House of Commons Hansard #15 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

NoradGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her great presentation and the hard work she has always put in on the defence committee and in recognizing the contribution that the armed forces make on behalf of all Canadians.

I think the Norad agreement and the chance to renew and expand it is a great opportunity for Canada. It is about putting Canadians first. It is about protecting the interests of Canadians first and foremost. The member definitely laid that out eloquently in her presentation.

There has been some debate tonight, which I find rather peculiar, surrounding the whole issue of whether or not we should even be having the debate, that somehow or other it is wrong. I think it is great that we are actually having this opportunity to have input from parliamentarians on a strategic agreement like this. It is something that Canadians have asked for and something our party has stood for: wanting to make sure there is an opportunity for parliamentarians to talk about this. I would like to hear the comments of my hon. colleague on this matter.

NoradGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, the new Canada Command was stood up just last year. South of the border, the United States Northern Command was established in 2002. Both are responsible for defending their respective homelands and providing military support for disaster response and other domestic contingencies. Norad, Canada Command and the United States Northern Command have complementary defence missions and are increasingly working together to ensure seamless air, maritime and land defence across a full spectrum of threats to our nations and our continent.

With a new regiment like CSOR, Canada is well placed to do its part in all these endeavours through the new measures at home and through our position in Norad. Norad not only continues to provide us with a high level of visibility to the U.S. decision making on defence, but it gives us a voice, influence and a meaningful operational role in the defence of North America.

NoradGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first that I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

I would like to thank all members for being present this evening and indicate that I, like the majority of them, support the Norad agreement and its extension. I recognize, as do most of the members in this House, that it is necessary for Canada's defence to form alliances with other countries, including the United States and those of NATO. Canada is often involved in alliances formed within the United Nations.

Now let us talk about the New Democrats as well.

The NDP believes fundamentally that there are no world crises that cannot be solved with singsongs and that we do not need necessary military alliances, but I do not share that view. I believe it is very important that in the defence of Canada we do participate in these alliances and that we do understand what our limitations are.

We can beat our chests, wave our flags and be very proud of who we are, what we can accomplish, what our science and technology can do, what our military training systems can do, and what our men and women in the forces can do. I am quite proud of our men and women in the forces; I have a military base in my riding. But at the end of the day, our territory is so vast and our population so small that there is no reasonable way that we can protect the security and safety of Canadians without being in international alliances.

Let us look at NATO. I think that what we have been able to accomplish in the security of the northern Atlantic and Europe since the second world war has been largely, if not entirely, due to NATO. The fact that our opponents or people who would have attacked some of our allies knew of the formidable strength of the NATO allies certainly served as a deterrent.

If we look at Norad, we see a similar sort of thing. We are looking at a vast, vast area that has a huge amount of commercial and military flights over its territory. The capacity of both countries is needed in order to ensure its security.

We have come to a point in the renewal of that treaty where we have to look at whether or not it requires modernization and whether we should go further. After long discussions and much consideration, we agreed this time that the question of the information on our maritime zones should be included within our Norad agreement. It was agreed that both countries should advise one another as to what they see happening in the maritime zones.

Let us be honest. There is nothing new here. We are adding maritime zones to the agreement, but we have already been doing this, and it was and is the responsible thing to do.

Norad has been doing some great work in drug interdiction. People in my riding have served in this capacity, one as a general and another as an officer. One of these officers wrote a good paper suggesting how Canada could have a drug interdiction centre working with the information collected by Canadian organizations such as the military, the RCMP, CSIS, the Coast Guard, drug agencies or others. All that information could be brought to bear so that we could be a better partner with Norad and more effective within Canada. I congratulate Mr. Gagnon for some very good work. I spoke with the Minister of Public Security, who has agreed to review that documentation and proposal and ensure that it gets the full consideration of government. I thank the minister for that and I thank Mr. Gagnon for his work.

Tonight we are in debate on something that to me is a little bit nonsensical, because I think we all agree on what we are talking about. The problem I have with this debate is that the government is putting on what I believe is a little bit of a sham. It has called the House together on a votable motion on an agreement that it has already reached, and it had the absolute right to reach an agreement in those negotiations, I do not doubt that.

There are some important questions to ask if we are going to have this type of discussion. What happens in the future on a go-forward basis? In the past, the agreement had a definite date and it died on that date. The government had to renew it and negotiate on it. The public could, one way or another, question the government on it. Now, and I agree with this position, we have said that it is going to be a living, breathing agreement that continues and that we will modify as we go along.

What happens, and here is my question, if we decide to go in a direction that is quite different from where we have gone in the past? In the past, we did not mention maritime zones. We added it this time. It was the logical thing to do. I agree with it. But what if we said in the area of missile defence that in the future we would participate? I think we understand now what information we gather, whether it is inner space or outer space, and what information we share, as we should, but what if we want to go further?

We can say that the United States is not asking us to do that. As a matter of fact, the Americans definitely said that they did not want us to be part of their missile defence. That is true, but only after our newly minted Minister of National Defence offered to be part of it and said that Canada should be part of it.

We know the minister has been a lobbyist for a lot of organizations. Perhaps some of them had an interest in that. Perhaps some of them would have liked to participate within that plan and have some agreements. Is that it? Am I being paranoid? Perhaps, perhaps not. I think a logical question to ask is, how would that be dealt with in the future?

During the election campaign the government said that it would not enter into conflicts or commit Canadians troops without bringing the issue to the House for a vote. I did not agree with that then. I do not agree with it now. I think the government has a responsibility. The government answers to the public at the right and proper time, and defends its actions.

The government sometimes has information it cannot share with the public, that it cannot share in this chamber. Perhaps we would put our troops at risk if we gave out that information, or we would put our allies at risk. We might put the people who collect and give us that information at incredible risk. That cannot be done.

Perhaps there are ways that could be explored. I raised this in the House when we had the debate on Afghanistan. The leader of the NDP laughed at it. I think this is a serious discussion and we should consider in camera meetings of the national defence committee. The government could make the members sitting on that committee privy councillors. Then, information could be discussed that could not be made public. The government would get feedback from the House. I think that would be a reasonable way to do it.

I do not disagree with the way we are going with the document that was negotiated by the government. I think it is a necessity in the modern world. However, it supposes a certain confidence between the public of Canada and its government. I think that confidence is important. The government always seeks the confidence of Canadians.

Recently, we have seen times where a government that prides itself on ethics promised an elected Senate. Then it appointed a member to cabinet from the general public. He was a campaign manager and not just anybody, but a campaign manager and someone in whom the Prime Minister certainly had great confidence.

However, the government did not do that directly. First, he was appointed to the Senate, so that he would be a parliamentarian. The Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the opposition, always promised Canadians that should his party form the government that there would be an elected Senate. I understood that to be true, as you did, Mr. Speaker. What you and I both failed to understand is that only the Prime Minister would vote in that election.

That changes a little bit the understanding that Canadians had. It changes a little bit the confidence that Canadians had. The former opposition leader also said that he would change the way government does business, that the way the government was lobbied would change.

The Prime Minister never mentioned to us that he would put lobbyists in cabinet positions. He said that if a person had been in a cabinet position, they could not be a lobbyist for five years. He did not tell us that his campaign managers would be named privy councillors, so that they could advertise that on their websites and attract defence contractors perhaps, or perhaps people who have an interest in this from around the world. I do not know, but it is a question of confidence in government.

This is the same government that told us two days ago in the House that it was lowering taxes. Yesterday, the taxes were lowered and then we had the parliamentary library confirm what we understood as an increase in the base rate of taxes for Canadians with the lowest income.

Those are the fears that we have and it is not about the agreement. The agreement is a good agreement. I congratulate the government. It followed through on what the Liberal government had done. It is the same thing as the softwood agreement and the government followed through. As a matter of fact, the government liked our agreement so much that they got the minister.

NoradGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Westlock—St. Paul I am honoured to represent the men and women of 4 Wing Cold Lake, as well as part of the base at 1st Battalion PPCLI. Anyone who takes the time to sit down with these men and women will understand the importance this agreement has not only on them but on all Canadians.

I have a comment on the hon. member's tirade and I take exception to many of the things he said, but one in particular. He talked about the Prime Minister appointing as cabinet minister our Minister of National Defence. This is a man who has worked tirelessly for the people of Canada for over 20 years, dedicating his life to them. Finally we have someone in that position who has real experience in the military.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I sat here tonight and listened to many of his colleagues, including the defence critic give his position on the agreement. I also heard some of his other colleagues give opposing opinions. Does this member support the agreement?

NoradGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am the member for West Nova, and there is a military base in my riding. A number of retired soldiers live in the riding and many families have sons and daughters in the military. These soldiers want the base to be operational and well funded and the soldiers to have the proper equipment. They know what kind of equipment and investment they need.

At the time of the 2000 election, I remember that the incumbent in my riding spoke about having aircraft carriers on both coasts of North America. That was the policy put forward by the leader of the opposition at the time. This candidate was told that the idea of aircraft carriers was ridiculous. He replied that they were not aircraft carriers because helicopters were involved. In my dictionary, helicopters are aircraft and the ships that carry them are aircraft carriers.

But that was not what these soldiers needed. That was not part of their plans. The soldiers never said that this was what they needed to serve Canadians.

I think that the investments stipulated in the treaties and contracts, the commitments we are making as Canadians, must meet needs and help soldiers do what we are asking of them. Does this treaty do so? Yes. It protects Canadians. It is a good treaty. I support it 100%.

I would ask that the government reassure Canadians. We cannot rely solely on the government's goodwill and benevolence. In future, if the agreement is amended, the government must be accountable for the amendments to the House of Commons in some way. It can be in committee of the whole or before the Standing Committee on National Defence, or even in camera, but in a reasonable manner. The government must be accountable for amendments to this treaty.

NoradGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, this evening we have heard a number of times about the binational planning group's final report on the enhanced military cooperation between Canada and the United States. I want to read an excerpt from the executive summary of that report. It states:

The upcoming Norad Agreement renewal (including a potential expansion of its mandate into the maritime domain) is an important step towards enhancing the defense and security of our continent. To continue this momentum a “Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement” is the next logical step, as it would bring unity of effort and direction to each of the defense, security and foreign policy organizations, including Norad.

We now know that it is not a potential inclusion of the maritime domain but that it is part of the agreement that we are debating tonight. Some observers have said that this reveals that expanding Norad to include maritime surveillance is intended to create momentum toward a complete military security and foreign policy integration between Canada and the United States. I ask the member, does he support that? I certainly do not.

NoradGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that he does not support it. This is a member whose logic would say that one brings down the Liberal government and elects a Conservative government, so that one has a more left wing government. This is a party that never misses a good opportunity to miss an opportunity. What the NDP would tell us now is that sharing of information on maritime traffic between the two neighbours on the Canada-U.S. border should not be included. That is absolutely ridiculous.

NoradGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making a comment on the number of speakers in this debate and previous evening debates we have had this session. There were a number of debates, including this one, where we had more speakers than could get up. I know one lady who has been very passionate about defence in North America could not get on our roster tonight. On Monday night I had to send one of our chaps home and in the previous debate I could not get on, so I hope the government will be open to extending debates in the future so that more members could speak.

I have a great interest in this having been chair of our foreign affairs and defence caucus two Parliaments ago and on the defence committee last Parliament, but most important because it is of interest to my constituents. Although we are not discussing missile defence tonight, I will go on record that not many of my constituents were very happy when the former Prime Minister listened to the people of Canada and made the decision not to join missile defence.

Norad has worked well since the Ogdensburg Agreement in 1940. There have been thousands of incidents and this has been a very good arrangement for the protection of Canadians. I referred earlier to an incident which occurred in my riding in Whitehorse where U.S. fighter jets escorted potentially highjacked Korean planes into the Whitehorse airport and of course there could have been significant damage in Alaska or in Canada. It is a very sensitive situation and it is fortunate that we had an agreement where everyone was cooperating and working together.

Unfortunately, in that situation there was a lot of miscommunication with the Korean airline itself and then down the road it took a long time to get a full evaluation of the situation. As I said earlier, I hope the people working on the ground with these agreements in the future will take into consideration the local people who probably have no idea about these agreements and how they work. They need to be fully informed as to what happens after these situations occur.

I would like to close with a number of questions. I know in the spirit of the debate the government takes it seriously or it would not have had this debate. Conservatives are open and want to listen, so I hope in that spirit they, perhaps before the vote, could get back to me in writing, or perhaps the department of defence, to some of these questions. They are just interpretation questions on the agreement itself that I am curious about and it will give me a better feeling. Some are technical questions about some of the words.

First, if Parliament votes against this agreement, I assume the government will not ratify this agreement, but I am curious to hear about that. I want to read a section of the preamble and then ask a question about it. It says:

ACKNOWLEDGING that space has become an important dimension of national interest and has become an increasingly significant component of most traditional military activities, and that a growing number of nations have acquired or have ready access to space services that could be used for strategic and tactical purposes against the interests of Canada and the United States;

And then Article I:

1. The primary missions of Norad in the future shall be to provide:

b) Aerospace control for North America;--

I wonder exactly what that means. The preamble talks about space and more activity in space. What does this aerospace control for North America mean in relation to the sections in outer space? What activities would occur there? What surveillance, and more important than the surveillance, is the actual control function? What would that mean in outer space?

The next paragraph in the preamble states:

REALIZING that a shared understanding and awareness of the activities conducted in the respective maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways, including the capacity to identify vessels of potential interest, are critical to their ability of monitor, control, and respond to threats so that their shared security is ensured;

I would like more interpretation of what that means in our inland waterways. In particular, what control or surveillance would be undertaken, for example in the Great Lakes and maybe in the Ottawa River beside the member's riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, and in particular in the Northwest Passage? We have a bit of a dispute at times as to who might own the Northwest Passage, as to which nationality the waters belong, or whether they are international waters.

My fourth question relates to a section in the preamble as well. It says:

RECOGNIZING that, despite arms agreements, large nuclear arsenals still exist, deliverable by strategic ballistic missile, cruise missile or long-range aircraft capable of striking North America.

I have been at a number of meetings where a number of parliamentarians, not me, but others have suggested there are no large nuclear arsenals threatening Canada at the moment, that any large nuclear arsenals are in the hands of countries that for whatever reason cannot or would not ever be attacking North America. I would think that a majority of parliamentarians think it is small isolated or illegally traded nuclear weapons and not large nuclear arsenals. Those should be referred to in this agreement if we are going to refer to anything.

My fifth question relates to disputed territory. Members who wanted to make sure they understood this agreement and might have had concerns wanted to know where the control would take place related particularly to maritime activities. Because it only talks about surveillance of maritime activities, my understanding from the debate is that the actual control and any enforcement, et cetera, would be done by the ships of the nationality in whose waters the incident occurred.

How is this going to be dealt with in disputed waters? For instance, there is a large section of the Beaufort Sea where there is a dispute between the United States and Canada. Canadians say that we own it. If we put a line between Yukon and Alaska and go straight up into the ocean, we say we own everything to the right or east of that, yet the United States has put out oil leases in that area and the U.S. considers that it owns that water.

If it is only the ship of the nationality where the crime is occurring, and there have been interdictions of illegal ships going into that area, not American or Canadian, which ship is going to enforce that and what type of arrangements have been made? What type of cooperation arrangements have we made for disputed areas?

My last question relates to the amending of the agreement. It is right at the end of the agreement. It says, “The parties shall meet to review this agreement and consider possible amendments, under a mutually agreed mechanism, at least every four years or at the request of each party....The parties may conclude such further arrangements as necessary to advance the objectives and purposes of this agreement, including mutual support arrangements with other commands and agencies”.

If they are going to make the amendments under a mutually agreed upon mechanism, what is that mutually agreed upon mechanism? Canadians do not know. Members of Parliament who are going to be voting on this bill do not know. Exactly what mechanism might be used to amend this agreement?

This agreement may be totally acceptable to parliamentarians. In fact, I assume it is going to pass by a large margin, but these amendments made by a mutually agreed upon mechanism which no one knows about may lead to something that is totally unacceptable to members of Parliament.

The final part of that is “may conclude such further arrangements as necessary to advance the objectives and purposes of this agreement, including mutual support arrangements with other commands and agencies”. Does this mean that by signing this agreement, by agreeing to ratify this agreement if we vote in favour of it, we can bring out all the other divisions of the armed forces and make all sorts of other arrangements as necessary? It is open-ended.

I would feel much more comfortable if I could get a letter from the Minister of Defence, in the spirit of the cooperation we have had in the debate tonight, to--

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Questions and comments?

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the Norad agreement has provided safety and security for decades to North America as a whole and that has always brought me, personally, and my constituents a lot of comfort.

I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of things. Prior to 9/11, he made reference to the fact that, with respect to nuclear ballistic missiles, he does not believe there is any threat from those missiles. I believe that on September 11, 2001, we became aware that there are unforeseen threats that Norad can defend us from and I believe that there is a lot of value.

Does the. member intend to support the Norad agreement? Does he appreciate the opportunity for this debate this evening, which I view as a promise kept by our government?

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the member's question shows that he did not understand one of my points or I did not make them clear enough.

The point I was making on nuclear weapons was that it was not just or even large nuclear arsenals, that most members of Parliament would think it would be smaller. In fact, I think he was even suggesting smaller or individual nuclear arsenals. The agreement should at least include those or read that way. I do not think it is as appropriate as it should be.

With regard to how I will vote, I hope the member will support me and ask the Minister of Defence to provide me with the answers to those questions when he reads them in Hansard tomorrow. If I am provided with the clarification I need, in the comfort and spirit of this debate, I will be able to make the best decision possible.

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I will try to address a couple of points that have been raised by the member for Yukon.

In terms of disputed waters, if we are dealing with disputed waters today, the situation on surveillance is exactly the same as it would be after this treaty is in place because those remain under the national control of the respective countries. If we believe it to be our territory, then it is our obligation before this treaty is put in place to exercise our sovereignty and deal with it. After this treaty, it will be the exact same situation. There is no change there whatsoever. I am sure when the member reviews it he will understand and appreciate that.

In terms of future processes for amending this, obviously it all depends on what kind of amendments he might have. The hypothetical question is whether they constitute what we consider to be significant amendments.

Since the member is asking for that commitment from this Parliament, did he ever ask, when he was sitting as a member in the government, that the amendments in 2004, which his government negotiated at that time, be put to a debate and voted on in this Parliament? Did he ever ask that of his Minister of Defence and his Minister of Foreign Affairs?

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I think it is ridiculous that the member keeps bringing up the past and irrelevant stuff. I would like to give the NDP time to ask their question.

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question about the previous government.

I know the member for Yukon has been quite active on the defence committee. Does this agreement that is before the House tonight for debate have any changes in it from the previous administration or is this the same agreement that the previous administration had negotiated with the United States?

NoradGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, there are two changes. The first change adds the maritime aspect to the agreement which relates to surveillance only. I looked at it very carefully to ensure it did not include control and operations. However, there are two sections under aerospace, one is surveillance and the other is control.

The other change is that the agreement will not expire every five years, as the previous one did, and it can be signed, with the agreement of the parties and the mechanism that is outlined in here, every four years.

NoradGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate. The concluding speaker this evening will be the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

NoradGovernment Orders

11:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, since I will be wrapping up the debate, I will approach this as if I were doing a summation after a trial in a courtroom.

I am doing that in light of what I saw develop during the debate. I will start with what concerns me. I looked at the number of points that were raised this evening and I have to say that the government stands accused, and I will convict it, of not answering these points.

The first one is the whole issue of sovereignty. It has been raised repeatedly by way of a question to a number of the ministers and a number of the members of the government about whether this is just another step to full integration of our military, and to some degree, our foreign affairs into a continental, particularly U.S. dominated process that will leave Canada seriously short of its sovereignty. That answer was never given.

There were a number of questions with regard to whether this was the best use of our resources within Norad. Would there be better ways of doing it? In that respect it raises the issue that there are clauses in the agreement about intelligence sharing. It was interesting to hear the Minister of Public Safety in a somewhat facetious and perhaps sarcastic fashion indicate that we already do share intelligence and do we not understand that. I think that was in response to one question.

I can assure the minister that I understand that having worked in this area for the better part of two years now. We do in fact share a lot of intelligence and I do not see that this particular agreement adds anything. There was no explanation of that given.

There was no explanation given as to why there is reference to missile defence. There is a long preamble and a subclause where the U.S. reserves its right to deal with missile defence. There is no explanation of why that is in there.

As a lawyer I can say that clauses are not put into an agreement unless they have some purpose. There was no explanation given by the government as to what the purpose was of those two clauses. There was no explanation and in fact very little was addressed.

We heard a lot about the history of Norad. I can say to the government that I understand the history of Norad. We did not need to spend all that time on that.

There was no explanation as to why Norad is now being used as a mechanism to fight drug crime. That seems to be a bit of an overkill. Certainly we have any number of other agreements with the United States and agencies for which we share similar responsibilities on both sides of the border that are much more appropriate to deal with drug crimes.

I have to say that I was left with the image of a ballistic missile coming in and blowing up a drug runner some place, whether it was at the border in Windsor or somewhere else in the Great Lakes or in the Rocky Mountains. There was no explanation.

It begs the question, why would we be spending money through Norad for that purpose as opposed to using that money for instance to raise the wages of our military which is badly in need? It seems to be a waste of money when one looks at it from that perspective. Again, there were no answers.

Finally, there is the issue of the maritime area and why this is in Norad. Norad was always designed to be a mechanism to deal with air defence. It has no expertise and no background in the maritime area. We cannot help but wonder if there is not a better mechanism.

If we look at those points, whether it is about missile defence, user resources, the fight against drug crime, and the issue of how best to protect our maritime borders, have we had the answers here this evening? In each one of those cases I can say with absolute assurance we have not. It begs the question as to whether this debate has produced the necessary information for the House to deal with whether we approve ratification. It certainly has not elucidated these issues for the sake of the Canadian public.

From that perspective, this debate should have been a much longer one. If the government is really serious about opening this up and ratifying these agreements on an ongoing basis, we need a better process than what we had here this evening.

NoradGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 11:21 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Monday, May 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:21 p.m.)