Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment deals with integrated management systems and authorizes the establishment of voluntary reporting programs under which information relating to aviation safety and security may be reported. It also authorizes the designation of industry bodies to certify persons undertaking certain aeronautical activities. Other powers are enhanced or added to improve the proper administration of the Act, in particular powers granted to certain members of the Canadian Forces to investigate aviation accidents involving both civilians and a military aircraft or aeronautical facility.

Aeronautics Act

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly what we have here is a case of ideology trumping not only common sense, but trumping the public good. It is hard to believe that any hon. member in the House could defend the bill that the government has put forward. It is not surprising that the Conservatives are not rising to their feet to defend this legislation.

Clearly, it is not in the public good. I appreciate my hon. colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and all the fine work that he has done to bring the weaknesses of this bill into the public domain.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I rise to speak to Bill C-6. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to deal with an issue that many of our constituents do not have the time or the ability to delve into this type of legislation, but yet it impacts their lives in a serious way.

The region I represent in northwestern British Columbia is often described as remote. It is certainly spread out. When I return to my constituency, I use any one of a number of seven different airports to access the communities and villages that I serve and represent. Air safety is one of the most important issues for the constituents who I represent.

It goes without saying that the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is laudable and commendable due to his unending energy in trying to squeeze out of the government and the other opposition parties better legislation. We all know that at the end of the day, regardless of partisan interests, we only want to promote legislation that most protects the health and safety of Canadians. Members of Parliament only want legislation that properly balances the powers that be within the country and those interests of the voters who we represent.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is a broad, sweeping bill. It is a bill that has had some long history of debate. It has been pushed by various governments, previous Conservative and Liberal governments, and now the current Conservative government. Each time the bill is presented, the part which is most desperately flawed pertains to the interests of average Canadians.

Representatives from the industry are always front and centre and are always well represented and well rehearsed in the things that they want primarily around the issue of self-regulation and them being able to monitor themselves and their safety record. Whereas, the bill does not balance properly on the side of constituents, flyers, people who rely upon air travel and depend upon it.

Often the captain will come on the intercom and comment that the most dangerous thing we will do that day is drive to and from the airport and that the flying is incredibly safe. This is an unbelievably important part of the airline industry.

Anyone who knows the history of the airline industry in North America, the first and most important thing it had to address and deal with was the concept that this was a dangerous activity. For many people initially, the idea of getting into a plane was considered very dangerous and it was. There were very few regulations and safety requirements, much like it was getting into an automobile when they were first invented, but there was an evolution. We saw an evolution in regulations, unfortunately often driven by accidents.

When an air accident would occur, the transportation and safety review board, or whatever incarnation there was at the time, would come on to the scene, review what had happened and then make recommendations to the government, which it could enshrine either in legislation or regulations, but something that would then protect the public. This would then give greater assurance to future travellers that they and their families would be safe.

There has been a natural tension and while potentially healthy, it also has the potential for great harm. That tension is between the air carriers, the companies involved, particularly the two major national ones, and their interests. Generally speaking, if we speak of fiduciary responsibilities, it is the maximization of profit for their shareholders. That is what their board and corporate governance structure is meant to do. It is meant to allow the greatest benefit derived for all those who have invested in their companies. This is matched off against the need for proper regulations and safety requirements. Lo and behold, sometimes safety actually costs money and time.

To ensure that something is safe and it is something we can all live by, it has to be done right. It has to be fixed right. It has to be of the highest quality and standards.

Many members of Parliament, as this session ends, will be considering their travel plans. Many of us have to board an airplane. In all the confusion in trying to get onboard that airplane, one thing we do not often think about. We assume our travel experience, while it will be potentially long and annoying, because we are on these things all the time, will be safe. That is something that goes without saying because there have been relatively few accidents in the Canadian airline industry.

The tension that exists and that is not properly balanced within Bill C-6 is between the role of government and the role of the private sector. Government has no right and no business telling the airline industry how to run a maximizing profit industry. That is the responsibility of the airline executives, management and consulting crews.

The government's responsibility is to balance those interests with the interests and safety of Canadians. Canadians trust our ability and our tenacity to ensure we never pass laws that would put them in any jeopardy.

Lo and behold, this bill moves toward a self-monitoring, a self-regulating and a self-inspecting regime. This would allow the industry to make up rules and decide what level of risk and safety would be permissible. The industry's sole and primary interest is not only making a profit. The industry's interests are mixed. Ours is to allow a healthy industry to exist while at the same time balance the public benefit.

There are two analogies that I would like to mention to members and they work best for my region in northern British Columbia. One is in the forestry sector and the other is in the train sector.

Many of the rail systems in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, for convenience sake or just by fate of history often run beside many of our major waterways. Over the last number of years, we have seen an increasing rate of serious train accidents, which have caused us grave concern. Many of these trains pass right through our towns and our communities, sometimes within 100 feet of people's homes. The buffer between having a safe and reliable train system and having one that causes great harm is not great. There is not a lot of space.

As the industry has moved toward self-regulation, self-monitoring, deciding within its own confines what is safe and not safe, exactly what the airline industry is asking for, the accident rate goes up.

I speak with rail workers every day when I am in my constituency of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. They privately talk to me about what is going on within their industry. They tell me that the drive toward the bottom line has become intense. The basic safety mechanisms that have been developed over time, often based upon accidents, have not been made out of thin area. Inspectors go on site after a major accident and they design a safety protocol after they realize what went wrong. That is meant to happen. That is the reason we go about these things.

When an industry is moved toward deregulation and self-monitoring, all those regulations come into question. All those safety mechanisms potentially go off the books. If an industry feels it is cutting too much into its bottom line, it can decide that a particular safety clause designed back in 1985 no longer pertains and it costs $1 million a year, and it will let that clause slide.

With no transparency at all existing within the bill for the airline industry, Canadians will not know what safety regulations have been taken out. In the future imagined by this bill, there will be no way of knowing whether all the safety procedures were taken or not. It was not up to any regulator to decide; it was up to the industry to decide. While we all hope that safety is important to the industry, with this conflict of interest built within the bill, it is not a risk that we can take.

The other sector that is important in our region is the forestry sector. Whenever there was a fatality within the forestry sector, inspectors would go to the accident site to find out what went wrong. They decided that certain safety measures had to be put in place to prevent the future loss of life. It was shown that rules and protocols were necessary.

When we moved to a deregulated forestry sector, when we moved to a place where health and safety requirements were placed in the hands of the company with a profit motive, there was a huge spike in the number of forestry fatalities in British Columbia. There were 50 last year. Those 50 lives could have been saved.

What we need to do at this moment is to reconsider the bill from top to bottom, move the amendments that the NDP has called for and then build something that we can all be proud of. It should not be to the rush of some limit of time but something that we know will keep Canadians safe.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see that the Conservatives are refusing to stand and defend their position on this bill. We are supposed to have a democratic debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have put something together that, at the very least, one can say is dangerously reckless and yet they are refusing to defend their actions. They are absolutely refusing to stand and say why they want to be dangerously reckless. It may be to increase CEO's bonuses, who knows, but they could at least give some reason for their recklessness, their irresponsibility and their complete disregard for the families of ordinary Canadians who will be getting on flights soon of airlines that will no longer be regulated or, if they are regulated and there are internal problems, we will never know about them.

I want to come back to the presentation by the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who is certainly one of the most active MPs in the House. He works extremely diligently on behalf of his constituency here in Ottawa and then he goes back to Skeena—Bulkley Valley and flies regularly throughout that vast riding, about a quarter of British Columbia. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is extremely diligent about getting out to his riding so he flies a great deal, not just to Ottawa but around his riding on the weekends when he goes back to it.

We have a comment from Ken Rubin, who is a public interest researcher, who said the following before the transport committee:

[The] Transport Minister...cannot claim that he and his officials, as they said in front of the committee, are simply adding, via an industry-government confidential non-punitive SMS reporting system, just another protective layer to improve air safety and are implementing a system far removed from airline self-regulation. Rather, they are attempting to circumvent public scrutiny and abdicating their public regulatory--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to cut the member off so I can allow the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to respond to the question.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concepts that was brought forward, and this I believe happened at committee in testimony, was the balance between what the industry was calling for, which was some sort of notion of streamlining and some cost effectiveness measures. To most Canadians, if we were able to propose to them, if this bill were to pass, that there would be some marginal savings on an airline tickets, most Canadians would say that should be considered but the cost of that small savings would be in some order of safety, some magnitude of Canadians' safety in getting on the airplane.

What is safety worth to people? What is safety worth to parliamentarians when we are deciding what bills should go forward and what bills should not and which concepts should go forward and which ones should not? Clearly, it is very difficult.

We had people from the health department in front of us at the environment committee some time ago and I did not know this but the government uses a formula to decide the value of a Canadian life. Apparently, in Health Canada anyway, it is $5 million. That is what the life of a Canadian is worth when the government is trying to estimate how many lives are lost or saved. This was in the area of pollution prevention.

It would be fascinating if some of the Conservatives would stand and defend their position.

We have a government advocating for some measure which, I suspect, is an ideology toward a deregulated form of business where there is little or no oversight for regulations and restrictions are made up by the industry themselves, some laissez-faire free hand, the invisible hand of the marketplace stepping into an issue like health and safety, to passenger safety.

This seems so ridiculous, particularly when it is presented in the light of the day. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has been working diligently to ascertain the qualities of any of the motions that are being considered within the bill, to improve them and to try to work with other members of Parliament on the committee, within government and within the opposition parties and has found few partnerships that were willing.

The member from Eglinton—Lawrence, I believe, has some further and future ambitions and can only see in his starry eyes the executives within the biggest corporations that run our airline industry but cannot see for a moment that the trade-off between the security of individual people, who I suppose he represents, cannot be seen for this other ambition.

Clearly, we need to rebalance the scales and design a bill that we can all be proud of, not one that plays to some selected audiences.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We are at report stage in this debate, which is a very crucial phase of the debate where we are considering the amendments that were made at the transport committee to this important bill.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his work on this important legislation. He has toiled long and hard to ensure that the House pays due attention to the safety concerns of Canadians when we are travelling by air. He has worked to see improvements made to the proposed legislation.

We still believe it is a very flawed bill but the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has certainly ensured that it is a better bill than it was and the amendments that he has brought forward are very important toward that.

It remains a deeply problematic bill, however, because all of the amendments that were necessary did not get passed.

We debated that process in the House yesterday and we are debating it again today. It is, as I said, a very crucial piece of legislation. I believe all Canadians want to know that they are safe when they are travelling by air. They want to know that the airline industry is safe for the people who work in it. They want to be sure that someone is paying attention to the safety of our air transportation system.

I am not convinced that Bill C-6 would act in the interest of Canadians when it comes to ensuring our safety as we travel by air or as we transport goods by air.

The proposed legislation would enshrine safety management systems to allow the industry to decide the level of risk that it is willing to accept in its operations, rather than abide by a level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest. It would allow government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards. It is designed in part to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high projected levels of inspector retirements.

That is of great concern to me and to members of the New Democratic Party. The basic premise of the bill to allow the transfer of responsibility from government to the corporate sector for something as important as ensuring safety just is not an acceptable way to go.

As someone from British Columbia, I have watched the increasing number of railway accidents in recent years that have caused deaths and environmental problems in British Columbia and across the country due to safety concerns. We have also heard concerns from some of the workers whose colleagues have been killed in these accidents and from workers who have made that a key component of their bargaining in recent collective agreement negotiations with the major rail companies in Canada. They have tried to highlight their concerns for ongoing safety because we know that the railway industry has a similar system to what is being proposed in Bill C-6 for the airline industry. We have seen the failures of that by the large number of railway accidents in recent years.

As someone from British Columbia, I am also concerned about the major derailments on the former BC Rail line which have caused many deaths. There have been many fairly dramatic accidents. One accident in particular was the Cheakamus Canyon derailment which caused the death of that river and will require probably decades of remediation work to bring the river back to even some semblance of what it once was. The derailment caused the dumping of hazardous materials into the river which killed a huge number of fish and other creatures that live in that river system.

It is a very important concern to me, to the people in my riding and to the people of British Columbia when we see a safety record in the railway industry that causes those kinds of concerns and has led to those kinds of accidents and has not improved the safety record of railways. It has done nothing to improve it, to make it better, to prevent accidents, to prevent the deaths of workers and to prevent environmental problems that result from those accidents.

I think we want to be absolutely certain that any legislation that goes forward from this place does not contribute to a similar circumstance in yet another transportation industry. Our concern is that Bill C-6, which deals with the aeronautics industry, would lead to similar circumstances in the management of safety concerns and the attention to safety details.

It is always a concern to us when we turn safety monitoring, safety enforcement and enforcement measures over to the corporate sector to follow because we know that in the corporate sector the bottom line is the financial ledger. It often does not pay the attention needed to safety because of its concerns about profits. I suppose that is a reasonable circumstance if one were in the corporate sector, but I do not think it is a reasonable assumption or a reasonable premise for Canadians who use the airline industry.

I remember where this was first driven home for me years ago. It was at the Miners Museum in Cape Breton. I do not know if the museum is still there because it has been some decades since I was there. However, off the main lobby of that terrific museum on Cape Breton Island was what looked like a side chapel and there was a glass case that had a number of objects in it. One of the two key components in that display was the company ledger showing the profits that the company was making. The other component was a list of the workers who had died in that particular mine because the museum was built on the site of a former coal mine on Cape Breton Island. There was no explanation as to why the company ledger was sitting there beside the list of workers who had died but it made a very powerful statement and a very deliberate statement about how those two things were not combined naturally to pay attention to the safety of the people who worked there and to ensure their safety and well-being as they worked there.

For me, that was a very dramatic example of the kinds of concerns that arise when we allow the corporate sector a free rein over issues like worker safety and the safety of the travelling public, which is why I am very skeptical about the direction of Bill C-6 and what it hopes to accomplish as a piece of legislation in this House.

Safety should never be subject to the rise and fall of a company's profit margin. I think that is particularly true in the airline industry where we know that often airline companies have had a difficult go of it in Canada, where we have seen airlines come and go in recent years because of the difficulties of making a reasonable profit, of making a go of it as a business in that industry. That kind of circumstance, I think, is ripe for the kinds of concerns to arise over cutting corners when it comes to dealing with questions of safety.

I know there are many concerns that we have in this corner about Bill C-6 but we do not think the amendments at report stage go nearly far enough to addressing all of them.

Our three major concerns are around the safety management systems. As I have already noted, the airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define the safety level of its operations. I think all of us would see some flaw in allowing that to happen. We are concerned that there would be no spokesperson for the travelling public to ensure that there is another standard applied to those operations.

We also know that heightened secrecy would be allowed because of this legislation. It would restrict access to information on the safety performances of airlines. Certainly, in a situation where we are turning that over to airlines, that is of great concern. Any more secrecy is not appropriate.

We also know that the whistleblower protection included in this legislation for employees would not be strong enough to allow an employee who sees a serious concern about safety to make that public and seek a resolution to that where it has not been given appropriate attention by the company, and that is not acceptable either.

We also see that there is a lack of accountability overall for airlines in this because it would give them, I think, far too many chances to voluntarily correct problems, that it would set deadlines in a timely fashion rather than on an immediate or urgent or—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Citizenship and Immigration.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for his hard work on this file and for keeping it alive, and also my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his remarks that he just made.

However, I also want to touch on some things that my other colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned. He talked about the north coast and the air taxi industry where loggers, miners and fishermen have to use air taxis to get back and forth to work. That is something that is very common in the riding of Vancouver Island North.

Several years ago in 2005, a small airplane crashed into the ocean and all five of the loggers who were on their way to work lost their lives, but a very brave woman, one of the spouses of the men who were killed, has continued to raise awareness about air traffic safety and what is happening in this industry. She has tried to come to the committee and make a presentation, but has so far not been successful.

Therefore, on behalf of her, her name is Kirsten Stevens, I bring this issue up in the House to talk about air safety. What she said to me was that the concerns are very real. There is a general feeling in the industry that the air taxi sector suffers from a considerable lack of effective oversight and enforcement.

Many concerns which were addressed by Transport Canada in the safety of air taxi operations task force's final report of 1998, which related to the problem of occupational health and safety as well as oversight in this sector, have never been corrected.

This sector suffers from a high accident rate. I find that appalling. My question for my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is this. When we see the amendments and this act which is asking for more oversight by the industry, and in this case the industry is not living up to the commitments now, what happens when they are in full control of it? Would he not think that we need more oversight and not less?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for her question and for representing Ms. Stevens and her family so well on this particular issue. They have gone through what no family should have to go through, losing a loved one in an airplane accident, and they know the difficulty of that.

They know the problems associated with that and to their credit, they have worked to ensure that the same thing does not happen to other families and other workers who depend on airplanes to get to and from work, to do their work, or who work on those planes themselves.

It is very commendable and admirable that despite their loss and their grief at the loss of their own family member, they take up the cause and seek a solution to this.

The member is absolutely right that we do not need fewer regulations, laxer regulations or looser regulations. We need to make sure that we have tough regulations and enforced regulations, and the inspectors to do the enforcement. Otherwise, we are letting people down. We are letting people down like Ms. Stevens and her family, and we are letting workers down who make their living on airlines or providing these kinds of services.

We cannot afford to do that and if government is not about ensuring some modicum of standards for Canadians and serving the Canadian public by ensuring that our safety is a priority, then what should government be about? It just seems so logical that this is a job for the Canadian government, to ensure that safety is a priority for the airline industry.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague and I was moved by the whole discussion on what we have seen in terms of railway safety and the abysmal record that has developed in Canada over the last number of years with railway accidents.

We are surprised, given the incredible number of accidents, that we have not seen a greater level of tragedy, yet this seems to be a model that is being promoted for airlines, where there should be a zero level allowed for accidents because of what obviously would be entailed.

I would like to ask the hon. member this question. How does he compare the situation that we have seen with rail transportation oversight with airline oversight?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the example of the railway industry is the wrong example. We have seen far too many accidents and lives lost in recent years because of rail accidents. My concern is that the safety standards that we need are not in place, are not in force, and we do not want to see that happen in the airline industry.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster for all the work he did on Bill C-6, which is an important bill.

Bill C-6 has been around before. In the case of railways, the bill was amended to make companies responsible for ensuring railway safety and to remove this responsibility from the government's mandate.

Not long ago, the news reports and newspapers were saying that the railway linking Moncton to Campbellton was so damaged that a VIA Rail train was an hour late by the time it got to Bathurst. Imagine a whole hour late. Also, what would happen if a freight train carrying dangerous goods derailed, or if the goods spilled into the rivers? The government is no longer there to keep an eye on things. They leave it to the companies and big corporations.

As for the air industry, we should remember the difficulties Air Canada experienced. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. It practically declared bankruptcy. Without blaming Air Canada, we have the right to wonder whether corners will be cut. What does the government have to say about that? It could not care less. This is also what happened with the Coast Guard, which suffered cutbacks. There are no more fish in the sea, so there is no need for anyone to monitor the sea or the ocean. I do not think anyone can get hurt or lose their life because of that, but the air industry is another story.

The government just wants to turn around and say that in this case it is not responsible, the airline company is. It is up to the company to say when something is wrong. If it does not say anything, it is responsible. All it has to do is say something, write it in its logbook, and that is that.

I would like to go back to the railway between Moncton and Bathurst. I am thinking of all of the derailments that have happened across the country: in the west, in Ontario and in Quebec. The government is not fulfilling its responsibility. It has passed everything on to the companies. As everyone knows, these big companies were good friends with the Conservative and the Liberal governments, so the government wants to lighten their load and, at the same time, abdicate its responsibility so that it does not have to spend a lot of money.

Furthermore, Bill C-6 does not protect whistleblowers. For example, when I was working in the mines back in 1978, we made sure that a worker could refuse a job if he thought that it would endanger his health or safety. Workers also had the right to tell their co-workers that the work posed a health or safety threat. Bill C-6 offers no protection for whistleblowers. There is nothing to protect whistleblowers who might want to say that they think the plane that passengers are about to board is not safe, that something could happen to put people in danger. There is nothing to protect those people.

How can the Conservative government, along with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, support a bill like Bill C-6? All three parties support this bill. With respect to the—

[An hon. member]

The Canadian Union of Public Employees.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The Canadian Union of Public Employees is against the bill.

One of these days, we will all be sitting at home and there will be an accident. We will then read in the papers that the airline did not fulfill its responsibilities in terms of safety. However, since it filled out the aircraft journey log, it will be protected. The government will not be able to hold the company responsible. We will not be able to hold it responsible, and families will have problems and will be left to deal with the tragedy.

This bill is important and should have been adopted a long time ago. This bill also aims to raise the awareness of the Conservative government, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. How can they accept the fact that the government is abdicating responsibility for corporations that should be under its supervision?

Take Air Canada for example. This example may seem rather banal, but in a country like ours, which is supposedly bilingual—French and English—on-board instructions were not even provided in French on Air Canada planes. Flight attendants did not give instructions in French. We had to fight for our official language rights. At long last, a manual now exists, and the flight crew is responsible for providing passengers with emergency landing instructions in both official languages.

This is an important bill, and it is unfortunate that it has come along at the last minute and without warning, and that it does not appear very important. Yet, workplace health and public safety are of prime importance. Once an accident happens, it is too late. The public should know what the government hopes to achieve with Bill C-6. It hopes to shift its governmental responsibilities for public safety and health onto the airlines. This is completely unacceptable and even worse than the Coast Guard situation.

If we put fewer Coast Guard members out there, people could be in danger. There are not enough people to help us in these situations. I remember the same thing happened in New Brunswick in the mining industry over 15 years ago. At the time, the government was responsible for the health and safety of below-ground workers. It was called the Mining Act. The inspector was responsible for various things. Then the government turned the tables and made the company responsible. They could have at least left the inspectors in place or added more inspectors so that work sites could be inspected. That is when they started reducing the number of inspectors.

That is really where it all began: the government started reducing the number of inspectors working in the airline industry, and that is sad. I do not want to see the day when, at home or elsewhere, we hear about an accident in which people lost their lives, or about a plane that crashed in a city or in the country, killing innocent bystanders.

I do not want to see that day because it will be Parliament's fault for passing the Conservative bill as it is currently worded because the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. They have not done their duty. The union of public employees was clear about not being in favour of this bill. We are therefore not the only ones.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the various parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-6 report stage Motion No. 2 shall be withdrawn.