It's a bit unusual for me to step in like this at the end of process, but my colleague Karin Trudel had to go back to her riding.
However, she has introduced three amendments that really are essentially the same. I assure you I won't make the same arguments three times. I'll state them once, and you can consider them valid for all three amendments. You need only copy and paste them in your mind.
The amendment proposed by my colleague was requested during testimony by Ursula Hendel, president of the Association of Justice Counsel, and Chris Aylward, national president of the Canadian Public Service Alliance.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the bill is constitutional. In a judgment rendered in 2015, the Supreme Court held that Saskatchewan's essential services legislation was unconstitutional. As provisions of that act contains wording similar to that of clause 9 of Bill C-62, the amendment concerns pages 35 and 36 on page 5.
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that non-union personnel are not disadvantaged during a strike or subjected to pressures to which they would normally be exposed during a work stoppage.
These lines appear word for word in the Saskatchewan act. Their wording was cited by the court, which held that, if qualified personnel are available to deliver requisite services, it should not matter that they are non-union personnel. Consequently, the provision works at cross purposes to ensuring uninterrupted delivery of essential services during a work stoppage.
In conclusion, I would say these amendments address the concern that Bill C-62 does not sufficiently reflect the Supreme Court judgment rendered in 2015. The bill should therefore be amended.