Bill C-420, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, seeks to make three amendments that, from my analysis, I understand to be distinct in terms of subject matter.
First, it would amend the Canada Labour Code to prevent employers from hiring replacement workers during a strike.
Second, it would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow for the incorporation of provincial law into federal law for occupational health and safety issues involving pregnant and nursing employees.
Third, it would make amendments to a few statutes to incorporate the Charter of the French Language, which is a Québécois act, into federal law in some respects, and it would apply to Quebec only.
In my briefing note, I flagged two issues. The first is that the language in Bill C-420 that addresses the hiring of replacement workers, the first subject I mentioned, is with minor exceptions identical to the language of Bill C-234, a bill that was previously considered by the House and defeated at second reading on September 28, 2016.
The second issue is that the language in Bill C-420 that addresses occupational health and safety, the second of the three subject matters that I laid out, is, again with minor exceptions, identical to the language of Bill C-345. That bill was considered by the House and defeated at second reading.
The issue here is thus that there is an open question as to whether Bill C-420, in the words of the votability criteria, concerns “questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament”.
As I said before in my assessment, the bill has three distinct goals or questions, as the language of the provision allows. Two of them, in both substance and means, are extremely similar to bills the House has previously considered and rejected.
I've spoken a bit with the clerk. She can correct me if I misunderstood, but if I understood her correctly, the position of the House of Commons in regard to the admissibility of a motion, amendment or bill is that so long as it is not more or less verbatim a repeat of something upon which the House has already deliberated, it is admissible. As such, the inclusion of new subject matter in this bill and the change in the wording would make this bill admissible.
That said, I interpret—and I want to reiterate again that my interpretations are not binding—that this criterion of votability is broader than admissibility. I say that because, were that the case, the criterion itself would be redundant. It would require this committee to do work that the House of Commons would already be doing. However, again, that's my assessment; it's not binding.
Go ahead.