Debates of Sept. 15th, 2009

Motion in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Abitibi—Témiscamingue points out that it is less than that. I would tend to agree with him, although there have been a couple more that he may not have seen during the summer. I think we are up to about a dozen now. That is how many charges there have been, not convictions, just how many charges there have been. I think there have been less than half a dozen convictions.

The estimates that we have been able to get are wide ranging, from a minimum of 1,000 cases a year of human trafficking in Canada, both domestic and international that come through Canada, to perhaps as many as 10,000. That is how many cases there have been, something in that range. That is a huge variance, but even if we take the lowest figure of 1,000 that I think just about everybody agrees to, having only 12 prosecutions, approximately, over that period of time is absolutely shameful.

What it reflects, again being critical of the government, is a lack of resources and, quite frankly, a lack of training for police officers and prosecutors. We are beginning to see that change. The first charges only came down in the last 12 months, so they are beginning to get on to it. They have taken some training and they are beginning to prosecute, but the resources do not exist.

That is something for which the government clearly has to take some responsibility, including the present government. It has been in power long enough that this issue should have been addressed so that more adequate resources are given to our prosecutors and police forces.

The second criticism is that both at the time we passed the original amendments incorporating the concept of human trafficking into the code as an offence with imposed penalties at that time and now being increased in this bill, what should have happened, and I say this from having spoken to a number of agencies that deal with victims of human trafficking, is we should have been looking at changes in policy and legislation under our immigration legislation.

All too often what happens when a case is identified and a charge is laid, the victim of the crime, oftentimes a young person, as the member for Kildonan—St. Paul set out so eloquently, and in most cases is a woman, is kept in the country long enough for the prosecution to go ahead and then is immediately deported, oftentimes back to the same country from where the young woman came. Oftentimes she is subjected once again to human trafficking crimes, maybe to another country, occasionally back to Canada.

About a year ago there was a documentary on trafficking in England. It identified one victim who had been trafficked into England six times from central eastern Europe.

The way around that is to look at our immigration laws to see if we can keep the person here at least for an extended period of time so the person no longer will be victimized. That is another area the current government has not looked at, nor did the previous government when we passed the law in 2005.

We need corresponding changes to policy and perhaps amendments to the immigration act so that if we do identify victims of human trafficking, they are given some special categorization under that legislation and those laws in order to be able to remain in the country at least long enough so that they are safe from further persecution and abuse.

Those two things have to be done. We need more resources in this area.

Sister Helen Petrimoulx is the head of our refugee agency in the city of Windsor and is a strong proponent of further action by government in enforcing the laws and prosecuting these charges. She spoke about the need for this but very eloquently spoke also of the need for looking at the victim not just as someone who is a witness in a criminal trial, but somebody who needs the assistance of our state in order to be taken care of. She told me of some of the really tragic stories that have occurred in the Windsor area, because that area is one of the conduit areas from Canada into the United States and vice versa.

The final point I want to make is with regard to the legislation we passed in 2005. I do not think it needs to be addressed in this bill. It should have been addressed in 2005 and it certainly should be addressed now. It has to do with greater penalties for those in the organized crime element who to a great degree are the masterminds behind these offences.

One of the concerns I have in that regard is that in February of this year the United Nations came out with a very extensive report on human trafficking. One of the shocking patterns that it demonstrated in the statistics it had gathered was that in more than 50% of the cases around the globe, it is women who are charged with human trafficking. Having been almost invariably themselves victims of it, they are then pressed into the same trade by almost exclusively men who are involved in organized crime gangs. The people that we are catching and prosecuting in the majority around the globe are women who themselves were victims at one time. One cannot help but think if we had got to them earlier they would not have been prosecuted because we would have got them out of the system.

What we need to do with regard to this is look at severe penalties, specifically against the organized crime syndicates, both nationally and internationally. We know the Hells Angels and the biker gangs are trafficking. We know they are using the street gangs to help them. We know they have connections with international crime syndicates. We have to go after them.

This is not meant to be in any way disrespectful to my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, but this legislation is only going to scratch the surface. It is going to affect those people under 18, and that is a good measure, but there is much more work that needs to be done, both practically on the street with our police and in the courts with our prosecutors and judges, and with our immigration law.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review the Bloc Québécois' proposed amendment to Bill C-268 put forth by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin yesterday which would delete clause 2 of the bill.

I welcome this opportunity to share my views with hon. members and trust that they will all see as clearly as I do why we must vote against this proposed amendment.

I am both distressed and puzzled by this proposal. I believe that anyone who reads the bill would readily agree that clause 2 is the heart of Bill C-268. It is the very clause that achieves this laudable objective. Without clause 2, there would be no stricter penalties for those who would target children to subject them to some of the worse forms of exploitation.

In short, if we were to support this proposed amendment there would be no mandatory minimum penalties for the offence of trafficking in children, which is the express purpose of the bill.

We have heard about this terrible crime and its effect on victims, how victims who are forced to provide labour or services out of fear for their own safety or the safety of someone known to them. We have heard that trafficking in persons disproportionately affects children. We know that UNICEF's estimates indicate that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year.

In the face of these horrible facts, why would we not want to strengthen our criminal laws to ensure that those who would abuse children in this way are brought to justice?

As the House knows, my riding in Mississauga in the region of Peel is very close to the Toronto airport. The Toronto airport, being located in the Peel region, experiences every year many children who arrive at the Toronto airport unescorted by adults. The Canadian Border Security Agency often intercepts these children and they are turned over to the Peel children's aid.

I have spoken to Peel children's aid officials and they tell me that many of the children who are sent into their custody may in fact be involved in trafficking. We must do something about this. This is happening on our doorstep, in my home region of Peel.

As we know, clause 2 of Bill C-268 seeks to add a new offence of trafficking in children which would mirror the main trafficking in persons offence in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code. This new offence would carry mandatory minimum penalties of six years for the aggravated offence where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and five years in all other cases where the maximum penalty is fourteen years imprisonment.

The justice committee has already amended clause 2 of the bill to include the six year mandatory minimum penalty for the aggravated offence. The justice committee amendment to clause 2 would ensure that Bill C-268 fulfills its objective of imposing mandatory minimum penalties on anyone who trafficks in children, whether they are convicted of the aggravated offence or the lesser offence. Therefore, to delete the bill completely defeats the objective of the bill.

The committee has considered the five convictions that have been secured under the main trafficking offence, section 279.01, since its enactment in November 2005. Some of these cases involve child victims but sentences range from a mere two to seven years. We need to ensure that traffickers who target children, society's most vulnerable, are held to account and that they pay for their unspeakable crimes. The current law does not adequately do so.

Clause 2 of Bill C-268 would ensure that these traffickers remain behind bars for a longer period of time. This matters. It matters to the victims. They would be assured that their traffickers would no longer be able to abuse them or other children. It matters to all Canadians. They would be assured that other children would not be targeted and that other traffickers would think twice about harming children in Canada.

It makes no sense to support the Bloc Québécois proposed amendment, and not just for the compelling reasons that I have just given, but also because deleting clause 2 would render the remaining clauses in the bill entirely meaningless and even incoherent.

Clauses 1 and 3 to 8 of Bill C-268 propose consequential amendments which refer to the new offence of child trafficking that would be created by clause 2 of the bill. They would ensure that along with the main trafficking in persons offence, section 279.01, the proposed new offence of child trafficking is referenced in the provisions that deal with the interception of communications, exclusion of the public from court, publication bans, DNA sex offender registry and dangerous offenders.

If we were to support this proposed amendment to delete clause 2, we would effectively be voting down the bill in its entirety. It defies all logic to support consequential amendments without supporting the main amendment itself.

The Criminal Code's provisions addressing interception of communications, exclusion of the public from court, publication bans, DNA evidence, sex offender registry and dangerous offenders cannot refer to an offence that does not exist. That would be the incoherent result of supporting the Bloc's proposed amendment. Effectively, what the Bloc is asking us to do is vote down the bill, despite the fact that the bill has already received overwhelming support in the House. We cannot allow this to happen.

As we have heard so many times before from parliamentarians, stakeholders and Canadians themselves, trafficking in persons is a serious issue. We must have a strong criminal justice response. I am very pleased that we do have comprehensive criminal laws attacking trafficking in persons. Three Criminal Code offences were enacted in 2005, as was previously mentioned. The main offence, section 279.01, criminalizes anyone who would traffic in persons and imposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the aggravated offence where it involves kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death to the victim, and 14 years in all other cases.

Section 279.02 criminalizes anyone who would materially benefit from the trafficking of persons and imposes a maximum penalty of 10 years.

Section 279.03 criminalizes anyone who would destroy or withhold identity documents to facilitate the trafficking of persons and imposes a maximum penalty of five years.

In addition to those important offences, section 118 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act also criminalizes cases of trafficking in persons across Canada's borders, and many Criminal Code offences continue to apply to trafficking in persons cases, such as forcible confinement, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault and prostitution provisions.

It is, without a doubt, that law enforcement officers now have a wide variety of tools at their disposal that they can use to fight trafficking of persons in Canada. However, how do we ensure that traffickers get sentences that properly reflect the severity of their crime? I have already pointed to several cases involving convictions under the main trafficking in persons offence, section 279.01, that show that sentences imposed have not always reflected the serious nature of the crime committed.

To achieve this pressing objective, we must vote against the Bloc's proposed amendment to delete clause 2. We must support BillC-268 as amended by the justice committee. We must ensure that those who traffic children feel the full force of the law. We must ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are imposed on those who traffic in children.

For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to join me in voting down the amendment put forth by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and, most important, I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-268 as amended by the justice committee.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate our colleague for her work on this private member's bill. I know she has worked very hard. However, I would like to caution her and all of us with regard to certain reactions that could unfortunately be likened to demagoguery.

I was an MP in 2005 and at that time the Bloc Québécois supported a bill introduced by the now defunct Liberal government, which had established a new provision in the Criminal Code, namely the offence of human trafficking. At the time, we unanimously supported the Criminal code amendment proposed by Bill C-49.

Bill C-49 created clause 279.01(1) which stated that “...Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them...” must be considered to be trafficking in persons.

I would like to remind my Liberal colleague that, at the time, his government did not see fit to make a distinction between persons under the age of 18 and over the age of 18. The government at the time did not see fit to impose mandatory minimum sentences. In 2005, I believe that this House unanimously adopted these provisions which, to date, have not surfaced much in the judicial system given that we have only had about ten convictions. I will come back to that.

It would be quite inflammatory to suggest that any member of this House is not vigilant, pro-active or dedicated when it comes to dealing with the trafficking of children or sexual exploitation.

The question we must ask ourselves is what are the objectives of the bill introduced by the member? Does the bill contain the right tools to achieve these objectives? The member leads us to believe that the courts have not been tough enough or that there have not been charges in cases of exploitation or trafficking involving young children.

From spring 2008 to spring 2009, five charges were laid under section 279, four of them involving persons under 18 years of age. So it is not true that the courts have not dealt with charges involving persons under 18. The proposed sentences contain at least three: a five-year sentence, a seven-year sentence and a ten-year sentence. Clearly, under section 279.01, as it stands, prosecutors can charge persons under the age of 18.

Does anyone in this House believe that, in a properly constituted case by a crown prosecutor involving a child victim of human trafficking, any judge worth his or her salt would fail to take that fact into account?

That is where the Bloc Québécois and the government disagree. The Bloc Québécois trusts judges and believes in their wisdom. If the sentence is not harsh enough, prosecutors must appeal. Our colleague did not say anything to suggest that these provisions conflicted with charges for trafficking in victims under the age of 18.

I can see that my time is up. I would like to congratulate the member on her bill, and I hope she understands that we are just as dedicated as she is to fighting human trafficking, but that we would rather find other ways to do it. That was the argument we heard from the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to ask a question about the government's lack of support for our national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

At Battle of Britain commemorations on the weekend, I was thinking of how important BBC was to that nation in times of its peril, and I personally believe how important CBC has been to the fabric of Canadian culture. As a young Canadian growing up, when there were only two or three stations on the television and far less radio, CBC unified the country. It made me feel that I was part of a country that included people in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Newfoundland, even Toronto, where CBC Radio came from. I remember Elwood Glover, from the Four Seasons Hotel, was an elegant program when I grew up.

What has happened to Canadian government today? What has happened that it does not believe in CBC?

The same is true for Société Radio-Canada. Ten positions were cut in Moncton, the regional head office of the Société Radio-Canada. The radio programs 360 and Tam-Tam were cancelled. Radio and television services have been cut there, even though that regional station serves four provinces.

Radio Canada in Moncton serves four Atlantic provinces. It is the only office to have that regional mandate. CBC in Moncton as well as Saint John have had job cuts, and they have had cuts to our unifying noon program, Maritime Noon.

Given the government's preference for private broadcasters and its complete indifference to the importance of having a national broadcaster, will it not admit that these cuts of $200 million and the failure to bring bridge financing to allow CBC executives, whom I have met with, the opportunity to have a plan, to recoup monies from the private sector through advertising means it does not believe in CBC? Will it not come clean?

Will the next Conservative poster say, “Get rid of the CBC” and tell the truth, as opposed to these cuts by attrition, death by many slow cuts.

The point is that the $200 million is going to completely devastate the corporation. The corporation itself has said that previous cuts were absorbed in a timely fashion, and they were done in a way to cut administrative and overhead costs, etc., but these cuts will completely obliterate the CBC we know.

The options are that the parliamentary secretary can get up and bluster that this is all the Liberal's fault. He can get up and bluster that it is CBC's decision or that CBC will be fine. Or he can say what I think is on his mind and in his heart, that he does not like CBC and government should get rid of it. I am just waiting for the answer.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I love the CBC. On Sunday night I watched the Canadian Country Music Awards and thought it was fantastic. I am looking forward to Hockey Night in Canada. I think it is starting in September this year and I cannot wait. I cannot wait to see all my favourites on CBC appearing on Saturday night. That is a great tradition in my house and probably has been since I was too young to be able to answer this question.

I have been gifted in some regard with a memory that goes back more than just the past few weeks or months. I can remember back to 1993 and 1997. I can remember how the Liberal Party treated the CBC.

I can look at how this government every year since coming to power in 2006 has increased the funding to CBC. Since coming to power, this government has increased the funding to CBC. It is more money than the Liberal Party provided in any of its three 2005 budgets.

Let us be clear. What we did not do was what the Liberals did in 1993, which was promise to increase funding and then cut the funding. In 1997 they once again promised to increase funding and then cut the funding.

How much did the Liberals cut? That is a great question. It pains me to answer it. They cut $400 million from the CBC, a lot of money. What was the outcome? Four thousand people lost their jobs. So much money was cut that the president of the CBC quit his job.

That Liberal member may call that orderly. It was just done in a fashion that allowed the Liberals to cut here and there. Whatever.

That is simply not the case. What we are looking at right now is a situation in which all broadcasters, private and public, have seen their revenues decline because we are in an extraordinary economic time. There is no question about that. Their advertising revenues have fallen off. Key industries that spend money on advertising in large quantities, such as the auto industry, have had difficulties, and we know about them. It is not spending money.

The CBC has a plan. This government has provided record funding to the CBC in excess of $1.1 billion and it is moving forward. This type of misinformation that the Liberal Party member is spreading is simply not true.

The executive board of the CBC has indicated that even if loans had been granted, these difficult decisions in difficult times would have to have been made. Difficult decisions are being made by Canadians in this country from coast to coast. It is not something that we enjoy. These decisions are necessary.

This government stands by the CBC with a firm commitment to make sure the broadcaster has a bright future.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that he stands by the CBC. The image is that the government stands beside the CBC digging the grave of the CBC.

The CBC itself has said that while previous rounds of budget cuts in recent years have led to modest programming service reductions, it has focused on reducing administration and support services. There is effectively no more room to continue that type of belt tightening.

Future cuts of the magnitude proposed, $200 million, would have to come almost entirely out of programming. Programming is exactly what the hon. member talks about when he says he has a great love of Hockey Night in Canada, the Canadian Country Music Awards, et cetera.

If he believes that, why did his government not offer the bridge financing? Why does it not take a more active role in supporting the CBC? It may be all right in parts of Canada where there are a multitude of services, but in some regions of Canada, there is nothing else but the CBC.

Long live the CBC.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be happy if he read the report on the future of broadcasting that was completed by the heritage committee last June. He will see that there are a number of good recommendations in there for broadcasting.

One of the things that we recommended in that report was an extension of the local programming improvement fund. Of interest to that member is that the local programming improvement fund, or the LPIF, specifically provides funding for those stations that operate in communities smaller than one million people, the types of communities that he is talking about, to make sure that there is funding to provide information and services to these areas.

If the member does his research on that, he will find out that this fund is providing exactly the help that he seeks to see.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in this House on April 22, and the reply that I got was really not satisfactory.

The cuts made by the Department of Canadian Heritage to arts programs in August 2008 really hurt the cultural sector. In fact, these cuts are going to be felt for a long time.

In August 2008, the Conservative government showed real contempt when it cut $27 million in grant programs that allowed artists and organizations, including in the performing arts sector, to go and show their products abroad. The PromArt and Trade Routes programs were particularly affected. Some artists had to cancel their tour, while others did tour but lost money in the process. I am going to talk about this later on.

On April 22, I referred to the B.C. Scene, an event to which the Department of Canadian Heritage had given $2 million. That festival was taking place in Ottawa. It was an event where artists from British Columbia were performing before foreign producers in order to sell their shows. I asked a logical question, namely why invest $2 million in an event designed to promote products that artists will not be able to present abroad.

Indeed, the Conservative government cut several very important grant programs that allowed artists to perform abroad. I asked how these artists were going to honour the contracts that they might sign during that event. I felt that this was a very poor investment and that is what I told the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

I also asked him what he had to offer to Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, which had to honour contracts last June to perform in the Middle East. In my opinion, the answer was “nothing”, the minister had nothing to offer to Les Grands Ballets Canadiens. The minister was upset and said that this was completely false.

Yet, on June 17, the Minister of Canadian Heritage replied in writing to a question that I put to him, namely:

Are there Canadian Heritage or Canada Council grant programs under which Les Grands Ballets Canadiens could receive more than $51,000 [which is the cost of its tour] to stage a production outside the country and, if so, what are the programs?

The answer arrived on June 17:

—there are no programs offered by the Department of Canadian Heritage which fit the requirements listed above.

The reply also talked about a pilot project, but there was nothing. The Minister of Canadian Heritage had nothing to offer to Les Grands Ballets Canadiens to allow it to do its tour abroad. That is the question I put to the minister and that is the answer I got from him.

I am asking the question again: what is the Department of Canadian Heritage prepared to do so that, from now on, artists and cultural organizations, and particularly Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, can stage their productions abroad?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again and respond in the late show edition of the sitting of the House today.

We put this question to our hard-working folks in the department. They gave me back a book. There are so many things that they are doing. They could not possibly sum it up so that I could get through it all in four minutes.

Let me first address the issue of BC Scene. I want to congratulate the National Arts Centre on an excellent program that brought established and emerging stars of British Columbia's vibrant artistic scene to the nation's capital. I know that I speak for my entire department when I say that we were delighted to provide the significant support to make that happen.

BC Scene focuses primarily on providing an opportunity for Canadian artists to share their work with Canadian audiences. BC Scene is a part of a series of biannual festivals focusing on different Canadian regions. It was developed by the National Arts Centre as part of its mission to truly be a national institution.

There were over 60 arts presenters invited to attend the festival in order to create new opportunities for B.C. artists. They included presenters from abroad to ensure opportunities for tours and so forth as well. It was an absolutely fantastic event and I want to congratulate everyone involved with BC Scene at the National Arts Centre in that regard.

The member cited a few numbers. I would like to cite a few numbers as well. The government is going to invest close to $22 million this year to support Canadian culture abroad through organizations such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the Association for the Export of Canadian Books, the National Film Board, FACTOR and Musicaction. Their mandate includes the support and promotion of Canadian culture, both at home and abroad.

If I got into the list of everything that this government is doing in support of Canadian arts and culture through our economic action plan and budget 2009, I do not think we would get out of here much before midnight. It is a very significant list of what our government has undertaken and we are proud of it. We think that the investments we are making in Canadian artists and creativity are going to pay a significant dividend not just for Canada but indeed enrich the entire world. Our artists compete with everyone and we are very proud of them.

To cite a couple of numbers, just this year we are investing $60 million in new funding for cultural infrastructure, a further $20 million in new funding to train artists and, because we understand how important culture is to our economy, we will invest over $100 million this year and next in the marquee tourism events program to also draw tourism and related spin-offs.

We are investing $200 million in the Canadian television fund, $30 million in magazines and Canadian newspapers, and $28 million in new media. Subsequent to that, in June 2009 we announced $504 million in renewed investments in the Canada heritage arts programs and the Canada Council for the Arts over five years.

Members can see that the list goes on and on. The fact remains that no government has put more support behind arts and culture in the history of this country than this Conservative government. I am very proud of it and this member knows full well the numbers that I speak.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can go ahead and list every one of Canadian Heritage's grant programs, but that will not help performing arts organizations like Les Grands Ballets Canadiens travel and perform in other countries.

This is just one example among many. Les Grands Ballets Canadiens went abroad in June and experienced a $150,000 deficit because of the government, because of Canadian Heritage, which cut the company's funding when it eliminated two programs: PromArt and Trade Routes.

This is not just for show. I did not ask for a list of programs. The minister once told me, right here in the House, that I had it all wrong, but he is the one who got it all wrong. He wrote to me the next day, June 17. I would ask the parliamentary secretary for leave to table the minister's signed response in the House. This is what he said: “Canadian Heritage does not offer any programs that meet the aforementioned criteria”. As I said, that was for Les Grands Ballets Canadiens.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member cites Les Grands Ballets Canadiens. I know for a fact that this specific group, an outstanding Canadian group, receives substantial support from this government, in fact more support from this government than it received from the previous government and more support this year than in years past.

Our government is standing behind Les Grands Ballets and the member knows that. She is simply not being fulsome in her question. She is picking out one part of it and saying, “It did not get as much money here as it would have liked but, oh, by the way, it did receive in excess of $1 million in support from this government”.

We are proud of it because we are supporting excellence. We are supporting artists when they need it, in a way that they need it, and in a way that will allow them to continue to thrill audiences and, quite simply, to continue to hone their trade and put Canada on the map as one of the premier arts countries in the world.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)