House of Commons Hansard #141 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was troops.

Topics

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that what the member has raised is an issue and people do not trust the Conservatives in terms of what they are saying about this mission.

However, if we are saying the mission is wrong now, why would we continue to ask our troops to stay there until 2009? Although I certainly respect the member's comments around not trusting that the Conservatives will fulfill their commitment to withdraw the troops in 2009, I just cannot see us continuing with this mission when we do not believe that counter-insurgency is the route to go.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order. Before resuming debate, I want to say that twice in the last five or ten minutes a cellphone has gone off in the House. It is against the rules to have cellphones on in the House and have them ringing.

For the same member, the member for Oakville, who is outside talking on her phone, I just want to say to her, and to anybody else, because she is not the only one and she is not the first one, that it is against the rules to have cellphones ringing in the House.

Let us please desist. I do not want to let one person get away with it, because then somebody else tries it, and somebody else, and the next thing we know we have a culture of cellphones going off in the House of Commons. Let us cut it off right now.

Resuming debate, the member for Vancouver East.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and support your point about cellphones, as I think we all do. They are very distracting. We will try to make sure that our cellphones are turned off.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of the NDP motion put forward on Afghanistan. I have been in the House all day listening to the debate. It has been very interesting because there are obviously very strongly held viewpoints from different parties in this House. The points have been well argued. Sometimes there has been passion. Sometimes there has been a bit of conflict in the debate. It has gone back and forth. In a debate like this, we can expect that to happen.

I think it does reflect the kind of public discussion and debate that is also taking place outside this chamber in communities right across the country. We come here reflecting those views on what this mission is about and what Canada should do. What is the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan? That is really what we are getting down to here today.

I would like to go back for a moment to October 2001, because it was in 2001 that President George W. Bush spoke to the U.S. Congress and uttered his now famous assertion that “you are either with us” or with the terrorists. It was very shortly after that, hours after that, that the brutal bombing of Afghanistan began and, in October 2001 as well, Canada joined what was then Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Here we are almost six years later, an enormous amount of time, with an enormous human casualty from that war, not to mention what is going on in Iraq. Canada is still deeply complicit in the U.S. war, with no end in sight, despite, I believe very strongly, Canadians' growing anxiety and opposition.

I have heard from many constituents on this issue in Vancouver East, and indeed from Canadians across the country, who have expressed to me their very deep concern about the war in Afghanistan and Canada's participation and where it is headed. In fact, many people draw the links between the war on Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and the American government's agenda to use military force in the name of fighting terrorism.

There are a lot of people who see this new global reality as something that is very dangerous and harmful. It really demands of us as parliamentarians that we provide some answers as to Canada's willing involvement and support for this agenda being put forward so powerfully, with such destruction, by the U.S. government. We are very involved in it.

Let us then fast forward to March 2003, when, thank goodness, the then prime minister, Jean Chrétien, made the right decision following enormous public pressure, not the least of which was from the NDP in this House day after day, and said that Canada should not participate in the war and invasion in Iraq. That decision was made. I believe it was the right decision. It was supported by the Canadian people. People have understood it to be an illegal occupation.

Nevertheless, Canada was still involved in Afghanistan. Again, I think that many people have drawn the link that our involvement in Afghanistan is helping the U.S. administration's effort in the war in Iraq, because it of course has a huge number of troops in Iraq. The Americans have a large number of troops in Afghanistan. Our complement in Afghanistan is assisting the Americans in terms of the pressures they face in Iraq.

What we have seen since that initial involvement in 2001 that was begun by former prime minister Jean Chrétien, was continued by his successor, the next Liberal prime minister, and now has been escalated by the Conservative government, is something that we are debating today. I think it is a very important debate.

Today in the debate I heard members from the Conservatives and even from the Liberals say they are confused about the NDP position. I want to say and put on the record that I am very proud of the NDP position. I think New Democrats have been clear from day one, because we have questioned and we have opposed this mission and we will continue to do so.

We will continue to speak out and demand answers, and in fact to some of the same questions the Conservatives asked when they were in opposition, ironically, and we will continue to call for the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan because we believe that is actually the right thing to do.

We believe that Canada has gone down the track a long way on a wrong mission that is now supported by fewer and fewer Canadians. We can see from the debate in the House today and over the last few days on the question of detainees just how controversial even the question of detainees is becoming.

Right now Canada spends nine times as much on military combat in Afghanistan as it does on aid and development in Afghanistan. We believe that fighting the counter-insurgency is not going to resolve Afghanistan's security problems. What Afghanistan needs now is a peace agreement. Therefore, Canada should pull its troops out and take leadership. We should be using our influence in the international community within NATO in creating opportunities for peace and increasing significantly our support for reconstruction aid and development.

I have been involved as a peace activist for over 30 years. I believe very strongly that Canada has a responsibility to uphold international law, human rights and social justice, both in Canada and around the globe.

I believe that the NDP position has been very principled. It has been a position of integrity. It came from our convention, where our members spoke loudly and clearly. Again I think that is reflective of large numbers of Canadians who said that this was the wrong mission for Canada.

We have had a lot of debate today about the Liberal motion that came forward in the House on April 19. I have heard many Liberals say it is terrible that the NDP was supporting the Conservatives. Let us be very clear about what took place here. I have to say that I found it impossible to support the motion that was put forward by the Liberals on their opposition day, as did all of my colleagues, because it was a wrong motion.

Basically that motion confirmed the position that had been laid out by the Conservatives and voted on in May 2006. This was not an issue of the NDP supporting the Conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were opposing a Liberal motion that we believed to be utterly wrong because it confirmed the vote that took place in May 2006 and it confirmed the position of that party.

Let us actually go back to that vote, because that was the critical test. That was the critical point at which this House had to make a decision. It was a government motion that was laid down as to whether or not our involvement in Afghanistan would be extended until February 2009.

We had a choice. We had a decision to make. That choice was made. It was very close. As we know, 149 votes were in favour of extending the mission for a further two years and 145 were against. Four votes separated that decision. I would remind the members of the House that there were 22 Liberals who voted with the government on that day. There were also many Liberals who were absent.

That was the test. That was the measure in terms of where we were going as a Parliament representing the Canadian people and Canadian views. It is incredibly regrettable. At that time we had an opportunity to say to the government that we would not extend that mission, but because of the position the Liberals took that unfortunately did not happen, so here we are today now confirming that position that has been taken by the Conservative government.

I would like to quote from a very good report done by James Laxer, in the “Mission of Folly”, where he says:

The war in Afghanistan, like the struggle in Iraq, is doing more to promote the cause of terrorism throughout the Islamic world than it is doing to win the so-called War on Terror. The argument made by some that to advocate withdrawal is appeasement and that we have a choice between fighting this enemy in Asia or on our own doorstep is a completely phony one.

Like previous invasions of Afghanistan, this one is almost certain to end in failure. Eventually, the West will decide to pull its troops out, leaving an even more despoiled country to sort out itself.

That is the real tragedy in this horrible situation that has unfolded. The Soviets could not do it with 140,000 troops and a massive intervention.

We need to be very honest. That is a very brutal assessment. We need to have a very honest assessment and to be clear that this military mission has no end. It has no clear strategy. It has no sense of what it will accomplish. It is something that, as we know from the government's own admission, could go on for 10, 15 or 20 years. We say that is wrong. Change the mission. Begin a peace agreement. Begin aid and reconstruction and development. Use Canada's influence in the traditional way that has met with success. That is what we should be doing.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am confused about the NDP's position on the mission in Afghanistan. I will explain why I am confused. Last August, last September, last fall, last year, the NDP demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Canadian troops from Afghanistan, point final. But today, the NDP is demanding the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from “the counter-insurgency mission”. In other words, the NDP is demanding the complete withdrawal of troops, but only from southern Afghanistan.

Which is it? Is the NDP demanding the complete withdrawal of all Canadian military personnel from Afghanistan, or is that party demanding the withdrawal of troops only from southern Afghanistan? Which of the two positions is it? I would like some clarification on the NDP's position on this.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House all day so I have heard the member be confused all day, and I am sorry for that. I have a feeling that my response is not going to end his confusion. I have a feeling that he would like to remain confused because it happens to be a convenient question.

When we look at the position of the parties in this House, the NDP has been very consistent in its position, even going back to 2001, in terms of the questions we have raised, the position we have taken, the motion at our convention, the motion before us today, which is to say that we should be withdrawing our troops, we should be ending the military mission.

We certainly are not saying that we will abandon Afghanistan. Our leader was very clear on that today. The member maybe was not here to hear that. We have been very clear that we think there is a different kind of role that Canada should be playing.

We should be at the point where we are now using our influence in the world with our NATO allies, with people in Afghanistan, to actually engage in a peace process. We are not alone in that. I know the Conservatives do not like to hear that, but we are not alone in that position. There is a growing body of academics and former foreign affairs officials who are saying exactly the same thing, as are former military personnel and present military personnel.

I know the Conservatives do not want to hear it, but that is the reality of the debate that is taking place.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I doubt the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was greatly enlightened from what he was before the answer to the question.

What strikes me as very strange indeed in the motion is that the NDP calls for us to notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.

Apparently according to the NDP all we have to do is notify that we are going to be withdrawing in a safe and secure manner. I do not know what a safe and secure manner would be from a combat zone. All our allies would just sort of understand and say, “Well, have a nice day. We appreciate your coming. Safe trip home.”

I appreciate the wishful thinking on the part of the NDP, but if Canada is to be taken seriously in this mission and indeed around the world, it does need to be serious and give a very clear timeline as to what its commitment is.

The commitment from this Parliament and indeed from the government is to February 2009. I do not understand why the NDP refuses to accept the will of Parliament on this matter.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that sometimes the debate becomes very trivialized.

The motion has been put forward with the most serious intent. Certainly it does say that we should notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner. Obviously, that is something that is worked out in terms of the process.

I just do not understand why the member would call into question that kind of language. It is the kind of language that would be used when signifying an intent to change a position. I really do not understand the question other than it is really just a bit of a cheap shot.

The real issue here is to recognize that the Liberals through their own motion have signified their support for the Conservative mission to February 2009. That is what they want to hide behind.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the motion introduced by my NDP colleagues concerning the future of the mission in Afghanistan.

The Bloc Québécois' position can be summarized as follows: we oppose this motion because it calls for a hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan. Canada must inform its allies before withdrawing its troops. On the basis of the information available at the moment, the Bloc believes that the mission should end in February 2009. Between now and then, we are calling on the government to reconfigure operations there. Unfortunately, the use of force is necessary, and at this stage, a solely diplomatic and humanitarian solution is bound to fail.

We believe that NATO must be informed now that Canadian troops will not remain in Afghanistan beyond 2009.

That being said, sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan would be irresponsible toward the people and the government of Afghanistan, as well as toward our allies, who are counting on Canada's collaboration until then.

However, it would be just as irresponsible to carry out this international mission without modifying our approach or accepting criticism, as the Prime MInister is doing. We must find a better balance.

The Quebec nation has its own set of values and interests. The Bloc Québécois' role is to express these values and interests internationally and in Parliament. Every time the Bloc has to take a stand, it tries to imagine what a sovereign Quebec government would do, given the same circumstances.

We are not like the other opposition parties. We have won a majority of the seats in Quebec in each of the five elections in which we participated, which means that we represent Quebec in Ottawa.

Quebeckers have everything to gain from advances in international law, multilateralism, and better distribution of wealth among rich and poor countries.

We do not believe that we should respond to terrorism with force, but that when force becomes necessary, it must be grounded in international law and the principles underlying the charter of the United Nations.

Those are the guiding principles we have applied in the case of Afghanistan.

The international community's activities in Afghanistan are a test for the United Nations, for NATO and for the future of multilateral interventions around the world.

The reconstruction efforts are focused on fighting poverty, injustice and corruption, all of which create fertile ground for terrorism and instability.

This is why the Bloc Québécois supported this international intervention from the beginning, and continues to support it.

However, we have no intention of blindly supporting the Canadian government, its policies and its decisions.

This explains our refusal to give the government a blank cheque at the vote in May 2006 on extending Canada's mission.

The Conservative government would like to engage us in a never-ending “war on terror” alongside the American administration.

The Minister of National Defence said that Canada was at war in Afghanistan in retribution for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He does not realize that we are long past September 11 and have moved on to a new stage.

In the beginning, western countries decided to intervene in Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda from carrying out more terrorist attacks under the protection of the Taliban regime. In doing so, we had the opportunity to stop the atrocities being committed against the Afghan people. At the time, the Bloc Québécois supported this international intervention.

Once the Taliban had been removed from power and the terrorists had been scattered, disrupted and driven into hiding, the nature of the intervention had to be drastically altered.

After the departure of the Taliban, the priority was to help Afghans rebuild their country, to not return to how things were before 2002. The United Nations then came into the picture.

At the 2001 Bonn conference and the 2002 Tokyo conference, the international community set the objective of focussing international intervention on reconstruction of the country.

Rebuilding the Afghan state requires ensuring security until the Afghan government can take responsibility for protecting its territory. However, it is unrealistic to believe that security can be provided by military means alone. Defeating the Taliban regime was relatively easy; achieving peace and rebuilding a viable Afghan state is a far more demanding task. The fundamental objective of the international coalition and the United Nations is to reconstruct the economy, the democracy and a viable Afghan state enabling Afghans to take control of their country and their development.

Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished and devastated countries on the planet. Per capita income is less than $1 per day, child mortality is very high and life expectancy is no more than 45 years. We are talking about a country with the youngest population in the world. We must give these young people hope for the future. It was in this context that the London conference was held in early 2006, bringing together the Afghan government and the international community. On that occasion, the participants adopted the Afghanistan compact, and set goals and a five-year timetable to improve three key areas: security and governance; the rule of law and human rights; and economic and social development.

The Canadian government must explain to the people that we are not in Afghanistan to serve American interests or to wage war. The Prime Minister must also clearly recognize that the situation is about to become critical in southern Afghanistan and, that if nothing is done to address it, we run the risk of getting stuck there. He must acknowledge the urgency and the need for real progress in the areas of development and humanitarian aid before the summer and the next Taliban offensive.

The Prime Minister must show leadership on the world stage and convince NATO and our allies in Afghanistan to change the direction of the international intervention quickly and thoroughly, and to do more.

He should also quickly correct the deplorable way he is conducting his foreign policy. The Conservative government has alienated a number of Canada's partners on the world stage. It has done so at the worst possible time, when it should be convincing our allies to contribute more to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Some changes are essential, and these changes are necessary and urgent. The reason for the urgency is that the situation has deteriorated since 2006, especially in the south and the east.

Between 2002 and 2005 there was some notable progress: free elections were held; the foundation for rule of law was laid; the economy grew; real progress was made in the creation of an Afghan army; there was significant mine clearance; schools and clinics were built; and infrastructure was restored. However, since the beginning of 2006, things have been spiralling out of control. There is still time to change the direction of international intervention, but it is becoming an urgent matter. We will not earn the support of the Afghan people simply by fighting the Taliban with weapons and chasing them into the mountains. I must say that the first major change that needs to happen in Afghanistan is to make clear and tangible development aid a top priority. The objectives of the international community must first and foremost be the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan and its democracy.

Since I am short on time, I will not take this any further, but these are a few of the reasons why we are voting against today's motion.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, the hon. member for Saint-Jean promised our soldiers the support of the Bloc Québécois. He said in this House:

Imagine how soldiers would feel tomorrow if we could tell them that 270 of 308 members of Parliament voted in favour of this mission.

Has the hon. member of the opposition thought about the effect it would have on our soldiers in Afghanistan, to learn that this House refused to promise them its support? Has the member thought for a second about how devastating this would be for their morale?

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I believe the hon. member has misunderstood what I said. We oppose the motion as it is currently worded.

Furthermore, for the past few days, the government has been telling everyone that the Bloc, in particular, does not support the soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are proud of the soldiers fighting for the freedom of the Afghan people and we support the work they are doing. Soldiers do what they are asked to do. What we are questioning, however, is how the government can get away with, first of all, not providing our troops with the tools they need and, second, not giving them realistic objectives.

We are saying that war is one thing. Sending our soldiers is one thing. But it is another thing altogether to focus only on one way to achieve results. There is also the whole development aspect that is extremely important and deserves an equal amount of attention.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member said just a few moments ago that our goal should be to provide concrete assistance to reconstruction and humanitarian activity. I am a little confused by that statement.

I want to ask the member this. Does she not recognize that our soldiers are preventing the Taliban from killing the humanitarian aid workers, the people engaged in rebuilding the infrastructure, the people engaged in training the police forces, and the people engaged in training the new government in forms of democracy?

Does she not think in any way that this is some type of concrete assistance to the rebuilding of Afghanistan? Does she not understand that this is an integral part that must be accomplished, that must be carried out, in order to assist aid workers and the Afghan government? Otherwise, the Taliban insurgents would kill them.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, what I understand is that Canada is one of the partners in Afghanistan. What our party is saying about the war is that we believe our efforts have been sufficient in that regard. Our citizens want us to be engaged in reconstruction and development. Other countries are involved. Canada could perhaps use diplomacy to ensure that others contribute what is required to the war effort.

As far as we are concerned, our citizens are asking the Government of Canada to now put itself in the reconstruction and development mode. In my opinion, the Canadian government should respect the will of the people.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, the motion calls for the troops to withdraw in a safe and secure manner. This, of course, is an interesting concept in a combat zone. I wonder if the hon. member could flesh out for us what she considers to be a safe and secure manner. It does strike one as a bit naive under the circumstances.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member may consider it naive, but what I said earlier is that there is a situation throughout the country. We do not understand why only Canada is contributing in the combat zone. Our citizens want us to work on development. In Afghanistan, there are areas where that is happening and we could be there and put more emphasis on that aspect. We should not put all our money into the war effort; it should also be allocated to reconstruction and development efforts.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate.

I would like to inform the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord that he has four minutes for his speech.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the NDP motion about military operations in Afghanistan.

As I said last week, I want to commend the people in my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, and the Canadian Forces personnel from 3 Wing Bagotville who are serving in Afghanistan. I salute their bravery and their generosity.

The NDP motion has some similarities to the Liberal motion we debated last week. The difference is this: the NDP take the position that Canada should put an end to this mission immediately, whereas the Bloc, like the Liberal Party, believes that we should tell the international community that the mission will end in February 2009.

It is true that, whatever disagreements the members of this House may have about the mission in Afghanistan, we still have full confidence in the men and women on the ground.

Even though we supported the Liberal motion, we propose a rebalancing of the operations in Afghanistan, particularly in regard to Canada's strategy for supporting peace in Afghanistan and the mandate and methods of the Canadian Forces.

The House of Commons has made a commitment until 2009, and it must honour that commitment. To my NDP colleagues, I say that it would be irresponsible for the members of this House to support this motion.

Just imagine what would happen if the Government of Canada adopted such a motion. Imagine how the members of the coalition, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force would react. We would be sending the message that we are giving up, and that could tarnish Quebec's and Canada's international reputation.

It is crucial, however, that we inform our allies that the Canadian Forces will no longer have a mandate in Afghanistan in February 2009.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported sending troops to Afghanistan as part of a NATO mission. Unfortunately, that mission has become a war operation. The framework of the operation has changed, but Parliament has made a commitment until February 2009, and we must honour that commitment.

The Bloc Québécois deplores the fact that this motion suggests that we withdraw. Once again, we will vote against the NDP motion.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 5:27 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, April 30, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is there unanimous consent?

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Competition Act (personal information obtained by fraud), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in at report stage

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

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