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.

[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.