeting.

I just want to point out to members that while you may have noticed there is a new number assigned to this meeting, I want to assure members that the chair is very aware that this is simply a continuation of that other meeting. The minutes of Tuesday's meeting state that the committee adjourned until 11 a.m. today, and that the discussion of the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business will continue at this time. I hope that clarifies any confusion that might exist over a new number for this meeting. The normal practice would have been to adjourn that meeting at the call of the chair.

Members will also remember that at the conclusion of that meeting Mr. Preston was next on the list of speakers and that he requested he be the first person recognized at today's meeting, and that was agreed.

While the matter before the committee for this meeting is the second report of the subcommittee, I want to also remind all members that we did dismiss our witness at that time. We excused Mr. Silva. Technically, there is no motion or witness before this committee at this time. If you recall, we excused Mr. Silva when we proceeded to debate the motion put forward by Monsieur Plamondon, which, after a lengthy debate, was withdrawn.

The question the committee ultimately has to answer today is whether the second report of the subcommittee will be concurred in. But at this time, I'm in the hands of my colleagues on the committee.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 92, the committee will now resume consideration of the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, which states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(1)(a), the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business agrees that the following item of Private Members’ Business should be designated nonvotable on the basis that it contravenes the criterion that bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

In other words, that is Bill C-415.

In accordance with my understanding and that of the committee of the decision at the conclusion of the discussions on Tuesday, I will now recognize Mr. Preston. Mr. Preston, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My point of order has already been answered. I thank you for that. My impression was that since the appeal has been launched it doesn't have to be done today. In other words, if there is no decision today and Mr. Silva comes back, or whatever, a vote will still take place.

Again, Mr. Chair, I believe there are several options available to Mr. Silva to reintroduce this bill should he not be able to bring this bill in its current form to a vote. Not only has he the ability in this parliamentary session to appeal to the entire Parliament and bring it to a vote by secret ballot, I believe, but also, if this is an issue or a piece of legislation that his own party would like to see move forward, then there is clearly nothing to stop him in the next session of this Parliament from having one of his colleagues, should he not be chosen in the order of precedence when the draw comes forward....

If this is a priority of the Liberal Party, I would certainly think that someone then would be able to make an executive decision within the Liberal Party to say, look, this is a piece of legislation we want brought forward to a vote. I can see nothing procedurally that would get in the way of this bill being brought forward in the next session, because there would be no argument that it would be similar to another bill. The similarity argument is what we're dealing with here to determine votability. So should the Liberal Party deem this to be a priority, they can bring it back. The first time any one of their members gets drawn in the order of precedence, if they feel it's that much of a pressing priority, they can have this bill or some reincarnation of this bill brought forward, and there would be nothing stopping that particular private member's bill from moving forward, that I can see.

It goes back to my comments that I've been emphasizing all along, that there has been a decision made by a subcommittee that was represented by members from all four political parties. They've made a decision that this particular Bill C-415 should not be votable, for their own reasons. But it doesn't prevent this bill from being brought back to the House.

I would suggest that it would certainly be a prudent move to uphold the subcommittee's decision on this, because it would in fact be sending a fairly positive message that subcommittee decisions are respected and they're not overruled for what I would suggest are frivolous means, or for means of expediting a political agenda. I think we would want to respect the decisions by all subcommittees.

But again, this bill would not be quashed. In other words, Mr. Silva or some other member could bring back the very same bill in the next sitting of this Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

[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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm having trouble finding this. Is this being reported separately from the one on Bill C-415? Is that correct?

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.

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.

Canada Labour Code

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-415, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

Mr. Speaker, after months of consultation with labour groups, I am pleased to stand today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of my bill is to ban replacement workers.

My bill would prevent federally regulated employers from employing replacement workers during strikes and lockouts.

Furthermore, my bill would ensure clarity and protect essential services for Canadians during labour disruptions because, in many instances, the nature of the services provided by federally regulated workers are essential to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

It is our responsibility to protect the interests of all Canadians and it is important to have the words “essential services” in any bill banning replacement workers.

I have been, and will continue to be, a strong advocate for Canadian workers and their rights. I encourage all members to support the bill.

As members of the House and my constituency know, from my time as a Toronto city councillor I have worked tirelessly for a fair wage policy. During my time in Ottawa, I have demonstrated my belief that elected officials have an--

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)