House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 40th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, it should do everything it can to defend supply management, which is very important for the lower Saint Lawrence region, as it is for the rest of Quebec as well; restore funding to not-for-profit organizations, which do excellent work and just want to survive; and, once and for all, look after the forestry sector, which is very important for my region, as it is for the rest of Quebec as well, in order to preserve jobs and to continue to develop these areas of activity, and why not.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new member for Rimouski.

He has spoken a great deal about the forestry sector. As he is well aware, there has in fact been an alliance between the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc, with a view to advancing the softwood lumber agreement. As he also is well aware, I am sure, the softwood lumber agreement resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across Canada, thousands in Quebec in regions like Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Mauricie, the Outaouais and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. As well, it has severely hobbled the Government of Quebec when it comes to anything to do with forestry. Now it cannot act without Washington's approval.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois did support that agreement, and as a result Quebec can no longer act when it comes to forestry.

I am certain that the new member has realized it was a monumental mistake on the part of the Bloc to have supported the Conservative Party in an area in which Quebec has effectively lost its jurisdiction as well as thousands of jobs. Now the Bloc leader is blaming the unions, blaming Guy Chevrette, blaming anybody and everybody, but it must be admitted that some of the responsibility lies here.

Can the hon. member acknowledge that it was a mistake to have supported this agreement, which has had such costly repercussions?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the NDP was the only party that felt that way. There was a consensus in Quebec to make that decision to deal with the softwood lumber crisis.

I repeat: with respect to the situation in my riding and in eastern Quebec, in the Lower St. Lawrence region—the situation facing the owners of private woodlots whom I represent—government policies on research and development have to be refocused on secondary and tertiary processing to get the industry out of this unfortunate ongoing crisis.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The member for Richmond—Arthabaska for a very quick question.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his first speech, and especially on his election. His was a brilliant victory that we are very proud of, particularly because he is an agricultural producer, which will certainly make the Bloc Québécois team stronger in that regard. We are indeed present; we now represent all of rural Quebec, which is an extraordinary achievement. I would like to congratulate my colleague on the excellent work he will no doubt do with us.

Everyone expected the throne speech to focus almost exclusively on the economy. When I read the speech, I found mention of young offenders, nuclear development, and increased military spending. It seemed to me that the throne speech was merely a continuation of the Conservatives' election campaign.

My colleague is a dairy producer, so I am sure he understands the issue. The Conservatives made promises about agriculture during the campaign, including a $50-million promise involving the Colbex-Levinoff slaughterhouse. However, there is nothing about that in the throne speech.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has just 30 seconds for his response.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

There is indeed a serious problem right now in Quebec and eastern Canada with respect to slaughterhouses for cull cows. For several years now, the Fédération des producteurs de boeuf du Québec and the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec have been asking Ottawa for a financial commitment to help the Colbex-Levinoff slaughterhouse improve its competitiveness, which was undermined by federal government standards—

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Resuming debate.

The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, naturally I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment as well as congratulate all of the members who were elected or re-elected. I would also like to thank the people of the riding I represent, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and express my tremendous pride in this region. I am here for my third consecutive mandate, since 2004, to defend the interests of the people from the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who care about their region and who also care about having a better future. First of all, I would like to say that my region has dreams of sovereignty. That day will come. As our late father of sovereignty, and citizen of the Gaspé, René Lévesque, said: Next time.

Countries are built one day at a time. That is what we see here. A country can also be destroyed one day at a time. Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing here today. The Speech from the Throne is a blatant display of insensitivity towards people in the regions in particular. I would like to speak about the regions. I will let those who live in cities say what they have to say. The Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands and other similar regions were expecting some form of understanding or concern for our situation, especially in terms of our current economic and financial troubles. Unfortunately, we are well aware that a Speech from the Throne is a speech of intentions. It can be as vague as vague can be. But we would be hard-pressed to find one more vague and insensitive than this.

This speech does not acknowledge in any way that people living in regions such as ours are deeply affected by decisions made here and elsewhere. I will talk about the fisheries. We know very well that this resource is exported. We know the importance of the fisheries in the area I represent. It is dependent on exports of lobster, shrimp, crab or other species. It is also dependent on certain infrastructures and on other elements that make up the famous fishing industry. These could be very well positioned to deal with the current crisis or the perceived crisis. They might even keep our region going very nicely.

I will simply reiterate certain points that I had the opportunity to present during the last election campaign. I will speak about five points. I had the chance to present a plan to better position our region. One of these plans had to do with the economy which, of necessity, requires a discussion of the state of the region, in particular its infrastructures, whether rail, marine, air or communications. The Speech from the Throne does not acknowledge such matters. It does not acknowledge the basic infrastructure needs. Whether we like it or not, regions such as ours need these infrastructures. Not only must they be appropriate but they must also be available. It is fine to have a train. However, in my area, passenger train service is only available three times per week. Thus, it is not really available. It goes by on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays. What happens on the other days?

The people in Matapédia have to make do with a train that runs six days a week, every day but Monday. One can imagine the logistical nightmare this creates for people who need to take the train, and God knows they do need to take the train at times.

The situation with regard to federal infrastructure is scandalous and shameful. I am talking about wharves and small craft harbours. I have been here for eight years, nearly five of them as a member of Parliament. Previously, I was an assistant. The Bloc has consistently championed the cause of small craft harbours. At one time, prior to 2000, the budget for small craft harbour maintenance and repairs was $50 million. Today, it is $100 million a year. That could give the impression that things have improved, but they have deteriorated. In fact, the department itself admits that more than $500 million is needed. The figures speak for themselves. If there is $100 million a year for all the wharves but $500 million is needed to restore them, it is like a leaky roof that is never repaired. Eventually, the roof will collapse. That is exactly what is happening with our harbours.

Economically, the regions are forgotten, neglected and ultimately cast aside in other ways as well. Federal programs such as those created by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec have no flexibility. For regions such as ours, if a program is introduced and not adapted to the regional reality it might as well not exist, however attractive it may be in other respects. That is exactly what is happening with the Conservative government at present. Unfortunately, I do not see any indication in the throne speech that the government intends to change things. But our finance and other critics can be counted on to again raise the issue of modifying programs.

The people of my riding are also concerned about the environment. Ours is a maritime region. Changes in climate or sea level are a matter of life and death for some places, such as the Magdalen Islands for instance. That is why there is such sensitivity about this issue. Unfortunately there is not much in the throne speech, with the possible exception of the intention to protect the economy and to render the environment more economic than sustainable. They are totally missing the boat with that. That kind of thinking is really wide of the mark and once again the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to raise the issue again.

There is another reality, a very localized one, the ZIPs, priority intervention zones. These are found in maritime areas, Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and in other places in Quebec as well. Things are now at an impasse because any little bit of cooperation there was between Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada is a thing of the past.

Other issues were addressed during the election campaign, particularly those relating to social programs, such as employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement. Here again, people can count on the Bloc Québécois to continue the battle.

The final two subjects I wish to raise relate to government services. Generally, when times are tough and a government talks about examining departmental programs and budgets, the first targets, the first victims, are the so-called outlying regions. The Bloc Québécois will again be present to defend the interests of our people.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of the specific living conditions of those living in those outlying regions. It is a known fact that there is a really strong regional identity that differentiates one region from another. What is important to us is to achieve true cooperation. We will see how things progress as we go along, but unfortunately there is no sign of anything hopeful in the Speech from the Throne.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have spoken in the current session, I would like to start by thanking the voters of Davenport for having put their confidence in me and re-electing me.

I know that the Bloc Québécois member represents a magnificent region of our country, and I would also like to congratulate him on his election. I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the chair of this House.

I know that the Speech from the Throne is vague, that it is missing a great deal and that it has left some things unclear. I know and am aware, after having spoken with many people, that this speech does not talk about a number of issues that are important to Canadians. These issues include problems in our city, poverty issues in our country, issues related to seniors, etc. However, in good conscience—and I know that my colleague is aware of the situation and that he wants to be responsible in this House—we all have a responsibility and we all must be responsible.

The first vote of confidence will be on the Speech from the Throne. In good conscience, is this the moment to force an election and waste $300 million—

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, this allows me to answer as follows. We were elected to act scrupulously and responsibly. Acting scrupulously and responsibly means defending the interests of Quebeckers and our constituents with full knowledge of the facts. And, with full knowledge of the facts, when faced with a throne speech or budget situation, all members must consider whether it will improve the lives of our constituents, that is, the people we represent, and act accordingly. That being the case, acting scrupulously and responsibly means being very aware of the significance of a vote, but without justifying the means with an end that we wish to avoid.

This is unfortunately true of the Liberals, as we saw on many occasions. I know for certain that we do not want any part of playing with taxpayers' money and gambling with the possibility of election. We look at every situation very thoroughly and on a case by case basis. This has been true since the Bloc's inception. In fact, calculations were made recently, during the last election. The election was called based on calculations and polls suggesting that a majority government might be elected. But that is certainly not how the Bloc Québécois likes to do things.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which is, without a doubt, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. I am sure he will be a valuable member of the international trade committee. I hope that we will be able to work well together.

I would like to go back to the forestry industry issue and the impact of the softwood lumber agreement across Quebec: thousands of jobs were lost and the Government of Quebec lost the power to make decisions to protect the industry. The Government of Quebec is in the very same boat as other governments, including that of British Columbia, because it cannot make decisions to save communities hit hard by the economic crisis. Its hands are tied because of the softwood lumber agreement.

Did the Bloc Québécois make a mistake—

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has less than a minute left.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I have a lot of respect for the member who just spoke, and I would also like to congratulate him on being re-elected. However, he sounds a lot like a broken record these days. Repeating an idea that does not make sense does not make it make sense.

This is pretty simple: we acted scrupulously and responsibly by doing exactly what Quebeckers wanted us to do. People in every region of Quebec, including my own, told us that they had had enough of the softwood lumber conflict. Nobody thought that the agreement would be a panacea. However, doing what the member would have had us do would not have protected Quebeckers' interests.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me offer my congratulations to you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. It is a well-deserved honour. I know that you will work well with all members of this chamber. Again, I congratulate you. A couple of years ago when you were first appointed as Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole, I thought your mom would be very proud of you, and I bet she is even prouder of you now.

Since this is the first opportunity I have had to stand and speak in the chamber since the election, I would like to start off, as many members have done, by thanking a few people who helped me get here today.

First, I would like to thank all the constituents of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for re-electing me to this place. I was first elected, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because we arrived here at the same time, in 2004. We were re-elected in 2006 and once again most recently on October 14 this year.

All members agree with me when I say that to be elected as a member of Parliament is not only an honour, but it is also a very humbling experience. I know there is a great deal of trust that constituents put in members when they send them to Ottawa, and we can only hope we do the job and repay that trust to the best of our ability. I can honestly state that I have always tried to do so and I will continue to do so in this latest opportunity.

I also want to thank all of my campaign team and the volunteers who worked so very hard to get me elected. We had hundreds of volunteers. As all members of Parliament know, we cannot get elected without the help of a great many people. Those people on my campaign team and all the volunteers deserve a great deal of credit.

Most important, I want to thank my wife, Diane. In a previous life before I was a member of Parliament, I worked in the political arena, but I actually worked on behalf of a political party. One of my jobs was to interview prospective candidates.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

An hon. member

Which party?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, a member opposite asked a very good question. It was the Saskatchewan Party. I am very pleased to say that.

One of my jobs was to interview prospective candidates. After I went through a long list of qualifications and questions to the candidate, I always asked this final question: “Do you have the 100% support of your family, whether it be your wife, your significant other or your children?” I told them that if they did not have that 100% support, then do not get into this game. It can be a tough game at times. I call it a game which is probably a little disrespectful for the job that we do. However, my point is that unless we have that undying and unyielding support from our families, it is a tough business to be in.

I want to thank my wife, Diane, who always believed that I would be elected. Even when I did not believe it in 2004, she was the one who said I would get elected, even though the odds were against me. Since that time I have been very fortunate to be elected twice more with increasing majorities and an increasing percentage of vote each and every time.

I want to say one other thing before I get into the body of my remarks. I have noticed since being back here in Parliament, a renewed sense of cooperation among all members in this chamber. I am so very happy to see that. We know this is a very partisan business and I do not know how long the spirit of cooperation and goodwill will last, perhaps not as long as we would all like, but it seems now we have a real willingness on behalf of all members in the chamber to work together.

We have some very challenging times ahead of us. Our throne speech identified those challenges. Without question, the single biggest challenge that we parliamentarians and all Canadians face is the economy. Let me be more specific. It is not just the economy, but the unprecedented global economic crisis in which Canadians and citizens throughout the world find themselves.

I would argue to members in this place that we have never seen the type of economic crisis in our lifetime that we are currently facing. Many financial observers are equating this to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Some observers are suggesting that in history, no one has ever seen the type of economic problems and economic crisis we are currently facing. All I can say is I know I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime. I think my father could also say he probably never saw anything as severe as this in his lifetime.

Once again what we need to do is try to identify the root causes of this crisis that we are facing globally. We want to ensure that whatever actions we take as a Parliament--and I say as a Parliament as opposed to as a government, because we all have to work together to find solutions--but whatever solutions we do come up with to rectify the problems we currently face, and we know what caused these problems to begin with, we should try to avoid any solutions that might even border on the same type of situations that placed us in this crisis to begin with.

It has been fairly well documented that only a few short months ago this global economic upside-down crisis started unfolding rapidly. We all know it was unfolding because of what is called the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States where, because of a lot of lax regulatory provisions put in by the government of the United States, there was an absolute meltdown of the mortgage business.

The result is it manifested itself into a credit crunch. It first started in the United States but then rapidly spread worldwide. Why the credit crunch had such a devastating effect on our economy and economies across the world and stock markets both here and abroad was the fact that financial institutions found themselves in a situation where they did not want to lend money to individuals or businesses. There were liquidity problems. There were bailouts. Mortgage companies and financial institutions were going under. This is the root cause of the problems we are facing at this moment.

The other thing I should point out is that it was an unprecedented, at least in my observation, rapid deterioration of the world's economies. This was not something that slowly progressed over a number of months. This was something that progressed over a number of weeks. Now on a daily basis we see the economy getting worse and worse.

The only thing I can suggest is a silver lining in all of this is the fact that here in Canada, even though we are facing very difficult times, we are the best positioned country in the industrialized world. That does not mean we are going to escape this economic crisis unscathed. We are not. There will be some very difficult times in the months ahead and Canadians know it.

Consumer confidence is down to probably an all-time low. Canadians are more than just concerned; I would suggest they are frightened. Canadians are frightened because they feel that they may lose their jobs. They may lose their pensions. They may lose their homes. There are people living off their investment income who have seen the value of their investments reduced by close to 50% within the last six months.

All of us in this place understand that. We fundamentally understand the fear that all Canadians are feeling. We understand their concerns. Canadians are turning to us to come up with some solutions. I would suggest that it is incumbent upon all of us to work together to try to find those solutions.

The Speech from the Throne that was read just a few short days ago dealt primarily with our economy for the reasons I have just mentioned, not to the exclusion of some of the other initiatives that our government wishes to move forward with over the course of the next term of office, but the priority is on the economy and for very good reason. It is our economy and some of the possible solutions to the problems we are facing that I want to deal with in the next few minutes.

We have heard many people say over the course of the last few weeks that an economic stimulus package must be forthcoming and forthcoming shortly. A lot of people have asked me what that exactly means. If a stimulus package is forthcoming at all, what form will it take? What does it mean? Some people suggest, and when I say some people I mean governments across the world, that what it means to them are bailouts to specific and targeted industries and companies.

We know all too well some of the situations that are happening to the automotive sector both here and south of the border. It is obviously far more severe south of the border because the auto sector in the United States has seen its sales drop precipitously over the course of the last few months. There has been a 15% to 20% reduction in sales. We have seen the big three automakers, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, collectively go to Washington to talk to legislators and Congress. They have said that they need financial help and they need it now or else they may not make it.

There is an old saying that we have heard time and time again. It was first coined probably close to 80 to 100 years ago, and that is what is good for General Motors is good for the country and what is good for the country is good for General Motors. That is being turned on its head as we speak. There is a real and I think distinct possibility that unless something is done quickly, we may see the unthinkable, General Motors claiming bankruptcy. I think that is absolutely a distinct possibility.

What will it mean if some of our largest automakers in North America go under? I know what the auto sector means in Canada. I believe either directly or indirectly one in seven jobs is tied to the auto sector in Canada. Yet we are still having a debate, and I have certainly heard it from constituents in Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, as to what to do about it.

Make no mistake, many in our country, well-intentioned individuals, intelligent individuals, prudent fiscal conservatives, are telling not only myself but I am sure other parliamentarians that there should be no bailouts to the auto sector. It got itself into this problem because of the fact it did not anticipate the needs of its consumers or it did not anticipate the transformation that was required to keep its industry healthy and therefore the industry should not now come cap in hand to the Canadian taxpayer and ask for a handout.

I know many people have suggested that Parliament should not engage in any financial aid to the auto sector. I suggest at least 50% of parliamentarians have already heard that. They have either received emails or letters or have talked to constituents who have suggested the same thing. However, we need to have a rational debate in this place about that very situation. Would it be appropriate? Is it in the best interest of the Canadian taxpayer to assist the auto sector in our country? Is it in the best interest of the Canadian taxpayers?

Many in different regions of the country are saying that if we help the auto sector, where does the lineup for financial aid end? Do we then turn to the forestry sector or other manufacturers and say, “You are in trouble, we understand that, we will help you?”

How does one answer workers in the forestry industry, who make approximately half the hourly wage of auto workers, when they stand and say that they are opposed to any bailouts to the auto sector because it is not helping them. The auto workers make twice as much as they do on an hourly rate, yet they do not see any financial aid coming to them. How do we deal with that? We need to have intelligent, rational, reasonable debate and discussions about the appropriate course of action.

The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said that they are looking for suggestions from members of the opposition and they have received some. I hope we receive more. This is not to say that every suggestion on how to deal with this economic crisis will be received and acted upon, but the government, any government of the day, does not have the exclusive purview on good ideas.

If we are truly and honestly sincere that we want to work together and we want to avoid playing partisan and political games, then we as a government and opposition members, as parliamentarians representing constituents in their ridings, have to come together on this, but we cannot do it in a knee-jerk manner.

Even though aid is required, and I suggest required very quickly, the solutions, or at least the proposed solutions, have to be dealt with in a manner that gives all the due diligence in the world before we make a decision as a Parliament.

What we are trying to do, and I can say this quite openly because it has occurred starting today, is get the standing committees of the House up and running as quickly as possible, particularly those committees that concentrate on economic issues, for example, finance committee and industry committee.

The procedure and House affairs committee met for the first time today. We elected a chair and we went through the routine motions. Our whips are getting together and have probably already discussed committee membership.

We hope by no later than Thursday to have all standing committees struck. Then standing committees can start meeting as early as next week to deal with some of the issues that will come out of this place with respect to the economic crisis and the proposed solutions.

I do not profess to have all of the answers. I do not even know if I have any of the answers. I do know that on Thursday of this week, at 4 p.m., the Minister of Finance will be delivering an economic and fiscal update to all members of this chamber. I sincerely hope all members pay close attention to his words.

At the end of that presentation, we have agreed to let each opposition party have 15 minutes in response. On top of that, we suggest that on Friday of this week we have an open debate on that economic and fiscal update.

I say this because there is an opportunity for all members of this chamber to participate in that debate in an honest, open, non-partisan manner. It will be difficult I am sure for a lot of members, including myself.

I would be the first one to say that from time to time, and perhaps more times than not, I have stood and made presentations that are highly partisan, and I make no apologies for that. The time for partisanship on this issue is long past. In fact, I would suggest if members wants to start playing political games on this issue, they do so at their own political peril.

I recall seeing one of my favourite movies called Apollo 13. There was a scene where the Apollo 13 spacecraft found itself in some very dire circumstances. One of the commanders who was in charge of trying to work out a solution said two things: first, that failure was not an option; and second, that this would not be known as NASA's greatest defeat; that this would be known as their greatest triumph. All of us here have an opportunity on behalf of all Canadians to do the same thing.

Canadians are looking to us to help them, to find a solution to something that we have not seen in our lifetimes. I urge all my colleagues to put aside the partisan feelings and work together. If we do that, it will be Parliament's finest hour.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

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

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Amendment agreed to)

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.)