Debates of April 23rd, 2013

Combating Terrorism Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these nuances are problematic, especially in light of the decisions that the court has previously made. I will come back to what needs to be done in terms of the court's decisions.

It is extremely disappointing that the Liberal Party supports the bill. We want to hear what the court has to say, but we also believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to address the problem before it reaches that point.

I will repeat exactly what my colleagues have already said concerning the lawyer at the Department of Justice. Fortunately, he spoke publicly about the fact that the government was not conducting any prior verification. We are demonstrating due diligence to ensure that things do not reach that point. We have responsibilities as legislators.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate yesterday and today and one speech in particular caught my ear, and that was the debate brought forward by my colleague, the member for York South—Weston. He had a really good story in his speech and I want to pick up on that.

My colleague for York South—Weston was talking a lot about the recognizance with conditions, or preventative arrest powers. This provision is really problematic. We know now that it is even more problematic than we thought because of some things that happened at committee when this section was being explored.

On recognizance with conditions, or preventative arrest, we have section 83.3 of the Criminal Code. However, Bill S-7 tries to prevent terrorist acts, which is a laudable goal, but the question is: Would that section of the act actually meet that goal?

The bill would allow for someone to be arrested because the police believe the arrest necessary to prevent a terrorist attack, which makes good sense to me. However, we had some problems with the way this section was worded because it could be read to mean that someone could be arrested who is not actually a suspect. Perhaps we do not believe that the person is going to carry out the terrorist attack but might know someone who is going to carry out the terrorist attack. It is written in an overly broad way.

The NDP raised this at committee only to hear from the government side that in fact that was the intention. It is not just there to sort of scoop up the person who is actually the suspect but it is to scoop up other people as well, which is way too broad. It is far too broad and that should not be the intention of any anti-terrorist legislation. I do not think it strikes a balance when we look at what our fundamental rights are.

However, the reason I liked the speech of my colleague for York South—Weston is that he used an example of someone in our community, and I will do something similar.

My home town is Kirkland Lake, Ontario and I represent the riding of Halifax. If there was someone in Halifax, originally from Kirkland Lake, whom the authorities suspect may commit a terrorist act, the authorities could go to Kirkland Lake and arrest the suspect's mom. They could say, “This is your kid and we want to interrogate you”. People can actually be interrogated under this bill. Therefore, mom could be arrested in Kirkland Lake, Ontario. She may or may not know anything about what is going on down in Halifax with her daughter, for example.

Furthermore, arrest is serious. My colleague for Winnipeg North was talking about wiretapping, which is also a serious breach of rights. However, that is different than arrest. It is different than arresting someone, putting them in jail, and hauling them before a judge.

So mom is arrested, interrogated, and asked what is going on. She appears before a judge, and the judge can set conditions, which is the recognizance with conditions. The judge can set conditions on her release, and the conditions might be that she cannot have a firearm.

Where I grew up, there were a lot of firearms in my house. We are a family that hunts and that was how we made ends meet when I was growing up. We could not tell my mom or step-dad that they could not do that. We very truly relied on that meat, especially in the winter months.

If mom says no, she is not willing to give up her firearms, she could be put in jail, which is beyond the pale. Surely to goodness that is not the intent here. For example, we are not looking to put my mom in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, in jail for something that she may or may not even have any knowledge of. Therefore, the idea of preventative detention really does go beyond the pale. I do not think it is something we should be supporting.

It does not strike that balance in combatting terrorism along with supporting our fundamental rights, freedoms, and liberties. I do not think it can be supported by saying that we might need this, that exceptional times call for exceptional measures. If we look back, this provision has never been used.

I want to talk a little about that, and about this idea of the sunset clause. When this bill was first introduced in its very first form to make the changes to the Criminal Code, the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, it was Bill C-36. I will never forget that number. I was a first-year law student. September 2001, when I started law school, is when we saw the terrorist attacks in New York. I watched them happen from the student lounge on my way to property law.

This bill was introduced as a response to that, to make sure of lots of things, including to make sure we were up to international standards when it came to anti-terrorism law. As a first-year law student, I did not have very much experience doing legal analysis. A lot of what was happening around Bill C-36 was beyond me, but I was really concerned with it.

My fellow students were as well. We talked about it in the criminal law class. We talked about it ad nauseam with our professor. We had guest speakers come in and discuss it. I was a member of SALSA, the Social Activist Law Student Association. We organized a panel discussion, sort of breaking down Bill C-36, what it could mean, what might violate the charter and what might not, and how this worked within the greater context of what we are trying to achieve here, that balance of our rights and our safety.

There was a lot of unease around a number of provisions. Different experts were coming forward and saying that they were not sure if it struck a balance and that they could not really predict what was going to happen in the future. This was an attack that we were unprepared for, and we did not know how to respond. It was hard to know if these measures went too far or not.

It felt like the measures went too far, but the saving grace, I remember, was the fact that there were these sunset clauses. If a jurist, an expert, a law professor, whoever was there, had a level of discomfort about these provisions, he or she said, “at least there is a sunset provision”.

The sunset clause sort of lays out when a provision in legislation or a contract will expire, and usually the terms by which it will expire. It is kind of like an expiry date. After three years or five years we actually have to revisit this piece and decide whether or not it is working, whether or not it has struck that balance. Sunset clauses are often used for controversial subjects, where we need to think about how the world is changing, and how legislation is changing to adapt to that changing world. They can be really useful.

On the question of balance, maybe Bill C-36 was a bit of a cop-out. Maybe people were too afraid to say no to some of these provisions. I do not know. I was not there. I was not particularly skilled at legal analysis at that point. However, that sunset provision existed for a reason.

We go back to looking at why we are here today, and we are here because of those sunset provisions. We have to look at these clauses again and again. We have to make that assessment about whether or not we should continue them, whether or not they have outlived their purpose, whether or not they have in fact crossed the line and gone too far.

I would argue that they have crossed the line and gone too far in something like the section on recognizance conditions. Why? Because it violates our rights, our fundamental rights, our liberties, and it has never been used. I could maybe see if we had the big success case of why this has been so important, why it has worked, or if the Conservatives could demonstrate to us that this is a violation of our fundamental freedoms but it is in some way balanced out because it has worked in some way. It has not.

These provisions have not even been used. What we are doing is we are opening that door. We are wedging it open, and we are allowing more infringement of the state on our lives, heading down towards that police state where the police have these incredible powers of saying, “Okay, mom, in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, we are going to put you in jail. We are going to put you before a judge, and you have to hand over all your firearms.”

That balance has not been struck here and we do need to vote against this legislation without making these changes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, periodically I like to stand just to emphasize the importance of making sure we have what many would classify as boots on the ground. We have talked in the past about the impact of budget cuts. This is something the Liberal Party has opposed. I wanted to bring that, once again, to the attention of the House.

I was passed a note here indicating the measure that is being suggested, an investigative hearing, allows law enforcement to compel those individuals suspected of possessing information about a terrorism act that has been or will be committed, to appear before a judge and answer questions. In these cases, Bill S-7 defines a judge as “a provincial court judge or a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction”. Before making an order for investigative hearing, a peace officer must first receive the consent of the attorney general. Once an order is made, the judge would base his decision on whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information gleaned from the hearing will in fact assist, and it goes on.

It seems to me that the experts, professionals, and law enforcement officers see this as a tool that would be of great benefit in terms of the potential to combat terrorism. Hopefully, they would not have to use the tool.

The member is making the assumption that her mom, or others, are going to be inundated by law enforcement officers taking away their civil rights, when there appear to be checks in place. After all, the Supreme Court of Canada, back in 2004, implied that it would in fact be constitutionally compliant.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to answer that question. We cannot have provisions in place, these incredible criminal law powers, these incredible state powers for the police to be able to violate our civil liberties just in case it might come in handy. Well, yes, it would come in handy; so do rubber hoses. However, we have certain safeguards in place, like the right to remain silent and like the right not to be arbitrarily detained. Those rights are enshrined in the charter, which the member points out time and again that his party brought forward. Whoop-de-do if we are not actually living up to those rights, defending those rights, and taking them for what they should be, which is fundamental to who we are as Canadians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Halifax on her speech.

I would like her to comment on the flip-flop by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party is the party that most often wraps itself in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which it says is so important in the history of Canada, and we agree with it on that point.

Why today will the Liberal Party, the party of the Charter Rights and Freedoms, be going against all the country's rights and freedoms advocacy organizations, which tell us that Bill S-7 is a threat to our civil liberties? Why is it joining forces with the Conservative Party, when we know very well that there is a real chance this bill is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Even the former director of CSIS said that the measures in this bill were neither appropriate nor necessary.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the Liberal Party's change in position.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the Liberals would do this and not actually stand up to fight for the rights that they have so vigorously championed. This is a complete about-face.

I want to read something from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association from 2001, when this actually came forward for the first time. It stated:

To say that civil liberties can be qualified when an open society encounters extraordinary threats to its institutions is almost a truism. No rights are absolute, and security is a fundamental condition of the exercise of all other rights. But saying this much settles no issues at all. We still require some principled basis from which to assess the appropriate limits of government action.

I will close with that.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on Bill S-7, a piece of legislation that is the most recent in a series of anti-terrorism bills to come before Parliament since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Unlike the parliamentarians at that time, we are able to look back at the original legislation, the debate and, most importantly, the results after more than a decade has passed, which should clearly instruct this discussion.

Certainly the debate that encompassed Bill C-36 was emotionally charged and took place in the period when the need for Parliament to respond to events competed with the clear-headed thinking these initiatives deserve. In some ways, that is the climate in which we are debating this legislation as well.

The brazen attack that took place during the Boston Marathon last week and the foiled attempt to attack VIA Rail that we learned about yesterday will colour this debate. Our hearts and prayers go out to the people of Boston as well as the victims of that terrible event. Similarly, we are proud of the security agencies that worked to stymie the terrorist plans for an attack on Canadian soil. Yet it is up to the members of the House to ensure they maintain the level of critical thinking that will allow us to arrive at the best legislation.

The original anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, offers a clear example of how a government may not identify deficiencies in its proposals. It also shows how working with the opposition ultimately led to legislation that was more closely aligned with the democratic values of Canada and the sensibilities of Canadians, who rightfully cherish their rights and liberties.

When Bill C-36 was introduced, the Liberal government was both responding to the events of September 11 and updating Canadian legislation so that it could fall in line with international standards. The bill did not originally include a sunset provision for parliamentary review, even though rights and liberties were being ceded under special circumstances. The mechanism to ensure parliamentary review was added to the bill as it was debated in the chamber and reviewed at committee.

Certainly, the New Democrat fight for sunset provisions was not made to be popular. It was hard to make the point that it is ultimately more democratic to review measures that limit rights and liberties from time to time in such a volatile and emotionally charged climate, but it was the right thing to do.

Today, we are facing a similar situation. The difference is that there appears to be no working with the government or any desire on its part to see room for improvement in its own proposal. This is despite our ability to review the outcomes of the extraordinary powers that were contained in Bill C-36. In fact, when Parliament reviewed the parts of the bill that were subject to a sunset clause, they were not renewed, in no small part because it was revealed that these special measures were never used between 2001 and 2007. It is also important to note that all of the parts of Bill C-36 that were not subject to review remain in place and, as we have seen just this week, are allowing Canada to thwart terrorist plots.

This is the fourth attempt to recreate the extraordinary powers of the original anti-terrorism bill. It remains an exercise of making sure we do not surrender more civil rights and personal liberties than necessary. However, the government is refusing to listen or co-operate.

Despite New Democrat amendments that would have heightened transparency and reporting, as well as reducing the negative impacts on civil liberties, and despite testimony at committee that supported those amendments and the values we sought to protect, which are valued by most Canadians, the government's response was to dismiss and vote down every single item. That is both a shame and an indictment of the government, which is reluctant to work with parliamentarians in a constructive way, to put it charitably.

As I mentioned, the provisions we have available to fight terrorism are allowing Canadian officials to do their job. The foiled plot we learned about only yesterday makes that case clearly, so we should not feel as if our law enforcement officials are working in a vacuum with no provisions to combat terrorism.

There are certainly ways in which we can aid that work, but it cannot be done at the expense of the rights and liberties we seek to protect. This is not just the opinion of the New Democrats but also of respected groups like the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and la Ligue des droits et libertés. These groups feel Bill S-7 does not strike the appropriate balance, and they also support the notion that the current powers of law enforcement already allow security agencies to pursue, investigate, disrupt and successfully prosecute terrorism-related crimes.

This bill would allow persons to be detained for up to three days without being charged; would strip individuals of their basic rights, as accused under criminal proceedings, to know and challenge evidence against them; would threaten them with criminal punishment; and would compel individuals to testify in secret before a judge in an investigative hearing. In addition to that, a judge could impose imprisonment of up to 12 months if the person did not enter into recognizance.

Add to that provisions of recognizance that would intentionally include a broader spectrum of individuals engaged in an activity that can be more properly described as a feature of democracy: expressing a dissenting opinion by way of protest. That can be seen as related to terrorism, and we can see that there would be mechanisms in this legislation that would go beyond the stated intent of the measures we are discussing.

Again, New Democrats are prepared to make important arguments that are easy to characterize in a negative light, but we are confident they will be confirmed over time and are critical to preserve the human rights and civil liberties of individuals who are in no way engaged in terrorism activities.

In committee, it was revealed that the Conservatives intentionally worded new section 83.3 of the bill to allow security agencies to sweep up these people under the pretense of fighting terrorism when their actions are not at all related to that subversive behaviour. As a result, we could end up detaining young people who are engaged on a particular issue to the point that they are willing to join a protest and exercise their rights to assembly and free speech. We could detain those people, using the provisions concerning recognizance in this bill, and the Conservatives think that is just fine.

New Democrats cannot and will not accept that, and feel the bill would overreach its intended target and would also serve the Conservatives' desire to sweep protestors, whose message they do not particularly want to hear, under the carpet. How can this be seen as anything but a significant surrender of rights? The answer of course is that it cannot.

New Democrats attempted to amend this and discovered that the broad net cast under those provisions related to recognizance was not merely a case of oversight on the part of the government, but they were deliberately worded to cast that broad net to include individuals who are not suspected of engaging in future terrorist activity. That amounts to using anti-terrorism measures to target non-terrorists and stifle democratic dissent, something the government would never do under other circumstances and can rightly be seen as opportunistic and cynical.

I have argued that we are compelled to learn from experience and history, yet the Conservatives clearly feel no need to do as much themselves. While they have a majority in this place, the ability to push through legislation is far different from the ability to arrive at the best legislation. When considering measures that impose upon individuals' rights and liberties, it is far more desirable to take the time to ensure the effort is on the mark than it is to rush toward deadlines, blinded by the belief that no other interpretation has merit or could conceivably improve the way we combat terrorism.

Again, it is clear that the Criminal Code contains the necessary provisions for investigating individuals and groups involved in criminal activity and for detaining anyone who may present a threat to Canadians.

Terrorism is abhorrent, and it is clearly not something that any country wishes to struggle with. That said, it is also sadly a feature of our societal discourse and has become something that no longer happens only in places far removed from Canadian soil.

It is important for parliamentarians to engage in this debate, just as it is imperative that we get it right. We cannot engage in a process that creates the ironic outcome where rights and liberties are surrendered to protect those same rights and liberties, which are among the hallmarks of the freedom we enjoy. Canadians are counting on parliamentarians to get it right. We have the tools at our disposal to do as much, and I would hope the Conservatives find the will to make the appropriate adjustments to their legislation that would go a long way to meeting those expectations.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which I believe emphasizes what this debate should now be about: the protection of Canadians' and Quebeckers' civil liberties and the fact that the government is bringing back old provisions that were hastily introduced following the September 11 attacks and were never used.

From 2001 to 2007, those provisions that the Conservatives want to bring forward, which restricted our rights and freedoms, were never used. Furthermore, they were never useful. On the contrary, our police forces have the resources, capability and tools they need to protect Canadians' safety. I would like to hear what she has to say on that subject.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Only the NDP truly wants to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That much is obvious.

In my opinion, it is very disappointing to see that the Liberals will be supporting this bill, which will really have a negative impact on people’s rights in Canada. It is unbelievable.

When we look at this bill, we can already see what happened this week with VIA Rail. Laws are already in place for combatting the problem of terrorism. The tools are already there. There is no need to keep on creating a new one every time a critical situation arises. We have to look at what we have, how it can be improved, if necessary, and whether it is working. It is obvious that right now, it is working.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect of the bill concerns me greatly, and I would like to know whether that concern is shared by my colleague. The Liberals wrap themselves in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet they are going to support a bill that is necessarily at odds with the charter, particularly when it comes to the part that says we can arrest someone even if we are not sure they are really associated with a terrorist group. There is not a judge in the Supreme Court who will say that there is no danger. It is impossible. There is an unbelievable contradiction.

The major consequence will have an impact on the security forces, who will have to live with completely twisted decisions. They will be wondering if such a thing has to be done, only to end up with a form of charge that is not possible. Doing this is going to put people in the security forces in an untenable position.

We are told that the Liberals are going to support it and that they have not thought about that. They do not want to make their new leader look too soft. They are going to take a decision that makes no sense. I would like to know whether my colleague shares these concerns.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have to ask ourselves questions when such a bill is presented.

As I said, it is surprising that the Liberals are supporting a bill that will really have a negative impact on the rights of Canadians and their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When there is a demonstration, in Quebec or elsewhere, they will obviously use such legislation if they do not agree with the demonstration. We therefore have to ask ourselves the following questions: is the legislation necessary? Are current laws sufficient to deal with the problem of terrorism? Does the legislation violate fundamental rights?

We quite simply do not believe that Bill S-7 meets these criteria. I think it is obvious that there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals with respect to the protection of our rights: they disagree.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech, which will end the day, by pointing out the irony of this situation. We can already hear Conservatives outside the House accusing the NDP of being soft, of not believing that safety is an important issue and of being soft on crime. It is the same old tune. However, this is their bill. Although we might be hearing them outside the House, we are not hearing them much in here. They are not here; they are not talking today. The NDP members are the only ones standing up to say that they care about the safety of Canadians and the Canadian value of respecting rights and freedoms. As the official opposition, we take this issue much more seriously than the Liberals do. They will stand with the Conservatives and vote in favour of a bill that will undermine our civil liberties. We find that particularly disconcerting.

I would like to begin by reading from a column written by Rima Elkouri, which appeared in La Presse this morning.

“You're either with us or against us,” said George W. Bush in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This famous ideological motto was quick to resurface after the attacks in Boston. The [Prime Minister's] government did not hesitate to seize the opportunity to exploit the tragedy for partisan purposes by immediately forcing debate on tougher anti-terrorism laws... We are obsessed with safety, and oh, by the way, we would like to take away some of your rights. But have no fear, it is for your own good. And whatever you do, don't think.

The Conservatives' haste to force debate on this bill has to do with grandstanding, putting on a show. It is about smoke and mirrors. Opposition days were scheduled this week. True to Conservative form, they are using the victims of the attacks in Boston for political gain. We find that offensive. The context surrounding this forced debate needs to be clear. Members opposite wanted to avoid a more difficult debate on parliamentarians' right to freedom of speech.

A few of my colleagues pointed it out, and I also asked questions about this today. The two most important provisions in Bill S-7 were created years ago and are being brought back even though the sunset clause passed after the attacks of September 11, 2011, has expired. In all the years that these two provisions were available to police forces, they were never used. They have not existed since 2007, and the government is now attempting to bring them back with Bill S-7.

However, it is clear from the Toronto 18 affair and, this week, the thwarted attack on a VIA Rail train that police forces have the means to protect Canadians' safety and that it is not worth jeopardizing the rights and civil liberties we enjoy. With respect to the case of Chiheb Esseghaier, who was arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a VIA Rail line, I will read an excerpt from Christiane Desjardins' article in La Presse:

Earlier this morning, Mr. Roy summarized the charges against Mr. Esseghaier: one count of conspiracy to interfere with transportation facilities in association with a terrorist group, conspiracy to commit murder in association with a terrorist group, two counts of participating in the activities of a terrorist group, and one count of giving instructions to someone to carry out an activity in association with a terrorist group.

Do we need more legal provisions to help our police do their job, protect Canadians' safety and prevent terrorist attacks? I do not think so. I would also like to quote Reid Morden, the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who had this to say in 2010, when referring to the provisions that were passed in 2001 and that the government is attempting to bring back:

Speaking strictly of those two particular provisions, I confess I never thought that they should have been introduced in the first place and that they slipped in, in the kind of scrambling around that the government did after 9/11. ...It seemed to me that it turned our judicial system somewhat on its head. ...I guess I'm sorry to hear that the government has decided to reintroduce them.

The former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said that only three years ago.

“Police officers and security forces have all the powers they need to do their job properly. They do not need additional powers.” That is what Mr. Morden said in 2010.

What reasons, then, do the Conservatives have for tabling a bill that originated in the Senate, that unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable chamber that is already grappling with many problems and scandals, a chamber that generally serves as a repository for friends of the Conservative Party—party presidents, organizers, fundraisers and the like—where they can do political work at the taxpayer’s expense? That is a whole other debate, though.

What reasons do they have for reintroducing measures that were never used, that are therefore useless and ineffective, and that threaten the freedoms we and 34 million other Canadians enjoy? Why put these freedoms at risk for the sake of measures that we do not need, that will not work and that most groups defending our rights and freedoms angrily denounce?

This morning, someone in my office contacted officials at Amnistie internationale Canada francophone. What they had to say was quite simple: restricting people’s freedoms is not the way to prevent terrorism. Their view is also shared by the Canadian Bar Association and a number of experts who testified before the committee and are very concerned.

The NDP share their concerns. We will never compromise when it comes to security or our rights and freedoms.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Call in the members.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.