Human Resources Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, I know there is nothing personal involved. It's understood.

The chair has been challenged. Once again, the legal opinion has recommended that this new clause is inadmissible. I have ruled that I believe it is inadmissible. I have been challenged by Mr. Silva. The vote is that the decision of the chair should be sustained.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Before I vote on this motion, I would like to have an understanding from the legislative clerk of what would happen. If the chair's ruling was such that...and there seems to be an order of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hold on, Mr. Hiebert, we will come back to you.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Since we can't debate the motion before us, let's move on to the vote.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

It is not debate. It is a point of order; it's a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Mr. Hiebert, repeat your question again to the clerk.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

As I was stating, before I vote on this motion I want to understand how it is...and what would be the outcome of a successful vote on the part of those opposed to your ruling. What would happen?

It seems to me that if your ruling, which appears to be consistent with the tradition and the rulings of the previous chairs in the House of Commons, is that you cannot amend a bill that does not refer to a particular piece of legislation--and that has been a consistent ruling from the House of Commons for who knows how long--how is it that the committee could overturn your decision when in law we know that this can't be done? Would it be appealed to the Speaker of the House? Would it be appealed to the legislative clerk?

There seems to be a departure from what the law allows. And yes, we might want to, here in this particular committee, pretend that as a committee we can overturn your rulings, but at some point the buck has to stop someplace. You can't simply draft legislation ad hoc that isn't allowed for in the rules of the House of Commons. If that was the case, we could move amendments to the Income Tax Act, which isn't being referred to in this piece of legislation either. It is absurd to suggest that we could address a piece of legislation, or a portion of legislation, that is not of the purpose of a particular bill.

So could the chair provide for the members some explanation as to what would happen if they were successful in overturning your ruling? Where would it go from here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hiebert, this is not a debatable point, but if you want to make your point after we've had this debate—

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

But it's a point of clarification. I think it's important for members to know what they're voting on. What's the outcome? What's the consequence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The consequence is that it will go back to the House and the chair will make a ruling in the House.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of order, on the same point, because I think it is important to understand what we're doing, my understanding is that the Liberal amendment was submitted as an amendment to section 87.6, as paragraphs (h) and (i), and it was actually the legislative counsel, the Journals Branch, who brought it back in this form.

It seems to me that we need some clarification from them as to why they brought it back in this form, because this is not the way it was submitted as the Liberal amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

And that is a point of debate as well.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's exactly the point I was going to raise, that when I originally put this forward, it was to be a paragraph (h) and a paragraph (i). It was the legislative counsel today, a couple of hours ago, who brought this in the way it is. I'm presenting section 87.4 as amended because that's what in fact legislative counsel brought back to me today.

But my motion, when I put it forward, was to add a paragraph (h) and a paragraph (i), under part two.

So I'm unclear as well as to why that was put the way it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, Mr. Silva, I certainly can't comment on what was proposed or what may have been. But you have read an amendment, a new clause, into the record. That is what we are voting on. We have had the recommendation of the legal counsel. You've had my recommendation. I've been challenged now. So what I will do is call a vote that—

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

We can't vote until we get a clarification, Mr. Chair. Since it's already here—I've submitted it before the committee as a paragraph (h)—that will clarify it. There's no need to challenge the chair, because it will be in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of order, I wonder if it would be helpful if Mr. Silva has the original, what he actually sent to the Legislative Branch, because my understanding is that his amendment actually was trying to amend clause 2 in the bill before us today, proposed subsection 94(2.1), by adding a new paragraph 94(2.1)(h) and a new paragraph 94(2.1)(i). That's what actually was the intent. Somehow this is being sent back to the committee as amending section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, which is not before us.

If Mr. Silva has the original of what he sent in, I think that would be clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Silva.

Once again, given the fact that this is a new clause being read into the record, I've said that this particular clause to replace clause 1 is inadmissible, so if you want to support the decision of the chair, there is a possibility that at a later point in time you could reintroduce that. We would have to go through the same process, but that is the clause that's on the table right now; that is what we're voting on.

Go ahead, Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have here in front of me what we sent today to the legislative counsel, which in part two, page 2, says additional paragraphs (h) and (i). It is clearly stated here, and it's been changed totally, so I'm not sure what happened there. Our intent was to have an addition of paragraphs (h) and (i) to the motion.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

If I could just add to that, when Mr. Silva made the request for the amendment, as he said, it was to add paragraphs (h) and (i). There was no intent at all to have the actual clause replaced. So if the judgment has been made under that misunderstanding, that's obviously going to affect the outcome that has been made. Perhaps if you could reconsider with whomever you need to reconsider with in terms of the decision, it would be beneficial before we move forward.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, for clarification purposes, if you really look at where my motion begins, “During a strike or lockout”, it is exactly the same language as in proposed subsection 94(2.1). We're not dealing with the first section. I don't know how that got misnumbered, but all the language is the same as proposed subsection 94(2.1) of the act. It's not about section 87.4, as has been put on here.

The only thing we can do is talk about...it's fine to say “subject to section 87.4”, but it's all about dealing with subsection 94(2.1) of the act. That is what the language is about. It's not about proposed section 87.6, as it is here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The question to be asked is if we upheld the chair on the basis that this amendment on this particular clause and section 87.4 is not in order and in fact is incorrect, would the chair agree that Mr. Silva could then move the same wording that he wants to move, but that in actual fact it should be on the next clause in the bill before us, which is clause 2, dealing with subsection 94(2.1)? If you look at the bill, it shows proposed paragraphs 94(2.1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g); he is seeking to add proposed paragraphs 94(2.1)(h) and (i). That is actually the amendment he is seeking.

We're dealing with the wrong clause, but if we uphold your decision, what I'd like to know is that you are not then going to rule it out of order if he tries to move the wording in clause 2--because technically, it's not on the paper here, right? They got the wrong clause.

My understanding is you can do that verbally, as long as it's clear. I'd like to know that you are generally in agreement, so that we can proceed and then vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Davies and Mr. Silva.

I would certainly entertain having a look at that. I haven't seen the motion the way it was presented. I can only rule on what we're dealing with here on clause 1, so once again, I would not have an issue with its being presented, and we could deal with it. That would have to be looked at in the context. Once again, we'd still have to go through the same process before we have a discussion and move forward on that. If you're willing to uphold my decision on that clause, it will go back to what clause 1 was originally, and then we'd move to Liberal amendment 2. As I said, if it is reintroduced, we'll evaluate it at that time and in that context.

I have not seen that, once again. I have only seen the proposals right here. Once again, if it's going to be reintroduced, we could have a look at that.

Mr. Hiebert is next, and then Mr. Silva.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Just to clarify, if we uphold, you've been challenged. If those who challenged you are successful, then your ruling on this first clause as being out of order is overturned. And then what?