Thank you very much.
I do support the amendment and I'd like to point out why. I really believe this amendment that has been put forward by the Liberals is a helpful clarification to reinforce what is already in the Labour Code.
If you read proposed subsection 94(2.3), that's already in the bill before us. It's basically adding one word, which is “or”. The clause is already there. Then there's a new clarification under proposed paragraph 94(2.3)(b). This makes it clear that the employer, the trade union, and the employees in the bargaining unit are able to continue with essential services.
In the Labour Code under section 87.4, there is already a provision for essential services. It's called “Maintenance of activities”, and it spells out that there can be continuing operations to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. Mr. Silva's amendment is really intended to clarify that this bill is reinforcing what is already in the Labour Code, by spelling out essential services.
Some of the Liberal and other members expressed concern that there was not an adequate provision or process to deal with essential services. Unfortunately, Monsieur Harvey was not here when we had the technical briefing, but there was very careful questioning of the officials.
The existing Labour Code does spell out a process for essential services and the maintenance of services. It's done on a case-by-case basis, and the Canadian Industrial Relations Board builds up a jurisprudence of what they understand to be essential services. That's well established, and no one is trying to change that. This amendment is simply trying to reinforce that the process exists in the current Labour Code and will continue to exist. This amendment is a helpful clarification to satisfy some of the concerns put forward that we are dealing with essential services and allowing them to happen, as spelled out in the code.