Debates of April 14th, 2005

Income Tax Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak this legislation. First, I congratulate a couple of my colleagues who have helped push this matter. One of course is the member for Calgary Southeast. In the previous Parliament he brought this to the attention of the House and asked a very reasonable request of the government and the House to make changes on this. That was not forthcoming. Therefore, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Essex who has been an outstanding representative in this chamber. He has been a very effective member of Parliament. I told him immediately, when he was putting the legislation together, how pleased I was and how important it was.

Bill C-265 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act to reduce from 85% to 50% the inclusion rate on United States social security benefits paid to Canadian residents. How did this come about? In the late nineties, the inclusion rate for Canadian citizens who were in receipt of United States social security meant that 85% of it was exempt. If a person earned social security or received a social security pension, 15% was included that person's income.

We could ask why is that fair? Why would it be the case or why would it be treated that way? If we go back to the reason why Canadians are getting United States social security, we would know that they did not get any deductions as we do on the Canada pension plan. All Canadians who are required to pay the Canada pension premium have weekly deductions on their pay for that pension. At the end of the year when filing their income taxes, they are able to deduct it.

Therefore, it is only reasonable that the amount of money they get from Canada pension would be included as part of their income, and that is only fair. However, that is not the case with respect to United States social security. We are talking about Canadians who worked in the United States. They paid into the United States social security, but when they paid their income tax, they did not get a deduction for it. I should add a little known fact. Those Canadians who worked in the United States were always taxed at the highest rate.

The United States, unlike Canada, has basically one rate as one moves through the system. There are several rates depending on, among other things, one's family or marital status or whether one has children. What the American taxation system did for individuals working there was to assume they would have no deductions whatsoever and they would tax them at the very highest possible rate.

There could be an individual who worked in the United States and might have supported three, four, five or six children in Canada and a spouse, but they were taxed at the highest rate. There was some rationale to this. I suppose from the point of view of the Americans, they can say that they do not know how many dependants a person has. A person could tell them that he or she had six or ten dependants, but how would they police that? Therefore, they taxed everybody at the highest rate.

Canadians who were paying into the United States social security system paid at the very highest rate in the United States and then were given a credit when they filed Canadian income tax. At the same time they did not get a deduction.

Is it reasonable at this point, when they finally get a pension from the United States, to have favourable tax treatment? Of course it is. It is only fair. That is the way it was in this country for a long time.

I mentioned the member for Calgary Southeast and his work on it. He saw the injustice as soon as it took place and tried to convince the government to do something about it because it was only fair. We could say we are only talking about a few people, but that is not the case.

About 80,000 residents in Canada are recipients of the United States social security. For those individuals, all of them seniors, this is a big deal for them. In my riding of Niagara Falls, I have hundreds of people who are in receipt of United States social security. It was a rude awakening for them when they found out that instead of getting an 85% deduction on their inclusion rates, it became only 50%. This is a huge increase.

If people are dependent on United States social security, it is highly unlikely they will get a pension from Canada. They can only work in one place at one time. They are dependent upon that and all of a sudden they are getting a 70% tax increase. This is a huge burden that was placed on those individuals who found themselves now the victims of this new treaty.

How did it come about? This was negotiated between this government and the government of the United States through a series of protocols and acts. They went in with their eyes wide open. Why sell out these 80,000 Canadians? I have no idea why they would want to do that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

It's for money.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My friend indicates that is because they could collect more money from them. While they would be trumpeting and telling people how wonderful they were to seniors, they would be reaching into their pockets and pulling money out them.

It was wrong then and it is still wrong today. People notice. They even notice this bill. It is so vital to a group of Canadians that they have been following this very carefully.

In the last week an individual from Niagara Falls, whose name I have permission to release, Mr. Fred Ruish, called my office. He hopes it is still going through Parliament and that this will be discussed and adopted. My office has had discussions with him. In my conversations with him, I have told him we are doing our very best to push this through. I ask members on the other side to have a look at this and the fairness of it.

The government does not balance the books on what it takes in by collecting more money from Canadian pensioners receiving United States social security. This is a very small amount in the overall scheme of things, but it is a huge thing for those individuals who receive this payment.

This is now at the point where Parliament will have to decide on this. Canadians across the country, including my own riding of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, are quite interested in this. Quite apart from the numbers and their location in the country, I have maintained, as have my colleagues, that it is a question of being fair to people who have contributed, paid and have been part of one regime. Then they find, when they are ready to collect their social security which they depend upon, that the rules have been changed. This is a big injustice. I cannot understand how the government walked into this with its eyes open, but it did.

[An hon. member]

Susan Whelan.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The hon. member mentions the name Susan Whelan. I am not sure who negotiated this on behalf of the government. Whoever it was, this was a sad day for people who were trying to protect senior citizens.

This has my complete support. I am very enthusiastic and pleased that we have brought it to this chamber. I hope all hon. members will put aside partisan differences. Quite frankly, I do not care brought it in at this point, if this Parliament can join together and get the bill passed because it is the right thing to do.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the Conservative Whip, has touched on what I think is the essential point. It is fairness and justice with regard to this issue.

Like him, I want to pay a testimonial in my opening remarks to a couple of people from my riding in the city of Windsor, the county of Essex. They have been instrumental in keeping the fight going. This fight is basically 10 years old now. This fight has been conducted by and large by people who were retired when it started. These were people in their early sixties to early seventies who of course have now advanced in age, and a good number of whom, sadly I have to say, have passed away without achieving justice from the government.

I want to mention Olive Smith who has been the leader in our community for a good number of years. In spite of ill health on her part and ill health on the part of her husband, she has led the fight and been an inspiration to the community. She helped start a group that is commonly referred to as CASSE, Canadians Asking for Social Security Equality. This is a group that started back in the mid-nineties. It has continued on pursuing this fight for the people in my riding and my community, but also for people who are in the same circumstances right across this country.

The other person I want to mention is Bill Thrasher. He has really picked up the ball in the last few years. He was instrumental at the start, but as Olive's health has become more difficult for her to cope with, he has picked up and provided the leadership. He is constantly pressing this issue because he has a desperate need to obtain justice for himself and for those people on whose behalf he is working.

The whip of the Conservative Party mentioned some numbers. I would challenge him a bit on these numbers. When this process began, 80,000 individuals in Canada were affected by this change in their tax status. There were 80,000 recipients of social security benefits in Canada at that time.

We are not sure, because I cannot get the figure from our Department of National Revenue, but the estimate is that almost half of those people have passed away without receiving justice.

It is quite simple. This is about a contract that was made between a government and their taxpayers. The government said that if they made this contribution, it would tax them on only some of that revenue now and not on others, but when the taxpayers received the benefit from this down the road when they retired, the government said it would similarly only tax them on this amount, and it was a fifty-fifty split.

As they made the contribution to social security, they were taxed on only 50% of that money. They were exempted from the other 50%. On the other hand, when the money was coming out, they were taxed on only 50% and received the other 50% tax free. It was a straight contract between citizens and their government in the United States.

We then entered into a tax treaty with the United States, so that people receiving Canada pension in the United States would have their tax assessed on that revenue income by the United States national government, and people receiving social security residing in Canada would be taxed by the Canadian government.

The American government, to their credit, honoured the arrangement between Canadian pension receivers, who were Canadians, but living in the United States, so that they were taxed at exactly the same rate, although they were now being taxed by the U.S. government. To our eternal embarrassment and shame, Canada broke the deal. Instead of taxing on 50%, Canada began taxing on 85%.

We have to appreciate, in the sense of personal tragedy, that we had 80,000 recipients of social security in Canada who had their income changed overnight, fairly limited income in a lot of cases. All of a sudden they were losing a significant amount of dollars to the federal government in this country because of additional taxation.

They had established their lifestyle based on what the U.S. government had been taxing them. In most cases they had no way of adjusting. They were on a fixed, retirement income. Most of them were too elderly at that point to take a part time job, but some of them were forced to take one, actually.

I always tell a couple of stories with regard to this because the conduct of the government is really offensive. This was done when this Prime Minister was the finance minister. He knows because the member from Calgary told him, Mr. Thrasher told him, and Ms. Smith told him. There were hearings in the Senate on this and it was made very clear to the government that it had messed this up. The Prime Minister has repeatedly refused.

He was in my riding one time and the CASSE people were out front demonstrating. He would not confront them. He slid in through the backdoor of the hall and he left through the backdoor of the hall. That is real leadership in this country. That is a really fair way to treat our retirees and our senior citizens.

I want to mention a couple of stories. I was canvassing in one of the elections. One day a man started talking to me about the social security injustice. He mentioned that his brother, who had lived in his own apartment, was now living with him because he could no longer afford his own apartment. He had to move in with this brother. This was a man in his mid-sixties who had been independent all his life.

The man told me that his brother spends almost the entire day in his room. He comes out to go to the washroom, he comes out to get his food, and he takes his food back into his room. He has become a total recluse because he is so embarrassed that he cannot pay his way through life. He worked hard all his life, built up a pension plan that would allow him to retire with some dignity, and this is what happened.

The other story I tell is about a couple who are members of my church. Both of them had worked in the United States and had retired to Canada. They were Canadian citizens. They had never owned a house because their jobs had never allowed for that. They had looked forward to owning a house in their retirement. In fact, they bought a house the year before this change came into being. They both got slapped with what, in effect, was a 35% increase in their taxation.

For about a year they were able to continue holding on. They had taken out a relatively modest mortgage, but their incomes were small and that taxation was hurting them badly. To add to the tragedy, the husband contracted an illness and died within a year after that. There was absolutely no way his wife could manage to keep the house, so within a two year period, she had to give up that dream they had all their lives and give up the house. She had to sell it. To this day, when I see her in church, and I mean this literally, she still curses the Prime Minister. She is that angry. That anger reflects the attitude of most of the recipients of social security in Canada today toward the government.

This group has been extremely effective at bringing their cause forward. The government cannot claim it does not understand it. They met with the former deputy prime minister from Windsor West, the Right Hon. Herb Gray repeatedly. They met with both of my Liberal predecessors in my riding. They also met with the former member from Essex and the member from Chatham.

They educated them so that they would understand this. They met with the federal functionaries, who I think made the mistake initially and convinced the government; however, when they were proven wrong the government did not have the ability to reverse what was a real error and a gross injustice.

That injustice continued up until the members from Essex and Windsor West lobbied. It was a bipartisan lobby. We lobbied the finance minister who prepared the last budget and we received no response. What is it going to take for the government to come down because I have no hope that it is ever going to change? The government is going to be gone in another few months and we will finally get some justice for these people.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in debate on Bill C-265 introduced by my colleague from Essex, who is a new member of this place but who has already proven himself to be an extraordinarily talented, hard-working and dedicated representative of his constituents.

That is nowhere better evidenced than the fact that we are debating this bill tonight, a commitment he made when he first ran for public office many years ago that he would not forget or abandon Canadian seniors, particularly those residents in the Windsor area who depend upon their social security income for dignity in their retirement. He did not forget them. To the contrary, one of his first acts in the House of Commons was to introduce this bill to restore justice and fairness for Canadian citizens who depend upon social security for their retirement income.

This is a matter that is very close to my heart. I was the revenue critic for the official opposition when I first came to this place in 1997. The government at the time brought forward a bill to give effect to amendments to the U.S.-Canada tax treaty. The government, not surprisingly, it is part of its track record, essentially misled us back in 1997 when it told us that this huge tax amendment bill contained technical amendments that had no substantive effect on Canadians and that we should just pass it at all stages without even looking at it.

Thankfully, the day before we were to consider the bill I got a call from Bill Thrasher from Windsor, who spent an enormous amount of time on the phone explaining to me how the government had managed to betray senior citizens in Canada who receive social security. He painted the whole picture for me about a somewhat complex series of changes to the Canada-U.S. tax treaties.

The upshot of it was quite simply this. In 1995 the 80,000 Canadian senior citizens who received and relied upon U.S. social security payments for their retirement income were taxed at an inclusion rate of 50% and by 1997 the government had decided to increase the inclusion rate to 85%, increasing their effective tax burden by 70% . The government did not disclose this in the bill back in 1997. It did not tell anybody about it. It even tried to sneak it by the seniors who were relying upon this income.

Sadly, because of the Liberal government's total mismanagement of this file, people were already losing their homes, as my colleague from Windsor just described and as my colleague from Niagara mentioned earlier. This massive, uncalled for increase in taxation on the retirement income of these modest income seniors had a very concrete and devastating effect on many of them. For many of them, this was their retirement income.

Perhaps some of us do not quite understand the situation. There are tens of thousands of Canadians who principally work in the United States. They cross the border everyday or they may work there for months at a time. When they pay their U.S. social security premiums, they pay them with after tax dollars, unlike Canadians who effectively get to write off the value of their CPP premiums. Canadian recipients of U.S. social security have in effect already paid a tax burden that their counterparts here at home never had to pay in making contributions to their public pension plan.

One of the basic principles of benefits for seniors is that the state enters into a de facto contract with people in terms of promised benefits. In a sense they are politically vested benefits. If people want to have financial stability, they need to be able to calculate and rely on a certain retirement income.

I submit that it is immoral to change the rules on people, not only as they are approaching their retirement age but, worse yet, when they have retired, when they have no more choices and when they cannot generate income any longer. To pull the financial rug out from under them is immoral. That was the effective result of the changes to the tax code adopted by the government in the mid-1990s. It was a total betrayal of these 80,000 Canadians, people who had helped build this country, many of whom were veterans who defended it in foreign wars, all of whom lived by the rules, obeyed the law and tried to build a better country, most of whom raised families and invested in this country's future. I guess they made the mistake of taking jobs where they could get them in the United States and then being treated by the Liberal government as second class citizens.

What I found to be particularly disturbing, and I have ever since I first encountered this issue eight years ago, was how the representatives of many of these Canadian seniors in border constituencies, the largest concentration being in the Windsor area, were members of the Liberal government. Usually these Liberals say to people, as part of the nudge, nudge, wink, wink at election time, is, “Elect us. We will be in government. We will deliver the goods for you. We will defend your interests. We will stand up for you. They cannot do that in the opposition but we will in government”. That is what Susan Whelan said to them, what Herb Gray said to them and what the whole lot of the Liberals in the border constituencies across the country said to social security recipients. They betrayed those people and they betrayed that public trust.

Why did Susan Whelan let this go through when she had a chance to stop it? I remember sitting in the House of Commons industry committee in October 1997 fighting tooth and nail against Susan Whelan's efforts to ram through this 70% tax increase for her constituents, for her seniors on fixed incomes who were losing their homes and their apartments, some of whom were having to eat cat food. I have the letters from these people and sadly some of them have since passed on without seeing justice done.

In this bill, which I originally introduced several years ago, we are trying to undo the injustice of the tax changes in 1997. We are trying to make one very simple change: to reduce the inclusion rate on U.S. social security income from 85% back to where it was for decades to 50%.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are not asking for something that would cost a lot of money. We are not asking for anything except basic fairness and justice for people who have worked their whole lives and deserve to live with a modicum of dignity as seniors. That is why all members of the opposition parties, I believe, have endorsed this bill.

If the government wanted to let justice happen, it could accept the passage of this bill at all three stages here tonight and send it over to the Senate for ratification. This does not need to be held up for any prospective election. This could be passed and, indeed, the finance minister could have done right by people like Olive Smith. Years ago he could have done right by them in the budget. In fact, and I do not think I am going out on a limb here, let me say that the Conservative Party would be quite happy to accept an amendment to the budget implementation act to give effect to Bill C-265.

I know my colleague from Essex has worked hard on this but I see he is indicating that he too would accept allowing the government to take credit for doing this. This does not have to be a partisan football. This could and should be an all party effort to restore justice for these seniors.

I just want to say in closing that my dear friend, Olive Smith, who has been a champion on this issue of fairness for years, is now in a period of very difficult health. I want to send my best wishes to her and say that we will continue to fight and I promise her that help is on its way. We will restore justice for people who were badly done by, who had worked hard and who deserve to live in dignity.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill put forward by the hon. member for Essex. The bill would exempt from taxation 50% of the U.S. social security benefits received by taxpayers in Canada. Currently, the exemption is 15%.

This government does not support the bill. I recommend that hon. members of the House not support this bill for a very simple reason: Canadian seniors receiving the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan or old age security benefits are subject to tax on 100% of their income under our tax system, just as employees are generally subject to a tax of 100% of their employment income.

Of course if that senior citizen is a low income taxpayer because of our progressive tax system, he or she, depending on the circumstances, may pay little or no tax on that income.

As a basic rule, however, a senior citizen is subject to tax on 100% of income because income is income, whether it is employment income, investment income or pension income, and it is a basic premise of our tax system that taxpayers having the same income should pay the same tax.

As I mentioned, a senior living in Canada who is receiving U.S. social security benefits is taxed at only 85% of his or her income. I invite members to consider carefully that statement and what it means. Two senior citizens, one receiving CPP and the other receiving U.S. social security, each with the same amount of income, are taxed differently. The senior citizen receiving CPP would, all other things being equal, pay more tax than the senior citizen receiving U.S. social security benefits. The tax system, as it stands, grants preferential treatment to recipients of U.S. social security benefits. I will discuss in a moment why the disparate treatment exists.

First, I want to state that this government will not support a bill that seeks to widen this disparity, a bill that would extend the existing exemption of 15% to 50%.

In the United States, the maximum inclusion rate for social security benefits is 85%. This may serve as some justification for granting the current 15% exemption to Canadian taxpayers in receipt of those U.S. benefits but I am not persuaded as a matter of tax policy.

As a general rule, and it is a sensible rule, U.S. law does not apply to Canadians living in Canada.

New Zealand does not tax capital gains, which is its choice, but that does not mean a Canadian taxpayer selling property situated in New Zealand should therefore not pay tax on any gains.

Canadians are taxed according to Canadian rules and a fundamental aspect of our rules is that similarly situated taxpayers should be taxed similarly, regardless of where their income comes from.

We also have tax treaties with a number of countries, including the United States. These treaties are exceptionally important for they allow Canadians to engage in international trade and commerce without worrying that competing jurisdictions would both tax the same revenue. Without these treaties, a good deal of commerce simply would not take place.

In negotiating these treaties, there is always a quid pro quo. The rule in the current Canada-U.S. treaty that grants a 15% exemption to Canadian recipients of U.S. social security was the result of a negotiated settlement with the United States. Previously, our arrangement had been that the country where the payment arose would have exclusive taxing jurisdiction in respect of these benefits.

As a result, these payments were subject to a final 25.5% withholding tax imposed by the United States. For low income Canadians, this high withholding tax constituted a considerable hardship, since if the benefits had been taxed by Canada these taxpayers would have paid little or no tax.

In negotiating the treaty we sought and obtained residence based taxation in order to help these low income Canadians. In exchange, we agreed to a 15% exemption. This was a negotiated settlement. We got what we wanted: residence based taxation. This allows for low income seniors who are receiving U.S. social security benefits to access our progressive rates and pay little or no tax instead of being subject to a punitive 25.5% withholding tax imposed by the United States.

The United States in exchange received a concession on our part, a 15% exemption so that the maximum inclusion rate under our law would be the same as the maximum inclusion rate under their law. In parallel, recipients of Canadian social security benefits residing in the United States are taxed there according to the U.S. rules and so would also benefit from a maximum inclusion rate of 85%.

The bill proposed by the Conservative member would extend the exemption of 15%, arrived at through negotiation, to 50%. What would then be the answer to the retirees receiving Canada pension plan, Quebec pension plan or old age security benefits who ask why they are paying twice as much tax as the person receiving U.S. social security benefits?

In conclusion, the bill should not receive the support of the House.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-265 would not be possible in large part without the efforts of Olive Smith, the fearless leader of CASSE, Canadians Asking for Social Security Equality, a citizens' group formed to fight the 70% Liberal tax hike on their retirement incomes, a tax hike that sent many Canadian seniors out of security and into mobile homes and nursing homes.

Olive Smith spent some of her later retirement years caring for her bedridden and ill husband until he finally passed away. Olive herself is in declining health these days and is no longer in the mobile home she shared with her late husband. Sadly, she is now in a nursing home.

Bill C-265 is for all the Olive Smiths across Canada, devastated by a callous, money-hungry Liberal finance minister, now the Prime Minister, in order to offset massive Liberal government spending.

Bill C-265 is in memory of Canadian seniors who never got to see justice before passing away. It is for those Canadian seniors still waiting for justice. Justice should come from the Liberal government and it has not. It has been eight years and still the Liberal government is fighting this measure.

I asked the Liberal finance minister to include this modest tax reduction for low income and middle income Canadians in the 2005 budget. There was no answer. There was no reply. There was no line item in the budget. It is justice denied yet again.

I should never have had to introduce this private member's bill in the first place, but I thank God that I am here today to do it, because it is the right thing to do.

Bill C-265 is a simple bill, simple to understand and simple to implement. Bill C-265 reverses a cruel 70% tax hike foisted on Canadian seniors who collect U.S. social security as the basis of their retirement incomes, Canadian seniors who lived in Canada, worked in the United States, spent their money in Canada, planned for retirement in Canada and retired under a rule that 50% of their benefits would be included for taxation. Then they had the rule changed on them. All their retirement calculations changed. Let us imagine getting to the end of our life and worrying about not having enough money to get through.

That is what happened to seniors in this case, seniors in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes. There were thousands of them with modest means forced from their homes and apartments into mobile homes or nursing homes or forced to live with family members instead of being independent. This happened at Christmas 1995. Let me repeat: this happened at Christmastime.

Adding insult to injury, this Liberal government and this Liberal Prime Minister, then the finance minister, promised a return, a solution, a retroactive rebate. All would be made well again. That was an election promise in 1997, a Liberal promise broken. It has been eight years and justice has not only not been done, but judging by Liberal speeches defending the 70% tax hike, justice is not even seen to be done.

I have spent a lot of time talking to seniors who collect CPP and who have 100% of their benefit included for taxation. Not one senior has agreed with this Liberal government's assertion that returning the rate of inclusion of U.S. social security benefits to 50% is a bad thing. There has not been one senior who agrees. Every one of these seniors agrees that this wrong should be righted. Not one of the seniors I have spoken to have said they would feel ripped off if this were to happen.

Shame on the Liberal government. Its excuse is lame. It is pathetic. It demeans the fair-mindedness of Canadians with a benevolent decision founded on a false premise. Shame.

I thank hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party. I thank the Bloc for its support. I thank the NDP for its support as well. I thank all the opposition parties.

In closing, I call on Liberal members to support this and end the bitterness and sadness of the golden years of thousands of Canadian seniors, to right a wrong and finally bring about justice and restore tax fairness. I would like to seek unanimous consent to put the following motion: that Bill C-265 now be deemed adopted at all stages.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 20, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion.

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

There are two minutes remaining in this part of the debate.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, April 20, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.