Debates of Oct. 4th, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that my Conservative colleagues and I support the Paris agreement and approve of the government's choice to adopt the previous government's emission targets as its own. I am glad to see that the government adopted the standards of the previous government, which led to a 1% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over a period of 35% growth in GDP, as my hon. friend from St. Albert—Edmonton has pointed out.

This was also a period when Canada's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions dropped substantially, a legacy of which all Canadians can be proud. We also approve of continued protection of our forests, farms, and wetlands. These are measures that help keep Canada a world leader in carbon sequestration.

However, my colleagues and I cannot support the Liberals' plan to run roughshod over the provinces and impose a job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the cost of living for all Canadians and hurt the most vulnerable members of Canadian society the most. Canada can do several things to minimize our contribution to global climate change while growing the economy. However, first I must ground the discussion in some facts.

Ours is a continent-wide country, which requires vast transportation networks for goods and people. We are blessed with abundant natural resources, which require transportation infrastructure to reach other markets. Most of Canada experiences cold winters, which require affordable heating.

Second, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas associated with climate change. However, carbon dioxide is also essential to all carbon-based life on earth, so it should not be mischaracterized as pollution. We should not hold our breath in hopes of a completely carbon dioxide-free economy.

Since Canada's geography and highly developed economy necessitates significant energy consumption, and since a carbon dioxide-free existence is not possible, the question is: How can we produce and consume energy most efficiently and with the smallest effect on climate change? We can start by acknowledging that the global economy is interconnected. We must look at the entire life cycle of energy that we produce and consume. We must consider that global demand for energy sources will likely continue to increase for the foreseeable future. Countries like China, Japan, India, Malaysia, and others will acquire energy supplies from one source or another, and fossil fuels are fungible commodities. If these countries do not buy Canadian energy products because we fail to build pipelines or because we regulate our resources back into the ground, then they will simply buy from countries with weak or non-existent environmental and human rights standards. Indeed, countries like Iran, Russia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela would benefit the most if we fail to bring energy products to international markets.

If Canada is serious about reducing global emissions, we should build pipelines to get our natural gas to developing countries to meet their current energy needs. We could work with them to develop new sources of energy to meet growing demand for the future. If we do not, other countries may simply build greenhouse gas intensive coal plants for electrical generation instead. If the government is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it should stop talking and get to work repealing barriers to the kinds of innovation that allow a measured transition to a lower carbon economy.

That said, however ideal a future of renewable energy may be, answering the call of extremism for a carbon-free economy immediately would be an economic disaster. Canada's prosperity and high standard of living depend on reliable, abundant, and affordable energy. Increasing the cost of energy would have a drastic effect on businesses and families. That effect is well known to the people of Ontario. Just last week, I read a news article about a couple in L'Orignal, Ontario, whose electricity bill has tripled since 2012. Despite having a well-insulated home, keeping the thermostat at a chilly 15^o C in the winter, and despite only heating select portions of the house to reduce costs, these seniors pay almost as much for power as they do in rent. In a country with such abundant reserves of energy as Canada, it is outrageous that an ill-considered government policy should drive seniors into energy poverty. In a developed country, we must not let a warm home, access to refrigeration, the ability to cook, and to see after dark become luxuries that only the wealthy can afford.

The current government likes to speak about how much it is helping seniors, yet now it is talking about introducing a carbon tax that will raise the cost of living. It seems hypocritical to boast of improving the lot of seniors with more income while implementing policies which drive up costs. Expenses are just as important as revenue and personal finance, government finance, and especially the finances of people on fixed incomes.

Albertans are also struggling and do not want a carbon tax. When asked by The Local Parliament Project during the 2015 election, over 60% of those with an opinion opposed such a tax. I do not need a poll to know that my constituents oppose job-killing taxes like a carbon tax. When I speak to the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge, they described the hardships caused by massive losses in the energy industry. They describe their fear that Alberta's carbon tax threatens years of decline and contraction in our energy sector. They also wonder why Canadian energy companies in Canada are investing in Texas when more than 100,000 Albertan energy workers are unemployed.

My constituents know the answer, which is that the government is scaring investors away from Canada though mixed messages and confusing rhetoric about the so-called green economy. The government is threatening to cripple Canada's energy sector through national carbon taxes. It is running roughshod over the provinces with its style of heavy-handed executive federalism, despite constant rhetoric about consultations and consensus. A good and responsible government must take the effects of its statements and policy plans on Canadian families into account. Fellow Canadians working in the energy sector and its spin-off industries need work today, work tomorrow, and they will continue to need work during any transition period.

In addition, I reject the government's assertion that an economically ruinous carbon tax is a so-called market solution to industrial emissions. There is nothing free market about adding a tax to everything. A market system is when supply and demand set optimal prices naturally. Taxes on carbon dioxide inject dead-weight loss and distortion into the market, destroying value, and making everything more expensive. Likewise, cap-and-trade schemes are not free market based, since they create a new commodity out of thick air and force people to buy it starting at mandated prices.

One can call the trade of carbon credits a market, yet it is merely an exchange of legal fictions to avoid legal fines. Drastically increasing the price of energy could plunge Canadians into the type of poverty the developed world has not seen in decades.

Just as innovation led humans from burning forests to burning coal for heat, from burning whale oil to burning kerosene for light, from using high-emission horses to high-efficiency cars for transportation, real free market solutions to environmental challenges mean government getting out of the way of inventors and allowing them to create the cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable technologies we need. When alternatives to fossil fuels become more efficient and affordable than fossil fuels are, the market will move us to a post-fossil fuel economy.

If the government is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it should focus less on selfies with the global glitterati and burn less jet fuel travelling to exciting locations where three bureaucrats can claim over $12,000 in meal expenses. Instead, it should encourage Canadian entrepreneurs and inventors to create made-in-Canada solutions by cutting red tape and taxes. It should respect the jurisdiction of provinces while avoiding some of the mistakes that have been made at the provincial level of pursuing green dreams while ignoring economic reality. It should create the conditions to bring the price of clean energy solutions down, not plunge Canadians into energy poverty by driving existing energy prices up. These measures may not be glamorous, they may not present many photo opportunities and grandstands, they may not earn approval from movie stars, but these are the solutions that Canadians need.

Canadians deserve a made-in-Canada approach to the concerns of climate change. We need measurable, reasonable, and attainable targets for emissions reduction that take Canada's unique strengths and challenges into account. We need real co-operation between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Therefore, unless this motion is amended to prevent encroachment on provincial and territorial jurisdictions, unless it rules out increasing the tax burden on Canadians, and unless it addresses the thousands of unemployed energy workers in my riding while restoring confidence for job-creating investments, I cannot support it.

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about taxation, not only in the member's speech but in one of the other speeches also. To keep it short and give others an opportunity, I have a quick question. I would like to know if the member opposite could explain to this House what the term “revenue neutral” means with respect to taxation.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that Canadians know all too well what revenue neutral means when spoken from a government like that. They do not believe it, and history is on their side.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments by my colleague from Alberta.

You might want to take a look at the actual class of fossil fuel, and in particular coal-fired power compared to renewables, if you finally factor in the health costs. We can take a look at what the Canadian Medical Association has told us about health and health impacts.

The question I have for the member is this. You talked about your great concern about retiring in dignity and how the carbon tax is going to make it more difficult for seniors to have an affordable life.

Where was your party, when it was in government, when we called for increases in the OAS, GIS, and pensions for seniors?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the question to the Chair, so it could be where was ”the member” as opposed to “you”.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were several components to the member's question.

I will start with the beginning about the health concerns and issues expressed over pollutants created from fossil fuel-generated power.

We believe in the evolution toward cleaner technology. This has been under way for decades. We do not see the same types and levels of pollution from power generation in cities. We are getting cleaner. During the time that the Conservative government was in power, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy.

I am proud of the track record of the previous government and believe that we are on the track and can continue.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know that being from Alberta, the member is already seeing much injury happening because of the regressive policies that have been introduced by the Notley government.

I want the member to talk a little more about how this job-killing carbon tax is going to impact the oil patch in Alberta, how it is going to increase the costs for our agricultural producers, but, more importantly, how it will impact on transportation, when we see diesel fuel increased by 14 cents a litre and gasoline by 11 cents a litre because of the Liberal carbon tax.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the impact is going to be on everyone.

It is going to be on the seniors who will be unable to afford to heat their homes. It is going to be on public transit users, which will see a rise in the cost of those services. We have already seen that in Alberta. In fact, we have already seen that in my city. The imposition of a provincial carbon tax has substantially increased the cost for local public transit operators. This is just the beginning.

The federal government wishes to add an additional carbon tax and increase the overall tax on carbon that has already been under way in Alberta. As far as the energy industry itself, the impacts of the provincial government there are already devastating, as we have seen investment dollars fleeing the province.

It is not just about commodity prices. We are seeing investment dollars going from Alberta to other energy-producing areas. It is a jurisdictional problem, as much as it is one of commodity prices.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Guelph.

The actions we have taken over the last year have demonstrated this government's commitment to protecting our natural environment and fighting climate change.

We are taking action to create the right conditions for Canada's economy to grow in a sustainable manner, and for Canadians to prosper. This is why in our first budget the government made a bold statement by investing $3.4 billion over five years to secure a cleaner, more sustainable environment by addressing climate change and air pollution, protecting ecologically sensitive areas, and restoring public trust in the environmental assessment process.

Our unprecedented investment in infrastructure will also generate significant environmental benefits. The first phase of the government's infrastructure plan includes $5 billion for investment in water, wastewater, and green infrastructure projects across Canada.

While the pan-Canadian framework is being developed, we have already announced support for provinces and territories to advance projects that will reduce emissions. Starting in 2017-18, provinces and territories will have access to a $2 billion low carbon economy fund.

We are taking targeted action to reduce emissions from Canada's largest sources, transportation and energy. We are providing $56.9 million over two years to support the transition to a cleaner transportation sector.

We have provided $139.5 million to deliver energy efficiency policies and programs, maintain clean energy policy capacity, and implement renewable energy projects in off-grid indigenous and northern communities that rely on diesel and other fossil fuels to generate heat and power.

Coupled with our mitigation actions, we are supporting efforts to adapt to the impacts of climate change by implementing programming focused on building the science base to inform decision-making, protecting the health and well-being of Canadians, building resilience in the north and indigenous communities, and enhancing competitiveness in key economic sectors.

Through an investment of $1 billion over four years for clean technology in the resource sector, we will leverage technology and innovation to seize the opportunity for Canada to contribute global solutions and to become a leader in the global clean growth economy. Additional funding also supports bringing innovative clean technologies to market.

The government has also committed $345.3 million over five years to work with the provinces and territories on setting stronger air quality standards, monitoring emissions, and providing incentives for investments that lead to cleaner air and healthier communities.

We recognize that climate change and air pollution are international issues that require international cooperation to find solutions. We committed $61.3 million, over five years, to develop and implement the North American climate, clean energy, and environment partnership and to continue international environmental engagement to advance Canada's climate change and air pollution objectives.

Last November our government also committed to contribute an historic $2.65 billion over the next five years to help developing countries tackle climate change.

Our environment is part of what makes Canada so special and we will make sure Canadians can continue to enjoy our natural wonders for generations to come.

The Government has been playing a central role in the conservation of our natural scenery and its biodiversity, and is working to further develop Canada's national parks system. More Canadians should be able to experience our extraordinary parks and learn more about our environment and heritage, which is why we have made clear investments in our national parks' trails and highways and are making all visitor admissions to our national parks free in 2017 to commemorate Canada's 150th anniversary. We are investing $16.6 million over five years to expand the learn to camp program, develop new programming to tell Canada's stories, and to encourage indigenous storytelling and eco-tourism opportunities.

Our lakes and other waterways are a major part of Canada's identity and vital to our economy. Our government committed $225.7 million to improve evidence-based decision-making through increased funding for ocean and freshwater science and to manage and protect the quality of water in Canada's lakes, oceans, and transboundary waters. Similarly, Canada's marine and coastal areas need protecting, which is why we have committed $81.3 million over five years to support marine conservation activities.

Climate change is one of the main challenges of our times. Partnership and meaningful consultation is, and will continue to be, a driving force behind our actions on climate change. We have asked all Canadians to think big and come up with inspiring solutions under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The message we heard is clear: Canadians want to be part of the solution, have ideas and smart solutions, and want to know how they can help.

The Government of Canada is using these ideas and taking concrete steps to address the causes and effects of climate change, protecting our nation's ecosystems, and doing its part to ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for all of us.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I heard little in the way of solutions and proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It seems to me that we may be repeating what happened with Kyoto. In other words, the government is committing to reach ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the opposite is what actually happens. Greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, and there will be no strategy or concrete plan to reach the targets.

Can my colleague, or any government member, tell me more about the specific, concrete plan that will enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, without again resorting to empty rhetoric, which does not achieve anything and ultimately does nothing to help us meet our commitments under the Paris agreement?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government understands that growing our economy and protecting our environment go hand in hand. That is why our government has decided to spend money on green infrastructure to grow our economy and create jobs as well.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many of us are concerned that the signing of the Kyoto accord in 1997 was a bit of a deathbed conversion. The full impact of our lack of action to reduce emissions following that was revealed in 2005, when the United Nations identified Canada as the country that had done the worst. In fact, our emissions had increased, not reduced as the Kyoto protocol required.

Although we support ratification of the Paris agreement, we are concerned that this is a bit of déjà vu.

Would the member explain exactly what his government is going to do, not the mantra about environment and economy, but exactly what actions it will take to really reduce emissions in a way that we can measure? I ask because we need this so badly in our country.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken concrete steps to address the cause and the effects of climate change, protecting our mission and ecosystem by doing our part to ensure sustainability for the future of Canadians.

For that, our government has decided to spend on, and get in front of, green infrastructure and to take actions to create more jobs in innovative ways to reduce climate change and create a better system in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister made a very strong statement that very much responds to what Canadians want, namely strong leadership from Ottawa on the issue of the environment. A carbon tax on pollution and the way in which it is being brought forward are positives if we want to see progressive movement on the environment file.

Would the member not agree?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the actual system we are looking to address climate change would result in change for the whole country. This new plan that we are giving here was already decided at the provincial level, and our leader has now taken the lead to proceed for them and to bring it to Canadians and tell them that this is the way we have to proceed in the future to deal with climate change.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my full support of the Paris agreement and the promise this agreement holds for Canada's future. Climate change is truly unlike any other challenge the House or, indeed, humanity itself has ever faced as this struggle is not with a particular nation or ideology, but with an ever-increasing need of human society.

We cannot allow ourselves to forget the means by which we got to this point. By draining marshlands, clearing rain forests, and burning fossil fuels, we released millions of tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Will we assume our responsibility as stewards to this fragile planet or will we simply sit back and continue to watch our shared planet slide further into the environmental abyss?

Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to address this global challenge and the part that Canada plays in its resolution. On behalf of the people of Guelph, I am here to say that inaction is not an option at all. As a community, Guelph has mobilized in defence of the well-being of the environment and the planet. Guelphites have come together to do our part in curbing the effects of climate change, from our remarkable University of Guelph, which trains half of Canada's environmental engineers every year, to the city of Guelph's community energy initiative, and the residents and businesses that combine to conserve energy and water.

In Guelph, businesses, government, and education always look for ways to collaborate and innovate. The challenge for Guelph has been to reduce its per capita energy and water consumption by 50% between the years 2006 and 2021. Due to Ontario's places to grow legislation, Guelph has been mandated to grow by 50% in the same time period, accepting 55,000 more people and creating 31,000 more jobs.

Guelph's challenge reflects the global challenge. We have limited resources on which to draw from in this period of growth. Guelph draws its water from an underground cistern, being one of the only communities in Ontario that does not have access to lake or river water for its supply. We are also limited by access to power through the power grid and the transformer capacity feeding Guelph. Our community energy initiative is on target to reach its targets.

Over 50% of Guelph's small businesses have adopted lighting retrofits and Guelph generates more than 10% of Ontario's solar power. We are diverting almost 70% of our waste from landfill. Through efficiencies in its waste water management plant, we have increased its capacity by over 50%. Solid waste from its waste water facility is now available for fertilizer and further opportunities are being investigated for biogas applications. Our closed landfill has been generating power from methane for over a decade and now is one of North America's only urban pollinator parks.

Through the royal flush program, Guelph homes have retrofitted their toilets to low-flush models. Similar programs have been instituted for front-loading washing machines and rounding up high energy consumption refrigerators. However, Guelphites are not finished. We are, in fact, restless and we will continue to lead the way and push to reduce their community's carbon footprint.

In fact, last Friday, I attended a groundbreaking ceremony of Gatto Homes. Gatto Homes will be the new net zero ready townhouse development that, upon completion, will have net zero town homes developed in Guelph. Innovative and green developments like what Gatto Homes is doing are precisely the kinds of projects we need if we to seriously tackle the issues of climate change and win. This first-in-Ontario net zero townhouse development will provide homes that use under one-tenth of normal energy for heating and include continuous fresh air intake to provide the ultimate in comfort and healthy living.

Similarly, Fusion Homes in Guelph recently was awarded for its new net zero design of homes greater than 2,500 square feet.

Battling climate change does not need to come at a sacrifice to comfort or cost. Economics is tied with the environment, saving life-cycle costs and, at the same time, reducing our environmental footprint.

As the Prime Minister informed the House on Monday, there are three simple and straightforward reasons to implement a carbon pricing policy.

Carbon pricing gives reasonable and predictable pricing that will drive innovation and encourage businesses to be more competitive and increase efficiency. Giving incentives opens the door to new projects. Clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand, as I have just said. Reducing our carbon footprint is a benefit that Canadians, especially the middle class, will enjoy. Using pricing on pollution to drive market innovation and to create new and exciting jobs will be something that our communities could look forward to under this new pricing regime.

One-third of $1 trillion was invested last year alone in green technology globally. Pricing pollution is a proven way to stop major emitters from increasing air pollution and the pollution of waters across the globe. In fact, nine out of ten people live in areas where air quality is poor. Every year, three million people die from causes due to air pollution.

For proof that carbon pricing works, one does not need to leave the province of Ontario. Toronto experienced 53 smog days in 2005. Last year, it was zero. Numbers do not lie. Carbon pricing works.

On a local level, Guelph is taking action. It is our duty as members of Parliament to ensure communities from coast to coast to coast have the funds and guidance to carry out this crucial work. A lot of attention has been paid to putting a price on pollution and coordinating this effort with provinces and territories.

Implementing a price on pollution will drive Canadian residents and businesses to implement creative solutions such as those we are working on in Guelph. Commercial opportunities will also emerge as businesses in the green technology space work on ways to further reduce our carbon footprint. In Europe, where energy costs are more accurately reflected in the cost of pollution, communities have implemented district energy programs, installed combined heat and power solutions, and implemented alternate energy programs.

I recently visited the city of Bottrop, Germany, with a population of 86,000 people. Bottrop has labelled itself “Innovation City” for the work it is doing on energy and water management. Germany has a word for the programs that Canada would be embarking on: energiewende. By learning from innovative international partners like Germany, Canada can accomplish the targets set in the Paris agreement.

Guelph spends $500 million a year on energy. We have twice the per capita energy costs that Germany has with half the per capita consumption. Therefore, the economic opportunity on cost savings alone represents $250 million for our community alone. Imagine what freeing up that money could do for our community and our country.

We are at the threshold of another great industrial revolution and Guelphites are only too happy to seize this crucial moment to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint and grow Guelph at the same time. The Paris agreement would open the door for Canada to take a leadership role in the fight against climate change. Therefore, I look forward to voting in favour of this important agreement.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member stated that inaction was not an option. He went on to talk about what was happening in his riding of Guelph, and he also referenced other countries. However, he failed to mention what concrete action his government was actually taking on reducing climate change and addressing targets.

Committing to the Paris accord is absolutely commendable. As a responsible nation, that is something we must do. However, the government has also signed-off in my province of British Columbia two LNG energy projects, a massive Site C dam project in the Peace River valley. We are hearing rumours that the government is going to sign-off as well on the Kinder Morgan project, which is a huge pipeline project. These projects are going to increase greenhouse gases.

These are huge projects and they have been approved under the old Harper Conservative rules. The Liberals made promises that they would make changes to the new rules and go through changing these rules, the Fisheries Act—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time for questions and comments is limited to five minutes. We try to get at least a second question in, so we will have to leave it there for the hon. member.

We will go to the hon. member for Guelph.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can hear there is passion in the House around this issue. We wish we had all day to talk back and forth on it, and maybe we can do some of that in the parking lot as we go forward from here.

The action that our government is taking is setting a price on pollution, starting with $10 per tonne and escalating by $10 per year to get to $50 per tonne, which is something unprecedented in Canada. We are putting a price in place, and then working with the provinces and territories to ensure they have programs that will either meet these goals or else offer cap and trade that will offer similar progress.

The LNG projects and other projects in Canada will have to meet strict environmental standards and strict social licence standards. We are looking at 190 conditions that need to be met for those projects to move forward. Again, it is unprecedented in Canada.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Guelph for his passionate speech and for the various measures being implemented in his riding to protect the environment.

Our government is convinced that climate change is a challenge, but that it also presents opportunities. We can build an economy that will foster clean growth and help fight climate change, while creating well-paying jobs for Canadians and the middle class.

Does my hon. colleague not agree with this last statement?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the economy is hinging on the new technology we are bringing forward. In Guelph, we have been attracting businesses, such as Canadian Solar, which is Canada's largest solar panel manufacturer, to our community based on our commitment to climate change reductions.

Put another way, if we are not enforcing climate change reductions, when the cost goes up, we really will notice the difference. Therefore, it is important that we embrace the climate change reductions personally and by businesses to avoid future costs.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among the parties and if you seek it you should find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, in relation to the debate on Government Business No. 8 regarding the ratification of the Paris Agreement, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, October 5, 2016, the Speaker shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?