House of Commons Hansard #55 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was medical.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry, but as I recall there were six minutes remaining in questions and comments on the Minister of Justice's speech before we proceed to resuming debate.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I appreciate the member's pointing that out, and I will certainly go back to the minister and do the questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Justice's speech with great interest. I think she spoke very eloquently, but there was some evident sleight of hand in terms of how she described a number of things.

I was at the committee, and certainly nobody on our side of the House thought the amendment brought forward was sufficient. We supported it. We thought it was a very modest step in the right direction. However, the amendment that she spoke of did not and would not provide positive conscience protection. It does not deal with institutions. It does not deal with issues of referral. It does not deal with the reality that in the province of Ontario, physicians might be called on to provide euthanasia—not just refer for it, but provide it—in an emergency situation under the existing college policy.

The government has the ability, following the precedent set in the Civil Marriage Act, to describe the contours of this exception in the Criminal Code by providing for, within that exception, a requirement for conscience. The government has the ability legally to do it, and that is what at least our members consistently advocated at the committee.

Why is the member saying things that are not quite correct about what happened at the committee, and why does she not provide robust meaningful conscience protection?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and for participating at the committee.

The Civil Marriage Act has been raised a number of times in this House today. I will speak to the Civil Marriage Act in terms of the specific provisions, which referred to specific religious officials and the performance of private functions. We are talking about medical assistance in dying, which is a public general function.

I will say that I embraced the discussions that happened at committee. There were 16 thoughtful amendments proposed. There is nothing in Bill C-14 that would compel a medical practitioner to perform medical assistance in dying. Of the amendments that were made, two of them inject conscience rights into the preamble, and as well within the legislation itself.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, a number of experts such as representatives of the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, as well as people who intervened in the Carter case, are saying that there will be several legal challenges to the minister's Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, that it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that there will be more medical and legal problems, and that many people will not have access to medical assistance in dying services. What are the minister's thoughts on that?

The recommendations made by a number of experts were not accepted. It is very worrisome to see that the Liberal government is hurrying the debate in this manner when there are still many outstanding issues that are not being considered.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Madam Speaker, with respect to our country, Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, is a transformation in terms of our thinking and in terms of the discussion around medical assistance in dying. We have had the opportunity to engage with a diversity of opinions, a diversity of expert opinions and individual Canadians right across this country.

I received in my office thousands of letters and engagements on this particular issue. There is always going to be a diversity of opinions on both sides.

The opportunity and the challenge presented to parliamentarians is to ensure that we put forward the best solution, the best balance, in terms of this really difficult issue. I am confident that Bill C-14 responds to the Carter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and is compliant with the charter.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister to provide her thoughts on the sense of urgency. The Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decision is that there is a void that needs to be filled and the deadline is June 6. There are issues surrounding health care professionals' concerns. I know that there has been a great deal of consultation over the last number of months.

My question for the minister—

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe we are still debating the opposition motion. I think the member is asking about Bill C-14, not about the opposition motion or conscience at all.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

As the member will know, there is some latitude on discussions and questions, and I will ask the parliamentary secretary to ensure that his question is related. I would also ask him to make it very quick so the minister can answer.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the member did not listen to his own question and the previous question. He would definitely find some relevance in it.

Could the minister provide some sense of the types of consultations that have taken place with respect to this issue?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Madam Speaker, there have been extensive consultations with respect to medical assistance in dying. There was a federal panel, an expert provincial and territorial panel, the substantive work that was done by the special joint committee which presented a report and recommendations for consideration, as well as engagement with Canadians and experts right across the country.

We have a deadline that we need to comply with. On this side of the House, we have the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of Canada. We need to put in place a regime by June 6. We are committed to meeting that deadline.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

—Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Conservatives' motion today, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) it is in the public interest to protect the freedom of conscience of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or any other health care professional who objects to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying; (b) everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (c) a regime that would require a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or any other health care professional to make use of effective referral of patients could infringe on the freedom of conscience of those medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists or any other health care professional; and (d) the government should support legislation to protect the freedom of conscience of a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or any other health care professional.

I want to explain why the New Democrats oppose this motion. Throughout the debate on Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, the Conservatives have said they are concerned that health care professionals would feel compelled to provide medical assistance in dying to patients, in violation of their personal or religious convictions.

However, the government has clearly indicated, and rightly so, that the bill would not force anyone to provide this service. Although it is not legally necessary to protect freedom of conscience, all of the parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights drafted and adopted a compromise amendment, which was proposed by the NDP member for Victoria. The amendment states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.

Another amendment proposed by the NDP member for Victoria was also made to the preamble to ensure that nothing in this act will affect the guarantee of freedom of conscience, religion, and expression, as enshrined in the charter.

Any other additional measure regarding these freedoms would infringe on the provinces' jurisdiction over health because the regulations governing referrals are determined by medical regulatory authorities and professional bodies, not by the federal government's authority over criminal law.

During the discussions in committee about medical assistance in dying, the NDP and almost every party agreed that it was necessary to respect health care workers' personal conscience. We are therefore very proud to have introduced amendments that all parties of the House helped to draft in order to emphasize that there is nothing in this bill that would compel an individual to provide this service or that would infringe on the freedom of conscience, religion, or expression guaranteed by the charter.

The Conservative motion that we are currently debating is asking the federal government to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. I cannot support that. Each level of government needs to respect the others' jurisdictions. By adopting this type of motion, we would not be respecting provincial jurisdiction. Standards of care are established by medical regulatory authorities, not the Criminal Code.

There are a number of factors related to medical assistance in dying that are not included in the bill, and there are also some factors that are included but create vague definitions that were not set out in the Supreme Court's decision.

Throughout my speech, I will explain why it is worrisome that the Liberals are trying to push through Bill C-14 any way they can. Let us start with the process we must follow.

Once again today, during routine proceedings after oral question period, the Minister of Justice rose in the House seeking unanimous consent to debate Bill C-14 for 24 hours, right through the night, some time next week, on the pretext that she wanted to let every parliamentarian speak to the bill.

However, we had already proposed debating Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying until midnight next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. That is reasonable. It extends the debate and lets parliamentarians do their jobs. They could continue to debate an extremely complex and very sensitive issue on which there really is no unanimity, consult experts, and obtain input from witnesses who appeared and continue to appear before the committee.

The minister rejected sitting until midnight next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Furthermore, today, on a Friday, a day when not all MPs are necessarily in the House, she is rather aggressively trying to impose another process on the House to force us to sit for 24 hours. Who will watch this debate in the House of Commons at three or five o'clock in the morning? That is completely absurd, and it does not let parliamentarians do a proper job.

The Liberals have already imposed time allocation on Bill C-14, even though they said it was important to take the time to listen to everyone and have a thorough, intelligent debate on the very controversial topic of medical assistance in dying. That completely contradicts what they said when they were in the opposition. Every time the Conservatives invoked closure or tried to cut a debate short or speed it up, the Liberals were the first on their feet in the House to sound the alarm and condemn such undemocratic measures.

Now that the Liberals are in power, they are using the same undemocratic tactics they condemned back then to shut down debate on a very important subject: medical assistance in dying. I cannot believe what I am seeing. They said they wanted to give Canadians change. Now they are forcing us to accept a deeply flawed bill because, they say, they have to get it done by June 6. Experts have criticized the bill because it is not in line with the Carter decision or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This makes no sense.

I want to come back to some of the points that have been raised since the beginning by a number of experts and members of the House, including NDP members. This will open the door to legal challenges because the bill does not comply with the charter and goes against several processes.

I can cite people from the Barreau du Québec. Many experts and stakeholders have shared their concerns. In fact, there is a definition in the wording of Bill C-14 that refers to parts of the bill. That is a problem because the Supreme Court does not use the same language as Bill C-14.

The Supreme Court talks about a person who:

has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

However, the bill talks about “reasonably foreseeable natural death”. That wording does not appear in the Carter decision at all.

Jean-Marc Ménard from the Barreau du Québec said in committee that by adopting a criterion that is more restrictive than what section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows, the bill would go against the charter. He said, “We should be aware that the impact of the law will in future be measured in light of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...”.

Section 7 is broader in scope than what the bill is proposing, which clearly opens the door to legal challenges. What the Barreau du Québec does not want is for people who could have access to medical assistance in dying under the criteria in the Carter decision to no longer have this access because of Bill C-14, introduced by the Liberals.

That happened in Quebec with a slightly more restrictive criterion. For example, people stopped eating so that they would be eligible under the law. That is serious. Some people who feel extremely desperate about their condition, their situation, and their suffering and who do not have access to medical assistance in dying under Bill C-14 may try to end their life in one way or another just so that they can access the service. That is completely ridiculous.

People mainly want to access this service so that they do not have to suffer anymore. They will inflict greater suffering on themselves so that they can have access to this service, which does not make any sense. The minister does not see that. According to the Barreau du Québec, problems such as that may arise. Earlier, the minister answered a question by saying that there is a diversity of opinions and that she does not think that there will be any court challenges. She is in denial. This is coming from the Barreau du Québec.

I would like to quote some other people. According to the Collège des médecins du Québec, Bill C-14 is unworkable. The secretary of the CMQ believes that it would be far less complicated for Quebec doctors to not have a federal law than to have one. He indicated that the legislative measure that the Liberals hope to pass falls somewhere in a grey area between the Supreme Court's decision and Quebec's law.

Another quote gives me goosebumps. Yves Robert, the secretary of the CMQ, said, “Ultimately, the burden does not fall on the shoulders of legislators. It falls on the shoulders of doctors. They are the ones who are going to have to deal with these cases and these requests.”

Many experts have testified and are still testifying before the committee. They are raising worrisome issues and facts. The minister and the members of the committee examining Bill C-14 are ignoring these opinions but are still claiming that they are making informed decisions that reflect the opinions of most experts and the public's recommendations.

I will now talk about the patients. People who pleaded before the Supreme Court, including the Carter family, are saying that because of Bill C-14, Kay Carter and many people like her would not be eligible since their death is not foreseeable because of their illness. That is what Kay Carter's daughter, Lee Carter, said. It is serious.

The people who fought for this, the pioneers of the bill on medical assistance in dying, argued their case before the Supreme Court and won. However, we are taking a step backward. Those people who won their case in the Supreme Court will likely be denied this care by the Liberal government, which is not listening to the advice of experts or ensuring it upholds the Supreme Court ruling.

Another very troubling point is the lack of funding for palliative care.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to invest $3 billion in palliative care, end-of-life care, and home care. However, these investments were nowhere to be found in their budget, nor are they in Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying.

All the Liberal members who have spoken in the House have recognized that we need to work on a long-term strategy to ensure that patients have access to good-quality, long-term palliative care, and to ensure that all those who want to continue living with a decent quality of life are able to do so.

For this to happen, we need more than words. We need investments and a plan. However, we are not seeing any of that. As of today, May 13, 2016, the bill is still in committee. It will soon return at third reading, and the government has yet to propose anything. So far, it has invested zero dollars in palliative care. That is very worrisome. I remind members that our population is aging. More and more people will have serious illnesses and will be experiencing unbearable suffering, and the Liberal government has still not proposed any significant measures to address this.

In 2014, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay moved Motion No. 456, which was about a pan-Canadian palliative and end-of-life care strategy, and that motion was passed. The Liberals voted in favour of the motion to implement such a strategy.

The motion said that the government should work with the provinces and territories to develop a flexible, integrated model of palliative care that takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada as well as Canada's first nation, Inuit, and Métis people and respects the cultural, spiritual, and familial needs of all Canadians.

The model would also have had the goal of ensuring that all Canadians have access to high-quality home-based and hospice palliative and end-of-life care, providing more support for caregivers, improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative and end-of-life care in Canada, and encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.

The Liberals supported this motion. Then how is it that the Liberal government did not announce a specific and real investment in its budget or in committee after discussing medical assistance in dying with the experts? This is actually a very important bill. We have to accommodate as best we can people at the end of life who are suffering. It is completely unacceptable and irresponsible for the government to not have included a plan in the bill.

Nevertheless, we are pleased to have made an amendment to Bill C-14, which will protect the individual's right to freedom of conscience and secure a much greater commitment to palliative care, mental health, dementia, and services to indigenous patients. However, the money must be made available. Writing words on a bill is not enough. Investments are needed in order to implement a palliative care strategy.

Moreover, we must work in a non-partisan manner. The Liberals must open their eyes and realize that their bill is deeply flawed. Their bill could give rise to a thousand and one legal challenges because they are trying to push it through and are not considering the opinions of experts. The experts who returned to committee repeated what they said the first time. It is a waste of time and money.

The NDP is asking the Liberals to refer their bill to the Supreme Court to ensure that it is constitutional and thus prevent countless legal challenges. The Liberals are refusing to do this. What are they afraid of? Whey are they refusing to refer their bill to the Supreme Court if they are so sure that everything is just fine and dandy?

I hope that the Liberals will eventually listen to reason.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her fine speech.

I agree with many of the things the member has said. How ridiculous the antics have been today, trying to do things with this debate when this is such a serious topic of conversation. I agree totally on palliative care. We hear a lot of rhetoric about how the Liberals are going to do it, but there is not a single word in budget 2016. In the bill, they tried to bring it as an amendment, and again it is not there. It is a lot of talk and no action.

The question I have for the member is about the provincial jurisdiction discussion. The medical professionals are under provincial jurisdiction. However, the Province of Ontario has been clear that it is going to force them to participate in this process, and that would definitely be violating their charter rights. The federal government, I believe, has a role there. Would the member agree?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her heartfelt comments about medical assistance in dying.

To answer the first part of her question, we are indeed extremely disappointed. We are more than disappointed. We find it inconceivable that there is no money allocated for medical assistance in dying when the Liberals promised $3 billion during the election. There is also no money allocated for mental health, for example, so there are a number of problems.

As I said in my speech, there are many problems with the constitutionality of this bill, particularly with regard to a number of definitions that affect access for some people. Some people who would have had access to medical assistance in dying before will no longer have access once the bill is passed. That is completely ridiculous. It was irresponsible of the Liberals to introduce this bill.

With regard to the second part of the question on the conscientious objection of some health care workers who, for all sorts of personal or religious reasons, would not want to provide this sort of service and would not want to refer a patient, the bill protects this freedom of conscience and does not require health care workers to refer a patient. That is why I think—

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the member spoke a great deal in terms of the issue of palliative care and tried to give, what I would suggest, is a false impression.

When the member talked about palliative care and the budget, I would advise her and she should at the very least recognize that even within the budget there is acknowledgement of the health care accord and a commitment from this government to move forward in regard to that. When we talk about palliative care, surely to goodness she would recognize that one of the best ways to deliver the type of palliative care that Canadians want to see is to work with our provincial counterparts. They are the administrators of health care, although Ottawa can play a strong leadership role in that.

Would the member, at the very least, acknowledge that there is a role for the provinces to play, and that it is good of the Canadian government and the Minister of Health to be working with her provincial counterparts to try to devolve and evolve a health care accord that would take palliative care into serious consideration and action?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, here is even more rhetoric from the Liberals.

During the election campaign, the Liberals said that they wanted to make changes to health transfers to the provinces, but now they are backtracking and saying that we still need to discuss this issue. They have been saying we need to discuss it for six months now.

We need investments in palliative care right now. They promised a $3-billion investment, but once again, they are backtracking and saying they want to reconsider.

They cannot always backtrack and try to stall by saying that we must work with others. If they were truly working with others, they would listen to the experts, the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, Quebec doctors, and the people who won their case at the Supreme Court of Canada, like the Carter family, which successfully argued its case on medical assistance in dying. If the government worked with others, we would have services that comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That would also mean that we could stop working with terms that are becoming increasingly vague. Doctors do not understand certain terms, and the Liberals are not even able to explain what “reasonably foreseeable death” means. This term excludes a number of people who could receive medical assistance in dying, which violates the charter. There are all kinds of problems.

The Liberals are making big promises, and then they utterly fail to keep them.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been willing to go partway with us on issues of conscience but one of the major areas of disagreement is the question of conscience protection for institutions. I would like to ask the member for her thoughts on that.

From my perspective, institutions are really composites of individuals and protecting the conscience rights of institutions is a way of ensuring the individuals involved, the people who are supporting the organization, those who are involved in whether it be a Catholic hospital or an organization like that, that their conscience rights are protected.

Could the member explain why some members of the NDP at least see this distinction between individual and organizational conscience rights but organizations are composites of individuals and should have those rights' protections themselves?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I think we all agree that it is important to protect professionals' freedom of conscience.

The reason I oppose the Conservatives' motion is that they are eliminating the possibility of referring patients to other professionals. If we adopt the Conservatives' motion, patients will no longer have the right to request medical assistance in dying as they do now thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling.

We have to respect patients' rights and freedoms. Bill C-14 does not force health care professionals to refer patients elsewhere if they conscientiously object.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I talked about the issue of institutions and maybe the member could address that specifically.

Perhaps she could address the issue of referral as well. If a person refers somebody to another provider, that individual is very much complicit in that process, because the individual is endorsing the course of treatment that will be provided. Does the member not understand or appreciate that when somebody refers a person to someone else, that individual is very much involved in endorsing that course of action? That is different from facilitating a transfer of information or medical records. It involves a direct endorsement of that course of treatment. Would the member agree with that?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the member can find an obligation anywhere in Bill C-14 for professionals to refer patients. I cannot.

The whole issue of referral rests with professional associations, so it is under provincial jurisdiction. As federal MPs, we are obligated to respect provincial jurisdiction and every individual's basic right to equal access to medical assistance in dying.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. In follow-up to a number of motions that have bounced back and forth in the House today, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, and on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment but no later than midnight, at which time the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Having heard the motion, does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Opposition Motion—Freedom of ConscienceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.