Debates of June 16th, 2015

Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect there are those who have a real keen interest in rules and procedures and how the House operates, whether it is here, in provincial legislatures, or anywhere in the Commonwealth. I for one have always been fascinated by it. At times I see that we move forward in a positive way, and sometimes, unfortunately, I have seen us slip back. I am someone who really enjoys the privilege of being able to represent people, and I appreciate the opportunities that have been afforded to each and every one of us as a direct result of an election.

Engaging in debates is something I take very seriously, so when motions of this nature come forward, I always take an interest because it has to do with the functionality of what I would argue is the most important democratic institution in the land. Canada is often referred to by other Commonwealth countries as the country to turn to in terms of how our democratic system operates. I do take it very seriously.

Today has been a very interesting day for me, because the leader of my party made what I would suggest is a very progressive policy announcement that details a lot of changes in trying to fix what many perceive as a broken Ottawa, if I can put it that way.

Looking at the motion before us, which is a fairly detailed booklet, I see three points that come to my mind. One is making every vote count. What is referred to in this package is the need to change the system from first past the post and a commitment of 2015 being the last election, from a Liberal Party perspective, if it were in government, that there would be a first-past-the-post system based on what we currently have.

Another part deals with stronger parliamentary committees. That is relevant because we are talking about electing the chairs of our parliamentary system. We even have a motion on that.

Then there is another area that highlights more free votes. This is a good one for me. Even though this package or proposal is a lot more detailed, I would encourage members to read the full context of the report that was released by the Liberal Party earlier today. It deals with reform, both inside the House in Ottawa and abroad for all Canadians. What we are talking about today would be a significant change.

During the 1990s, I was in the Manitoba legislature, where Speakers were appointed. Then, in 2003, I was involved in a process where the Speaker was being elected and I can say from first-hand experience that electing a Speaker versus appointing one does make a difference. That is something I see as a very positive step forward.

What we have today does not necessarily change the fact that we are going to have an elected Speaker. The motion deals specifically with the manner in which we elect a Speaker. There are really two ways that are being talked about. There is the current system. The current system is first past the post, and that process continues until a candidate acquires the 50%-plus. This can be fairly exhausting. In the 1980s, 11 votes took place, which would indicate there were a number of hours of voting, the trade-offs, the pros, the cons, and so forth.

That was the system. They actually had 11 separate occasions. Members had to go and cast a ballot. They call that an exhaustive ballot, and that is what it would have been on that particular vote.

We then have what is being proposed through this motion, and that is referred to as a preferential ballot. Members vote once, but that ballot is not just a simple X beside the individual they would like to see as the Speaker; it is a listing of their choices. Members before me have given detailed explanations as to how those preferential ballots would actually be counted.

The point I would like to make is that we are fortunate that we have an elected Speaker. This is just about how we elect the Speaker. Is the current method the way to continue, or should we look at making a change?

I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, where it was talked about, whether by me or by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, who did a fantastic job, not only on PROC but also in our caucus, in making sure that everyone understood what was being proposed.

At PROC the determination was that we did not want the membership of PROC to make the decision. We felt it was more appropriate that it be made by all 308 members of the House, minus what vacancies there might be, of course. PROC did not make a recommendation to the House as to which way to vote.

As for me, I would find it difficult in terms of the status quo, but Liberal members of the House have been told that this is a free vote. I suspect that members will be consulting with others in regard to how they might vote. However, from the Liberal Party's perspective, on issues of this nature we believe there should be a free vote.

With those few words, I understand that there is a will to allow a vote to occur.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. My question is just to make sure that this is clear and on the record, because there was one comment that suggested that a member was unsure on this point. We will be voting, formally speaking, on concurrence in report number 21 of the procedure and House affairs committee. On paper, that is what the vote will be on. However, in practice, it will be on an item of private members' business that was referred to the committee. I know that my colleague already knows that. I am commenting to make that point. He may wish to add something to that, but I just wanted to get that on the record once again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be crystal clear, voting against concurrence in the report is to vote for the current system. If one votes no, one is saying that one wants the status quo. If one votes yes, one is saying that one wants to have the preferential ballot. That is my understanding.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate in the very last days of this Parliament before we adjourn for the summer.

I am supportive of the concurrence motion for the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It would be a good thing to adopt these rules for several reasons. I do not think the rule changes are revolutionary. They are quite minor rule changes. Moving from an exhaustive balloting system to a preferential balloting system for the position of Speaker is a very small change. Nevertheless, even though it is a small change, I am supporting it for a number of reasons.

First, I do not think we should be afraid of changing the Standing Orders in this place in order to continually renew and reform ourselves. Too often there is an inertia in the chamber about making changes to the Standing Orders, because many of them have been long standing. Certainly, many of the Standing Orders of the House have been long standing precisely because they have worked so well. However, in many other cases they are not working as well as they ought to, and changing the Standing Orders is something that should not be an infrequent and difficult thing to do in our Parliament.

The second reason I am supporting this is that this is present practice in the chambers of other Westminster parliaments. Therefore, we have practical, real-life, empirical evidence to see how these changes would work in practice. In the British House of Lords, the Speaker of the Lords is elected through a system of first preference votes. Therefore, we know that system works over there, so we can be assured it would work here.

However, here is the other reason I am supporting it, and it may be different from those of the other speakers who have risen to speak to this concurrence motion. The reason I think it is important to support this is that the average time it has taken to elect the Speaker in the previous number of Parliaments has been about seven hours. That is a lot of time. That could be significantly shortened through the use of a single preferential ballot, which would then allow us to reform the way in which committee members are selected in the House. I believe we have to move away from a system of standing committees, where members are selected through whips and deputy House leaders on PROC, to a system where members should be elected by the House as a whole, by their peers in the House, to committees at the beginning of each Parliament.

If we were to do that, that first day of the sitting of Parliament would be the ideal time not only to elect the Speaker of the Chamber but also to elect members to the 24 standing committees of this Chamber. Then in turn, when those standing committees meet for the first time, they could elect the chair of their committee. In doing that, we would create more independent committees of this place that would function in a better manner than they do today. However, in order to arrive at that system where members of Parliament vote for committee members, we need to vote for the Speaker in a more efficient manner.

That is the other reason I am supporting this. I think having a super day of voting on the first day of a Parliament after a general election, a super day of voting in the House of Commons, would allow us to reform other rules in the Standing Orders and allow us to do it in an efficient manner.

I want to commend my colleague on PROC for championing this idea. It would be a good change, which the House should support. It would lead to improvements in the way we elect Speakers and particularly to a much shorter time dedicated to the election of Speaker. At the same time, it would allow us to consider other amendments to the Standing Orders that would allow us to move away from the way committee members are selected now, which is essentially through the power of party leaders, to a system where members of Parliament, all 338 of us, would come together and also determine which of our peers would sit on the respective 24 standing committees.

I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support this change. As I said, it is not a revolutionary change, but I think it would lead to more efficient voting and an opportunity for us to consider other votes for other matters on that first day that we sit as a House of Commons.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those comments. I would point out to him that this very day the procedure and House affairs committee was looking at the subject matter he is referring to. That might be of some interest to him.

I would like to ask him about a different subject which is on the issue regarding the hustings that the Hansard Society puts on in the United Kingdom for candidates for the speakership.

I know that my colleague very much admires the Westminster Parliament. I think we all do, but some of us admire it in a vague sort of way while others have a more precise knowledge which has increased their admiration for that place and its way of handling things.

I would ask my colleague what he thinks of the idea of a hustings in which candidates for the speakership would have a chance both to explain what they plan to do as the Speaker, as well as get feedback, in a sense, of what kind of consensus may exist among the new members of Parliament, or the new Parliament itself, as to how they ought to behave in the role of Speaker following the Speaker's election.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I like the idea of a hustings debate that would take place before the election of Speaker. We could perhaps hold it in the Reading Room or in the Railway Room, as opposed to the Brits, who hold it in Westminster Hall. It would be a better opportunity for members to ask more detailed questions of candidates for Speaker about what they are proposing to do.

It is necessary as well to have more debate on who would be the Speaker of this House, not in a formal setting of the House of Commons but maybe in one of the committee rooms that we have here on Parliament Hill. There in a more informal setting members could ask questions of prospective candidates for Speaker.

I believe that the role of Speaker is evolving. It is moving away from a more ceremonial role and is rapidly evolving in a House of Commons that is itself rapidly changing. There is increasing desire for reform of question period, reform of the way in which debates are conducted, and reform of the various daily proceedings of the House of Commons, so Speakers will increasingly need to state their positions and views on the evolution of our conventions in this House of Commons. Having a venue where members of Parliament can ask the candidates for Speaker where they stand on these various issues in greater detail is very important.

I would add that the Speaker's role needs to be strengthened. I for one believe that the Speaker should appoint the Clerk of the House of Commons. Currently, in effect, the Prime Minister appoints the Clerk of the House of Commons. I believe that is an undue intrusion of the executive branch of government into the legislature.

I also believe that the Speaker should be appointing the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons. Currently the Prime Minister in effect appoints the Sergeant-at-Arms, so clearly there are a number of other changes that we need to strengthen the division of powers between the executive and the legislative branches of government. I think many of these changes would require Speakers to state their position and the way forward for these types of reforms.

Some of them may be achieved through Standing Order changes and some of them may be achieved through a different reading of the Standing Orders. Some of them may be achieved through new conventions that are established by the members of this place in concert with the Speaker's ruling. Therefore, as we move to a future Parliament that I hope will renew and reform itself, I think it will become more and more important for members of this place to have a better understanding of where the various candidates stand on the issues.

Currently the way our system works with the exhaustive balloting system does not afford members of Parliament a great deal of opportunity to hear the various candidates speak on the various issues because there is often a limited amount of time for each candidate for Speaker to rise in this place and state his or her vision or view on where the House of Commons should go.

I will conclude by saying that what I hope we achieve in future Parliaments will be a series of first days of Parliament on which we have a series of discussions, not only on the floor of this House of Commons but also in party caucuses, about how we would govern ourselves for the life of that Parliament. I hope that eventually we will have a Parliament and a House of Commons where that debate takes place ahead of the first day of voting for the Speaker and where, in an informal session, members of Parliament can ask the various candidates for Speaker where they stand on the various issues. I hope it can take place here in the House when we first vote on a preferential ballot for Speaker and hopefully eventually vote for committee members.

If the reform act passes, I also hope those discussions will take place in the first meetings of party caucuses, where members of caucuses can come together and debate how caucuses are to be governed, how chairs of caucuses are to be elected, how members are to be expelled and readmitted, how party leaders are to be reviewed and removed, and how interim leaders are to be elected in the event of a sudden resignation, incapacity, death, or removal.

I thank my colleague for that question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made earlier today, the question is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed requested.

Also, pursuant to an order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

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

Rail Transportation

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to report that VIA Rail is dying in the hands of the government. The results contained in VIA's annual report are abysmal. By virtually every measure, VIA is continuing a nose-down descent. Revenue is up slightly, but operating loss is climbing faster. Ridership, cost recovery and on-time performances are all dropping dangerously, but for many reasons they could be fixed, if we cared, if we chose to.

Canada is alone among the G8 nations in having no national transportation policy or strategy. We have cobbled together a hodgepodge of policies that lack coherence. When we expand our highway system, it is always called a critical investment. When we talk about passenger rail and the need for investment in that critical infrastructure, it is described as an endless subsidy.

Canadian innovators in modern rail, like Bombardier, sell their fast and efficient trains to other nations, while our passenger rail system continues to decline and decay. For example, VIA's program to rebuild the more than 30-year-old cars that are the backbone of VIA's Quebec-Windsor corridor operation was slated to cost about $99 billion with completion in 2013. This is 2015. Project costs have nearly doubled, and now will not wrap up until 2017.

Canada's passenger rail service has no legislative framework. VIA is crippled by inadequate investment and a lack of enlightened national rail policy favouring more, not less service.

The government is failing to improve our publicly owned passenger trains at a time when other nations are modernizing and expanding their systems. The Conservatives are deliberately starving VIA and are not giving it the modern tools to turn itself around as the U.S. Congress has given to Amtrak.

The government claims to be business savvy, but I see zero business smarts at work in their mismanagement of VIA. I observe waste and decay at the expense of Canadian taxpayer dollars or phony excuses about how VIA is supposedly, allegedly an arm's-length crown corporation that makes its own decisions.

In 2012, the government cut $41 million from VIA's annual operation. The Canadian, the country's only cross-country route, was cut from three trains a week to only two from October to April of each year. The Ocean, VIA's Montreal to Halifax route, was reduced from six times weekly to only three at that time, cutting VIA service to Atlantic Canada in half.

The cancellation of half the VIA route network and the abysmal treatment of our national rail passenger service can be brought down to one overarching problem: the total absence of a logical visionary passenger rail policy for Canada.

The fate of Canada's rail passenger system is hanging in the balance today. Misunderstood, underfunded and seemingly without a powerful champion in Ottawa, other than me, VIA still represents an important national resource and can and should be put on a firm footing that it has always required, but time is growing short. If we lose what remains of our rail passenger system, we will stand alone among the G8, among the G20 group of nations.

There are two no-cost steps that could kick-start VIA's revival. The first is legislation like that introduced by a private member from the NDP recently and voted down by the Conservatives to establish VIA's mandate, rights, obligations and relationship with respect to the exorbitant user fees of freight railways.

VIA has never had such legislation. This has always been at the heart of Amtrak's survival and success in the U.S.A.

As I finish, the other way to get VIA back on track without spending scarce public dollars is by filling the two vacancies on VIA's board with people who actually understand VIA and care.

Would the minister please consider appointing former Amtrak president and Cape Breton resident David Gunn to our Canadian VIA board?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to begin on that one. Let me start with some of the items the member raised in that self-congratulatory, yet rambling, litany of things he threw down.

First of all, the private member's bill introduced by the official opposition, which was rightly opposed by this government, was an attempt to ensure that rather than VIA operating as a business, the business of VIA would be run from the floor of the House of Commons, particularly when it came to route selection. There were a number of other important reasons why that was not functional at all.

I know that the member likes to talk about investment in VIA Rail. When it came to improving and making significant capital investments of about $1 billion, I do not remember the member standing in the House and actually voting to support that.

When it comes to annual operational investments, we have opportunities in the main estimates and everything else to support appropriations to VIA Rail. It makes the support sound hollow by the member opposite when he cannot stand in his place and support estimates for it.

When it comes to the appointment process, as is the case with all crown corporations, appointments to the board of directors of VIA Rail follow open, transparent, and competency-based selection processes that reflect the specific nature of the positions and the weight of their responsibilities.

Full- and part-time Governor in Council leadership positions follow a comprehensive selection process that includes the development of selection criteria that outline the qualifications required for the position. They are advertised in the Canada Gazette, on the federal government's appointments website, and on the public institution's own website.

A pool of candidates can also be established through a variety of other means, such as through executive search firms, newspapers, and professional journals. Interested candidates are assessed based on the requirements of the position. Further to the interview of the qualified candidates, reference checks are conducted.

Interested candidates for part-time director positions should forward their curriculum vitae to the office of the Minister of Transport.

For full-time leadership positions, recruitment processes are led by the Privy Council Office, which would be instructive for the member opposite, and interested candidates can apply upon publication of a notice of vacancy in the Canada Gazette and on the Governor in Council appointments website.

The appointment process, I will remind the member, has been significantly strengthened, ensuring that all appointments are competency based. That is a commitment we continue to follow and improve upon.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, VIA needs a responsible government that leads and cares about effective passenger rail and board members who have knowledge, experience, and an informed passion for actually improving, not killing, privatizing, or declining passenger rail.

I fully supported the excellent VIA Rail Canada act tabled earlier this year by the NDP MP for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. It dealt with the necessity of passenger priority over freight and the reduction of the outrageous track-use charges to VIA by CP Rail and CN Rail, and it called for a basic national network alterable only by Parliament, not just by the Prime Minister.

Now it is time to get VIA back on track in a new way. VIA's board needs former Amtrak president David Gunn, a man who has real-world railway experience and the ability to actually save VIA. Therefore, I ask again, will the minister consider appointing Cape Breton resident David Gunn to our VIA board?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member wishes he were back in the NDP. I do not know what to make of that last intervention.

What VIA needs is very simple. It needs the independence to operate as a crown corporation and to take care of its day-to-day operations and affairs. It does not need the House of Commons running its day-to-day affairs, and it certainly does not need the rhetoric of the member opposite. He should put his mouth and his votes where the money actually is with VIA and stand and support the estimates and the budgets we put forward that make sure that VIA is a successful crown corporation.

Public Safety

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I initially asked on April 30.

Tragically, and I do believe it is a tragedy for our country, the subject of my question, the so-called anti-terrorism act, Bill C-51, has now passed the House under time allocation. It was pushed through without adequate study. It has also been passed in the Senate of our country. I do believe the Senate has a role for sober second thought and it should have put forward amendments, and those amendments should have come back to the House for further consideration.

However, as it happens, my opportunity to pursue the question that I had asked on April 30 comes today on June 16, so I will pursue it in the interest of public education and perhaps even the education of members opposite.

There are many critical issues before us in Bill C-51 such as the infringement on our civil liberties, while simultaneously making us less safe, less able to anticipate, interrupt and prevent terrorist attacks. A bill that makes us less safe while destroying our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite an accomplishment, if one takes a dark view of things. However, the question I asked back on April 30 related in a very straightforward fashion to terminology used by the Minister of Public Safety.

There has been an attempt throughout the sales job on Bill C-51 to tell us that it includes the concept of oversight. Moreover, the Minister of Public Safety claimed that it includes judicial oversight. In fact, it includes no such thing.

In the time remaining, I hope to set out what I have learned about judicial oversight, review and warrant provisions from many expert witnesses who testified before the House and the Senate, and drawing on my own background as a practising lawyer.

The reality is that Canada has no parliamentary oversight of security operations. There is no actual oversight of any security operations and less review than any other country within our Five Eyes partners.

The question I asked on April 30 was answered, or at least responded to, by the government House leader who said, “We chose to have judges review these matters rather than politicians”. He claims that there is judicial oversight because there is a requirement for a CSIS agent, under part 4 of the bill, to get a warrant from a Federal Court judge before breaking our domestic laws or violating our charter rights. It is an extraordinary provision.

Legal experts, such as Professor Craig Forcese and Professor Kent Roach, described that provision in part 4 as a “constitutional breach warrant”. It is unheard of in any democracy around the world to be able to go to a Federal Court judge in a private, secret hearing, with no public advocates such as the special advocates that we have in the case of security certificates. No public interest representation is in the room, just the CSIS agents, a Federal Court judge and a demand for a warrant.

What are these various terms?

“Review” is what the Security Intelligence Review Committee does. It is made up of a series of people, part-time, who meet infrequently to review what has already happened. In the case of the Canadian Border Services, it does not have review oversight or oversight. The RCMP has a public complaints commission that allows complaints to be heard, but no actual oversight. CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has no oversight or review.

An expert on security from the U.K., Mr. Fogarty, an MI5 agent, spoke to the Senate and said that when asked by his U.K. colleagues what they would copy in the U.K. from the Canadian security system, he replied that he would urge that they not copy a single thing because Canada's security system was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for allowing me to clarify some important matters regarding Bill C-51 and the changes it would bring to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It is a piece of legislation I would encourage that member and all members to be supporting.

As the members of the House are aware, Bill C-51 would give CSIS a clear new mandate to disrupt threats to the security of Canada at home and abroad. This mandate would include a number of safeguards to ensure that CSIS operations respect the rule of law and the charter.

For example, the bill sets out that all measures taken against threats to the security of Canada be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances, and before CSIS could take any measure that would normally be contrary to Canadian law or that would affect charter rights, CSIS would have to obtain a court warrant.

The warrant process for threat disruption in Bill C-51 is built closely on the existing CSIS warrant system. This system has successfully protected the rights of Canadians since the creation of CSIS in 1984.

The hon. member stated that issuing warrants is not the same as judicial oversight. We respectfully disagree. The hon. member may not be aware of just how much information is put before judges when CSIS applies for a warrant. Judges receive extensive documentation describing the threat to the security of Canada and exactly how CSIS proposes to address that threat. They can then ask questions and place any conditions on CSIS they deem to be in the public interest.

For these reasons, the warrant process is an effective, time-tested form of judicial oversight. It gives impartial legal experts, not politicians, the final decision on sensitive CSIS operations.

I would note that the safeguards set out in Bill C-51 go beyond those placed on many allied intelligence services. Not every country has a stringent system of court warrants for intelligence work.

I would also remind members that all CSIS operations remain subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC. Indeed, the recent budget doubled SIRC's resources, giving it the means to keep on top of the new and existing mandates of CSIS.

Bill C-51 would also create specific new reporting requirements for SIRC that would ensure Parliament is kept apprised of the disruptive activities that may be undertaken by CSIS.

The combination of independent review and judicial oversight in Bill C-51 would make certain that CSIS uses its new mandate in a lawful and responsible manner.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge any hon. member in this place who is genuinely interested in understanding what oversight means to read the hundreds of pages of legal evidence prepared by professors Forcese and Kent Roach, which makes it abundantly clear that, with all due respect to my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport—and of course this is not his file—there is absolutely no connection between granting a warrant and judicial oversight.

It is like saying, “Look here: she is demanding we provide a horse, but we have this perfectly adequate pig over here.” We are talking about different species of activities. There is no connection. There is no overlap. We are talking about apples and oranges, and they are relying on apples.

What we need is oversight. We need to ensure pinnacle oversight. As the former chief justice of our supreme court John Major, who headed the Air India inquiry, said, this bill should not be passed without a security advisor to the Prime Minister. He said we need a national security advisor to be sure that the RCMP tells CSIS what it is doing, that CSIS tells the RCMP what it is doing, and in this whole mess that somebody has oversight, because right now, we have the weakest review and the weakest oversight of any country in the Five Eyes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only disconnect is with the member over there. What is clear is that jihadi terrorists have declared war on Canada, and our government has acted to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

Oversight and independent review are key safeguards that, together, will ensure CSIS takes appropriate action against threats to the security of Canada.

The bill would require CSIS to get a court warrant whenever it needs special authorities to disrupt a threat to the security of Canada. In this way, the courts would provide independent judicial oversight of CSIS operations. In addition, CSIS activities would remain subject to independent review.

With the robust safeguards in the proposed legislation, Canadians can continue to rely on CSIS to protect our national security in a manner consistent with the law and with Canadian values. We take seriously the first priority of a government, and that is to protect its citizens and maintain public security.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 8:18 p.m.)