Debates of May 19th, 1995

Royal Canadian Mint Act

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

It would make the tailors happy.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

While it might upset the vending industry, it would certainly make the tailoring industry happy since people would be walking around with holes in their pockets or their purses. However, it would be something of a problem.

As the debate winds to a conclusion I hope some of these points will be considered. In my opinion we do not need another coin. If we are to get rid of the $2 bill, let us get rid of it and make do with our happy little loonies.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

moved that Bill C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of the operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce Bill C-313 in the House today. However, I regret the fact that this legislation is necessary to put an end to the dispute at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. The events leading up to Bill C-313 are as follows: a labour dispute between ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. and the National Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Ltd. has affected about 150 employees involved in production.

The parties started negotiations on the renewal of the collective agreement that expired on January 31, 1992. A conciliator and then a mediator were appointed to help the parties settle their differences. Unfortunately, very little progress was made.

The union called a legal general strike on June 6, 1994. This strike, which has been going on for 11 months, has not prevented the employer from continuing operations, since the employer hired replacement workers, which has undermined the bargaining position of ADM's regular employees.

Bill C-313 proposes final offer selection as a way to settle the dispute. Within 30 days after being appointed, or within such greater period as will be specified by the Minister, the arbitrator shall, first of all, determine the matters on which the employer and the union were in agreement at cut-off time; second, determine the matters remaining in dispute at cut-off time; third, select, in order to resolve the matters remaining in dispute, either the final offer submitted by the employer or the final offer submitted by the union; fourth, determine a back to work protocol.

Meanwhile, employees would go back to work in accordance with the provisions of the protocol. The bill would contain provisions obliging the parties to abide by the back to work protocol and resume operations. The bill's enforcement provisions include fines in the case of an individual who contravenes a provision of this legislation. Bill C-313 is not anti-scab legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to deal with a specific situation that currently exists at ADM. Many of my constituents have worked for ADM for more than 20 years. Today, they are out of work and have little hope of getting back their jobs. They want to go back to work, and they want to negotiate. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said the employees' union wants to negotiate.

On April 26, following promises from the company that it would go back to the bargaining table and because there was some hope of obtaining a negotiated agreement, the National Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Ltd. sent me a fax in which they asked me to withdraw this bill.

On May 1, the union met with the company, and by May 2, before the bill could even be withdrawn, yet again, the union sent me another fax saying: "Since our letter of April 26, we have been to two mediation sessions with Warren Edmunston and Rock St-Hilaire. The attitude of ADM Ltd. at those sessions, despite the fact that the strike has dragged on for 11 months now, has made us reconsider our position regarding the bill that you tabled. Effectively, on the critical issues, ADM's vice-president has said that there was no reason for compromise".

"Do you know what that means? That means that there is no reason for them to compromise. Needless to say, the hope of reaching a negotiated settlement has never been so dim".

"That is why we are now asking you to bring Bill C-313 before the tripartite committee of the House of Commons. Of course, when the time comes, we would like to be heard with regard to this bill, because we could suggest a few amendments".

"Nevertheless, in principle, the bill is an acceptable mid term solution and will at least guarantee that the workers at the Ogilvie flour mill will have a decent future and that they can return to work their pride intact".

"It is certain that a negotiated settlement would be the preferred solution. However, this cannot end up being a settling of accounts in which one party squarely comes out the winner. That is why we believe that this bill could very well be the preferred solution to the stalemate in which we dread we will find ourselves".

"I hope to hear from you soon and would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in the workers I represent".

The letter was signed Claude Tremblay, president of the National Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Co. Ltd.

I am convinced that it was very difficult for them to reverse their decision about having the bill withdrawn. As some of you already know, ADM Ltd.'s factory at Candiac and the union came to an agreement very quickly. There is, however, a major difference between the Candiac factory and the one in Montreal, located in my riding. The difference is as follows: the Candiac plant processes flour and is under the control of the provincial government. It is covered by anti-strikebreaking legislation, and the union could have halted ADM's activities there.

In Montreal, however, the ADM mills come under federal legislation, which permits the hiring of replacement workers. As we say, "the company has the big end of the stick". It can say to the union, through its vice-president: "We have no reasons for compromise".

This is no way to treat people. Faithful employees, who have given twenty years of service or more to this company are now, after an eleven month strike, in debt, without hope and unable to feed their family.

Workers have pride too and are happy to earn their living. As the Prime Minister put it in one his speeches, a father is proud to earn a living in order to be able to put food on the table for his children. When they came to see me at my office, they were not looking for handouts. They simply wanted to be able to bargain in good faith and to return to their jobs, which have been given to replacement workers.

As we know, whenever a company has the upper hand, it is forever critical of the people who have given their life for it. People may have worked 30 years of their life for a company and have it say today: "No, not a chance. You will be out in the street with no chance of renegotiating your seniority". The employees of ADM are not asking for a salary increase; they earn between $17 and $19 an hour. They are proud of what they earn. All they want is recognition of their seniority. The owner, Dwayne

Andrew, a multimillionaire, does not want to negotiate with ADM.

I therefore request the unanimous consent of this House to move:

That Bill C-313 be declared a votable item, pursuant to Standing Order 93.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of our colleague for Verdun-Saint-Paul?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has the floor.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-313, which was tabled in this House by the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul, who is a government member.

One can see that, while Ogilvie's may be experiencing problems, this is also the case on the other side of this House. Indeed, there seems to be a disagreement regarding the taking of a vote on this bill. Some day, we may find out exactly why. In the meantime, I want to make some comments on the legislation as such. I will take a few moments to relate the chronology of this dispute at Ogilvie Mills Ltd., which is located in Montreal, in the riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.

The collective agreement in effect at Ogilvie's expired in January 1992, and the company was sold in June of that year by its owners, Labatt, to an American multinational, Archers Daniel Midland.

After the change of ownership, bargaining became very difficult. The new employer behaved somewhat as if it were in a banana republic, brazenly trying to impose its rules and not caring one bit about our traditional ways of bargaining. It showed contempt towards the men and women who work for Ogilvie's. Consequently, on June 6, 1994, the workers voted 97 per cent in favour of a strike.

Why did they make that decision? Contrary to what several may think, particularly on the management side, people who hold a regular, well paid job allowing them a decent quality of life never decide gladly to do without their income and to go on strike. Such a decision is never made for the fun of it but, rather, for serious reasons.

This was the case at Ogilvie's, since the demands made by the new management were utterly excessive in the eyes of any objective observer.

Since then, for close to a year now, the employees have been out on the street, without any hope for a settlement, since the company, taking advantage of the fact that it is federally incorporated and that there is no federal anti-scab legislation, has hired substitute workers and is operating as if nothing had happened, while the real employees, those who worked for the flour mill for over 20 years, are still out on the street and might stay there for quite a while yet.

My colleague for Verdun-Saint-Paul insisted earlier on the fact that this private member's bill is not an anti-scab bill. He is right this bill has nothing in common with an anti-scab bill, but this shows the lack of responsibility on the part of the government which, despite the official opposition's repeated requests over the years and especially recently, has refused to pass anti-scab legislation in this House, which, I am convinced, would have led to a quicker settlement.

Across Canada, 75 per cent of employees working for provincially incorporated companies are protected by anti-scab legislation. This means that, in all the companies governed by provincial laws, in Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, employees can go through the collective bargaining process, then go out on strike in a civilized and orderly manner, thus establishing a real balance of power. The federal government still refuses to pass such legislation which, as I said, would certainly have solved the problem in this particular case.

I only have a few minutes left, but I want to stress that point, because it is not the first time that we are confronted with this kind of situation, which is likely to occur again many times in the future. The government must realize anti-scab legislation is a necessity. Members opposite seem to want to make absolutely sure that this legislation is not passed in this House, so as not to apply to federally registered companies.

The official opposition supports Bill C-313, which deals with what is called the final offer selection. This is better than nothing. It is reluctantly that the official opposition supports such a measure since, in the context of labour negotiations, the final offer is truly a last resort. Such a solution is often used when every other avenue has been explored, and when workers are at the end of their rope. I know that Ogilvie workers and their representatives hope, after a work stoppage of almost a year, to see such provisions come into effect.

Again, as far as the official opposition is concerned, we unanimously support this approach. We would have liked a vote on this bill, which would have given every member of this House an opportunity to express his or her views by voting for or against it. We already know, however, that there are deep divisions on this issue within the government majority, within the Liberal Party. That is regrettable since, as I said earlier, we

are discussing the fate of men and women who have been on the street without any income for nearly a year. They have children to support, mortgages and rents to pay. An agreement must be negotiated as soon as possible.

I hope that, once this bill is passed, once these employees have gone back to work, they can resume their activities in acceptable conditions, in a climate that is not too hostile.

In conclusion, I hope that the government will think about, really think about, introducing in this House an anti-scab bill that would benefit all workers subject to the Canada Labour Code.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul.

The bill proposes that the government implement final offer selection as a mechanism for resolving the year long labour dispute at ADM Agri-Industries, otherwise known as Ogilvie Flour Mills.

I was a bit surprised that a member from the government side would sponsor the bill. When the hon. member for Lethbridge was seeking support for his final offer arbitration in Bill C-262, which called for basically the same as the bill today only it applied to grain handling disputes, government members did not want any part of it.

If the hon. member from Verdun and perhaps the rest of his caucus truly believed in the concept they would have spoken in support of Bill C-262 at the time it was debated in the House.

How can he promote final offer selection or arbitration in one case and oppose it in others? Since flour mill workers are grouped into the same category as grain elevator operators they fall under federal jurisdiction. If the hon. member and his colleagues were really concerned about the workers at Ogilvie Mills, they would have got the ball rolling on March 20 by supporting the bill of the member for Lethbridge on final offer arbitration in grain handling disputes.

We know the government runs hot and cold. The fact the member could not get unanimous consent for his bill is a perfect example as far as final offer arbitration is concerned. They did not like Bill C-262 and they came out in force to ensure that it did not survive.

The Minister of Human Resources Development in a news release announcing that royal assent had been given to the West Coast Ports Operations Act was quoted as saying:

The imposition of the final offer selection procedure in this particular legislation should encourage the two sides to demonstrate a strong sense of rationality in deciding on the positions they place before the arbitrator.

That is what we said in Bill C-262, that it was a tool that could be used by either side in a dispute.

The transport committee in its recently released national marine strategy recommended a final offer selection mechanism for settlement of all disputes between pilots and their customers. It seems to work in some areas. As the mover of the bill mentioned, it is not something union people are objecting to. There seems to be growing popularity for the concept of final offer arbitration.

The committee also recommended that the new Marine Transportation Act should provide for final offer selection for the settlement of all disputes between the new not for profit Seaway Corporation and its employees. The chairman of the committee spoke on final offer arbitration during the debate on Bill C-262. He spoke at length about the need to maintain essential services. He also said:

Employees either have the right to strike or not.

He went on to say:

We have to roll with the change. I do not feel the way to begin a positive and co-operative renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which begins to erode what labour considers a basic right.

We are getting mixed signals from the government.

Last week in the human resources development committee I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour if she would consider implementing final offer arbitration as a solution to ending disputes involving essential services. She conceded that it might be an interesting concept but that it would be difficult to use as a method of settling disputes, especially complicated disputes like this one. I got the distinct feeling that she would not support that sort of move. I am not surprised my hon. friend could not get unanimous consent to make his motion votable.

Obviously he has one other colleague in his caucus that feels the same as he does. The member for Vaudreuil introduced exactly the same bill but it has apparently been withdrawn. I am sure they both thought there would be no repercussions since the government employed final offer selection as a way out of its problems with the west coast ports.

My friend from Verdun-Saint-Paul is probably thankful in some ways that it is not votable because if it were he would have to vote in favour of it and we have seen the government sometimes punish people who vote for their constituents.

The Reform Party believes in the bargaining process. We do not want to interfere in the process of two parties coming to an

agreement. We see final offer arbitration as tool that is useful to both labour and management. Certainly my friend across the way has alluded to having support of the union in this case.

We on this side are concerned about the impacts that strikes and lockouts have on workers, employers and Canadians who most often have to bear the brunt of the costs and inconveniences when the services of monopolistic industries are withdrawn. When all efforts to solve the disputes through the regular collective bargaining process have been exhausted, final offer arbitration should be available to all parties.

The recent strikes in the railway helped to underline the weakness inherent in the Canada Labour Code from preventing a shutdown to essential services. The federal government has a responsibility in this area to act in the best interest of Canadians. Transportation and communication services are essential to the daily movement of people, goods and services.

Canada's competitive advantage is determined by the efficiency and reliability of the transportation and communication network that it relies on. We cannot afford any major shutdowns in the network that links the country together. A case in point was the recent railway strike that is estimated to have cost the Canadian economy in the neighbourhood of $3 billion.

Final offer arbitration is the most effective and impartial means of obtaining a solution to the concerns of labour and management where an impasse occurs that inflicts significant damage on Canadians. It requires both parties to negotiate in good faith and quickly, while keeping in mind their overall interest as an organization.

There is nothing to prevent both sides from achieving their deal providing they are being fair, open and expedient with each other. Tremendous pressure is put on both sides to reach an agreement if the arbitrator is in a position to adopt all of one or all of the other side's proposals.

The threat of arbitration should be enough for both sides to reach agreement if the arbitrator is in a position to adopt either side's proposals. The threat of arbitration should be enough for both sides if they want to reach an agreement.

In cases where fundamental issues are at stake, such as employment security, an agreement may never occur through the collective bargaining process. A strike or lockout only makes matters worse and nobody wins in those situations. The best solution is for someone respected by both sides to make a decision on the fairness of one proposal and for the process to be viewed as legitimate by both sides.

Section 57 of the Canada Labour Code contains a provision for final settlement by an arbitrator for disputes that occur during the life of a collective agreement. The parliamentary secretary from York North referred to this provision on March 2 when he said: "Our system of compulsory collective agreement settlement through arbitration or some other peaceful means contributes to a high degree of stability in our industrial relations system". The message government is sending on this issue is one of confusion. Government is for it in some instances and not for it in other instances.

I am certainly not trying to circumvent the collective agreement process. I do want to ensure that in areas of essential services Canadian people are protected from costly disruptive work stoppages that could affect their safety and their livelihood. We need an amendment to the Canada Labour Code which would expand the provisions contained in section 27 to include final offer arbitration in work stoppages in essential services as soon as the existing agreements expire.

The Ogilvie workers and their employers have been involved in a bitter labour dispute as has been mentioned, for almost a year. Those people would certainly like to get back to work. It is unfortunate that this bill is not a votable one. If it were, I would be suggesting to our caucus that we should support it.

I encourage the government to come forth with legislation considerably similar to this that would work as a long term solution and not a piecemeal approach to the problems.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hesitate to interrupt private members' hour with House business but I think you will find that there is now unanimous consent for one of the motions I moved earlier. I move:

That, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Summerside, Barrington, Sydney, St-George and Petty Harbour from June 5 to June 10, 1995 in order to study the restructuring of the fisheries industry, and that a staff of five do accompany the committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of the operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-313 which is an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.

In short, the bill uses final offer selection as a dispute settlement mechanism. It would empower the minister to appoint an arbitrator to select the final offer submitted either by the employer or the union. In effect, the bill calls upon the federal government to impose a settlement process on the two parties.

On the face of it, the proposal sounds reasonable. However, I am a firm believer in the free collective bargaining process and the long term interest of collective bargaining would not be served otherwise. Having said that, I want to express to the member for Verdun-Saint-Paul that I share his concerns about the dispute.

On June 6, less than a month from now, the strike will be a year old. Surely in today's highly competitive economic environment it is reasonable to expect the parties to a labour management dispute to reconcile their differences in far less time.

It is noteworthy that one of the parties, the employer, is owned by Archer Daniels Midland, a very large U.S. based transnational corporation. To be frank, I wonder how aware the employer is that the industrial relations culture in this country is different from the industrial relations culture that exists south of the border.

Without overstating the differences between the two countries, I think it is fair to say that generally, employers and managers in this country possess a greater willingness and ability to work with labour unions. They tend to avoid the kind of power bargaining that seems to predominate in the U.S.

Dr. Pradeep Kumar, associate director of the Industrial Relations Centre at Queens University, pointed out in his study of industrial relations in Canada and the United States that: "While U.S. employers have become increasingly hostile to unions, practising a wide range of union substitution and union avoidance activities in pursuit of lower cost and greater flexibility in compensation and work arrangements, Canadian managers appear to have shown greater willingness to work together with unions to facilitate adjustment and adaptation to changing markets and technology. The growing U.S. trend toward a union free environment is less evident in Canada".

Dr. Kumar goes on to say: "Unlike U.S. employers who have vigorously demanded concessions and forced unions into submission using their enhanced bargaining strength, Canadian managers, while jealously guarding their right to manage the workplace free of influence of organized labour whenever feasible, have been more accommodating and receptive to union goals and objectives and have attempted to find consensus on areas of mutual concern".

Also, I think Canadian unions rely more and place a higher value on the collective bargaining process. They certainly enjoy greater public support as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of unionized workers in the U.S. is about half of what it is in Canada.

Professor Kumar and others have also noted that Canadian labour legislation differs markedly from U.S. legislation in many respects.

For example, Canadian collective bargaining legislation provides a relatively simple procedure by which trade unions can acquire collective bargaining rights. In most Canadian jurisdictions a union can be certified without a vote upon evidence that 51 to 60 per cent of employees in the bargaining unit wish to be represented by the union. In the U.S. all applications for certification are contested, requiring a vote to establish that a union represent a majority of employees.

No Canadian jurisdiction has right to work laws, but 21 states in the United States of America have such legislation. Canadian labour legislation permits all forms of union security, closed shop as well as union shop. Dues check off is a common provision.

Most Canadian jurisdictions have successor right provisions, providing that where a business is sold the successor employer acquires all the rights, privileges and obligations of the predecessor. The successor is bound by any collective agreement in force. In the U.S. the effective change in ownership on the union and the collective agreement is uncertain, depending on various factors.

A number of Canadian jurisdictions provide for advance notice and consultation on technological change. This provision is not found in the U.S. legislation.

First contract arbitration is available in the federal jurisdiction, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. There is no such provision in the United States.

The use of replacement workers during a strike is prohibited in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. In the U.S. if em-

ployees choose to go on strike, their employer can immediately and permanently replace them.

As Paul Weiler, professor of labour law at Harvard University put it: "For employees who may have spent 20 years with the company building up a stake of experience and seniority that can rarely be duplicated elsewhere, the stark reality is that if they do go on strike, they can be replaced by the company with people who in less than 20 minutes on the job gain permanent priority over the striking veterans".

Labour standards and occupational safety and health legislation in the United States is also very different from such legislation here in Canada. For example, U.S. legislation, unlike Canadian legislation, does not require the establishment of a joint health and safety committee, nor does it contain a right to refuse unsafe work. The right to refuse unsafe work by health and safety committees exists in every single jurisdiction in Canada.

While all Canadian jurisdictions have mandatory maternity and paternity leave provisions, with the right to return to former jobs and the continuation of benefits, very few jurisdictions in the United States require employers to provide pregnancy leave.

There are no individual standards for notice of termination or any severance pay legislation in the United States. In Canada, on the other hand, all jurisdictions require an employer to give notification to an individual being terminated, and Ontario and the federal jurisdiction provide for mandatory severance pay.

In Canada most jurisdictions require advance notice of plant closures involving 50 or more workers. Recent U.S. law sets minimum notice requirements for plant closures and mass lay-offs by employers of more than 100 employees, but there is no provision for consultation with the unions similar to that found in many Canadian jurisdictions.

My point is to show that the industrial relations climate or culture in Canada differs in significant ways from that in the United States.

In the dispute we are talking about today we have a relatively new employer, perhaps used to another way of doing things and having attitudes and assumptions not yet aligned with the Canadian attitudes and assumptions, and perhaps too ready to adopt a hard bargaining strategy. In this dispute the employer has chosen to use replacement workers, a decision which, not surprisingly, has greatly angered the workers. In their view, the use of replacement workers is the reason the dispute has lasted so long.

As members of the House know, the federal government has been examining the Canada Labour Code very intensively. It has been consulting with representatives from business, labour, and other interested parties. One of the issues being studied is whether the federal government ought to follow the examples set by Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia in their legislation to prohibit or restrict the use of replacement workers. Those who favour restrictions on the use of replacements argue that when an employer continues to operate during a strike the collective bargaining process is frustrated and the employer's incentive to negotiate is removed, work stoppages are lengthened, and picket line violence is often inevitable.

It is also argued that the use of replacements serves as a disincentive for employees to join unions. Workers who know they can be replaced easily during a strike will wonder about union effectiveness and will be less likely to opt for unionization.

Those who oppose restrictions on the use of replacement workers say that such a move would tilt the balance of power toward labour, inevitably resulting in higher labour costs. They claim that it would deter new investment. The point is also made that most federally regulated industries are infrastructure industries. If they are completely shut down the entire economy would suffer.

The issue is complex and divisive. The arguments on both sides are persuasive. Also persuasive is the fact that 75 per cent of the workforce under provincial jurisdiction is governed by legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers.

I will end my remarks by reiterating that I cannot support this bill because I believe firmly in free collective bargaining. The state has no business intervening in what are essentially private disputes.

At the same time, I have concerns about the heavy handed and less than accommodating attitude of the company. Like many others, I whether the impasse would have lasted so long had there been restrictions on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul, on a point of order.

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of the operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., be not now read the second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member requesting that the bill be dropped and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Since no more members wish to speak and the motion is not a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96.

It being 2.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)