Debates of Oct. 17th, 1995

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

More or less, but still I feel that in the little time he has left, he will certainly get back on topic.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to use another quote to make a point and then go back to the main issue.

Here is the quote. It reads: "Canada has always protected French speaking people. It always let them be assimilated. If you know a bit of history-given your accent and your language, you may not have been a Quebecer at the beginning-did you study Quebec's history"?

I now go back to the main issue, but I want the House to know that, at least as far as I am concerned, those who applaud when the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata makes such comments should also be condemned, just like she was when she lashed out at another person, thus showing once again the separatists' intolerance. We saw that. We also saw that intolerance when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement about little white babies. We saw it in other statements too. We saw it today and we see it again with the applause of another member.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we do not intend to support the legislation.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We go to the trouble of introducing bills because we sincerely believe that the House serves some purpose, and I still believe it does. However, when I see the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do what he just did for ten minutes, I begin to seriously question the true role of this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is not a point of order, although we should always take great care to make our remarks relevant. The rule of relevancy is interpreted with a great deal of flexibility on both sides of the House.

I will now ask the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to conclude his remarks.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have finished, Mr. Speaker.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my remarks strictly relevant to Bill C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. On page 1a of this bill, it says, and I will read very slowly so that everybody can understand:

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of an employer under the Canada Labour Code or of the Public Service who are on strike or locked out.

This is what the bill is all about. This bill was carefully prepared by my colleague from Manicouagan, who carried out a study and who is sort of making a new attempt to remind the House that we must do something in this area. Another purpose of this bill is to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in a crown corporation and in the public service.

Bill C-317 was introduced by the hon. member for Manicouagan, whom I want to congratulate again for his insight. He was able to come up with this piece of legislation by relying on his work experience. The purpose of this bill is to expand on what we already have in Quebec. It tries to influence this Parliament, even though we are in the middle of a referendum, because a lot of the federal provisions included in the Canada Labour Code affect workers in Quebec. This is why my hon. colleague introduced this bill.

May I remind you that it is not the first time that such an initiative is undertaken and that such a bill is introduced in the House. Without going into details, I want to mention as an example that, in November 1992, the Conservative member for Abitibi had brought forward Bill C-376 that had essentially the same intent as the introductory paragraph of the bill introduced by the member for Manicouagan.

Before that, during the postal strike, the present member for Richelieu, who was then a Conservative, tried twice to get the House to adopt legislation to prohibit the hiring of scabs by crown corporations. The first time was in February 1988 with Bill C-282 and the second time was in April 1989 with Bill C-201. That last bill was defeated by 18 votes only, which means that the member for Manicouagan has a good reason for trying again today, having seen that a good number of members from different parties in the House had supported such a bill at that time.

The Liberal Party, then in opposition, had expressed its support for the bill. Many Liberal members were in favour of the bill at that time. If we go back a little further, in 1980, Ed Broadbent, then leader of the NDP, had introduced an antiscab bill. Since that time, several unions have asked various federal governments to pass a similar act. So, this is nothing new.

In October 1994, the present Minister of Human Resources Development promised that an anti-scab bill would be introduced in the spring of 1995. We all know what happened. A part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources Development were transferred to the present Minister of Labour, who seems to be to busy with the referendum because she has not yet introduced such a bill. Yet, the minister had made a priority of that issue after her appointment in February 1995. We are in October and nothing has been done.

I would like to remind the House that in Quebec, provincial anti-scab legislation was passed in 1977 and became part of the Labour Code. Since then, Ontario and British Columbia have passed similar legislation.

The preventive, dissuasive and indicative role of the Quebec act has resulted in a 35 per cent decrease in the average number of labour conflicts since 1979. And 35 per cent is not a figure to be sneezed at.

There is agreement between the partners in the Quebec labour market on the beneficial effects of the Quebec legislation on scab labour. Even the strongly federalist and strongly pro-business Conseil du patronat du Québec has abandoned its challenge against these acts before the Supreme Court, saying that there had been improvements in labour relations in Quebec over the years since its adoption.

And yet, as you know, there is a new government in Ontario and the new Mike Harris government which is chummier with business than with workers, has promised to do away with Ontario's Bill 40 by the end of this year. It is noteworthy that Chrysler Canada has publicly advised the Harris government not to move too hastily on this change and to weigh its consequences. The automobile manufacturer fears that precipitous action might upset labour relations in Ontario. This is a very recent happening and right in Ontario. Chrysler Corporation is not just any company, it is a huge company, an important one, and it is warning the government of Ontario not to take away the legislation.

In Quebec, 10 per cent of workers are governed by the Canada Labour Code, or about 217,000 people.

Now I will speak to you about one example of a labour conflict in Quebec which dragged on because Quebec's scab legislation was not enforced. That example is Ogilvie Mills Limited. Ogilvie processes grain, and somewhere in the constitution, in Canadian

constitutional law, it says that grain comes under federal jurisdiction. So what happened at Ogilvie? Because it was federally regulated, Quebec's anti-scab legislation did not apply.

This dispute, which was settled only recently, went on and on, despite all attempts to reach a settlement. I remember raising the matter as the member for Lévis. Although Ogilvie is mainly in Montreal, there was an impact across Quebec. In the notorious dispute at CN, we told the Minister of Labour: You do not seem as anxious to appoint a mediator to settle the grain dispute at Ogilvie in the Port of Montreal.

The dispute dragged on and on and on, until it was settled quite recently, but it went on for many months, and in fact it lasted about 18 months, if I am not mistaken.

So what did the workers at Ogilvie want? What caused the dispute? It seems they just wanted to maintain their working conditions, not improve them, only maintain them. The company wanted to backtrack on conditions that had already been agreed to.

In the circumstances, it was perfectly normal for the employees to act as they did. Not many people, and I would even include members opposite and, in fact, all members of the House of Commons, would be prepared to go back to what conditions were in the past. And that was the problem.

I could mention another case in Quebec to illustrate my point. I come from the riding of Lévis. MIL Davie, a marine construction firm, comes under the Quebec Labour Code because the sector is regulated by the province. The company does not have the right to hire strike breakers. However, a small shipyard like the one at Les Méchins, which does ship repairs and is thus in a related sector, would be subject to the Canada Labour Code because of the federal government's jurisdiction over marine traffic, and so the anti-scab legislation would not apply.

Today, these shipyards are being invited to bid for the same jobs but they are not subject to the same conditions, the same bargaining rules.

In the minute I have left I would like to say that-and it might look odd for a Bloc member involved in the current referendum campaign to encourage the federal government to pass anti-scab legislation-, if the yes vote wins, Quebec will do what it likes once it is sovereign. We can envisage that.

However, at the same time, as the areas of worker intervention are often interrelated and we want an open economy, we feel that our future neighbour, Canada, should be subject to the same conditions so that the rules for business-we are talking here of free trade-are consistent.

This is to be expected, and we want the members opposite to vote in favour of this legislation so that workers in all fields, particularly industry, enjoy the same conditions in this part of the North American continent.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here tonight in my first duties as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and to speak briefly on Bill C-317.

I thank the member for Manicouagan for bringing this important bill forward. The member proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As I read it, there are two very important objectives here.

The first objective is to ban replacement workers when there is a strike or lockout in the public service or at an employer covered under the Canada Labour Code. The second objective is to ensure that essential public services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in the public service or at a crown corporation.

The issues raised in the bill are difficult and complicated. It deals with peoples' pocketbooks, their livelihoods and their rights. To those involved in labour relations, it will also influence Canada's economic and social progress.

Thus the bill merits our time and consideration. Any decisions taken on these issues have to be carefully thought through. Bill C-317 proposes to change part I of the Canada Labour Code. This part of the code is meant to achieve a balance of power between labour and management.

As a former union executive I know a careful balance is needed to keep the collective bargaining process running. Therefore I do not think it is wise to isolate or grab on to certain issues without considering the effect on the big picture. That is the point I want to emphasize.

As I am sure the hon. member is aware, there has not been a comprehensive review of the industrial relations provisions of the labour code in over 20 years. The last amendments were made in 1972 and before that we have to go back to 1948.

In 1972 amendments were made involving the certification process, new provisions to require good faith bargaining, the extension of the unfair labour practices section and increasing the authority of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Most important in my mind, especially in light of today's economy, was the inclusion of a section on technological change. This meant that unless a collective agreement dealt with the issue, an employer was required to give 90 days notice of any new technology likely to impact on working conditions or job security of a significant number of employees. That notice was lengthened in 1984 to 120 days.

After such notice the union can apply to the CLRB for leave to notify the employer of its desire to reopen negotiations to discuss provisions for those workers affected by technology. Once notice is received the employer cannot make technological changes until the board denies the union application or an agreement is reached or the parties negotiate and reach a strike provision.

These changes were made only after extensive consultations with unions and employers and after two thorough studies. The Freedman study in the 1960s looked at the impact of technology at CN Rail and recommended a formula for labour and management to resolve disagreements over the consequences of new technology. As well, the Woods task force in 1968 examined just about every aspect of labour-management relations under federal jurisdiction. It commissioned a number of studies and submitted several important recommendations to the government.

I have touched on the history just to show that in Canada we do not fool around when it comes to labour-management relations. Hastily ill-conceived actions however well meaning can have serious consequences in this area.

Our tradition is to only change collective bargaining laws after thorough deliberation and consultation with all of the stakeholders. This tradition has served us very well. It has allowed us to develop at the federal level at least. I will refrain from commenting on the radical and polarizing swings in my home province of Ontario over the last five years. We had the NDP way over here at one end for a little while and now we have the Conservatives, some would suggest very right wing indeed, going the other way. That kind of polarization and swinging back and forth does nothing for labour-management relations. In fact, it does a disservice to the people who have to make a living by collective bargaining.

Since the last amendments were made in 1972, the environment surrounding industrial relations has undergone a revolution. Free trade, deregulation, rapid technological advances and workplace restructuring place new demands on both labour and management. In light of this, we need a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code, not piecemeal action as suggested tonight.

In fact, the Minister of Labour launched such a review just a little while ago. This review is looking at the big picture. We want to improve the labour code to encourage co-operation between labour and management, to reduce unhealthy and counterproductive levels of conflict and to ensure that administrative bodies are responsive to the new and always changing labour relations environment.

Since last winter, extensive consultations have been carried out with labour, management and interested and knowledgeable third parties. Many issues are being studied, including those that the member proposes to deal with in Bill C-317. It is a difficult task, as labour and management hold diametrically opposed viewpoints on these issues. For example, there is the issue of replacement workers. Let me quote Tom d'Aquino, whom we all know, and what he thinks on this ban.

Tom d'Aquino writes: "We would dramatically alter the delicate equilibrium which has been established over the course of many years between management and labour and firms which are subject to federal jurisdiction. The obvious result would be to strengthen the position of organized labour while simultaneously weakening management's position, with clear implications for the outcome of their private contractual negotiations. Government interference of this sort would violate the most basic principles of equity and fair play. It would be highly disruptive and entirely inconsistent with our open market economy. It also would override the fundamental rights of individuals to decide where and when they choose to work".

On the other side we have Bob White, whom we also know quite well. He is on record expressing the CLC's strong support for restrictions and even a total ban on replacement workers, including management staff.

Our job is to try to reconcile these deeply held, apparently incompatible positions. It will not be easy, but it is something we simply have to do.

Last June the Minister of Labour established a task force to conduct an independent review of part I of the labour code and to recommend changes. I want to mention tonight the issues and areas this task force will be looking at and to mention to the members opposite who have suggested that the Minister of Labour has done virtually nothing on this issue and that she has been somewhat reluctant to get involved in these major changes that are necessary for the economy and for the labour relations we have to deal with. The review will be completed by December 15. I am confident the people on the task force will do a thorough and professional job.

The task force is dealing with very critical and important issues which include the conciliation and mediation process with a view to reducing delays and encouraging settlements and the possible role of alternative dispute settlements; fact finding and special mediation; the procedures for acquiring the right to strike or lockout; and the rights of employees, employers and bargaining agents once a strike or a lockout occurs. The general purpose of the code will be looked at as will the need for labour management committees, preventive mediation programs, grievance mediation and expedited arbitration. Bargaining unit structures including recommendations of industrial inquiry commissions into labour relations at west coast ports will be made regarding geographic certification provisions. Finally the need for alternative procedures or bargaining structures for the non-traditional work relationships

like telework, contract work and casual employees will be looked at.

As members can see, although I did not lay them all out tonight, the task force has a large task ahead of it. There is a lot to do and not much time to do it. Then we will be able to make informed decisions on the issues raised by the separatist party opposite and on other issues as well taking into account the big picture.

In order to make sense of the whole process we will have to wait until the ongoing studies are complete. Then we will all be able to make an informed decision and a position will be reached by the government on what we will put in front of the House as far as new legislation is concerned.

That is what the federal government believes is the true way. We have put comprehensive labour relations management proposals to the House instead of the piecemeal approach suggested by the member opposite.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in the debate on Bill C-317, sponsored by the member from the Bloc that deals with the ban on replacement workers.

The Bloc member favours a ban on replacement workers. This stems from the Bloc being very upset with the use of replacement workers by the American owners of the Montreal company known as Ogilvie flour mills. Because flour mills fall under federal jurisdiction and Quebec's provincial anti-replacement worker legislation had no effect on the company, I understand Bloc members feel it is important to bring the legislation forward to the House of Commons for us to review in private members' hour.

The proposal comes from a member of a separatist party that wants to take the province of Quebec out of Canada. We feel they do not realize the consequences of their actions. I do not think they realize the consequences of the bill as well. It is a bit like sandbox diplomacy where a youngster is playing in the sandbox and if he does not get along with his companion he says: "I am going to take my toys and go play in another sandbox. No one else can play with these toys; I will take them with me".

Hopefully when we are dealing with legislation and labour disputes we can get beyond sandbox diplomacy in politics. The sandbox approach to labour disputes and to labour legislation, particularly legislation such as the bill that would ban replacement workers, is not the solution to the problem. It would exacerbate the problem considerably.

I will not go on at great length debating the clauses of the bill proposed by my colleague. However I want to take a brief look at the consequences of labour disputes and perhaps a more constructive and positive way of resolving them other than banning replacement workers and getting into a frustrating battle between labour and management where people take sides. I would also advise my colleague from the Bloc that perhaps this approach to labour legislation and a relationship with labour is not in their political best interests.

All we have to do is look at our political cousins, the New Democratic caucus, and see what has happened to them over the years and what happened to them over this past weekend. They have always catered to the elite in the labour movement, the leaders, and felt that was the key to their political success. Even in their leadership convention over the weekend we saw where labour played a significant role in determining who the leader of the party would be. That has led to their political demise and even to an erosion of support among rank and file union workers because of their position on issues dealing with labour and management.

A word of advice to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois is that perhaps for their political well-being they might not be advised to pursue this type of legislation.

I want to discuss labour relations on the west coast, which impact on my part of the world. Western Canada is important. I know we debate Quebec and its relationship within Canada quite a bit these days. However, I just want to deal with the labour situation and replacement labour and perhaps a better approach to solving labour disputes from my perspective in Saskatchewan.

Since 1972, six labour disputes relating to the west coast ports were settled by federal back to work legislation. Two other labour disputes were settled by federal back to work legislation in 1988 and 1991. They were also directly related to grain handling disputes in British Columbia, although they were somewhat different.

Within the current term of this 35th Parliament, two labour disputes have occurred at the west coast ports and there had to be back to work legislation. Specifically, these are the West Coast Ports Operation Act, Bill C-10, and the West Coast Ports Operation Act 1995, Bill C-74. These relate to disputes occurring in February 1994 and March 1995.

That brings me to the principle of the right to strike, the right to lock out workers, and the right to replace workers with so-called scab labour, or the opposite of that, the right to implement legislation that would ban the hiring of replacement workers.

The strike and the lockout are effective tools in the labour and management arsenal. They have been using these for a long time to bring about a resolution. Usually the side with the deepest pockets and the strongest resolve to win will force resolution in their favour. We respect this mechanism. If that is the approach that labour and management want to take, we respect it. It is not a

mature approach, but we live in a free country and that should certainly be considered.

In the case of the west coast ports, however, labour disputes are unique for a couple of reasons. One is that the federal government does not allow labour and management to actually carry the resolution process to the point where there is a disruption and it gets into a replacement labour situation or the banning of it. It passes back to work legislation as part of that. That has taught us that there is an innocent third party that is damaged economically. For that reason, there has been great pressure to find a better way to resolve management and labour disputes than through strike or lockout actions and subsequently through the use of scab labour or the banning of that same labour.

We have suggested that what has been working and has even been legislated by the House is the use of final offer selection arbitration. I would be more encouraged if my colleague had brought forward legislation that would take us from sandbox diplomacy with regard to labour relations and move it to a more mature ground, such as that of the final offer selection arbitration process.

The cost of the west coast ports disruption is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The direct cost of the 1994 dispute was over $125 million. The indirect cost in the loss of future contracts was over $250 million. According to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the threatened grain sales could amount to $500 million.

Having outlined these problems, we did not leave the people in the lurch. We decided we had to do something constructive about this. We suggested the final offer selection process. It is a tried and true process. It is not a brand new idea. In fact, the process has been legislated in this House.

Perhaps it could have an expanded role beyond some of the essential services, such as west coast ports and national railways. It could be accepted by labour and management more readily, rather than going the route of replacement workers or a ban on replacement workers.

This is how final offer selection arbitration works. If, and only if, the union and the employer cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous contract, the following measures are immediately put into place without work disruption. If there is no work disruption that means there are no replacement workers and that step has been precluded altogether.

The union and the employer are requested to provide the name of a person they would jointly recommend as a arbiter. The union and the employer are required to submit to the arbiter a list of matters agreed on and a list of matters still under dispute. For the disputed issues, each party is required to submit final offer for settlement and the arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. In the event that one party does not submit a final offer, then the other side's offer is automatically accepted and the arbitrator's decision is binding on both parties.

This is the direction in which we believe labour and management relations should be going. It is the way to more maturely settle management-labour disputes. It precludes having to use replacement labour or banning replacement labour altogether. It prevents work disruptions. It prevents loss of pay for the workers. The collective bargaining process is still in place. It is still allowed to take its full course. The parties are brought together to resolve their disputes more quickly, more fairly, more equitably and more harmoniously.

I would ask the hon. member to consider when he brings future legislation to the House this as a third option which might be superior to others that have been considered.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-317 introduced by the hon. member for Manicouagan.

This bill proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The purpose of this bill is, first, to prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of an employer under the Canada Labour Code or of the public service who are on strike or locked out and, second, to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in a crown corporation or in the public service.

Although this bill proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code as well as the Public Service Staff Relations Act, I will deal only with the amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

Furthermore, I want to examine two aspects of staff relations I find significant: the use of replacement workers and the maintenance of essential services in the event of a strike or lockout.

It is not the first time that such issues have been raised in the House. Politicians must have raised them often. The spokesmen for employers and unions expressed their views quite forcefully. And industrial relations experts from our universities have tried to explain to us the consequences of our decisions in this area.

The problems concerning the use of replacement workers and essential services are not easy to solve because what is involved is people's livelihoods and rights, as well as society's legitimate expectations. We are asked, as membres of Parliament, to decide if restricting the rights of one group is in the public interest. We are also asked to strike a balance between the rights of employers and

those of employees. Whatever legislative action we take, one group will feel that it is being wronged, that its rights are being denied.

Therefore, it is essential not to make hasty decisions on these issues. As I said, members have raised them often. It is all to their credit that they did not act impulsively and incoherently. I believe, however, that this bill's time has not yet come.

As the hon. member probably knows, the government has undertaken a complete review of part I of the Canada Labour Code. That part defines the framework for industrial relations and sets the rules for collective bargaining in federally regulated industries.

It applies to areas like rail and road transportation, pipelines, air and sea transportation, longshoring, grain handling, banking and broadcasting, as far as they concern interprovincial or international activities. Some crown corporations, like Canada Post, are also subject to the code.

For more than 20 years, the Canada Labour Code provisions on labour relations have not been reviewed. However, the collective bargaining process has changed tremendously during that time. Due to globalization, deregulation, technological change, and work environment restructuring, many requirements must now be met.

The government is holding major consultations with management and labour organizations, as well as with academics. Many concerned citizens have written to give their opinion on labour relations.

The task force examining Part I of the Code must report to the minister by December 15, 1995. Certain complex and difficult aspects have been looked at already, particularly the use of replacement workers in legal work stoppages and the question of essential services. These are highly volatile issues, particularly the issue of replacement workers.

At the present time, the Canada Labour Code does not forbid the use of replacement workers but it does offer some measure of protection to workers on strike. The employer may not take disciplinary measures against an employee who takes part in a legal work stoppage or who refuses to perform the duties of another employee who is taking part in a legal work stoppage.

As well, according to Canada Labour Relations Board regulations, employees are entitled to resume their positions after the strike is over and to have priority over any other person who has been hired to replace them. In the United States, there is no measure of protection against hiring replacement workers. Employers are in fact even permitted to hire permanent replacement workers, although President Clinton is working to put a stop to this practice.

Here in Canada, several provinces have passed legislation to limit the use of replacement workers in legal strikes. Those who favour a measure to prohibit the use of replacement workers feel that, when collective bargaining breaks down, the parties will be motivated to reach compromises by the economic difficulties they face.

However, when an employer continues to operate his business during a strike through the use of replacement workers, he loses the motivation to bargain. Work stoppages last longer, and tension on the picket lines increases.

Some claim that, in Quebec, where the use of replacement workers has been banned since 1978, violence on the picket line has dropped. Others say that using replacement workers poisons labour relations and discourages employees from joining the union; they know they can be easily replaced during a strike, and consequently they doubt that belonging to a union would be of any use. This is especially true of companies using untrained low paid workers.

To those who say that banning the use of replacement workers would tip the scale in favour of workers, unionists and the like reply that globalization is already tipping the scale in favour of employers. Those who do not support banning the use of replacement workers say that it could discourage new investments and drive some companies to the United States where there is no law to this effect.

Those who oppose such legislation also maintain that most businesses under federal jurisdiction are infrastructure industries. Therefore, if these businesses have to stop all operations because they cannot hire replacement workers, the whole economy will suffer and we will have to use back to work legislation more often.

To those who say that the banning of replacement workers would reduce tension and violence on picket lines, those who oppose the banning reply that labour legislation is not the appropriate tool for solving this problem. They think that the government should turn its attention to those who commit these acts of violence.

This is obviously a very difficult problem, and it will not be easy to reconcile the two sides. It is therefore absolutely essential to continue to talk, to consult each other, to do research, to discuss and to think.

The comprehensive review of the code undertaken by the government should be allowed to continue before amendments can be submitted to the House for approval.

The issue of essential services is also very complex. Coming up with an exact definition of essential services is no small task. In his bill, our colleague seems to establish a direct link between essential services and services provided by Crown corporations. Consequently, crown corporations would be covered by provisions

governing essential services, while private companies offering the same services would not.

To conclude, I would just like to remind the House that a thorough review of the Code has been undertaken by the federal government and that the two points raised by our colleague will be considered as part of this review. It would therefore be premature to adopt such a bill while the Code is under review.

Given the complexity and importance of the points raised, it would be wise to wait until this review has been completed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 7.13 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)