Debates of Dec. 4th, 1998

Nunavut Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Railway Safety Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The notice paper contains a motion in amendment at report stage of Bill C-58.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and put to a vote.

I now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 12 the following:

“(3) Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).

(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.”

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to outline my reservations about Bill C-58 introduced by the government to optimize rail transportation safety.

Anything that has to do with the rail system is of interest to the inhabitants of the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau. In 1994, we prepared a brief opposing CP's request to abandon its operations in the subdivision of Lachute between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso in the province of Quebec .

Fortunately, through the intervention of Jacques Léonard, the then provincial transport minister, we obtained a moratorium so the line would not be abandoned. Because of this moratorium, the trains are again running between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso.

While the Bloc Quebecois welcomes this bill, it deplores the circumstances that led up to it. In September 1997, a VIA rail passenger train left the tracks near Biggar in Saskatchewan with tragic results. This is what it took to get the minister's office to introduce the substantial amendments to the 1989 Railway Safety Act that were needed.

We have carefully examined the bill, which is a series of very technical amendments to the present legislation and, with some reservations, are in favour of Bill C-58.

First, we see it as positive that steps have been taken to enhance the government's ability to get the railways to remedy nuisances and hazards relating to safety and to the environment. Thus the government is assuming more of one of its fundamental responsibilities, to ensure people's safety.

It is also obvious that the government is taking advantage of this opportunity to encourage collaboration between the various parties involved in railway transportation in the process of creating and implementing safety measures for rail users and employees, and the population in general.

Finally, this bill gives the Minister of Transport the necessary authority in cases not covered by the legislation to step in promptly, overstepping the regulations, in the interests of the safety of those affected by rail transportation. We acknowledge the justification of this provision. It is a valuable tool in the hands of a Minister of Transport with concerns for public safety.

As I have said, one of the provisions in the bill strikes us as unacceptable in its present wording. This is clause 19, which gives the governor in council authority “respecting the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations”.

Hon. members are no doubt aware that the construction and maintenance of roads is a provincial and municipal responsibility. Railway safety is, and we do not dispute this, under federal jurisdiction. We nonetheless believe that steps must be taken to prevent Ottawa from using this responsibility as an excuse to once again invade provincial jurisdictions and letting the province or municipality foot the bill, when they cannot afford the road work required, especially in the case of small municipalities.

Clause 19 is sufficiently vague and its scope sufficiently broad that the governor in council could, under this provision, force a municipality to build a bridge to carry the road over the rail line on the pretext that it will mean greater safety for road and rail passengers.

This is totally unacceptable, hence our amendment, which reads as follows:

Section 24 of the same Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).

(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.

I am delighted to have the member for Jonquière seconding this amendment.

Indeed, it is desirable and normal that the measures decided by a round table headed by the federal Minister of Transport and designed to improve safety conditions relating to a railway line are not a financial burden unfairly imposed by the federal government on the province, city or municipality concerned. Clearly, the safety of a railway line is the responsibility of the operator of that line.

We realize that imposing fees on the railway companies concerned may be a deterrent to the implementation of projects designed to improve the safety of the facilities. This is why it is important to include in the act provisions specifying that even though the cost of such work must be borne by line operators, it must in no way adversely affect the implementation and the timetable of such projects.

In conclusion, while the Bloc Quebecois supports this purely technical bill, it insists that the proposed amendments be taken into consideration, in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Our party remains firm in its determination to protect the interests of Quebeckers and to oppose potential or actual federal interference in jurisdictions that come under the provinces, which this government has no business doing. That being said, we think this is basically a good bill.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that once the necessary adjustments have been made, everything should be done to ensure the bill's quick implementation. As for us, we are prepared to work to that end.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today in response to the motion to have a new section in this bill that would require railways to fund provincial or local government costs. We are not able to support these proposed changes for a number of reasons.

Subsection 24(3) proposed by the hon. member of the third party seeks to make railways responsible for reimbursing governments for any cost they may incur in complying with requirements established under subsection 24(1) of the Railway Safety Act. We should consider what this truly implies and particularly how this motion would improve safety.

The requirements under subsection 24(1) of the act could conclude control or prohibition of a variety of land uses adjacent to railway property to the extent that they may constitute a threat to safe railway operations. This might mean buildings or other structures, mining operations, drainage systems, storage of materials on adjacent property, and fencing to name a few. Bill C-58 adds to this list by proposing that safety requirements could be established for road approaches, an important provision that I will touch on later.

It is important to remember that section 24 of the act does not address who will pay for meeting safety requirements, except where the owner, lessee or occupier of the land suffers a loss. In that case the act wisely provides that the railway company will pay such losses as are agreed to between the parties. It also provides that where there is a dispute, the Canadian Transportation Agency may make a determination. This appeal process is specifically intended to ensure that any economic considerations are resolved through an independent body.

There is the question of the costs of meeting any regulations established under this section. All government regulations are developed in consultation with affected parties so that both the cost of complying with the requirements and the safety benefits are established. Each specific regulation must also identify which party is responsible for meeting the requirements.

For example, a regulation may specify that a drainage system meet certain standards for the purpose of railway safety. It would normally be the responsibility of the owner of the drainage system to design and build it in compliance with the law. It would be their responsibility to pay for it. This is the very same situation for the railway company today that must pay the cost of meeting requirements for safety of rail equipment, or manufacturers of motor vehicles that must meet safety standards.

On the third point, subsection 24(1) applies widely and not just to provincial, local or municipal governments. Many of the owners or occupiers of land are private industries or individuals. Even if we supported the intent of this motion, which we do not, it would not help anyone other than governments.

I would like to turn for a moment to the intent of clause 19 of the bill as presently written. It adds two sections aimed at improving the safety at railway crossings, an important issue for all Canadians and a major priority for the Department of Transport.

Every year in Canada people are needlessly killed and injured in accidents at crossings and while trespassing on railroad property. While the number of accidents has come down, initiatives proposed in the bill will help to reduce it even further.

This will ensure that Canada maintains its commendable rail safety record as was noticed by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport.

The intent of the bill is to improve the safety of Canada's rail transportation system. The act recognizes that a number of parties are involved in meeting this objective and has the necessary authority to ensure the respective obligations are met.

The proposed motion does not in any way lead to a possible improvement in this regard, since it addresses economic issues only. It would also conflict with government regulatory policy by making only one party bear the cost when in many cases others have responsibility to do so also.

The act already provides adequate protection where there are economic disputes. This motion is not, in our opinion, necessary for that purpose. Therefore the government is unable to support the proposed amendment by the hon. member. The Railway Safety Act has already led the way in ensuring that our nation's railways operate in an extremely safe manner.

The review of this legislation has shown that our system meets high safety standards. Bill C-58 will ensure that we continue to build on this well established safety base.

I strongly urge all hon. members to give quick passage to this legislation when put forward for third and final reading.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Reform Party cannot endorse the amendment presented by the Bloc. We cannot support an amendment that would require railways to pay for the removal of hazards created as a result of the emissions of local governments. This defies natural justice. In that respect only we cannot support the amendment.

For example, if a local road authority allowed brush to grow wild on the approach to a railway crossing and then was forced to remove it, under the terms of this amendment, as I understand it, the railway would be required to pay for the work. That would be patently unfair.

If I have misunderstood the motion, I hope during questions and comments that will be brought to my attention. As I interpret it, this is simply wrong.

As far as the general question of this legislation is concerned, in my part of the country this entire debate is becoming moot or academic. The railways it would govern are disappearing thanks to the government's brilliance in writing the new Canadian transportation act. It is pretty hard to have a railway crossing accident where there are no railways. This is happening to us out there at a very rapid rate.

I am a little concerned that this bill has been fast tracked the way it has. Basically there is not much in the bill with which I could find fault. But it certainly is clear evidence of utter disorganization in the office of the minister that the bill has sat around for heaven knows how many weeks and all of a sudden it is being pushed through first reading, second reading, committee, report stage, bang, bang, bang, for no good reason that I can understand unless we are looking at prorogation.

The bill has been languishing over there in that tower. Now we have it here and we have to deal with it. The bill has not even been printed as reported. It is not even available online, on the net. Yet here we are debating the terms. It has not been printed as reported.

I suppose we could raise that as a point of order and create some disruption. I do not intend to do so but this is ridiculous. What is the hurry?

If I had not alerted some stakeholders to the fact that the bill was coming up in committee, they would not have had time to even think about preparing presentations. It caught them completely off guard. They had to rush to do what they had to do and they did it very well. Other stakeholders would have come forward if they had known what was going on. Perhaps I am impugning motive but the government did not care whether the public was aware of what it was doing so the word did not go out that committee meetings were to be held.

I have one example. The Canadian Trucking Alliance hired a prominent transportation consultant to review the bill, specifically the provisions related to crossings and the standards for construction or alteration of railway works. I presume since these guys do not work cheap it cost the association a bundle of money. The report will not be completed until Monday, December 7, which is too late to have any impact. So these people have wasted their time trying to get some input into the democratic process.

The opposition has not obstructed the bill in any way because it is in essence a technical bill. On the advice of various stakeholders we tried to introduce some minor amendments in committee but, as usual, the Liberal members lined up in lock step to stop us. Same old, same old. I sometimes wonder why we have committees when everything is done according to the wishes and whims of the minister. However, we are on the rails here. I am not going oppose the bill nor are my colleagues but we are getting sick and tired of this nonsense of being pushed around and bullied when there is no good reason for doing so.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, in particular to the Bloc motion before us. Perhaps we should look historically at the motion. Railways were the first type of major land transportation. They were used years before cars were built and we had highway traffic acts in each province. Therefore the standards set out in the Railway Safety Act must be applied from coast to coast. We cannot put in a separate statute for a safety feature for one province and negate that safety feature in another province.

As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands said, it appears the bill is aimed at one province, that it is not national in its scope. It seems to be a redundant and therefore I will not be able to support the amendment.

There is a growing concern that we should have a more co-ordinated safety program. Like my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, I am wondering why we had to hurry this bill through. It would be more of a safety issue at this time to have a national trucking safety policy co-ordinated with this bill.

Eventually we will have to deal with a national policy on the trucking industry and adapt it to the bill before us. That could have been done in conjunction with this bill which would have made abundantly more sense than pushing this bill through as quickly as we did. The last time the Standing Committee on Transport met we had a presentation on ITS, intelligent transportation systems. This presentation proved to the few members there that this is the coming thing. ITS no doubt in the future are there not just for the railway system but for the trucking system. They are there for the automobile, all traffic, and should have been co-ordinated. All these things should be built in to one facet of a National Safety Council presentation.

The railways in the United States, because they are the oldest, are reneging about getting into ITS. I suggest to hon. members opposite that the same would be true in Canada that the railways will be the last to co-operate in ITS because historically they are the oldest and they are the granddaddy of them all.

What impressed me with the presentation, which leaves the motion out, is we must have a national program and that national program through intelligent transportation systems will eventually become a continental program. I agree with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that we should not have pushed this so rapidly. We should have incorporated it not within this bill but made this bill more applicable and easily applied when we move to the highway trucking industry.

I want to congratulate a person who came to the transport committee. I asked him for a video. It was about safety on the rails. I viewed the one hour video which was excellent. The problem is it was made in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, however the reason I wanted this was to see if it was all right with the copyright to make some copies, send it out to my schools, particularly on the two major railways through my constituency, for safety reasons to be presented in the schools.

I saw the big accidents of Amtrak, Southern Pacific and so on. I had some concerns about that. I encourage the Minister of Transport in working with other ministers in the House that we should present a Canadian video to each province's departments of education and schools so that we could stop these needless fatalities of children taking chances, playing on right of ways of the railway and the needless risking of lives at crossings and so on.

We cannot support the motion. We will be supporting this bill. The final plea I make is please look at the safety features not only with regard to the operation of trains but relating to the general public and for this department to come up with a good safety video similar to the one I mentioned produced in the United States.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for proposing this amendment to Bill C-58.

This is a very reasonable amendment to the railway safety aspect to ensure that railway companies take financial responsibility for the safety of operations. Should there ever be a cost to comply with the safety regulations under clause 19 it is only fair that the railways pay for this. This amendment if passed will ensure that local taxpayers are not forced to pay for railways to comply with these regulations.

In response to some of the concerns my hon. colleagues in the Reform have mentioned, there are already regulations in place. If it is a matter of highway and roadway brush, regulations are in place within the provinces to ensure that they are responsible.

We have seen more and more devolution of responsibility from the federal government on to the provinces and ultimately the municipalities to cover costs. They are absolutely taxed to the limit. We need to ensure that the railways are owning up to their responsibility. As my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain indicated, perhaps it will not be a problem in the prairies because rail lines are disappearing rather quickly. It is inherently important that we ensure the municipalities do not suffer the consequences.

The amendment is also very timely because it deals with the larger issue of corporate welfare. I have to comment on the suggestion that sports teams should have some kind of a tax break when citizens throughout Canada are suffering hardships because of lack of money going into health care. It is inherent that we make those who are profiting from certain things pay the price.

Taxpayers already give up far too much pay for corporate welfare. The Liberal government cheered on—here is where the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands comes in—by the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties shells out billions of dollars in tax break and direct subsidies to private interests. One of the most outrageous examples was the privatization of CN Rail. Since 1867 and even before then Canadian taxpayers have paid for our railway system.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My party and I are being defamed. We have been leading the pack in fighting against corporate welfare.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the hon. member is getting into debate.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not really concerned because most Canadians truly know who are speaking out on their behalf.

Taxpayers paid for the trans-continental railway that linked the country from east to west. They got an excellent return for their investment as the railway spurred economic growth, particularly in the west where it facilitated transportation of prairie grain.

I can remember a time not too long ago when branch lines criss-crossed the prairie provinces. I grew up in southern Saskatchewan and feel a great love for the prairie provinces as well as for my new home in northern Manitoba. Grain elevators in small prairie towns all connected by rail were gathering points for communities.

All that began to change when the Liberal government betrayed the Canadian people and sold off CN Rail at a bargain basement price. A few investors got very rich off the corporate welfare measure but prairie farmers have ultimately paid the price. CN Rail has begun ripping up the branch lines taxpayers paid for and selling them off, leaving prairie farmers to truck their grain themselves.

Another aspect of corporate welfare is the double standard when it comes to taxation. Individual Canadians and small businesses carry large burdens primarily from regressive consumption taxes like the GST. Corporate taxes in Canada are among the lowest in the developed world. Yet when the Liberal government decided to balance its budget it cut programs like health and education rather than rebalance an unfair tax burden. It balanced the budget on the backs of ordinary Canadian workers and small business people who suffered the consequences of the cuts while carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. All the while corporate welfare bums made higher and higher profits.

Now that the budget is balanced the government should reinvest in health and social programs and make tax cuts where they are needed, like phasing out the GST and reducing the burden on small business. Instead the Liberal dominated finance committee has recommended a set of tax breaks in favour of high income Canadians.

The New Democratic Party opposes this tax cut. In its place we propose reinvesting in health and other vital programs and targeting tax cuts like a GST cut that will help everyone, not just people making well above the national average income.

I will be supporting the Bloc member's proposal as I feel that it will ensure Canadian municipalities and provinces will not suffer further consequences from the government. It certainly is in the spirit of ending corporate welfare.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to report stage of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, and in particular to the Bloc amendment regarding compensation to provinces and municipalities due to regulations made under section 24 of this act.

The act is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43 introduced during the last parliament which unfortunately died on the order paper at the call of the election.

The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which came into effect in January 1988. A statutory review took place after five years and the result was the previous Bill C-43 and now Bill C-58.

We are pleased with the exhaustive consultation which took place with the stakeholders involved and their valuable input. The Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant change in the way we regulate railways and in how railways interact with government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and with the legislation before us today I hope it will become even better.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester examined the bill in detail in committee. He was glad to hear the witnesses who appeared including CP rail, Canadian National, the Canadian Railway Association of Canada and three groups representing labour.

We are in support of the amendment proposed by the Bloc today as we feel it will enhance railway safety in Canada. The Railway Safety Act currently allows for compensation to land owners affected by the regulations made under section 24 of the act and the amendment extends that compensation. The proposed amendment addresses the new areas in which the governor in council may make regulations as a result of Bill C-58.

The new regulations deal with the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operation and respecting the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on road approaches to railroad crossings for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations.

It is always a top priority of the Progressive Conservative Party to ensure safe railway operation and to provide compensation to those affected through no fault of their own. I am glad to say that we will be supporting the motion as we look forward to a safer railway system as a result of the bill.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, in my brief time in the House rarely have I seen something rushed through as quickly as Bill C-58.

I had the joy of sitting on the transportation committee. The bill was as quickly considered as a bill could be considered in committee. For the information of the folks at home, the Liberals across the way have decided that prorogation of the House is a good idea. I see members shaking their hands, some one way and some the other, but that is basically what is going on.

The Liberals have been dragging their feet on changes to the Railway Safety Act for a very long time. Each time they talk about it they decide they did not do it right the first time and have to make a couple of amendments. That is what is going on here.

They went ahead and brought the bill to committee. They did not take a lot of time, energy or effort to go ahead and notify stakeholders with regard to Bill C-58. In one session on one day all the people who had an interest—and I have copies of their briefs—were rushed through very quickly, one after another, rapid fire, so the government could get its changes to the bill. Now it is before us at report stage.

Let us look at some of the interesting scenarios we have with regard to Bill C-58. The Reform Party put forward some amendments to the bill in committee. Just like in all other committees we recognize the government will not have its ears open in this regard. It does not want any changes or any improvements to the legislation.

In committee the Reform Party recognized that government members were trying to go for very broad and encompassing definitions of what would be considered a combustion emission or pollutant. In the past they have included very broad definitions which were as expansive as possible so that if any problems arise they are able to address them.

This was not the first time this type of thing happened. We recognized that if we strictly defined pollutants as combustion emissions it would be very clear what the government was intending in this regard. It would not be talking about noise pollution, for example, which is referred to in other pieces of legislation. It would be fairly specific. It would address exactly what we were trying to regulate.

It is very important to be precise in terms of what we are trying to regulate. If we allow the government too broad a definition, it sometimes takes too great a liberty. Who gets hurt by that? It is the railways and the other stakeholders. We tried to make that small amendment.

I am just raising this as an example. This is not the first time we have brought forth amendments to a piece of legislation to try to improve it. Government members turned it down because they wanted as broad a definition as possible. They did not want to discuss it. As a result, somewhere down the line somebody will have to pay the price for that.

The government does not want to accept responsibility with regard to provinces and municipalities in terms of any costs that will come about as a result of the regulation. It does not have any problem with hoisting all types of costs on people, whether it be the railways in terms of precise definitions like combustion emissions versus pollutants, or whether it be the provinces and the municipalities as a result of the regulations. It does not have a problem with other people internalizing the costs of its regulations.

When the government does these types of things it forces others to pick up and internalize their costs. We learned in economics in university the whole concept of either internalizing or externalizing costs. If people do not want to internalize a cost, they spread it to others.

That is when government members like to talk about sharing. They love the concept of sharing when they can share costs or expenditures with others. That is when they like to share. That is exactly what we have in this government legislation. That is exactly what we see with the Liberals all the time. They love to share the misery. They love to share the costs.

This is not just with regard to Bill C-58. I can look at a whole bunch of other pieces of government legislation to see that the Liberals love to share misery. They blame Mike Harris and Ralph Klein when they make cuts to health care. Indeed it is the Liberals who are offloading those costs and responsibilities.

It is exactly the same in this case. It is more minute but nonetheless we have members of a Liberal administration who love to share the misery. They love to share the cost with others, but they do not like picking up the responsibilities for what they do.

I have given a couple of examples in Bill C-58 where that type of top down arrogant philosophy continues on big issues like health care which impact on every Canadian. It has spread to other things, even the minutia in the Railway Safety Act. That is the type of problem we have.

I will apply a couple of the tests which I said the government should have applied before to other pieces of legislation. Who wants it? Who wants some of the changes? The Liberals did not even have the gratitude or openmindedness to notify ahead of time the stakeholders who were to be intimately affected by some of these things. They were rushed through the committee very quickly.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the member's speech. I think it is valuable to hear what he has to say. However I am rising to seek unanimous consent.

Maybe some of my colleagues across the way will bear with me. The hon. member has about four or five minutes remaining. In order that we may hear his concluding remarks, and in order that we may have the bill at report stage, I ask for unanimous consent of the House that we not see the clock at 1.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, one more time we have the case of the government wanting other people to pick up its costs for its regulation and for the things that it wants to see done, but the government does not want to pick up the responsibilities and the costs. It is only willing to share the costs, the expenditures and burden others with its problems.

I want to wrap up with a couple of simple questions I wish the government would apply to every piece of legislation it brought into this House. One, who wants it? Two, who wants to pay for it or who is going to pay for it?

I look at these things time and again and the list goes on. Whether it is health care, jobs programs, or whatever it happens to be, even the minutiae in the railway safety act, we see time and again that the government likes to get its way but wants other people to pay for what it wants done. The government does not like taking the costs itself. It likes sharing the burden with others. This is a classic case of that.

I wish the government would have been willing to listen to some of the amendments from the opposition. I wish it would have notified the stakeholders and given them appropriate time. I wish it would have asked itself some of these crucial questions when proposing legislation like this. The government failed on all of those accounts. However, the government will get its way because it has a majority.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.