Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
First, I'd like to begin by saying that although prima facie both bills seem to be dealing with the same topic, it is important to note, Mr. Chair, that they are materially different, both in scope and in the content of the bills. In fact, it is important, for me to outline these differences, that I quote both the comments made by the government House leader in the House of Commons and the comments made by the Speaker, so that we could determine that both the Speaker and the House leader had ruled that the amendments I put forward initially in relation to Bill C-257 went beyond the scope and, in fact, change the content of the bill.
The government House leader challenged some of the amendments on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill, as outlined in Marleau and Montpetit, lines 9 to 11:
An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:
it is not relevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion or exceeds the scope of the motion, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice);
This is a quote from the government House leader in relation to my amendments to Bill C-257.
The Speaker of the House, upon examination of the amendments, ruled them to be out of order:
Bill C-257 amends three sections of the Canada Labour Code: section 87.6 dealing with the reinstatement of employees after a strike or lockout, section 94 dealing with prohibitions relating to replacement workers, and section...