SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

Dec/14/23 4:52:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are reams of evidence, decades of evidence, showing that, when we ban replacement workers, we shorten labour disputes and we reduce picket line violence. By balancing the bargaining relationship at the table, we get to more agreements. It is good for business, and it is good for the economy. I am glad my friend spoke up because the Conservative Party lately has been trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes saying that they are somehow the friends of workers. They have voted against anti-scab legislation every time in the House. They have ordered workers back to work, violating their Charter right to strike. They even tried to raise the retirement age to 67, which is particularly hard on blue-collar workers, who have to do physical work and use their bodies. They opposed dental care. They opposed pharmacare and anything that would help workers actually get a break in these unaffordable times. I just want to conclude by saying that, when New Democrats filibustered in 2011 for three days, we did so when the Harper government wanted to order Canadian post workers back to work. The Conservatives, when they did it just this week, were doing it to give a break to their corporate friends from the carbon tax. I think that tells workers all they need to know about which party really stands up for workers in the House.

235 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 4:54:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the things that the member has said. The only thing I want to qualify is that there are many individuals in the Liberal caucus, and I can attest to this, who are very strong advocates. I represent the north end of Winnipeg, and I have done that now for 30 years, in one way or another. We can talk about the 1919 strike, the replacement workers and how that ultimately caused the overturning of a street car. It is known today as Bloody Saturday, something that made North American news, possibly even worldwide news. There is a long history in supporting anti-scab legislation. I appreciated when it was incorporated into the election platform and today, we have it. It is not to undervalue it. I think it is great that it has the support from the Bloc and the NDP. I am glad we have the province of B.C., which was NDP when anti-scab legislation was brought in, and the province of Quebec, which had a Liberal administration when it brought it in. At times, we get strong leadership, and what really needs to be emphasized is that parties should work together, get behind labour and see that the legislation gets passed. Would he not agree?

215 words

Mr. Don Davies

Dec/14/23 4:55:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NDP does not just support this bill. We are the ones who drove it onto the agenda. The Giant Mine tragedy happened in 1992, and we saw the murders of nine people. We would think that a federal government would have seen fit to take the logical common-sense step of banning replacement workers after we saw Canadians killed. The Liberals have been in power for many years since then, and they never did it. It took the NDP demanding that in this Parliament, as a price for our support in the confidence and supply agreement, to bring it to Canadians. The Liberals only campaigned on banning replacement workers once in the last election, and then, it was only in a lockout situation. The Liberals can take no credit for this. Canadian workers know which party is responsible for bringing in anti-scab legislation finally to this country, and it took the NDP to do it. I am very proud of that. Workers across this country are going to benefit from this measure. I want to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for bringing in this legislation and for being such a strong driving force for workers in this country.

206 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Dec/14/23 4:56:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, I will begin by talking about democracy, union democracy. There are some people who think that unions do whatever they want, however they want, but that is not at all true. First, it is a recognized right, is it not? Then, people at the head of unions are elected. I feel like saying that sometimes these are ejection seats when members are not pleased, are not satisfied. Union leaders do not do whatever they want, however they want, and their power is limited by the will of their members. I know something about that, having been the president of a 10,000-member union for 10 years. Democracy applies, as I always say. Now that I have explained that a union is a very democratic body, I will come back to the matter at hand. In nearly every one of their speeches, my colleagues have said from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this important bill. I would like to add a few points. We will have hoped and waited a long time for something like this. As the saying goes, better late than never. Anti-scab legislation is a legislative tool that allows workers who, in order to gain respect and decent working conditions, must use the ultimate pressure tactic, a strike, to achieve that. Nobody is ever excited to have to go on strike. My speech will be largely inspired by a file on this subject prepared by Unifor. Unifor was founded by two major Canadian unions: the Canadian Auto Workers Union and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. Unifor has a few more members than my union. It has 315,000 members, 696 locals and 29 sectors. The people at Unifor know what they are talking about. I see this legislation as nothing less than a matter of fundamental respect. I will take my cue from Unifor and share its premise: Scabs tear apart communities, pull down workers and prolong disputes—something, we at Unifor, know all too well. Since Unifor formed in 2013, our three longest labour disputes in terms of overall days lost involved the use of scabs. Labour disputes that involved scabs lasted on average six times longer than those without scabs. Scabs remove any incentive for the boss to bargain fairly and they tip the balance of power away from workers trying to exercise their right to withdraw services when an employer is unreasonable. What Unifor said on its website is clear. It is always a good idea to remind the House that Quebec implemented this sort of legislative framework in 1977. There are, perhaps, a lot of people here who were not even born yet or who were not very old at the time, and so they may not be as aware of the harmful effects that the lack of such legislation can bring about. It is a matter of conviction. It is a matter of perception. However, the Quebec law has its limits. It does not apply to federally regulated employees. At the core of all this is the idea of respect, respect for workers and their loyalty. It is also about respecting their legitimate request to be heard by their employers. It is about ensuring that, when the time comes to renegotiate an expired collective agreement, there is a real possibility of engaging in negotiations that are as productive, honest and fair as possible. Scabs are a direct attack on the right to strike, as is the use of special back-to-work legislation. Canada has used that tactic extensively. I remember it happened with Canada Post, I believe, when I was first elected. That, too, is an attack. The Supreme Court writes, “The right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations.” It is clear that the right to organize and the right to strike to improve working conditions are both recognized rights in this country. It is high time this law be brought into the federal framework because workers in federally regulated sectors in Quebec have essentially become a different category of salaried employees. The same can be said in British Columbia, which passed similar legislation in 1993. This means that, in Quebec and British Columbia, not all employees have the same rights. Here in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois has tabled 11 bills since its creation. There have also been NDP bills. Our esteemed colleague in the House, the longest-serving member of our assembly, waited 33 years for this result after introducing the first anti-scab bill back in 1990 and 11 others after that. The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel must be reliving a few highlights from those days now. I would now like to return to the background document prepared by Unifor. The scab might be the single most polarizing figure in the world of labour relations. For employers, the scab represents an effective means of applying economic pressure when contract talks with the union break down, either taking some of the financial sting out of a lockout, or undermining the effectiveness of a strike. For picketing union workers, the scab represents a breach in the strength of the line, and a loss of solidarity and collective power. At the same time, the use of scabs completely destroys the essence of a labour dispute, that is, a withdrawal of labour creating a cost to both the union and the employer. The provisions of Bill C‑58, starting with the prohibition against using replacement workers, including subcontracted workers—except in very specific situations—along with the prohibition against crossing the picket lines and fines for non-compliance, are the basic components of this legislation. These clear prohibitions form the basis for additional provisions, such as those specifying time limits for each intervention or the powers conferred on the minister to regulate the setting of penalties. Is it any wonder that business groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, are concerned about Bill C‑58? The answer is no. I am thinking of the activities of lobbyists. I will come back to that shortly. Employers do not want to lose that competitive edge over their workforce, namely the ability to settle a labour dispute without any industrial or commercial impact when other people are being paid, ever. Their position is that, if the bill passes, it would deprive employers of the opportunity to mitigate the harm caused by prolonged work interruptions and lead to further problems in supply chains still recovering from COVID‑19-related shutdowns. COVID‑19 is clearly an excuse for everything. My question, however, is this: What about the harm being done to workers, for goodness' sake? In 2023, it is frankly disappointing to see such organizations shirking their responsibilities. I would say that it is archaic to think that workers are not being harmed in any way, and that it is mostly employers that are harmed when their business declines. The Government of Canada's delay in implementing this legislation leaves me, as a former union president, with a bad taste in my mouth. There is no need to wait 18 months after a bill receives royal assent for that legislation to come into force. We have never seen anything like it. It is not required for the government, whose role is to legislate, to give in to the demands of employers. Which brings us back to the issue of lobbies, who always use their clout, in every area, to weaken legislation and regulations. I will close by reading an excerpt from The Scab, by Jack London. In the group-struggle over the division of the joint-product, labor utilizes the union with its two great weapons, — the strike and boycott; while capital utilizes the trust and the association, the weapons of which are the blacklist, the lockout, and the scab. The scab is by far the most formidable weapon of the three. He is the man who breaks strikes and causes all the trouble. I am going to be realistic and end on that note. We should not celebrate too soon. It could take a while. Could there be obstruction? Could there be an early election that causes Bill C‑58 to die on the Order Paper? Although there is still a long way to go, the Bloc Québécois is delighted that workers covered by the Canada Labour Code will soon have the same rights as all other Quebeckers. This will correct a major inequity.

1460 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 5:06:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to pick up on the member's last words with regard to our not being there yet, she is right in her assessment. We do not know the position that the Conservative Party is going to take; if its members end up voting against the legislation, I trust that they will do whatever they can in order to filibuster the debate, so it does not become a law. I appreciated the member's comments about scab labour. It causes a great deal of harm having scabs cross the line, not only in the workforce, in the areas in which they are working, but also outside the workforce in our communities. Could she just expand on her thoughts on that?

121 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Dec/14/23 5:07:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fact that the official opposition's position is unknown could slow the work down, but I clearly read that the Leader of the Opposition said they were pro-worker. It is not that much of a stretch. Someone who is pro-worker should be in favour of this bill. What does a strong, fair anti-scab bill accomplish? First, it reduces the length of disputes, that is for sure. I gave some examples of that earlier. It also makes workplaces safer. We have seen confrontations break out when scabs are brought in. Finally, it significantly reduces picket line conflicts. I would go so far as to say that an anti-scab bill improves labour relations, especially during a strike.

122 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Dec/14/23 5:08:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague, the member for Repentigny, for her speech. It was an excellent speech that I would be prepared to endorse any time. I agree with absolutely everything. Bravo. I am also very proud that we were able to force the Liberal government to finally put an anti-scab bill on the legislative agenda. We have waited far too long. It is true that this will resolve the inequity in Quebec, as well as in British Columbia, by protecting workers in federally regulated sectors. I have been visiting strikers and locked-out workers who are currently out there, whether at the Port of Québec or at Videotron's western sector. They agree that we should move forward, even though they would have liked to benefit from this. They know that it is important for the future and for those who will come after them, which is very moving. I agree with my colleague that the 18-month delay is very worrisome. We in the NDP are also concerned about this. I would simply like to know if my colleague is prepared to work together in committee to change this delay in implementation, because 18 months is also far too long in our view.

214 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Dec/14/23 5:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. My colleague is also my MP in Montreal. In 2005, we were just 12 votes short. It was not Bloc Québécois votes that were missing, we can be sure of that. Obviously the Bloc Québécois is going to make every effort to ensure this bill is adopted. The 18-month delay worries us. We do not understand it. I have already asked the government about it and I was told we could change this in committee. That being said, it is their bill. What prompted them to include an 18-month delay? That has never been done. Usually, a bill receives royal assent and then it comes into force. There is no doubt that my colleague and I will work on fixing this.

140 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Dec/14/23 5:10:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I get the feeling that we are wasting our breath right now on the issue of the 18 months. If the 18‑month delay is real, if it is effective, even if the election takes place as planned toward the end of 2025, we are wasting our breath. We will never get there. Is this some sort of massive sham?

63 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Dec/14/23 5:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I must admit that we are wondering about that. Are we doing all of this for nothing? Will there not even be a bill in the end? Here is why we are wondering about that. The much-talked-about agreement between the NDP and the Liberals states that the government is committed to introducing a bill. The agreement does not state that the government agrees to pass that bill. We are concerned about that. My colleague used the word “sham”, and we are wondering if that is what this is.

94 words

Sham

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Dec/14/23 5:11:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing everyone a merry Christmas on these final strokes of the parliamentary calendar for this year. I want to talk a little bit about the context of Bill C-58. I believe there is 100% agreement among all members, and probably among all Canadians, that we need more great-paying union jobs in this country. I want to talk about how we get there, how we make sure that there are more great-paying union jobs here in Canada. The challenge right now is that, as a nation, we have a productivity crisis in our country, and productivity is what powers our economy. Let us imagine the economy of the country as a business itself. If, in fact, the business is producing things efficiently and effectively, then guess what? If there is a strong union in place, good wages should follow, and that is exactly what we want for the nation. Unfortunately, the factory that is our economy is not keeping up with other OECD countries. Let us unpack productivity. What does “productivity” mean? In layman's terms it basically means how efficiently and effectively we are delivering goods and services. How efficiently and effectively is our economy running? The answer is that it is not great, unfortunately, because of a number of standards. Productivity in itself is basically a three-legged stool. One leg is technology; another is capital investment, and the other is workers. I will go through those legs one by one to make sure we understand what the challenges are and why, unfortunately, the government is just not meeting the challenges. I will start with technology. It makes sense, and it has been true since the Roman Empire and even before it, that a society or an economy that has leading technology will have the ability to bring prosperity, or prosperity relative to the rest of the world, to its shores. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have a government that is stifling technology and innovation. For multiple years, going on almost a decade, in fact, we have been calling on the government for open banking legislation that was supposed to be here a year ago, and a year before that. Finally, in the fall economic statement, we got a promise for another promise to have open banking legislation. It was supposed to be here years and years ago. In the U.K., open banking has saved customers, depending on which academic or economist one approves of, between $1 billion and $10 billion. That is money we are leaving on the table every year because the government cannot get out of its own way. We can look at legislation with respect to innovation. Around the world, there is a lot of innovation about how we nurture the small or medium-sized technology companies and make them into the behemoths that they are. Unfortunately, in Canada, we are struggling with that. We have innovations like a patent box, which is available to the government as a tool. We have special regulatory and tax breaks that we can give companies, not just to move factories onto our shores by giving multinationals billions and billions of dollars, but also by creating businesses here at home, and we are failing there when it comes to the technology aspect. Another element of the technology world where we are letting people down is real-time rail. Most, if not all, G7 countries have real-time rail. People at home might ask me what the heck real-time rail is. Real-time rail is just having money travel instantly. A person may say that when they do an electronic funds transfer to their friend to pay half of the dinner bill, it seems to go immediately. However, in reality, while it seems to go immediately, what actually happens is that the financial institutions are fronting the money, and then the money comes back. Our current money transfer payment system is really held together by duct tape and a dream. It will break down, mark my words, at some point if we do not have some legislative innovation to allow a real-time rail system, which most of the other G7 and OECD countries have. That is an issue because the flows of capital and the flows of transfer are incredibly important to an innovation economy. We have some great start-ups and great fintechs across this country, but the government seems to be doing everything it can to stifle their development. There are tremendous opportunities. By the way, these are not partisan issues. It was, I believe, both in the Liberal policy items and in the Conservative policy items in the last election to have open banking, but we just need to deliver. That is the problem. Many times, my issue with the government is not so much ideology; it is just competency. These are things every other country seems to get done but that this country cannot. Second, the other leg I talked about was capital investment. This is the money that powers the technology that powers the worker. We have decisions to make as a society as to how much money we put into the public sector, which is incredibly important, and how much money we put into the private sector, which I would argue is just as important, if not more so. The private sector is that economy; it is what is driving the money flow. If we do not have a vibrant private sector generating revenue and income for the rest of our economy, that means we will not have a vibrant public sector, because the taxes come from the private sector. They come from the small business owner who is working 20 hours out of a 24-hour day. However, our current regulatory regime, as well as our taxation regime, is not fair to these individuals. In fact, even the government's approach to business is stifling growth. It is preventing winning from happening. I say this not for partisan reasons per se, but it does sort of illuminate where the government stands with respect to business. When it called small business owners tax cheats, that not only affects the bottom line; it also affects the way people think about business. It shows the way the government thinks about business, when in reality, without strong businesses, without entrepreneurs and without doers in our society, we will not have the revenue we need to fund our very important public sector programs. The final leg I am going to talk about today is with respect to workers. Our workers are, I think, and in fact I know, the best in the world. We have so many intelligent, hard-working women and men across this great country who go to work every day, but what has happened to them over the last eight years is just not fair. I do not know how else to put it. Let us start by discussing what the government is doing directly, and then we can talk about what it is doing indirectly, to our workers. There is something called the marginal effective tax rate, which is how much one pays to the government for the next dollar. That involves both taxation and clawbacks. It is shocking to me that there are Canadians earning less than $50,000 who, on their next dollar earned, will be giving upwards of 70¢, 80¢ or even 90¢ back to a government. Can one imagine? For those of us who have children, imagine saying to them that they are going to be given an allowance. They are to shovel the snow, which is no doubt coming, or rake the leaves, or whatever, and they will be given $10 an hour to do it. However, by the way, $9 an hour is going to be taken back. It is unbelievable the impact that taking away from workers would have. In sum, we need to improve the productivity of our country through reductions in red tape and reductions in taxation so we can have the productivity we need to make sure there are great high-paying union jobs across this country.

1371 words

Hon. Terry Beech (Minister of Citizens’ Services, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 5:21:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone happy holidays and a merry Christmas, and to say that, upon reflection, I think it is important for all of us to realize that no matter what party we belong to in the House, we all represent Canadians and, at the end of the day, all play for the same team. I recently had a chance to meet the member opposite's son, who happens to share a birthday with my daughter. I know that the member wants to build a great country for my daughter, just as I want to build a great country for his son, which is something I think all members of the House can come together on. We agree with a lot of the things and ideas he talked about. I, too, am excited by open banking. I am also excited by patent boxes. In fact, that is something I have worked on for some time. I often think there is a wonderful opportunity for the opposition in the House, not just to oppose but also to propose. I think good ideas can come from all sides of the House, so I congratulate the member opposite for a year of hard work and his relatively non-partisan speech. I will end my comments by agreeing with him on the last part of his statement, when he said, “Our workers...are the best in the world.” Merry Christmas to everyone.

253 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Dec/14/23 5:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we agree unanimously with respect to our workers' being the best in the world, but the rest of it may be on division. I thank the member for his kind words. I did very much enjoy working with him on the finance committee. What I would say is that I believe that everyone here wants the best for Canada and Canadians. The difference, though, between every other party in the House and Conservatives is that they define “compassion” as how many people the government helps, whereas we define “compassion” as how many people the government does not have to help.

106 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Dec/14/23 5:24:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas and a happy Hanukkah to all colleagues here and to the residents of my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. The member talked a lot about the cost of living and people needing help. People's paycheques are not going as far as they used to. I wonder whether he can expand a bit on how inflation and rising interest rates are affecting families and on how it was really the decisions of the government that have caused these.

96 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Dec/14/23 5:24:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was part of my speech; unfortunately, I did not make it there. We have a double-edged sword, because Canadians are getting hit twice: once because of low-economic growth, the worst since the Great Depression, and Canadians' wages not increasing; and a second time because of the government's propensity to outspend any reasonable metric. We have inflation, which is driving up costs; therefore, Canadians are earning less and paying more, which is why the polls look like they do.

84 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Dec/14/23 5:25:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the holidays, I wonder whether my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South would grant me a few words about the topic of the bill, which is the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. I listened intently to what he shared with the House, and while he touched on many different topics, and I know he is a very intelligent person, he did not speak to the actual topic of the bill at hand, Bill C-58, which is about finally banning replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. I missed the first 30 seconds or minute of his speech, so perhaps I missed it. If he could repeat it for me, I would much appreciate it.

123 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Dec/14/23 5:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did actually outline the Conservative position on the bill in the first 30 seconds. I am sorry the member missed it. What I will say is a microcosm of the way Conservatives see the world as opposed to NDP folks. I do have a ton of respect for the member, but that being said, in order to have strong union jobs, jobs that pay the bills, we need a strong economy, and that is what Conservatives are committed to bringing to Canada.

85 words

Union

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/14/23 5:26:51 p.m.
Watch

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I would just like to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a great start to 2024. Thank you all for your support over the past few months. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

50 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Dec/14/23 5:27:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, it is real and distinct honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-58, which would ban the use of replacement workers in strikes and lockouts. This is a bill that is the result of a lot of work over a lot of years by a lot of folks. The other day, I had a chance to stand at the press conference here in the foyer when the tabling of this bill was announced. I listened to labour leaders speak about the long history behind this bill and how long workers in this country have been fighting to have their rights protected to ensure that when they make that difficult decision to go on strike, they are not going to be at risk of violence and their rights to collectively bargain are not going to be undermined by the use of replacement workers. This is an effort that has taken place over more than 100 years. Certainly I am proud to rise as part of the NDP, a party whose roots are in labour and a party that has worked for more than 15 years to bring forward in this House, time and time and time again, bills that would do precisely what would be done by Bill C-58. This is really a momentous occasion, and I want to take a moment to read into the record part of an email that I received from a constituent who reached out and wanted me to understand what this bill means for him in his workplace. He wrote to me and said, “Hello again, Mr. Bachrach. ... I've been a union member for over 13 years while working at Telus. ... I've seen Telus attempt to get away with bullying and scare tactics in the workplace to reduce the numbers of our union members and their voice, then benefit from it at the bargaining table, negotiation after negotiation. This time around, we lost more again. I plead with you to assist in pushing the Anti-Scab legislation forward to prevent large corporations...from allowing scabs or replacement workers in to do our work during a dispute and undermining our negotiations.” That really speaks to the significance of this bill for working people across this country. Nobody takes the decision to go on strike lightly. This is something that affects the families of working people. They need to know that when they make that difficult decision and they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to strike, their rights are going to be respected and their rights are not going to be able to be undermined and they are going to be able to fight for better working conditions and to do so in a way that results in a fair and equitable deal at the end of the day. That brings my time to an end. It is far too little time to do justice to such an important issue. I just want to say how proud I am to stand in this House and support this bill. I do hope that our Conservative friends down the way will also see fit to support Bill C-58. What better message is there to send to the working people of this country than to vote unanimously for this bill to ban replacement workers? I have a lot of respect for many of my colleagues down the way. I have listened intently to what they have said with respect to this bill, and I do believe—

590 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 5:30:05 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. Unfortunately, I do have to interrupt. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

35 words