Okay.
If I could take Mr. Preston's analogy on this bill a little further, I guess the issue would not be whether they're both red Mustangs; the issue would be whether you think the mechanic is deemed essential or whether he's providing maintenance of services. That actually would be the issue we're debating.
This issue is so full of ironies. I was on the committee that dealt with this bill originally. I supported the amendments that Mr. Silva put forward, although I never believed they were necessary. We've had this ongoing debate where the Liberals believe there's a big difference between essential services and what the Labour Code says is maintenance of services. The rulings of the Labour Relations Board have made it clear that they see them as one in the same.
We've had this debate many times. Nevertheless, he is correct. The amendments he put forward were ruled out of order by the Speaker as being beyond the scope of the bill. So now we have this new bill. I agree that the issue is not whether the bill is in order, because the Speaker has already made that decision. Whether or not we agree with it, that's his decision. The issue here is whether it should be votable. From our point of view, there really is not a difference between essential services and maintenance of services.
But we support this bill. On the basis of that technicality, that the Speaker did rule it was in effect a different bill, then I guess our position would be that it should go forward.
But really, the ironies here are quite unbelievable. I do have to say that if the Liberals had their act together and voted on this properly in the first place, we wouldn't still be dealing with this matter. But anyway, that's another story.
So we support it going forward.