Debates of June 8th, 2007

National Blood Donor Week Act

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill S-214, which if passed would recognize national blood donor week. Every year the week of June 14 would be designated as national blood donor week. This campaign would go a long way to ensure that safe blood will always be available to every patient who needs transfusion as part of his or her treatment.

It is fitting that this issue is before the House today, as Canada has been selected as the host country for World Blood Donor Day on June 14 by the World Health Organization, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Society of Blood Transfusion, and the International Federation of Blood Donor Organizations.

Giving blood really is a priceless gift. Every year, Canadian blood donors save thousands of lives. This year's theme “Because of You” grants the 17 million Canadians who have been touched by the need for blood a special chance to say thanks to donors across Canada.

On average, every minute of every day in Canada someone needs blood or blood products. Hundreds of thousands of people every year receive blood components or products following accidents, during surgery or for cancer treatments, burn therapy, hemophilia and other blood related diseases. The maintenance of the collective blood supply depends entirely on the generosity of people who care about sharing the priceless gift of good health.

I would like to share some facts about the gift of blood donation. Over half of Canadians at some point in their lives will require blood or blood products for themselves or a family member. To meet our nation's requirements, one million units of blood must be collected from about 600,000 Canadians.

Canada has the safest blood supply system in the world. One of the major reasons for this fact is that 100% of the blood is donor supplied.

I remember as a family doctor being awoken very early one morning by a patient who had been travelling in another country. She called me and was worried because she was told that she needed a blood transfusion. At that time, that country's blood supply was very much in question and in the news. I remember saying to the patient, because of where she was, that at all costs, it was just so risky for her to accept a blood transfusion in that country at that time. I think I even asked her if she could lift her head off the pillow and if the answer was yes, I told her, then she did not need the blood transfusion, but she should rest in bed, drink plenty of fluids and take her iron pills. It was so risky for her to accept a blood transfusion in that country at that time.

Blood donations in Canada are gathered here by volunteers and from volunteers at 45 permanent collection sites. There are also more than 17,000 special mobile clinics held across Canada. These are operated by almost 6,000 employees and in excess of 40,000 volunteers. On an annual basis, nearly 1.1 million units of blood are donated from over half a million Canadians.

I would like to add that blood donor clinics are regularly held here on the Hill, including next Thursday in Room 200, West Block. I encourage members and all House of Commons staff to donate.

As a Canadian, I am proud to report that our national blood supply system is admired by other countries as a model to emulate. Health Canada’s membership in the newly formed WHO Blood Regulators Network will provide Canada the opportunity to share its expertise in this area worldwide.

As an MP from Toronto and Ontario, I am proud to say that almost 50% of blood collections are obtained from Ontario blood donors.

Canadian Blood Services ships blood products to nearly 750 hospitals across Canada. However, less than 4% of eligible Canadians donate blood every year.

This bill aims to inspire even more Canadians to step forward and participate in this experience, which helps literally thousands each year with the gift of life. No one likes needles and it really is an invasive procedure, but we need at least a week a year to celebrate those who do roll up their sleeves, and we will help make their example contagious.

Today I particularly want to sing the praises of a former patient of mine, Richard Lewis, who passed away last week. It was during his blood donation that his leukemia was discovered. As a regular donor of platelets, he reported often to the Canadian Blood Services to give his donation. It was in that manner that his leukemia was discovered. He fought a brave battle over the last eight months.

This week, I know that all in the House will send his family, Jan Silverman and the children, their best wishes. We honour Richard Lewis today for that loss early in life, and also, it is due to blood donation's preventive nature that so many lives are saved because of people like Richard.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, Bill S-214.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and deeply honoured to have the opportunity to express my gratitude to all the donors who contribute every year to the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, through this simple yet generous act of giving blood. What hope would remain for so many sick and injured people, and their loved ones, without these donors? It is time for the House to declare the second week of June “National Blood Donor Week”.

We Canadians are very lucky. Our blood transfusion system is one of the safest in the world. We owe this safety to the efforts made by professionals and volunteers alike and, above all, to the fact that giving blood in Canada is a completely voluntary act. Fewer than 25% of countries can say the same thing.

I have no doubt that Canadians are fully aware that giving blood means giving life, and that they understand the importance of this simple act. That is what they would say if they were asked. But we do not necessarily find ways to express this gratitude and understanding in our daily lives. Like so many good things, giving blood is a simple reality that is often taken for granted.

We need to be aware of how fortunate we are as Canadians. We should not assume that donors know their generosity is appreciated. We cannot take our voluntary donation system or its sustainability for granted. We must continue promoting blood donation as a positive gesture and encourage Canadians who can to roll up their sleeves. That is why Canada, as a nation, must take action, express its appreciation for our blood system and thank the people who run it.

To recognize donors and encourage other people to become donors, the House must adopt Bill S-214. Canada's Parliament must show its support for this country's donors and recipients, as well as for the other levels of government that have made the second week of June national blood donor week. In doing this as a nation, we are joining with cities like Kingston, Ontario, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Bay Roberts, Newfoundland and Labrador, which declared at different times that the second week of June would be blood donor week.

This week has been celebrated in communities across Canada since 2005, and there is no reason this House should wait any longer before adopting Bill S-214. As I said earlier, Canadians are extremely fortunate, but human nature being what it is, we sometimes take our good fortune for granted. To help raise awareness of just how fortunate we are, I would like to share some thoughts about blood systems in other countries where blood donation is not entirely voluntary.

Imagine a system where blood is bought and sold. That is the sort of system that most people in the world have to deal with. The sad reality is that if people are forced by economic circumstances to sell their blood, they will be far more likely to keep quiet about aspects of their medical history. Canadians are fortunate that people here voluntarily roll up their sleeves to share the gift of life.

Now imagine a system where a family member who receives blood creates an obligation to replace that blood. Many developed countries have this sort of system. If a person needs several transfusions or transfusions for life, that could place a very heavy burden on that person's family.

Canadians are lucky to have volunteer donors and a system that does not have such obligations. To see a family member with a problem requiring a transfusion can prompt a person to donate blood, which is a very generous thing to do.

Some areas of world are trying to implement a system that is completely voluntary and coordinated on a national level. They are making progress, but despite their system and the progress they have made, they still have to rely on paid and mandatory donations.

Even with a donation rate of slightly less than 5%, or the percentage required to meet our needs, our system works, promotes sharing and will never need to resort to paid or mandatory donations. We should celebrate this system and the volunteer donors to whom we owe its existence by designating the second week of June national blood donor week.

People who give blood in Canada, like other volunteers, are motivated by the desire to help their peers. This celebration in honour of those who give blood voluntarily also celebrates Canadian communities. How many Canadians would have to worry about blood if they needed a transfusion in this country? Very few. Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec submit all donations to essential tests. Canadians have trust in this system.

Now imagine a system that combines voluntary, paid and mandatory donations. What would happen to that trust? In my opinion, it would be broken or seriously shaken. Canadians are lucky to be able to trust the volunteer donation system in our country. To strengthen this system of volunteer donations and increase the pool of potential donors, we must pay tribute to these people. Making the second week of June national blood donor week can help us recruit and maintain the number of donors required in Canada.

I will submit another fact for us to consider for a few moments, that is the vastness of our great country, Canada, which extends from one ocean to another, from the 49th parallel to the far north. Although its population and donors are not distributed equally, we are fortunate to have a system that is coordinated nationally so that the blood of volunteer donors in Quebec can be transfused to a patient in Nunavut. Without national coordination of the blood system, the regions of our vast country would be left to their own devices to determine and meet their respective needs and to establish and administer their own safety protocols. Imagine what that would mean for remote areas.

We are fortunate to have a system that can quickly send blood donated in densely populated major centres to rural and remote areas. The scope and the impact of Canadian blood donations extend beyond the mobile or walk-in blood donor clinics. Giving blood is, in a way, an integral part of our society and should be commended.

As we all know, Canada is a cultural mosaic, reflecting the magnificent diversity of all regions of the world. We can imagine how hard it would be if our country could not count on volunteer donors from different blood groups and ethnic origins. These people, while building up the national blood bank, play a vital role in terms of special needs. To celebrate donors is to celebrate Canada.

Today I emphasized how lucky Canadians are to have such a blood system. Our system is coordinated nationally, and all the blood comes from volunteer donors. Because of this, the blood is safe, and we can trust our system. Our biggest challenge is to increase the number of donations to meet our needs. We would need 5% of healthy adults to regularly donate blood.

By passing Bill S-214 and designating the second week of June national blood donor week, we will be taking a big step in the right direction.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice my support for Bill S-214, declaring the second week in June to be national blood donor week. This simple act would not only provide Canada with a dedicated week to celebrate the generosity of donors and the needs that they respond to, but it will also help people gain a greater understanding of just what blood donation is all about.

I recently found out a few interesting things about blood and blood donation that I would like to share with my colleagues. It certainly helped me to understand what the “gift of life”, as we call it, really means and why we need a variety of volunteers to donate on a regular basis. It is really important.

The most important observation I have made is that we cannot leave blood donations up to everyone else. Saying another person will do it simply does not fill the need for blood donations in our needed blood supply in Canada.

I would like to begin by recognizing that blood donation is not simply blood. Each donation is made up of and broken down into several parts, mainly red blood cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. Patients do not just get blood. They get specific components from specific donations based on their need and blood type. Clearly we need many volunteer blood donors all year round to meet a need that can really only be known for sure on a patient by patient basis.

I would now like to share some information about the blood components I just mentioned. This will help illustrate just why we need all eligible Canadians to step up and roll up their sleeves. I might add that declaring the second week in June to be national blood donor week would go a long way toward getting that message out loud and clear in every part of this country.

I will begin with plasma. Plasma makes up 55% of total blood volume and does many things, such as transporting blood cells and nutrients throughout the body and defending against infection. Plasma is often needed by burn victims or hemophiliacs. Red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets are suspended in blood plasma.

Red blood cells carry oxygen throughout the body. A drop of blood the size of a pinhead, and this is unbelievable, carries about five million red blood cells. It is amazing that these incredible tiny entities can do such a job.

People who have lost a lot of blood through accident or surgery or who have anemia may be given red blood cells. Did everyone know that, once more, we are not all the same? Between 43% to 49% of men's blood is composed of red blood cells while it is 37% to 43% in women.

White blood cells are slightly larger than red and protect the body by moving in to fight infection. If anyone has ever been ill and felt oneself getting better, that is the white blood cells at work. Yesterday I had a sore throat and knew I had a little infection. I could feel those white cells or something working and by doing the research on this speech, I now know what it was. I am going to have a little different view about getting better. It is the cells working in one's body.

Sometimes white blood cells are needed by people with weak immune systems as well. To meet this need, white blood cells can be collected through a process call apheresis, whereby white cells are separated from plasma and removed from the donor. There are 6,000 to 8,000 white blood cells per cubic millilitre of blood. However, it does not end there.

Finally, I want to talk about a component of blood that might be in a way a little more familiar to us as we have all moved through the bumps and scrapes of growing up.

Platelets are a component of blood that contribute to wound healing. When a person cuts a finger, for example, or if a child skins his or her knee, we can see platelets working as part of the healing process. They are even smaller than red and white blood cells. Approximately two tablespoons of platelets come from a single blood donation. Cancer or organ transplant patients may require these platelets.

As we see, a blood donation is not simply a blood donation. It is the generous giving of several parts and maybe it makes sense now how a single donation can be used to help three individuals with entirely different needs.

Declaring the second week in June to be national blood donor week can help to spread our knowledge of the science, so that people can understand how they too are helping to save possibly three people with each donation of blood that they make.

I have just talked about some different components of blood. All healthy blood has those components. That is what makes it the same, but blood is also different from person to person.

We all probably have heard the term blood type at some time in our lives and although we might not know which type we are all of us know that indeed we have a blood type. A member's blood type is probably not the same as that of his or her colleague sitting next to him or her, or any of the pages sitting in Parliament today.

What we may not know is that certain blood types are more common than others and that there is something called a universal donor and a universal recipient.

Blood O type positive is the most prevalent while AB negative is the least. Donor and recipient blood must be compatible, of course, otherwise the recipient may reject the transfused blood component.

The universal recipient is type AB positive. Patients with this type of blood can receive any of the other blood types. Universal donors are type O negative which means their donations can be given to any person in need.

While Canada's blood system obviously needs plenty of O negative donors, we also need a good supply of the other types.

We can see that a single blood donation, just one-half of a litre, and I know my colleagues in the House donate blood on a regular basis and if they do not they should, contains a lot of variety and packs a significant punch. It really is quite incredible.

By declaring the second week in June as national blood donor week we can go a long way toward helping people to better understand on many levels how and why giving blood on a regular basis, a regular donation of their particular blood type, can make a big difference in the lives of their fellow Canadians. It is something that we should do as Canadians.

I did not have to go far to find this little bit of information I shared with members today. This information and more is available on the websites of Héma-Québec and the Canadian Blood Services.

Making volunteer blood donations the focus of a single week each year can draw attention to these websites and educate potential donors not just on the importance of donating but on the wonders of what blood is really about.

In addition to sharing that science, national blood donor week would be an opportunity to answer the questions that may keep Canada's healthy adult population from donating blood on a regular basis. It is a normal human condition to be shy or fearful of something new.

Potential donors could ask their friends and family members, who have donated before, what happens during a blood donation visit. They could make a quick phone call to their nearest blood donor clinic and ask a few questions or they could just drop by and talk to an outreach representative. But many just do not get around to it. That is too bad because Canada's blood supply needs to be sustained.

National blood donor week would be an opportunity to answer many of these questions. People could find out that only adults over the age of 17, for example, can donate blood, but they can do so until at least age 71 and even longer for some people. Potential donors would find out that they need to weigh at least 110 pounds, be in good health and feeling well enough to donate. They would also learn that they can donate every 56 days.

People like to know what will happen when they venture into unknown territory. The same would apply to first time volunteer blood donors. National blood donor week will accomplish this by getting the message of how important blood donations are on a regular basis. I ask all members to support the bill.

Suspension of Certain Standing Orders--Bill C-52

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given we ran out of time today to complete the debate on Bill C-52 and given that the failure to adopt Bill C-52 by both houses before we adjourn for the summer will result in the loss of some $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year-end measures, pursuant to Standing Order 53.(1) I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment today to consider Bill C-52.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that this motion is out of order because we are into private members' hour.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The motion of the chief government whip can be moved at any time. This is a matter of an urgent nature. The question is on the motion.

Would those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And fewer than 10 members having risen:

The motion is adopted.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I had risen on a point of order before you had finished reading that and I would also like clarification on whether or not this is debatable.

I would point out that the House is not scheduled to rise until June 22, so I fail to see the rationale of extending this day when we have before us another two weeks to debate this issue. As important as the government feels it is, the House can rest assured that our party is more than happy to point out the things that are missing and the failures of the budget which is why the Liberals of the House will not support the budget.

Given that we have two weeks further to sit, I see no emergency necessity to extend the sitting hours today. It was my understanding that this could not be done at this point in time.

Therefore, I would ask for clarification from the Speaker as to whether or not this is indeed in order and whether or not it is debatable. I feel that there are many good points that can be made to the other side to indicate that we do not have to extend the sitting today, given that we have a full two weeks.

I know our colleagues in the other place would be more than happy to sit after June 22. As a matter of fact, they have said so publicly in order to get through very important pieces of legislation, dare I point out, like the private member's bill of one of my Liberal colleagues on the Kelowna accord, as well as other important pieces of legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. chief opposition whip. According to Standing Order 53, the motion of the chief government whip is in order and in response to the question raised by the hon. chief opposition whip, it is debatable for one hour.

On debate, the hon. chief government whip.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, also on a point of order, in my reading of Standing Order 53.(1) through 53.(5), Standing Order 53.(4) says:

When the Speaker puts the question on any such motion, he or she shall ask those who object to rise in their places. If ten or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn; otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.

Mr. Speaker, it is my reading that you put the motion and less than 10 members rose in objection. Therefore, the motion has been adopted by the House and we will proceed now not with debate on the motion but debate on Bill C-52.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw the House's attention to Standing Order 53.(3), where it says:

Proceedings on any such motion shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) the Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour;

b) the motion shall not be subject to amendment except by a Minister of the Crown;

(c) no Member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes; and

(d) proceedings on any such motion shall not be interrupted or adjourned by any other proceeding or by the operation of any other Order of this House.

Therefore, I would agree with the Speaker's first ruling that there is one hour of debate required before this gets brought any further.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would help if we read Standing Order 53 in its entirety, but I do not intend to do so. As I pointed out, Standing Order 53.(3)(a) states that “the Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour”.

You did call the question. Fewer than 10 members rose, and you can look for clarification from the table officers and the clerks, but I still contend that this issue is done. Fewer than 10 members rose to object to the motion and therefore the motion was adopted. Therefore, we are now going to debate Bill C-52.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, where my hon. colleague and I depart is that I would again reiterate that I stood on a point of order. I was standing in my place and I was asking if this motion was debatable. I would say, from the reading of the Standing Orders, that this motion is debatable and the question be put at the end of the hour of debate.

I would ask for the Speaker, with obviously the aid of our knowledgeable clerks, to rule on whether or not we are indeed debating for one hour before this question is put to the House.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the whip of the opposition party, where Standing Order 53 says that proceedings on any such motion may proceed, that would be in the case if the opposition were to rise with 10 members, in which case we would go into a possible one hour debate at the discretion of the Speaker. The fact is that 10 members did not stand, so as the chief government whip says, the motion is deemed to be adopted. There are no proceedings that can entail that motion.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I must say that even though we support Bill C-52, we strongly object to this use of Standing Order 53(1). With respect to the matter at hand, we do not agree with how the procedure is being used and we are not at all interested in whether or not there is a precedent in this case. We would ask that you reconsider your decision.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 53 reads:

In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature...The Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour.

I would ask that the Speaker re-rule and permit the one hour of debate that is required on this.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I very much appreciate the advice from all members. I will again recognize the hon. the chief government whip, but I will be making a ruling on this very soon.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I hope you do, Mr. Speaker. My point is that you have already ruled that this motion was adopted when fewer than 10 members rose. There is no such thing in our Standing Orders about re-ruling.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this proceeding is impaired to a considerable extent because, until a moment that is just about to arrive, copies of the motion that was put before the House have not been available to any members of the House in order to deal with the subject matter. I had asked for a copy of the motion and it was provided to me and then taken away. I would like to have the copy again returned to me forthwith so I can see the language of what is being proposed here.

It seems to me that a condition precedent for this matter to proceed to the floor of the House of Commons is this question of urgency. The proceeding under Standing Order 53 specifically contemplates that the matter be urgent. In fact, the Chair is not in a position to even consider this item until the issue of urgency is established. The fact is that the motion does not, on its face or in anything that has been said so far, establish the condition precedent of urgency.

Let me inform members of what the motion says. It reads, “Given we ran out of time today to complete the debate on Bill C-52 and given that the failure to adopt Bill C-52 by both Houses before we adjourn for the summer will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year-end measures...”, et cetera.

This is hypothetical. This is trying to anticipate events a full two weeks into the future.

The fact is that the issue is not urgent. Bill C-52 has been before the House of Commons for some time. However, let me point out that this Parliament began in the last week of January. The government did not bother to present a budget until March 19. It did not bother to present the budget bill until the end of March. How can it now argue, with two weeks more to go, that it is urgent?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I need to raise a serious objection to the manipulation and the blatant misuse of the rules of this House that is taking place. Frankly, I am astounded that you, as the Speaker, have already made a ruling ignoring the rules and the procedures that are in place.

We come into this House to debate and to have proper functioning of the House. I have not even seen the motion. I just heard it described to me by the House leader of the opposition, and I am glad he took the time to read it into the record.

However, we need to know what urgent situation exists here. We just began debate on third reading of the budget bill on Wednesday. Nothing is being held up here. The House is not meant to adjourn until June 22. If the government had wanted to bring forward the bill at some earlier time, it had ample opportunity to get it through the House, and what happens in the other place happens in the other place. In terms of our business in this place, this manoeuvre that is being pulled by the government is incredibly manipulative.

Mr. Speaker, I implore you to uphold the traditions and the procedures of this House and not allow this blatant political manipulation to go on of using the rules in a very subverted way for something that we know is not urgent. It rests with you, Mr. Speaker, to follow the traditions of this House, to ensure that all members are fairly heard, to ensure that debate properly takes place and to ensure this kind of political manipulation does not occur. That is the role of the Speaker and we expect you to uphold that on behalf of all members.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I see four members rising on a point of order. I will recognize the hon. Chief Government Whip, with the understanding that the other members will also be recognized.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, research will show you, as it has shown me, that it is up to the government to define what is urgent under Standing Order 53. All of the arguments aside, from the House leader for the official opposition and the House leader for the New Democratic Party, it is not up to the opposition to decide what constitutes urgent under Standing Order 53. That has never been the way when this has been used.

Just for the viewing public at home, this is a Standing Order of the House. It is under the rules of the House and it is there to be used when necessary. We believe it is necessary and, upon review, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will see that this order was adopted because the opposition did not have even 10 members in the House when you called the question.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I do not envy you in your position because it is a difficult one. However, I would like to point out that I was standing in my place and I was calling, “point of order”.

Mr. Speaker, the heckling you are hearing from the government benches is the same heckling that was going on when I said, “Mr. Speaker, point of order”. I will not name the member but it was a government member who said, “Oh, just keep reading. Ignore her”.

Mr. Speaker, I was indeed standing in my place before you had ruled and government members were heckling because they saw that I was rising on a point of order to ask if I could debate this issue. If you were to look at the sequence of events, Mr. Speaker, you will have auditory verification that I was indeed standing in my place.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Davenport is rising on a point of order and then the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country will be recognized. I hope that these will be the only ones.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at my desk when the chief government whip put this motion forward and, if my recollection is correct, I do not believe you stated whether there were 10 members in the House who would rise. It was after the fact. I think that is what I heard.

If we are to believe that the procedures of the House do matter and that the government and the House want accountability, then I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have an obligation, before making a ruling, to ascertain whether there are 10 members in the House who have objection to this.

I am very concerned about the government raising this as an urgent matter. The government had all the levers of power and all the mechanisms available to it to introduce Bill C-52 any time it wished. It had the last two weeks to do that but it did not. For the government to wait until the last minute on a Friday afternoon is quite shocking to me. If the government really cares about accountability, it should not be trying these types of sneaky manoeuvres.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here listening to you and I do not believe that you have made a ruling. I would ask that you at least ascertain whether there are 10 members present who object to this.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. This is the last piece of advice I will hear on this matter today.