Debates of May 11th, 1994

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Speaker]

It being 5.47 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Unemployment Insurance Act

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

moved that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member should just wait a second. I will recognize him on a point of order and I will hear him.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time because I would like to enter into debate if possible later, if that is the ruling. I would like to raise a very important point of order. Not being well versed on how to do it, I may stray from the procedure. I would appreciate your indulgence.

What I would like to point out is this. I would like to invoke Standing Order 73(1). That standing order gives a minister of the crown the opportunity to refer a bill to a committee before second reading. What I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that it would not be right for a minister to be able to do that for a public bill presented by a private member.

I would point out that there is a parallel in the book. It may be an oversight. I would refer members to page 35, Standing Order 68(4)(a) and (b). It points out that ministers have certain authorities, according to the standing orders, and there are parallels for private members.

It says: "for a motion by a minister to prepare and bring in a bill". In the following section, it says: "motion by a member to prepare and bring in a bill". I repeat, "private member". I say to members that in Standing Order 73 that by extension of 73(1) and the parallels that I just mentioned, as a member I should have the authority, as sponsor, also to refer my bill. A minister has the authority to refer a bill to a committee that the government sponsors, a government bill.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that as the sponsor of a private member's bill I would have that authority. If not, then I do not think it is right for a minister to have that authority over my bill. It is very important that we get a clarification on that.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur has raised a point for invoking Standing 73 in relation to Bill C-216, the item standing in his name on the Order Paper for today's Private Member's Business.

Standing Order 73 states in part: "Immediately after the reading of the order of the day for the second reading of any public bill, a minister of the crown may propose a motion that the said bill be forthwith referred to a standing, special or legislative committee. The Speaker shall immediately propose the question to the House and proceedings thereon shall be subject to various conditions".

The terms of the standing order in my view are very clear. The prerogatives under Standing Order 73 are given to ministers of the crown. As such, they cannot be invoked by private members and the Chair cannot therefore accept the hon. member's argument at this time.

I would however point out to the hon. member that he does raise a very interesting point for the Chair. I would like to take at least some time to go through the precedents on this matter and come back to the House. In the meantime, I would suggest that the hon. member proceed with his private member's bill for today and I will get back to the House after further deliberation.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to rise to present my bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.

As you may know, section 14 of this Act prevents persons who are obliged to exercise their civic duty as jurors from receiving unemployment insurance benefits when they are without work.

You will no doubt agree that this is clearly unfair and that many persons find themselves between a rock and a hard place when they are obliged to perform their duty as citizens. In addition, I feel that this section runs counter to the spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This Act was passed more than 50 years ago to provide all Canadians with income security and not to punish them when they are obliged to perform their duty as citizens.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that persons in temporary service as jurors are not regarded as disqualified from a benefit merely because of their participation in such an activity.

At present anyone performing their civic duty while collecting unemployment insurance benefits is penalized by the federal government for no valid or obvious reason. Anyone performing jury duty for more than two days is no longer considered eligible for benefits since the law considers that he or she is not available for work. Although jurors are usually granted a stipend for expenses incurred while performing their duties, anyone submitting unemployment insurance claim cards to receive the difference in UI benefits will receive nothing.

As some of the hon. members may be aware, I originally introduced a bill similar to this one in the last Parliament. While similar in some respects, Bill C-216 includes a number of improvements over the earlier bill. I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the House how I was made aware of this flaw in the Unemployment Insurance Act.

When I was originally referred to this case I thought the situation was the result of a simple misunderstanding and so did the person in question. To our surprise, we both came to find out that such a regulation was in fact on the books. The best way of explaining it is to read this letter which I received a couple of years ago now from one of my constituents. It was a letter to the editor and as it happened before it was published the editor phoned me up for a comment and I thought it was a misunderstanding. But I will read parts of it.

To the Editor:

In September I experienced the luck of having been laid off after paying maximum unemployment insurance premiums for the past 25 years. In November I experienced the luck again of having been selected as a juror for the murder trial recently held in Campbellton. I clenched my teeth and resigned myself to the fact that I had a dirty job to do and might as well do it to the best of my ability.

Having never followed trial proceedings previously, I found the whole process rather interesting. The mental stress of trying to absorb nine days of testimony and summations was emotionally draining.

At the conclusion of the trial I requested and was given a letter which stated the days I had been present in court and the amount of money that I would receive from the court. I mailed this letter along with my UI card on November 27.

Needless to say, this woman was refused unemployment benefits. She goes on to say:

I am outraged to say the least. We are taxed to death by every level of government known to man. My tax money helped pay the salaries of the participants in this case, including the RCMP, the prosecution staff, the public defender, the sheriff's department, the court staff, not to mention the room and board of the prisoner. In retrospect I could have ignored the summons to appear for jury selection and I would have been fined $50 like the dozen or so other good citizens who failed to show up. I could have requested a letter be sent to the court by a sympathetic doctor exempting me. I could have lied and said I knew someone connected with the case. I could have lied on my UI claim. Someone suggested that anyone showing up for jury selection with a rope thrown over a shoulder would probably be rejected by the defence team. However, I did none of these things. I tried to be a good citizen. But I have come to the conclusion that when dealing with big brother honesty is really not the best policy.

That puts it in its context. To go on:

After receiving notice of this letter another problem came to my attention in other provinces whereby members of the justice system, honourable judges, recognized that there was indeed a problem with the system.

Here I want to quote from an article that appeared in the Moncton Times , a New Brunswick paper, referring to something that happened in Nova Scotia. The headline says: Calls UI rule Stupid-Judge excuses potential jurors''. I will read it. It is short:A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge'-that is not a regular judge, not just a lawyer, not just an MP walking down the street making these comments. Remember it is a Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice-``excused nine people from jury duty Tuesday because they would not be able to collect unemployment benefits if the trial took more than two days. Canada Employment states that people must be available for work to qualify for payments''.

Justice Nathanson said: "I think it is a stupid ruling. But who am I?". He is a Supreme Court Justice from Nova Scotia. "Who am I?". Here we have a Supreme Court Justice for Nova Scotia telling us that there is a regulation that is stupid. It is very obvious it is stupid. Someone is forced to do something. They are not available for work, they are forced to do it. It is not their own doing if they are not available for work. They are forced to do it as a good, honest citizen. It goes further than that because it goes to the root of the justice system.

I am not a legal mind. I do not have a background in the legal profession but I do know that every accused person has a right to be judged by their peers. Judges, and they have been across Canada in various provinces, have been excusing jurors who are receiving UI because they would lose their UI. They have been excusing them from their jury duty.

If an accused who is receiving UI goes to court and wants to be judged by his or her peers, odds are that there will be no one in the jury box that would be considered his or her peer. So it goes to the root of the justice system. We have to correct that. There is only one way to correct it and that is by simple amendment here.

I would ask members to throw away their prejudices if they have any. We have been told that Parliament has to be more responsive to the people. This is not Guy Arseneault's private members' bill, this is Canada's private members' bill. This is a problem with the system. I am just someone here who is trying to correct it along the way. This is part of the process.

I ask my colleagues today to look at it on an individual basis. Go back to your constituents. It has more than likely happened in every constituency in Canada. If you look hard enough that problem will be there.

Is it a cost to the system? No, because the juror who is excused is getting UI anyway. They are going to get their UI. They just do not go on jury duty anymore. I ask members to look at that.

I would also like to point out that some members might claim today that the justice system is a provincial responsibility.

I say again to all the members of this Chamber that the justice system is the responsibility of every one of us. It is a personal responsibility.

If they are against this, some members are going to tell us today that the justice system is a provincial responsibility. It is not. It is everyone's responsibility. We cannot wait for another jurisdiction to correct a problem if we are aware of a problem. That is what we are here for. This is a law and a regulation here that we can change to make the system better.

I say to you as well that the injustices that mar the system and can be put right should be rectified by all the levels of government. In the matter at hand, it seems to me that an injustice was done and that another will be committed by our group if we do not agree with this bill. I will try not to be too biased, because I feel in all honesty that it is a good bill. Moreover, when you are biased, you risk losing people's support sometimes. I am compelled to say that if others claim it is a matter for the provinces, they are trying to shirk their own responsibilities. I think they are trying to pass their responsibilities off on others.

I would like to go back to what concerns us today and correct an injustice in the system.

I would like to inform hon. members that at this point in time I have the support of the majority of members of Parliament. I have the support of the human resources minister. I have the undertaking from the chairman of the human resources committee that it would take the bill and look at it quickly. I am not saying it would pass it. He did not say that, but it would be ready to study it.

I would ask members today to take a second look at the bill and consider sending it to committee. I leave that with the House. It is a request made by a constituent. We are here representing constituents. We have heard a lot about the justice system in the last couple of weeks from all parties.

Everyone has a concern. I have heard about the Young Offenders Act. I have concerns about that too. At the same time here is an item that can improve the system. I am waiting to see how my colleagues respond. I hope it is in a positive way.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur right away that the official opposition will support the amendment he is proposing to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I will also support his efforts to have the Minister of Human Resources Development move as quickly as possible on an amendment of this nature.

After listening to your argument, I would like to call to mind the difference between a jury and a juror. A jury is a group of citizens legally appointed to hand down a verdict in a case brought before a court. The jury has an important responsibility, namely to settle differences in personal, delicate and often emotional cases. A jury may be called upon to hand down a verdict in a criminal case and in cases of summary offences and minor crimes such as thefts. In society, juries are considered to be the underpinnings of our judicial institutions and most of the studies carried out have confirmed that they do indeed serve a valid function.

Jurors, on the other hand, are selected at random from voter registration lists. They cannot be excused from jury duty unless they work for the National Assembly, a provincial legislature or the House of Commons or unless they suffer from a physical handicap or sensory impairment. The fact of being unemployed is not a valid reason to be excused.

Jurors are entitled to only $25 a day in compensation, including a midday meal, two snacks and two bus tickets. So they only get $25 a day to perform what we admit is not only a task but also an important social and collective responsibility.

The law already forbids an employer to dismiss or penalize an employee for jury duty. However, the law does not require the employer to pay that employee-this is a matter in provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, unionized employees in big companies are usually paid by their employer, but employees of small companies are not, except in unusual circumstances.

What happens with the Unemployment Insurance Act, which concerns the hon. member? This Act does not exempt someone for being a juror. So if I understand Bill C-216 correctly, an unemployed person who is entitled to unemployment insurance and not available for work because of jury duty will be disqualified from collecting UI.

This is a flagrant injustice which is not in provincial jurisdiction since it is simply a matter of applying the Unemployment Insurance Act which applies to everyone.

I would add-and I think that this is the most important point, basically-that most of the time, jurors are ordinary people. They are just regular folks and these days, with so much unemployment, they are indeed likely to be without work when they are chosen.

Although this House cannot vote on your bill, I think that it should find a way through some ordinary process or institution or the minister's ability to amend his law to do justice to people who are already penalized by being unemployed. Accordingly this amendment should be approved without hesitation and without delay. I commend the hon. member for his initiative.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, first I want to say how pleased I am to take part in this debate and to give my wholehearted support to this private member's bill, C-216. I congratulate its sponsor, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, for bringing in the bill because I believe it to be an important one. I also congratulate him on his tenacity. He brought in a bill in the 34th Parliament on this subject and he is back at it again. It is encouraging to see a member stick to a principle and stick to a cause.

The sponsor of the bill indicated in his remarks earlier that he does not have a legal background. Nor do I, but I think I have been around long enough and have enough experience to evaluate what is justice and fairness.

I truly believe this bill is about fairness and justice. It is about stopping government hypocrisy and all of us know government can be quite famous for hypocrisy. The bill is about attempting to stop at least some of this hypocrisy. The bill is about encouraging people to tell the truth. It is about asking and encouraging the citizens of this country to participate in the public process and to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

On the matter of fairness and justice, these people who are required under the law of the land to serve as jurors do not have a choice. They are required by law to meet their obligations. They are not unavailable for work as a result of their own choosing. This is not a matter of sloth. This is not a matter of indifference. They are required by the law of the land to serve on a jury when summoned.

However when they meet their legal obligations and serve on a jury for more than two days another government department comes along and says: "You are not available for work and as a result of that you are not going to get your UI benefits". If that is not a denial of fairness and justice, I do not know what is.

On the matter of government hypocrisy, government should not be allowed to speak out of both sides of its mouth. The government cannot say: "It is your responsibility and we are going to make it mandatory under the law. It is mandatory for you to serve on a jury, but by golly if you do serve on a jury for more than two days you are not going to get your UI benefits". That is a classic example of hypocrisy. It is a classic example of government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Government cannot be allowed to do that. It cannot have it both ways.

The matter of encouraging people to tell the truth, my Lord, have we not all been encouraged from the cradle to tell the truth? Yet the situation here is that if you tell the truth it is going to cost you. It is going to cost the loss of UI benefits.

Therefore it does not surprise me that the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur tells a story about a woman who is tempted to come up with little white lies so she can avoid this unemployment insurance ruling and receive her benefits. In that particular letter cited by the hon. member the woman talked about faking illness or coming up with some other trumped up story, some cock and bull story so she would not miss her benefits.

I do not think we want that. We want laws of the land, policies and regulations of government that promote telling the truth. Certainly we do not want policies promoting lies, even little white lies.

It is the same thing about encouraging people to take their civic responsibilities seriously. We want that. We want people to get involved in democracy and in their communities. We should not be putting blocks and impediments in their way. We should be making it easier for them to take part, but this silly regulation does exactly the opposite.

A constituent in my riding of Winnipeg St. James by the name of Jamie Murray has gone through this. Last February she found herself summoned to jury duty. She served only three days. She was not in the situation of some jurors in which they have had to serve not days, but weeks and perhaps months.

I was speaking to a colleague of mine from the London, Ontario area today. She told me about one of her constituents who was on UI and got involved in a trial that lasted not eight days and not eight weeks, but eight months. That is a pretty extreme case but it can happen as well.

Getting back to Jamie Murray, she served on a jury for three days. She told the truth and the unemployment insurance people said: "Sorry, you are not going to get your benefits for those three days". She pointed out: "If I had served only two days I would not have been denied my benefits. So why not strike a deal? Give me the benefits for two days"-she is a very reasonable woman-"Give me the benefits for the first two days because that is what you would have done if the trial had lasted only two days and I will absorb the expenses for the third day". The civil service being what it is and how it is charged in its duties could not do that and she was denied all three days of benefits.

This regulation is wrong. We as parliamentarians and politicians simply have to show Canadians more understanding. It is not just a case of compassion. It is a matter of showing some understanding of the situation they find themselves in. They are following their obligations by serving on juries and then they are smacked, not because of their choosing but because of their unavailability for work.

I understand that ministers, especially the Minister for Human Resources Development, are in favour of this. I hope this goes to committee. When unanimous consent is asked for I hope members on both sides of the House will find it in their hearts to at least allow this bill to go to committee so that more questions can be asked and more information can be garnered. Surely this issue is compelling enough that we should allow it to be examined in detail in committee.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this private member's bill is to change the rules of the unemployment insurance program to allow claimants to collect UI benefits while they are on jury duty. That is the intent.

The guidelines used by claims adjudicators in unemployment insurance state: "As a general rule a UI claimant who is on jury duty is not considered to be available for work during a trial. The unemployment insurance plan was not designed to provide compensation for lost wages in such circumstances".

The guidelines also state that a person serving as a juror may not be disqualified from receiving benefits if the jury duty is only for one or two days. Rare exceptions have also been made for those jurors or claimants who can prove that they would be released from their obligations and report for work within 24 hours.

The policy experts at unemployment insurance comment that the problem is not with the UI rules on availability but rather the poor compensation provided for jurors. That is what the people at UI are saying and the Reform Party agrees. It is not a problem with the UI rules, it is a problem with compensation for jurors. That is the problem that needs to be addressed in this.

The Reform Party supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original function: an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss. This has been our policy since 1988.

If the employers and the employees who pay for the UI program had a say in how their money was spent, I do not think they would agree to provide benefits to claimants while they are serving on a jury.

It does not seem reasonable to compromise fundamental insurance principles regarding availability for work in order to provide additional compensation to UI claimants who serve as jurors.

The law is simple. If UI claimants are serving on a jury they are not available for work. If they are not available for work they are not entitled to unemployment insurance. For years now fundamental insurance principles have been compromised so that unemployment insurance is now seen more like a form of welfare than a form of insurance.

Unemployment insurance is not a right. It is an insurable program that workers are entitled to, provided they qualify and meet certain obligations. One of the obligations they must meet is that they are ready, able and willing to work immediately.

If we can compromise our principles of availability to allow jurors to collect, then who is the next group deserving of special treatment and special status? Who next would claim that right?

The UI program has to be returned to a true insurance program. We have to keep our focus in this regard. In order to do this all of the special programs, exemptions and exceptions including the discriminatory elements such as variable entrance requirements and regionally extended benefits, have to be eliminated.

This private member's bill would take us in the opposite direction to where the Reform Party wants to take unemployment insurance. This is the main reason why we cannot support the bill.

While this is our main reason it is not the only reason. If this bill were to be adopted, even the principle of equality is jeopardized. Let me explain. An employed person is expected to take time off work for jury duty and often they are not compensated for their lost pay if they have a job. How would a worker feel sitting with a person on a jury knowing that he was losing money to do his public duty and a UI claimant that was sitting next to him was getting paid by the government to do the same job? He would not regard that as being fair.

The hon. member raises the point that often employers pay their employees while they are serving on a jury and that it is unfair to the UI claimant to have his benefits cut off. If this change were allowed to pass and employers found out that their employees could get UI benefits for serving on a jury, how long would it take before employers started laying off workers who have to serve on juries? It opens up the system to abuse. This would undoubtedly lead to an increase in UI claims for people serving of juries and therefore an increase in costs to the UI program which is already $6 billion in debt. It is something to consider.

While there may be a problem of fair compensation to all persons who serve on a jury regardless of their employment status, we do not believe that tinkering with the Unemployment Insurance Act will solve it. We propose a simpler solution. Judges should use their discretion to excuse UI claimants from jury duty as has been done in the past.

The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur even provided me with a copy of an article from the Moncton Times-Transcript which reported on a judge in Sydney, Nova Scotia who did just that. Maybe that is what has to be done in this circumstance.

In February 1991 a Supreme Court justice excused nine UI claimants from jury duty. I appreciate very much the information that the hon. member has given me in regard to this. It has provided valuable background information.

This leads me to my final point. It is obvious that jurors are not fairly compensated. On this point my hon. friend and I agree. Everyone else involved in the trial is fairly compensated: the judge, the lawyers, the court workers, the police and the janitor who cleans the courtroom floor. It is inexcusable that jurors are asked to work for days, weeks and in some cases even months for $15 or $20 a day.

The Reform Party was founded on the principles of equality, fairness and common sense and we find that this is an area that needs to be addressed. To this end I pledge to my hon. friend that I will start work immediately to research the issue of fair compensation for jurors whether they be employed, unemployed, on unemployment insurance or not. If the appropriate action can be taken at the federal level I will ensure that a private member's bill is introduced.

I hope my hon. friend will agree to work co-operatively with me and my staff in this initiative.

In summary, the intent of this bill may be very good but the justice system needs fixing. We do not need to tinker with the unemployment insurance system. We need to fix it where it is broke. That is why I feel this is the approach we need to follow. I offer that I will work together with the rest of my colleagues on this. I feel that if we can work together on this maybe we can get somewhere.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the time that remains, I think members on both sides of the House have fairly addressed the main principles here. I want to touch on just two.

First is the reference to jury service as a mode of employment. I do not see jury service as being a job, as being an employment. It is the fulfilment of a civic duty. People who go into jury service do not do it to earn income. There is not much income there. As was said by the last speaker, $10 or $20 per day in some places might pay for the parking tab.

In addition the remarks pertaining to compensation for jurors relate to areas of provincial jurisdiction. These amounts are settled by the governments in each province. It is a tenfold problem if you want to look at it that way.

The mover of this bill has referred to the remarks of a judge, I think it was in Nova Scotia, who referred to the ruling at the Unemployment Insurance Commission as a stupid ruling. I think, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that the ruling was correct. However, I feel that the rule is stupid.

I think the rule in the Unemployment Insurance Act interferes with the ability of the citizen who happens to be unemployed at the time in fulfilling their civic obligation. That is an important civic obligation. It is such a civic obligation that governments do not even bother paying very much for the fulfilment of that obligation. It is basically come and get in here and serve as a juror because you are obligated to do it as a citizen.

As has been pointed out by the mover of the bill, that circumstance with the unemployment insurance rules causes the person called to do jury duty to perhaps lie or refuse to serve when they should be ready, able and willing to serve. I think that is a misfit in the UI rules.

As the previous speaker has pointed out you can fix it on either end. The mover of the bill believes, and I agree with him, that the quickest route to a solution is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act as suggested.

The mover of this bill has had success in this House previously in relation to the same bill. If I am not mistaken the matter was referred to the committee by the House after an hour's debate in private members' hour at some point in the last Parliament. As he said, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the chair of the House human resources committee and others all on the government side and other members on both sides of the House have agreed it is an issue that should be addressed and can be rectified.

I chair the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. When the matter came before the committee all of the members conceded that it was an area that could and should be addressed. For other reasons the bill was not included in the votable bills.

I want to indicate that I have always been and I continue to be supportive of this legislative amendment. Perhaps it is too small an amendment for the minister who is working on huge projects now involving UI and the social safety net to include as a single legislative item. But it is acknowledged by virtually everyone to be an issue which should be rectified.

As a result, it would be a shame if as an item of private members' business this matter could not be dealt with at the standing committee. It would be easy to get it there, but as you know, Madam Speaker, and as all members know, at this point in the process it would require unanimous consent of the House. It would be second reading and adoption in principle. I intend to ask the House for that now. I think all members have heard the arguments lying behind the bill and I hope they will accept it.

I am torn between moving adoption of the bill at second reading and referral to a committee or simply asking members to agree unanimously that the subject matter be referred to the human resources committee.

Since I am still standing, maybe I will move the former and perhaps, Madam Speaker, there might be a disposition in the House to adopt the bill at second reading and refer it to the human resources committee. If that were not the case, perhaps I might be allowed to continue with my remarks for another 20 or 30 seconds to wrap up.

I would put the motion now. I would ask that the motion as now placed before the House be moved and ask Madam Speaker to ascertain whether or not there is unanimous consent to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.38 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)