I think it is premature at this point to talk about the clause-by-clause study. I would prefer that we first ask a series of questions of the legislative clerk on the ability of the committee to make amendments.
I have always maintained that the two contentious points in discussions were essential services and labour relations. Our party voted in support of this bill at second reading because it believed that it was time to study anti-strike-breaking legislation. We believe that this issue is extremely important to find a balance in employee-management relations.
Our role, as responsible members of Parliament, is also to ensure that the issue of essential services does not end up holding Canadians hostage, if you will, despite the fact that there still could be a balance in employee-management relations. Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code contains a list of essential services which also include security and public health.
It is clear that this type of bill raises many questions. During clause-by-clause study, we will want to examine the ability of the committee to make amendments so that there is no contradiction between essential services and an anti-strike- breaking law within the context of the Canadian Labour Code.
The other important element are labour relations. In that regard, certain agreements between employers and workers created legal precedents, including in the grain sector. In our opinion, issues regarding transportation and telecommunications are valid and as members of Parliament we must thoroughly study this matter.
The Liberal Party of Canada has never, as certain witnesses have implied, tried to pull a fast one. My colleague and her acolytes from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have tried to pass this bill 10 times. I do not think that it is a question of time. I have always been against the idea of bringing in replacement workers or strikebreakers. However, we must take the time to do things well to make sure that the bill is passed.
It would be premature to vote in support of this motion. I have a specific question for the legislative clerk about our ability to make amendments. Should we not vote against this motion and then decide on the procedure to take and how we want to deal with the clause-by-clause study?
I would ask my colleagues from the Conservative Party that we hear the witnesses now, since some of them have come from far away to give us their points of view from both the side of employers and from the side of the unions. Afterwards, we can take some time to hold discussions amongst ourselves. We do not want to block the process, but just to make sure that we are doing a thorough job as members of Parliament.
I do not know whether it is relevant to ask this question of the legislative clerk, but I don't think that it would be appropriate to have that kind of debate now. We can always have it later.
I completely agree that we must have the debate, but only after having heard from our witnesses.