Debates of May 17th, 2017

Resuming Debate

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for reminding us of some important history about the changes that were proposed with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. My comments are on a couple of things that my hon. colleague mentioned.

It was really clear from all of the experts we saw and from what we heard from those involved, the unions, employers, and government folks, that the way to change the Canada Labour Code is in a tripartite model so that we keep the balance. Of course, that did not happen the last time. We have heard from the Conservatives and from a few other people that there is a mountain of evidence, which we could not find as it was mostly anecdotal, that somehow people were using a card check system and that somehow people were being prevented from exercising their rights and their votes, none of which we heard from the experts and the academics this time around.

What we heard and reaffirmed—and it is unfortunate that the Senate has sent it back—from all people who are connected to workplaces, the employers, workers, and those who draft legislation, is that when we change the Canada Labour Code, we need to do that in partnership in a tripartite model. What the previous government did skewed that to the employer's interest.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a member of the House of Commons say that the right to vote is an attack on democracy. She said that giving workers the right to vote will allow them to be intimidated.

What she should learn about the right to vote is that if executed properly, it happens through a secret ballot, which means neither the employer nor the would-be union would know how the worker voted. Therefore, it would be impossible for the worker to be intimidated. In fact, that is how elections work. That is how all of us were elected. No member of this House can intimidate a voter, because none of us actually knows for sure how an individual voted. A person walking into a voting booth does so in privacy. The previous government enshrined this principle in the Canada Labour Code to allow workers the same democratic protections.

If the member is so worried about employers intimidating workers, why does she not allow those workers to make their decisions in private, out of view, without the employer looking over the shoulder of the worker, the same way every other democratic country in the world operates? Could it be that her party and the party across the way want to give interest groups the ability to look over the shoulders of workers when they are deciding whether they want to vote?

The member said, as the government has, that there was no tripartite consultation when we gave workers the right to vote, tripartite being government, business, and unions. Those are the last three powers that should be consulted, because this is about workers' rights, not the rights of big government, big business, and big unions. It is the right of everyday workers to chart their own course, mark their own destiny, and make their own decisions without intimidation from any of those three powers.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me another opportunity to remind him about how workplaces are organized. I think he somehow thinks the big balloon, the secret ballot, pops out of the air and sort of arrives in a workplace, and somehow people know it is time to vote.

The problem with a secret vote is that it is announced in the workplaces. Employers, and the evidence is there, intimidate workers because they know when the vote will happen. It is not the unions.

Employers intimidate employees prior to the vote because they know when it will happen. Evidence and research show that for those jurisdictions that bring in those changes, the amount of unionization is reduced. It is not reduced because people do not want unions, as my Conservative colleague has said. It is reduced because working men and women who try to organize the shop floor get intimidated by employers. They say that they will close the plant, which has happened, or will fire or demote people.

A card check system is a democratic way for working men and women in workplaces to talk to one another and ask their workers to join a union simply so they can collectively bargain at their workplace. It does not totally take away employer rights. Union certification, using card check, is a way to ensure working men and women can exercise their constitutional right to organize.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one theme from my colleague's speech about the other place and the time it has taken to get this bill shuttled through.

There is a couple of ways one could interpret the story of the bill.

The one that is the most charitable to the Liberals, and the story they would tell, is that they are the victims of their own success. They made an independent Senate and now that Senate does not always behave as it should. In this case it has rejected the will of Canadian voters, who overwhelmingly supported parties that thought the anti-labour legislation of the Harper era should be repealed, and that took time. They will hopefully come up with a plan to get it through the second time, although it is not clear what the plan is and how long it will take.

The other interpretation suggested by some is that a number of important labour reforms have not happened. Some have been proposed, like in Bill C-34, I believe it is. We have not seen anything about the fair wages act coming back. We have not seen any full pay equity legislation. One wonders maybe if the government is not a victim of its own success, but that having Bill C-4 stay in the system is a convenient excuse to not be pursuing these other important labour reforms.

I wonder if the member wants to help us parse those various interpretations of what is going on.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has offered a couple of scenarios as to why things are not proceeding. This bill, for example, was introduced almost a year ago. As I said, we are here to ensure and help the government follow through on its promises to working men and women, and we are ready to work. We want the government to step up and start moving its legislation through the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Justice; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Woman; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Democratic Reform.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the government's answers to Questions Nos. 949 and 950.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have received a notice from the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek of a question of privilege.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-49

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the leak of the contents of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, which was introduced yesterday. It has become an established practice in the House that when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to know the contents of that legislation.

As Speaker Milliken explained on March 19, 2001, at page 1840 of the Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The required confidentiality expected before the unveiling of this bill was simply not respected due to the government's so-called pre-positioning for Bill C-49 earlier this week.

Allow me to explain.

First, for context, all the information the House had when a notice for the bill was tabled Friday afternoon was that it would bear the long title, “An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts”. Considering the wide scope of the activities of Transport Canada, a title like this one could be used with respect to any mode of transport or any type of activity the department undertakes. However, despite the ambiguous bill title, yesterday's Toronto Star revealed that this legislation would be called the “Transportation Modernization Act” and reported many of the bill's details. That short title, set out in clause 1, only became known to us once the bill was tabled, well after yesterday's Toronto Star had gone to print.

Furthermore, the CBC website, on Monday evening, stated, “The...government will introduce legislation for a passenger bill of rights Tuesday in a move that will set a national standard for how airline passengers are treated in Canada”. The bill's summary reads, on page 2:

With respect to air transportation, it amends the Canada Transportation Act to require the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations establishing a new air passenger rights regime and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations requiring air carriers and other persons providing services in relation to air transportation to report on different aspects of their performance with respect to passenger experience or quality of service.

CTV National News offered more information to its viewers on this legislation during its broadcast Monday night. It stated, “CTV News has learned the government will mandate minimum levels of reimbursement for travel disruptions and lost luggage.” I was watching the news at the time and was extremely surprised to see such detail being made public for a bill that had not yet been made public in Parliament. Later in the same CTV report, I heard, “Under the bill Transport Minister...will table tomorrow, airlines would provide clear and transparent rules so passengers know when they're entitled to compensation; airlines would compensate travellers for flights delayed or cancelled, though not for weather or air traffic...”

Turning to clause 19 of Bill C-49, we see that CTV News was reporting on the proposed new paragraphs 86.11(1)(a),(b), and (c) of the bill.

Meanwhile, on CBC's The National, viewers were told, “CBC News has learned the legislation is also expected to stop airlines from charging parents extra to sit with their kids.” In this case, CBC was reporting on the proposed new paragraph 86.11(1)(d) from the bill, which says, “respecting the carrier’s obligation to facilitate the assignment of seats to children under the age of 14 years in close proximity to a parent, guardian or tutor at no additional cost.” This is specific detail of the legislation that could not have been guessed at ahead of time by the CBC. Details of the bill were clearly leaked.

Furthermore, the CBC report noted “don't expect exact compensation levels tomorrow. They won't be written into the law.”

If you were watching CTV Monday night, Mr. Speaker, you would have known that “The exact rates for compensation under the new rules will be set at a later date by the Canadian Transportation Agency and reviewed regularly.”

This was in reference to the proposed new subsection 86.11(1) of the bill, which reads, “The Agency shall, after consulting with the Minister, make regulations in relation to flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights.”

It is clear this was no simple, accidental leak, though that would also be inexcusable, but, rather, this appears to be the result of a systemic advance briefing of the media about pending legislation as there would be no other way for them to know such specific detail about the bill. Details such as airlines not being able to charge extra for parents to sit next to their children, or that the fines would not be detailed in the bill, or that airlines would be forced to compensate travellers for delays and missed flights could only be known by the media as a result of a leak.

As the Conservative Party critic for transport, I cannot hold the government to account if I learn about the content of the legislation through the news and not through Parliament. That is why this is so important.

As Speaker Milliken said in the ruling I cited earlier:

To deny to Members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning Members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

Speaker Milliken also found a prima facie case of privilege in connection with advance leaks to the media about a bill to be introduced, on page 6085 of the Debates for October 15, 2001.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you also had occasion to find a prima facie case of privilege last year, on April 19, 2016, on the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14, the assisted dying bill. On page 2443 of Debates, the Chair stated:

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

Thus, the available precedents lead me to conclude that this incident constitutes a prima facie question of privilege...

The House considered and passed a motion to refer that matter to the procedure and House affairs committee, which has yet to report on the situation. I understand it was last considered in September, when the Liberal majority voted down a number of motions intended to allow the committee's investigation to continue.

It is incumbent upon us, as the opposition, to call out the government for these abuses of Parliament, and to place before the Chair any perceived breaches of the privileges of the House of Commons, since you, Mr. Speaker, are the defender of the rights and privileges of the House.

Based on the facts I have presented, and the clear precedents on this matter, I believe you should have no trouble in finding a prima facie case of privilege.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we take the issue very seriously. We will get back to the House as soon as we can, once we have had the opportunity to review what the member has stated and to look into the matter at hand.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this matter is obviously of concern to the NDP as well. We do think that there are other cases not cited by the member that support the idea that the media should not be getting sneak peeks at legislation. We know, for instance, in the case of the report on Monday night, that members could be asked anytime before or after the media have that information to comment, and not having seen the legislation, we would not be in a position to do so.

I want to raise a case from March 14, 2001. A question of privilege was raised regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held for members of the media on a bill not yet introduced in the House, while denying members access to the same information.

Speaker Milliken ruled that the provision of information concerning legislation to the media without effective measures to secure the rights of the House constituted a prima facie case of contempt.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In its 14th report presented to the House on May 9, 2001, the committee found that the privileges of the House and of its members had been breached: “This case should serve as a warning that our House will insist on the full recognition of its constitutional function and historic privileges across the full spectrum of government.”

However, the committee did not recommend any sanctions at that time, in light of the apology of the Minister of Justice and the corrective actions that were being taken to ensure such events did not reoccur—presumably, actions that we would like to see sustained.

The ruling said, at that time, “To deny Members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning Members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone. Even if no documents were given out at the briefing—” and I think this is important to underline to you, Mr. Speaker, “...it is undisputed that confidential information about the Bill was provided. While it may have been the intention to embargo that information as an essential safeguard of the rights of this House, the evidence would indicate that no effective embargo occurred.”

There are at least some important similarities between those two prima facie cases, Mr. Speaker, so I would encourage you to consider that ruling of Speaker Milliken when you are considering this issue.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. members for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and Elmwood—Transcona for their interventions. I look forward to the intervention from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons or someone else from the government side, and I will take the matter under advisement and come back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

Canada Labour Code

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North to give him an opportunity to get a few words on the record. I am sure everybody is looking to forward that.

I am happy to rise today to speak on the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, but first I want to say that I am very pleased that the Senate chose to accept to repeal Bill C-377 in its entirety. I will focus my comments today on the amendments that relate specifically to the repeal of Bill C-525, which deals with the fundamental right of workers to organize themselves into a union.

Everyone, including labour, employers, and government, wants a fair and legitimate certification process that would do two things. First, it would allow workers to make a free and informed decision about whether they want to join a union or not; second, it would be created through a fair and balanced tripartite consensus process that is based on fact, not ideology, and in which the changes to be made would not be imposed on the stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence for the need for Bill C-525 and the united opposition to the process it imposed on labour relations systems made Bill C-525 unsuitable legislation for changing a fundamental aspect of the Canada Labour Code. That is why I oppose the Senate amendments and would respectfully ask members of this House to do the same.

Let me share with the House the reasons for my opposition.

My opposition is first to the process through which Bill C-525 was introduced and passed. I know proponents of the bill say the process is unimportant and that the only thing that matters is the secret ballot. It is simply a case of “the ends justify the means” approach that we saw with the previous government.

This approach not only shows a complete lack of knowledge about good labour relations but also a total disrespect to the parties involved, the employers, labour practitioners, and regulators who have the responsibility to enforce a law that was developed through a poisoned process. Labour law systems are very complex, and the ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of labour and management that must be respected if and when reforms are to be made.

The stakeholders in the federal labour sector long ago developed a proven process to amend federal labour legislation. It is known as the tripartite process. As a result, there exists a delicate balance that serves fairly the interests of employers, unions, workers, and the Canadian economy.

The last major consultative review of part one of the Canada Labour Code occurred in 1995, and the subsequent report, entitled “Seeking a balance” was authored by the well-respected labour-neutral Andrew Sims.

Mr. Sims said that if labour laws are to be changed, it should be done because there is a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public's interest, and it should be done on a consensus basis. Based on the testimony in the House of Commons and the testimony the committee heard from the major employer and employee groups as well as the evidence from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Bill C-525 failed to meet that standard.

Beyond the process, let us talk about the evidence, or the lack thereof, for Bill C-525. The sponsor of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, had justified the necessity for his bill by saying:

...when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

I think it would be concerning to everyone if in fact there was indeed a case such as this. Fortunately, it is simply not true. According to Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have been only two founded certification complaints against unions in 4,000 decisions rendered in the prior 10 years before Bill C-525 was passed. In fact, there were more founded complaints against employers than against unions.

A past chairperson of the CIRB, Elizabeth MacPherson, stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem.” There was no evidence ever given to show that the federal card check system was not working in the best interests of workers in either its administrative effectiveness or in its abuse by unions to coerce workers to unionize. What the evidence shows is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference is a real phenomenon and is the reason a mandatory vote system produces fewer union certifications.

Sara Slinn was referred to earlier in a previous speech. She testified at the Senate committee during the study of Bill C-525. She is a very well-respected expert on the issue. She said:

In sum, the research evidence shows that there is no support for the notion that votes are necessarily a superior mechanism to cards for determining union representation. Nor does it support the notion that union intimidation or pressure is a substantial phenomenon in certification. What it does demonstrate is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference is a real phenomenon. It's effective, and it's more effective under votes than card-based mechanisms.

What is interesting to note is that the labour program under the previous government actually competed a study on the issue of card check versus mandatory voting at the same time Bill C-525 was being debated. That study concluded that:

...the use of [a mandatory vote] regime has been an important factor in the decline in union density in the Canadian business sector.

Unfortunately, the previous government buried that study, and it was only released when we took over the reins of government. It is a fair question to ask why that report was not released. I believe it was not made public because the report's conclusion supports the independent research that shows the answers to the critical question of why union density decreases under mandatory vote versus card check. The evidence shows it is not because workers do not really want to unionize but because there is a real or perceived threat.

Proponents of the secret ballot would have us believe that ideology trumps this evidence, that the secret ballot is the only factor necessary to ensure a democratic outcome. The member for Carleton quipped during his speech that the minister “used rhetoric to attack the secret ballot, which would make any third-world, tin-pot dictators proud.” That is right in Hansard too. It is he who would make tin-pot dictators proud by claiming the only factor necessary to prove that democracy has been served is solely the use of a secret ballot. The third-world tin-pot dictators that the member speaks of, like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, have all continued to remain elected through a system that uses a secret ballot. In fact, there are many countries around the world that conduct secret-ballot elections that many members in the chamber, perhaps all, would agree are not true democracies.

My point is that I do not think we can look at one factor in isolation to judge how effective and democratic a system is, including one that governs union certification. Instead, we must look at all factors in total that influence the process to determine how best to move forward.

Our government believes in a fair and democratic certification program, one that is based on evidence, not ideology or rhetoric, and is agreed upon through a respected tripartite process in the federal jurisdiction. We believe the card check certification is that system.

When our party ran for election, we promised to repeal these laws. We remain strongly committed to supporting the rights of workers. In order for workers and employers, society, and the economy to prosper, we need fair and balanced labour legislation. Bill C-4, as it was originally passed by 204 members in this House, would achieve that goal. I ask members to oppose the Senate amendments and restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of debates in this House is to consider legislation that is coming forward and then to hear differing opinions and bring forward thoughtful amendments that will be incorporated at committee before things go on to the Senate. However, it seems to me that this week the government shut down debate on three bills coming before the House and then refused thoughtful amendments in committee and used its majority to ram them through to the Senate.

Would the member not agree that a better process is the democratic approach of having these thoughtful amendments considered by the House at committee, which is our work, instead of making the Senate do our work?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a new and capable member of the House. However, anyone who was here before knows that for a Conservative member to stand up and rail against parliamentary process is laughable, and I heard the chuckles from the veteran members on this side. We heard the member in the front row here rant that the Conservatives invoked closure in the House 100 times, and now they are more holier-than-thou.

The legislation we are putting forward today is in the best interests of not just Canadian workers but the economy. Fair and balanced labour laws are important to the success of this country. That is why we committed to it during the election, that is why it was one of the earliest pieces of legislation we presented, and that is why we look forward to supporting it, and making sure it is passed.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made the case very well for why we need card check verification in Canada at the federal level, and indeed all levels. However, the real issue is the delay we have experienced, because of this bill going to the Senate. The Senate was a mess before. It is a bigger mess now, because there is even less accountability there. We now have unelected, unaccountable people telling this House, which is composed of elected members, two-thirds of which who said in the election they supported restoring fair labour certification practices, that it is not so.

The proper changes to the law are being delayed, because the government cannot get its own legislation through the Senate, in part because of reforms it made to the Senate. Therefore, I would like to know, specifically, what strategy is the government using to ensure passage of the bill through the Senate this time, and in general, how will it secure passage of its bills in a way that is efficient, so that unelected, unaccountable people are not telling the democratically-elected representatives of Canadians what laws to make?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. As a matter of fact, my friend and I had a fairly lengthy discussion about that the other evening.

The amendments that were sent back, obviously, came from the core Conservatives in the Senate, and there was a fair amount of debate around those in the Senate. However, as the elected House, it is our responsibility. It is not uncommon for amendments to come back to this chamber from the Senate. In this case, I am happy that the NDP members see that these amendments should not be supported, and that they will not be supported by their party.

Certainly, we are looking forward to not supporting those amendments. It has been a process, but the time is now. I know organized labour is looking forward to this. As a government, we are very much looking forward to getting this done, and we will do that as soon as the vote is called.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just to follow-up on the issue of time allocation, my colleague's point was not to say that time allocation is bad in all cases, but that if the government had dealt with the bills right here, it would not have to play ping-pong with the Senate. If it did not use time allocation, and instead had a thorough debate with amendments here, then it actually might be able to get its legislative agenda through faster, and members of Parliament could be more involved in debate.

What does the member think of that reality?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when Irwin Cotler tried to straighten out a mess the Senate sent to committee. The Senate knew that the legislation it was putting through was unconstitutional. Vic Toews, who was the minister at the time, had to ask the Senate to put amendments in, and then send them back, so that the committee could pass them with a majority. Therefore, to the newer members of this House, we need no lessons from the Conservatives about how to pass legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and talk yet again about labour relations. Since we have been in government, we have seen a focus on Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. A big part of that is our economy, making sure that we are looking at ways in which we can expand the economy. We understand and appreciate that a healthy middle class, and a growing middle class is healthy for Canada's economy. That is one of the ways in which we expand upon it.

Why do I start on that point? It is because unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize that one of the ways in which we can further advance our economy is by encouraging harmony between management and employees. When we look at what Bill C-4 is all about, it is one of the earliest pieces of legislation we introduced as government. It rectified some bad legislation that the former Stephen Harper government had brought to the House of Commons.

My colleague, who was the critic for labour at the time, on several occasions spoke in the House and defended how important it was that we have a proper balance in labour relations. It is something which the former Conservative government members still have not learned. They are still out of touch with what Canadians want to see. We see that demonstrated on issues such as this. Once again, we have the Conservative Party that is out of touch with what Canadians want. We believe that Canadians want to have a balanced approach. If we are successful doing that, we will be contributing to more economic growth in our country, and that is something we all want to see.

I listened to the two Conservative questions, and members wanted to focus their attention on process. On the issue of time allocation, my colleague had it right. The Harper government used it in excess of 100 times, and Conservatives now want to focus some attention on that issue. It is interesting to see that it is not just the government that has recognized that the Conservative Party does not want to pass this legislation. If it were up to the Conservative Party, this legislation would never see the light of day. Conservatives use excuses of the Senate that the same applied during second and third reading. If we did not use time allocation, the Conservative Party would continue to fill the spaces with the idea of never seeing this legislation pass.

To the credit of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Green Party, they recognized that. It is rare to see opposition parties get behind and support time allocation. That should speak volumes in terms of why this is good solid legislation, because we have a majority that goes beyond one political party in favour of time allocation on this piece of legislation. I thank my New Democratic colleagues and the leader of the Green Party in recognizing that Bill C-4 is a good piece of legislation. It is something which we talked about in the last election. To restore more positive labour relations was a part of our election platform, and it has been a long time coming as we tried to get it through. Finally, we are starting to see that the will of the House of Commons, which goes beyond just the government party, is to see this legislation ultimately receive royal assent.

We look forward to restoring, and sending the message that labour relations are important to this government. We recognize the valuable contributions that unions have provided in the past, today, and well into the future. As a government we recognize that, and we want to do what we can. In playing our important role, by passing legislation of this nature, it will send a strong message. We thank members across the way who are supporting the bill, and would encourage the Conservative Party to get onside, do the right thing, and support Canada's middle class.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendments tabled by the Senate to Bill C-4 now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.