Evidence of meeting #55 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
You're going to do this to me again.
That in accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, your committee has considered Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) and agreed to report the following: Bill C-257 fails to provide balance to both sides in the collective bargaining process and fails to address other issues reflected in the evidence presented by witnesses. Accordingly, your committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1—
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I have a point of order.
You know very well that Mr. Lake can't introduce a motion and reverse the decision we've just made, that is to say to proceed immediately with clause-by-clause consideration.
If he has any motions to introduce, let him give notice 24 hours in advance.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Actually, because we're in the orders of the day, he doesn't; however, you are partially correct. We just voted to go to clause-by-clause, so we need to look at clause 1. Mr. Lake will have to wait until after we've dealt with clause 1.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, why after clause 1? Mr. Lessard moved that we discuss and debate the bill — by which is understood the entire bill — clause by clause. His motion does not mention that we should consider only clause 1.
In that sense, it seems to me that any other motion on the agenda must be considered when we've completed the analysis of all the clauses of the bill.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Madame Lavallée.
I've just been informed that we're in the orders of the day, and our business is Bill C-257, as we know. A motion within that business can be brought forward at any time. Because Mr. Lessard had asked us, and the motion passed, to go to clause-by-clause consideration, we must start that. As I said, we will get the first clause done; then we can look at any other motions that may be forthcoming.
I will ask you to pick out your packages, please. We have clause 1—
4 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I don't understand your ruling, Mr. Chair.
The agenda that we received, and that I have before me, states that we're conducting clause-by-clause consideration. Then it mentions each of the clauses: clauses 1, 2, 3. Then there are questions such as: shall the bill carry as amended, and so on.
Earlier, when my colleague Yves Lessard introduced the motion saying that we wanted to return to clause-by-clause consideration, that concerned all the clauses. He never said it only concerned clause 1.
You never said that, did you, Mr. Lessard?
4 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
No, he never said that.
Consequently, it seems to me we should proceed with consideration of all the clauses and subsequently agree to the motions of our dear friend Mike Lake.
February 14th, 2007 / 4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Once again, Madame Lavallée, we thank you very much for your observations.
Once again, this is not an order paper that is laid out exactly. We are a committee that will operate as it so sees. This is a recommendation of where we're at, but other motions can be introduced into the mix.
Let us look at Bill C-257. I would like you to look at Liberal amendment 1, which is essentially a new clause that would replace the existing clause 1 the way it stands right now.
(On clause 1)
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, just for clarification—and I want to make sure the clerk is listening—as we go through this clause by clause, are you going to deal first with the amendments and then with the final bill? Are we going to go, as it states, clause by clause and basically state the name of the bill and ask if all the other parts of the bill shall carry?
I just want to know how you're going to proceed with the clause-by-clause.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Silva.
What we will be doing is going clause by clause. We will look at each clause as presented. For example, I think under the orders of the day there's a new clause 1, Liberal amendments 1 and 2. We will go through each of those sequentially in their order. We will approve each clause and give you the recommendations of the legal clerk as to whether or not they're admissible. So we will be going clause by clause.
We're going to start with clause 1 on pages 1 and 2 of your package.
Mr. Silva, would you like to move Liberal amendment 1?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Yes, thank you very much.
Maybe I should read it first so you can understand what I'm trying to do. I move that subsection 87.4(1) of the Canada Labour Code be replaced by the following:
During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of essential services and the operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public and/or to address any significant public interest.
I put in the “or” there as well because my colleague wanted to move that as an amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
There has been a ruling in terms of whether this motion or new clause is admissible. According to the parent act it is inadmissible. The amendment seeks to amend section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill”. Since section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code is not being amended by Bill C-257, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.
Mr. Silva.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
I would like to challenge that ruling, but I want to know first if I have an opportunity to speak to the challenge, or do I just basically challenge the ruling?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay. We are going to learn all about procedure today. This is great.
I have been challenged. I have a feeling I am going to be challenged quite a few times today. I have been challenged, so what we need to do now is have a vote on whether the recommendation by the legal counsel, my recommendation, should be overturned. If that is the will of the committee, then we will debate the motion. If my ruling is upheld, then there will be no debate on this motion and we will move on to the next motion.
Once again, just on the ruling that I have proposed. I have been challenged....
Sorry, on a point of order, Mr. Hiebert.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I would like the clerk to clarify for the committee how it is that this particular ruling by you, the chair, could be overturned. Could she show us in Marleau and Montpetit?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Just give us one second.
You don't have a copy with you?
Mr. Toupin will read it to us in French, and it will be translated. It's at page 857.
4:10 p.m.
Marc Toupin Procedural Clerk
Mr. Chair, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit, states, at page 857: “While the Chair's rulings are not subject to debate, they may be appealed to the committee.”
