Debates of June 7th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

moved that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, last week, for the second time, this House resoundingly supported changes to the Canadian justice system that would give judges the ability to set fair and proportionate sentences for multiple murderers, finally putting an end to Canada's automatic bulk rate for murder.

Since that vote, many of the more than 500 Canadian families who have been devastated by multiple murderers have seen fit to write to me, call in to talk shows, or otherwise let Canadians understand the truth about our current system. They have never been able to understand why anyone would insist that the murder of their child, spouse or parent should continue to be meaningless to the courts. Fortunately, they have found new faith in parliament by last week's decision by this House and many have written to express their thanks to members for recognizing the value of the precious lives they have lost and the need for justice.

Another all too common message was that of victims' families being told by a sentencing judge that he wished he could give a more meaningful sentence for the murder of their child, but that the law simply would not allow it. That is the message that we are hearing from the judiciary in open court, a clear message that judges need more latitude to set fair and proportionate sentences for these most horrific of crimes.

That is exactly what Bill C-251 is designated to deliver. It would allow a judge to look at the facts of a case where a murderer has been convicted of the murder of not just one, but at least two human beings. The judge could look at those facts and make an assessment of the intent of the offender, the brutality of the crimes and any mitigating circumstances that may be relevant.

Having considered all of the evidence, a judge would determine first whether it is warranted to impose a consecutive sentence or grant a concurrent sentence. If the judge determines that fairness and proportionality require a consecutive sentence, he has the further discretion to determine the length of that additional term of parole ineligibility, anywhere from one day to 25 years. I call that double discretion.

For years I have heard colleagues insist that judicial discretion was necessary and essential even in cases of multiple first degree murder. I have listened and I have learned from their advice. Now judicial discretion is the cornerstone of the multiple murder and multiple sexual assault provisions of this bill.

By passing Bill C-251, parliament will be declaring that every victim of murder or sexual assault should matter to the court. At the same time it will provide judges the latitude to account for the specific circumstances of an individual case. As always, we will be entrusting the judiciary with the responsibility to render fair and proportionate sentences within the parameters of the law.

During the past week I have heard that for some members judicial discretion is not enough. Some hold the view that a multiple murderer who kills his victims in quick succession should be immune from additional consequences arising from the second, third or fourteenth murder. The next Mark Lepine, Denis Lortie or George Lovie should all be guaranteed concurrent, meaningless sentences for all but their first murder, according to this argument.

I say that there should be no such guarantee. There should be no automatic benefit to planning to kill several victims in the same event. Instead, I propose that a judge is best placed to determine what is fair and proportionate based on the facts. Let the judges do their job.

Another argument back from the slag heap this week is the potential cost of keeping multiple murderers in jail longer. I had thought this argument had long since been put to rest, but back it comes when all else fails.

Let me be clear once again. There can be no cost implications of the multiple murder provisions of Bill C-251 for at least 10 years as the bill is not retroactive and all multiple murderers serve at least 10 years anyway. We know that it will not cost one cent for ten years. Moreover, multiple murderers currently account for about 2% of the prison population and it will take 30 years for a new generation of multiple murderers to replace them. By the year 2030 the total prison population may well be 1% to 2% larger than it would be otherwise. That is the price of justice insofar as multiple murderers are concerned.

One reservation put forward over the last days was particularly curious, that being that the bill has moved through parliament too quickly. One even described it as having whistled through parliament. Today is the sixth time the Chamber has debated this bill over the last three years. It was introduced three times before being made votable. Second reading occurred not yesterday, but seven months ago. It was held in committee for over four months and there was yet another debate at report stage. More debate is yet to come in the Senate. Parliament has had much time to debate this issue and render a well considered decision. The House has decisively, on two occasions, voted in support of Bill C-251. It is a decision that should be respected.

For months I have been asked to put a label on Bill C-251. Is it liberal to initiate this kind of change? I decided to find out whether it was liberal and to find out whether people of different political stripes had different views about consecutive versus concurrent sentences for murder and sexual assault. I commissioned a professional polling company, often regarded as the Liberal Party pollster, to find out how Canadians broadly viewed this issue. What they found did not surprise me.

Intuitively, I have always felt that the Canadian sense of justice was non-partisan. That is the message I got at the door in my riding. I got the same message in Quebec, the maritimes and the west. All people, of every political stripe, from every region of this country, have seen the injustice of concurrent sentencing in their communities. Their outrage is not political; it arises from the people's sense of justice.

Pollara found that 90% of Canadians support consecutive sentencing for rapists and murderers on a mandatory basis. With judicial discretion, that number would surely increase to an even higher level. What the numbers show is very interesting when we examine the political parties that respondents support. Ninety-two per cent of Liberals polled support consecutive sentencing. Support in the other five political parties was similarly overwhelming, with no party showing less than 83% support for consecutive sentencing. Just as striking was the fact that women were the strongest supporters of consecutive sentencing, with only 5% opposed to mandatory back-to-back sentences.

Consecutive sentencing for murderers and rapists defies the labels. It is as non-partisan as the justice that victims in this country require.

In amending the bill, I took into account more than just the criticisms that some had offered. I also wished to address legitimate concerns over the image given by certain potential sentences. In particular, there seems to be some discomfort with the notion of even a Clifford Olson being sentenced to a fully consecutive term which could reach 275 years. In response, I agreed to yet another amendment that would cap any additional sentence at 25 years. Hence, sentences will not be imposed which go far beyond the life expectancy of most multiple murderers.

We have before us today a bill I believe reflects the input of many members of the House, including some who sadly continue to oppose it. It achieves the core objective of eliminating the automatic bulk rate for murder that disregarded the second, third or eleventh victim. It makes this progress with all the safeguards of complete judicial discretion.

I urge all members to look upon Bill C-251 as a bill that responds to their advice and builds on the common ground that we have found over the past three years. It is a bill that will contribute to justice by providing greater proportionality and fairness, and by recognizing that every victim deserves a measure of justice.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-251. It has been ongoing in the House for some time and, I must say, with a fair bit of acrimony. I am not sure if the debate has gotten into the rights or wrongs of the bill. It seems to be more that it did not come from one particular source or that it was not sanctioned by the cabinet, for instance, and therefore it is not going to go.

This particular bill deals with a pretty basic issue in the country, which is whether or not multiple murderers and rapists are getting the right amount of prison time for their crimes. I, too, have a private member's bill in the House on consecutive versus concurrent sentences, but it does not deal murderers and rapists. It deals with individuals who are already in prison and who unlawfully go at large. At a facility in my community there have been 23 unlawfully at large prisoners in the last six months. That is only one facility out of the seven in the area.

What happens is that they go and commit a crime or whatever and get a concurrent sentence. In other words, there is no extra time. A guy goes into prison thinking he can escape on a dump truck or something else in order to get out. Once he is out he robs a bank. He just goes back to prison and the courts say that he was a bad boy and that he should not do it again. He receives the same amount of time.

At the moment, I am not going to deal with that particular issue, even though I think it is important, because this particular issue on Bill C-251 is much more important. This is about people who commit severe crimes, multiple crimes, multiple murders and rapes.

This frequently happens in my community in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Victims enter the courtroom thinking that the individual will get life and they will never see him again. What happens most of the time is that the faint hope clause, section 745 of the Criminal Code, will take light and give opportunity for an individual to get out of prison after 15 years.

The terrible tragedy of all that is that those parents, families and victims from way back when the original crime was committed think the person is away for life and they can put the terrible tragedy in their past history and get on with life. However, after 15 years the person can apply under the faint hope clause and the battle starts all over again.

I am already in a situation with Colin Thatcher who is about to apply for a section 745 hearing. All of the victims will once again have to relive the tragedy of 15 years ago. His wife was bludgeoned to death 20 times and shot in the back of the head. They will have to relive this all over again. They are asking whether the punishment fits the crime. In this case we have serious rape offences and multiple murders. Very few people today are satisfied with the fact that an individual gets life because life does not mean life in Canada.

Way back, when the Liberal government did away with the death penalty, it said that it would bring in life as a penalty. Little unknown to most of us, the Liberals said that life is 25 years but it could be reduced by 10 years by applying under the faint hope clause to get an early release. We did not know much about that because by the time it started it was 1992, some 16 years later.

We have seen some terrible situations of individuals who were originally up for life, and where families thought they were in prison for life, but who were in fact out on the street 16 and 17 years later.

What we have to deal with is whether Bill C-251 is an appropriate bill. I sincerely believe it is. The second issue is how we get it through the House of Commons. We know that cabinet, by and large, is not in favour of this, but this is not a cabinet bill. It is not a piece of government legislation. It comes from an individual, an individual with the support of a majority of the members in the House.

Just because it is not government legislation, it does not come from cabinet and it does not have the support of those in cabinet does not mean the bill should not be carried. It means that maybe the individual who brought the bill forward to the House is a lot closer to the grassroots of the country than the cabinet may like to think. This is one of the difficulties with private members' bills in the House. Cabinet thinks private members' legislation interferes with an agenda.

I have had considerable experience with private members' legislation being a member of a subcommittee that looks at it. This legislation is a lot closer to the grassroots of the country than much of the legislation put forward and tabled by cabinet.

It can be said that overnight success usually takes about 10 years in the House of Commons. We have been at this long enough to recognize that this issue is not going to go away. It is time for those of us who really believe in this to stand up and be accounted for and not to stay home because we were told to stay home by government members or a whip. It is time to stand up and be counted.

It is interesting that in the bill, as the member who sponsored it has said, judges have complete discretion as to whether to use it or not. That in and of itself should be enough to waylay the fears or concerns of anybody on the other side that here we go down the slope of always issuing consecutive sentences.

I wish it could be said that judges in the country issue the maximums. However, in my experience judges are often implementing and imposing sentences that are minimums, not maximums. We see it all the time under the Young Offenders Act and when they deal with drugs, they give minimum not maximum sentences.

What is important here, although it says “using complete judicial discretion”, the next stage for me would be to try to convince some of these judges to use some of that discretion rather than the minimum sentences that they give.

If an individual is sentenced to two consecutive sentences, to a maximum of 50 years, is that so bad? I am not going to repeat the names of those who should have it, but I am going to say that any individual in the country perpetrating multiple murders should serve an appropriate amount time for that crime. When we get into two, three and four multiple murders, we should not be saying that one 25 year sentence is adequate. It is not for the victims of the crime.

In view of the bill, which is significant to the House of Commons and to Canadians, I move:

That the question be now put.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, the bill before the House has had substantial movement over a number a years culminating today in the vote before the House.

The original bill came before the justice committee, on which I was a member. We examined the bill and eventually it came forward in the following manner with amendments that have been moved and have substantially changed the bill.

I am going to address three things. First, I am going to address the changes in the legislation that occurred last week, to which the mover of the bill referred. Second, as this is a private member's bill, I will be addressing my own views on the bill. Third, I will also be addressing some of the comments made by the earlier speakers.

I will say that the drafter and mover of the bill has substantially changed the original legislation. One of my criticisms of the original legislation was the lack of judicial discretion. I believe the member has gone to some lengths to address that. However, to some extent I think that was also done in an effort to get the matter back before the House of Commons. I do not blame her for that because it is a matter she feels quite passionately about.

In the haste to move those amendments, I have some concerns about the drafting. People should know that members of Parliament only received these amendments a week ago today.

There has not been time to adequately review them in the way we normally would. Normally they should be vetted through the justice committee to ensure that there are no charter challenge objections or that they do not conflict with other sections of the code. That causes me concern and I will come back to it before I am finished.

Having provided for judicial discretion the member has narrowed the focus of the bill. I ask that we have a respectful debate on a piece of legislation upon which members of the Chamber have very differing opinions. I have listened respectfully to those with whom I disagree and I expect the same courtesy. We need that kind of debate.

The issue has now been narrowed to what kind of society we see Canada becoming, what kind of society we want to build. Is it a society where justice is vengeful, or is it a society that sees redemption in the spirit of mankind? Not just to be critical, I say that because there are those who believe that justice should be vengeful. There are those who believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life sentence for a life.

Having redrafted the bill, the member caused me to think carefully about this when I was home in my constituency. I had a discussion with a young woman who is not sophisticated in the way bills come before parliament. I explained to her what we were talking about, how there was a motion that would allow a murderer who commits horrendous murders—and I do not think anyone would say they are not—to be sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in the justice system.

This young 11 year old woman looked at me and said “But you only have one life to serve. How can offenders serve more than their life?” That is the question to ask. How can we sentence offenders to more than God has given them? How can we sentence them to more than their life?

There is some confusion around this question. I think the member for Langley—Abbotsford mentioned it when referring to these sentences as 25 year sentences. There are members of the House who think that conviction for multiple murders is a 25 year sentence. It is not. It is a life sentence with eligibility to ask for parole at 25 years. Some prisoners have been released at 25 years and some have not. The sentence is not 25 years. The sentence is an entire life in prison with the opportunity to ask for parole at 25 years.

[An hon. member]

No, it is not.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

A member of the Reform Party is yelling at me, saying that is not it. I ask the mover of the bill, then, why we have changed it from 25 years to 50 years. It is eligibility to apply for parole at 50 years. That is what we are extending. We are adding two or three life sentences.

In nations with the death penalty would murderer be hanged three times? Is that the direction in which to go? If we say there should be multiple life sentences then I ask that question. Maybe there are those who believe that if offenders take three lives they should pay three times.

I am sympathetic to the case made by the mover of the bill who says that many people and many victims ask if the death of their spouse, their child or their friend is meaningless. I respect and believe this comment. Yet surely we cannot say that by adding another life sentence to what is an impossible situation we bring justice to that family. Surely by saying someone will serve 200 years when it is not a possibility only mocks the justice system. I respect those who feel differently in this regard, but to me there is an illogical aspect to it that plays into the question of whether or not we are a vengeful society.

We are also asking the judge to look at the offender and determine whether or not the offender can be rehabilitated in 50 years. The burden we put on the judge is to look at the offender and say “I believe that you are so heinous a human being that you cannot be redeemed for 50 years and will make that judgment now”.

What other legislation would we pass in the House and say no one can change it for 50 years? I ask members to think about that. Would we say a piece of environmental legislation could not be touched for 50 years because we as members of parliament have the foresight to know what will happen in the next five decades?

Can we give a judge the power to sentence someone to two life sentences and not be eligible for parole for five decades? We can, and there are members who will vote for that. I disagree and I have asked for a respectful debate on it.

My opinion is that I cannot entrust any other human being with 50 years of foresight. I say that there are all kinds of prisoners, all kinds of horrendous human beings who have found redemption, maybe not at 25 years but maybe at 35 years, maybe at 15 years or maybe at 5 years. Can I judge that? If I cannot, can I ask the judiciary to do it? I object to the bill on those terms.

I will turn to the comments made by the mover. Again I say I respect her opinion. She referred to the Pollara poll. Many people in that poll believed that a life sentence was 25 years and the opinions were therefore skewered.

Let me end by saying that in a way we have perhaps increased the life sentence. Perhaps we have taken more from the offender. If we sentence someone without eligibility for parole for 50 years, we take away hope and in so doing perhaps we take away not only their life but their soul.

I have to vote against the bill because my conscience tells me that justice is redeemable and not vengeful.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again to speak in support of Bill C-251. I am pleased to follow the comments of my colleague from Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He raised some very soul searching and gut wrenching questions in his commentary.

Obviously today's debate and throughout the time that we have seen this issue arise in the House and in committee it invokes a very emotional response, as do victimization and violence in most instances.

I pay tribute again to the member for Mississauga East for her tireless work on the issue and for bringing it forward. Today's vote will be a testament to that hard work and determination. It is because of this perseverance and persistence that we will have an opportunity to bring about a law that will in my opinion more accurately reflect the conscience of the country and the need to protect individuals from violent offenders.

The basic and just principle of consecutive sentences has proved to be too much for some soft on crime members of the Liberal government. As many members know and as has been previously stated, previous polls have been conducted which seem to suggest that Canadians overwhelmingly support the principle of stiffer sentences when it comes to the issue of high end violence, the violation of people and their lives.

While some members of the Liberal government defend rehabilitation and parole for multiple murderers and rapist, Bill C-251 calls for the House to defend the rights of victims of multiple offenders such as Mr. Olson's victims numbered one through eleven. The bill would given individualized recognition to those victims and give their families some much deserved justice for the atrocities that were committed against them and their loved ones.

It would also send a strong message to potential criminals that the Canadian justice system would no longer ignore the number of innocent lives that are shattered. I urge the House to take action and follow the lead of the hon. member for Mississauga East to stop the volume discount for crime sprees, for serial rape and murder.

Perhaps our actions today will impact on the future of some loved ones. This current incarnation of Bill C-251 reflects a compromise, an improvement and an explanation of many of the clauses that previously existed in a bill which the Progressive Conservatives also supported.

While the current proposal cannot address the concerns of every member in the House or every member of society, it is a concrete shift in the right direction. It will not be retroactive. There have been many arguments about discretion and the imposition of judicial discretion on an issue such as this one. It has been used on both sides of the argument quite ironically. I suggest in this instance that it allows a judge increased discretion to reflect the applicable laws upon the conscience of the community.

No one is suggesting for a moment that we remove all other sentencing principles, the protection of the public and the need for rehabilitation and general or specific deterrents, considerations with which my hon. colleague for Sydney—Victoria would be familiar.

It certainly does not remove the situation where a person can in fact be rehabilitated. I am of the personal belief, and I have read extensively on this issue, that there are some in society who simply are not amenable to rehabilitation. They simply cannot be rehabilitated. They are those who are at the very high end of the violence inflicted upon individuals.

It is extremely unfortunate. It is not something that a person wants to admit quite readily, but if we are to believe that the protection of society is the primary responsibility of legislators and the primary responsibility of our justice system then we must recognize that a very small minority of criminals in the country are simply beyond that rehabilitative scope.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria spoke of a 50 year foresight, that he did not believe there could be such a thing. I suggest quite the opposite. I would rather have an attempt at a 50 year foresight than a one year after the fact contemplation of what could have been done when a person was released for whatever reasons or whatever criteria and went out to rape and kill again.

Bill C-251 was previously introduced and dealt with in the justice committee. It has had intense scrutiny. There has been an opportunity for members of that committee and members of the House to look at the issue in depth. There has been a concerted effort on the part of some members of the justice committee to undermine and completely dismiss or remove the issue from public debate. That is very unfortunate because there are significant number of members in this place and an overwhelming number of Canadians who support the initiative of the hon. member.

The fact that this is a tough, philosophic issue, as are many issues that we often find ourselves debating and facing in the House, is not justification for turning a blind eye or refusing to deal with each.

The current language in the bill shifts sentencing for multiple crimes of rape and murder from concurrent to consecutive but the discretion still exists. There is no mandatory minimum or maximum reflected in this change.

The current bill and its amendments do not guarantee consecutive sentences in any way. It grants judicial discretion for cases where consecutive sentence would not be in line with our fundamental principles of justice.

The bill does not change the status quo from mandatory concurrent sentences to consecutive, barring any judicial discretion on behalf of defendants. When justice chooses not to enforce these consecutive sentences, however, the bill has amendments that would require that justice explains to the victims and their families why these sentences would not be served concurrently or would be served concurrently as opposed to consecutively.

If this legislation is enacted, judges will be given the opportunity to mete out an appropriate sentence for animals like Bernardo, Olson and Roby. I want to put these cases forward because it is important in the context of the debate.

After being found guilty of the savage sadistic murders of two teenage girls in the 1990s, Paul Bernardo received two concurrent life sentences. He can apply for judicial review of his sentence in 2008 and is eligible for day release in 2015.

Clifford Olson is serving 11 concurrent life sentences. His sentence is not all that more serious than if he only took one life. That is to say all of his sentences together reflect the same sentence that a person would receive for taking one life.

Pedophile John Roby was convicted of 35 counts of sexually abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn that after being convicted of 27 accounts of these assaults, Mr. Roby received a two year prison term. After several other victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal increased the sentence just to five years.

In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with three counts of first degree murder. After being convicted he will be eligible for early parole in just 15 years under the faint hope clause.

They are just some examples, some of the more extreme high end examples, but nonetheless they are examples for the need of this legislation. It would be a shift in the right direction. It is my hope that this bill will also mark an important shift in the mindset and the philosophy of the government.

It is also a welcome example of what can occur with co-operation. In tribute to a member of the government, a backbench parliamentarian, without the support of her party leaders and without the support of a logical explanation as to why that support does not exist, she has persevered. Under the current government, the debate let alone the passage of this bill has been opposed by a number of party members, her colleagues. This is a rare occasion where a vote will take place that would allow a very logical and very worthwhile piece of legislation to pass.

Much semantics and rhetoric accompany the debate but it is important to point out again that life in this country does not equal life imprisonment. That attachment does not occur. Parole eligibility in 25 years is not the equivalent of life imprisonment.

Very few high end criminals make it to that 25 year point before they apply and are indeed accepted for parole. Fifty years ineligibility would be a more reflective response. It would be a move in the right direction if judges were permitted to mete out a sentence that was more reflective of the public sentiment. Rehabilitation and other principles of sentencing will not be overridden.

This greater discretion should be encouraged and embraced by members of the House. Democratic principles should be respected as they were when previous occasions allowed members of the House to vote in favour of this bill. I encourage all members present to support Bill C-251.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, much has been said this morning about this debate being a battle of the backbench against the government. There are many members on the backbench who are not in government and have extreme difficulty with this bill and with the fact that it has not been voted through the committee system.

The amendments that are the subject of today's vote were negotiated while the debate at report stage was carried on. There are many issues that should be studied. Certainly many of us feel that this bill should be sent to committee.

There are some factual errors. For instance, what is a sentence for first degree murder? It is life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. In fact, the average sentence served in Canada is 28.4 years. Some members disputed or denied that, but those facts and figures are available from Corrections Canada.

We had those amendments reviewed by Professor Allan Manson, who is a professor of law at Queens University. He said that in his opinion “Bill C-251 in its present form is unsound constitutionally, an example of regressive, inconsistent and unjustified penal policy and the product of an irresponsible process of legislating penal reform”.

In those circumstances certainly because of the timeframes that were imposed upon the House and the lack of the bill being referred to committee there has not an opportunity to properly study this bill.

The motives for this bill are certainly commendable. Everyone empathizes with the plight of victims. In our penal system life does mean life, but there is the opportunity for rehabilitation. I think that is very significant and should be retained.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 11.50 a.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

[The Speaker]

This is a private member's bill and the question is on the motion of the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford that the question be now put.

The first to vote will be the mover of the motion. Accordingly, we will begin at my left with the rows at the back and work forward.

During the taking of the vote:

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to vote in favour of the motion.

[The Speaker]

Were you here when the voting began?

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Yes.

[The Speaker]

You will be recorded.

[The Speaker]

I am addressing the hon. member for Charlesbourg. How do you want to vote?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 544

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. The next question is on the main motion.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.