House of Commons Hansard #44 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is important to remember that three million people are benefiting from the wage subsidy. As we go forward, businesses need that flexibility to keep people on the payroll and open, if possible, while considering public health. We do not know how this pandemic will evolve. This gives businesses the flexibility to keep people on the payroll and help us start our economy strongly once the health crisis is immediately removed.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for detailing what our government has been doing and will continue to do regarding COVID-19. One of the very important things we all have to keep is mind is that this is a work in progress. As things continue to evolve and change regarding COVID-19, we must adapt as well as a government. There are no automatic solutions.

How will yesterday's Bill C-20 further help Canadians and what we will do in the future?

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Madam Chair, this is exactly why we have flexibility built into Bill C-20. The 30% drop in revenue requirement has been removed so businesses can have that kind of flexibility to rebuild.

In my riding specifically, companies are already opening because of that. They will have the flexibility to continue to get supports gradually as—

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I believe the right hon. Prime Minister is rising on a point of order.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC

Madam Chair, earlier today the leader of the official opposition asked me about an unsolicited proposal regarding social entrepreneurship sent by the WE organization to officials on April 9. As I said, to the best of my knowledge the proposal was not sent to my office by WE.

To ensure absolute clarity, let me add that through regular policy processes, the proposal was passed on to my office a couple of weeks later. As you know, Madam Speaker, that proposal was ultimately rejected.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Chair, I want to take the opportunity to speak to the importance of something that has been lacking in the government's response to COVID, and that is transparency and accountability, which we just saw in the House of Commons a few seconds ago.

I will also be addressing how critical it is that Parliament be sitting to oversee the response to this pandemic. We have seen this week that we can, on all sides of the chamber, agree to sit for the first time in years, maybe even in history, in the summer and that we can have a great discussion on the disability bill, Bill C-20, that we talked about in this place on Monday and Tuesday.

Parliament granted special spending powers to the government so that it could provide emergency support to Canadian workers and many businesses in a fashion that was quick and responsive. I remember the day in the chamber, Friday, March 13, when we rose. We did not know when we would be back and then all of a sudden, three days later, the Prime Minister told everyone to go home. That was Monday, March 16.

Opposition parties have worked with the government to come to an agreement that is crucially important, particularly considering how difficult it was at the time to hold regular, proper sittings in the House of Commons. What Parliament did not consent to was a process to avoid transparency and accountability at every turn. The government has done everything it can to avoid some of the questions from opposition members.

Jobs were lost in the millions in this country. Businesses were shutting down, the economy was shrinking at an unprecedented rate, which we had never seen since the Second World War, and the projected deficit has ballooned to nearly $350 billion.

Why did it take the government until this month, July, nearly four months, to give us any information at all on the state of the economy and its budget? If we follow the pattern of behaviour of the government, it is easy to know that it was avoiding Parliament and its functions as an institution of accountability. I remember the day the finance minister stood and told everyone we had a deficit of $343 billion. It was unheard of. People were phoning my office in Saskatoon—Grasswood. They were stunned. That number was jolting. We now have a debt of over $1 trillion in this country. That is unaffordable for the 37 million Canadians who live in it.

I am not saying the significant levels of spending were not necessary. I do not think anyone in this chamber would say that. However, there is no good reason that the government could not be providing significantly more detail to Parliament about where the money is being allocated and what the money is for. In fact, I would argue that is the bare minimum expected of the Liberal government.

What is greatly concerning to me is that we have seen what happens when the Prime Minister thinks he has free rein to spend money wherever and however he wants, and he gives it to his friends. We have seen that with the WE scandal. We just talked about it in the House. It is exactly the reason that the government needs to be making itself available in the House of Commons proper.

When the Prime Minister thought he could allocate funding wherever he wished, he awarded a sole-sourced contract worth over $900 million to an organization with no real experience at all in managing that kind of massive program. Why was that? We do not know. The Prime Minister has been dodging or ignoring some of the questions from the opposition for over a week now.

Let us review what we do know about this. First, the Prime Minister's wife is actively involved in WE. Second, the Prime Minister's mother and brother have received a combined total of close to $300,000 in speaking fees from the organization. I have asked twice in the House, Monday and Tuesday, about the Prime Minister's mother receiving fees on July 2, 2017, for an event that was funded by the Government of Canada through the heritage department, $1.18 million to the WE organization.

Third, the finance minister has two immediate family members involved in WE.

We learned in the past hour that the finance minister wrote a cheque for $41,000 for illegal travel benefits from the WE organization following two family trips he took in 2017. He repaid the money today, just as he was set to testify at the finance committee. He took the trip in 2017, and today, months later in July 2020, he finally fessed up and wrote that cheque for $41,000. I think Canadians want a new finance minister. That is what Canadians are talking about today, when $41,000 later, he confessed to the WE Charity.

Fourth, neither the Prime Minister nor the finance minister recused themselves from the cabinet discussion about granting WE the $912-million contract. Fifth and last, it is a sole-sourced contract without any competitive process whatsoever.

It is said that if it looks like and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, and we saw that today from the finance minister at the finance committee here in the House of Commons. On top of that, the Prime Minister and the cabinet have had a long history of this kind of behaviour. Since the current government came to power in October 2015, it has been scandal after scandal after scandal. This is not the first time the Prime Minister, the finance minister or other members of the cabinet have been under investigation for violations of the Conflict of Interest Act.

The 2017 investigation found that the Prime Minister took a vacation to a millionaire's island with a registered lobbyist and found that he violated four provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act. That finding made him the first Prime Minister in the history of this country, in over 150 years, to have been found to violate the Conflict of Interest Act. He was the first ever in 150-plus years.

There was also the scandal in 2017 surrounding the finance minister's private company that owns a villa in France, which he somehow forgot about. Two years later he did not report that to the Ethics Commissioner. Of course, there was also the clam scam scandal involving the President of the Privy Council, and there are many, many more.

Then of course, who could forget about SNC Lavalin? That was the big scandal in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister improperly pressured the former attorney general into advancing the interests of a private company rather than the public interests. That scandal led to numerous resignations across the government. Some very good cabinet people left the Liberal government and were forced to sit on this side with opposition members.

By my count, there are five different cases where the Prime Minister or a member of his cabinet was found guilty of breaking at least one clause in our ethics law. We found out today we have another one with the finance minister admitting that the WE Charity did take $41,000 in benefits, writing that cheque out today.

The former ethics commissioner Mary Dawson told CBC last week that she thinks it would be difficult for her successor not to find that the Prime Minister contravened section 21. She said that the Prime Minister has a blind spot when it comes to ethics. I would add that the finance minister does as well.

How can Parliament, let alone Canadians from coast to coast, continue to trust that the Prime Minister will be acting in the country's best interests and handling the unprecedented powers given to him? What does the government do when this issue is raised at committee? We saw that the Prime Minister ignores calls to appear and Liberal MPs filibuster at committee so they can cover up their leader's tracks.

These are some of the questions that Parliament needs answers for. Unfortunately, we only had two days here on Monday and Tuesday to open Parliament. We had a lot of questions. Some of the answers came this afternoon at the finance committee with that stunning revelation by the finance minister of Canada.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Madam Chair, in the scandal we are examining today, with all the testimony and the latest $41,000 the Minister of Finance accepted in 2017 from this organization, does the member think that those in the capacity of the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister of Canada would look to see what would happen if they had family ties to, and were getting paid money from, an organization that is benefiting from the government and taxpayers, from public funds, basically? Does he think there would be simple due diligence? Would someone who is professional like some of the ministers and the Prime Minister not think, at least for a moment, to watch the public funds and make sure that proper due diligence is done so that we do not get into this problem we see today? I would like the hon. colleague to comment on this.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Chair, this is an embarrassing moment for the government. A member of the Privy Council has come forward in committee months after the fact, doing so today because the finance committee got him today. He revealed that in 2017 he took two trips to Ecuador and that he has family ties to WE Charity. If he had not been invited to the finance committee today, would he have paid the $41,000? I would say no. It is embarrassing for the government. I would say the finance minister should resign.

I remember a time when the Liberals went after Bev Oda over a $17 orange juice that she purchased. This is $41,000, and it was not recovered until this afternoon at the finance committee, when the finance minister finally got the chequebook out and noticed that he was wrong, that it is an ethics violation and that he had better cough up the $41,000.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Chair, I will go one step further than my hon. colleague.

The finance minister is a minister of the Crown. He is not allowed to accept sponsored travel. He accepted this trip from WE, this $41,000 trip, which he just happened to pay the day he was showing up to the finance committee. That alone should be worthy of a resignation from a minister of the Crown. It is mind-boggling to all of us that not only did he not know that, but his staff did not know that. It is sponsored travel. No minister is allowed to do that.

I suggest that this is perhaps, in some form, influence pedalling at a minimum, considering not only his trip, but also the fact that his daughter worked at WE and the organization got $912 million as a result of this complex web. This gross connection that we are now finding out about is unbelievable. I am just wondering whether the member agrees with me on that.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Chair, it is interesting that the finance minister was caught a few years ago for not showing the French villa in his declaration. That is one strike, but this $41,000 is a major strike. This was the breaking ball that came across the plate, as months later he admits $41,000 was never accounted for from the WE Charity when he took that trip to Ecuador, money given for accommodation, food and other things to do with WE Charity. Then we find out that not only the finance minister but the Prime Minister, his wife, his mother and his brother have ties to the WE Charity, which are just as close as the finance minister's ties. Yes, this one certainly reeks.

I think the finance minister should step down today and give Canadians a clean bill of health. This was a $912-million boondoggle that nearly happened. It was caught, and more will come out next week when the WE Charity owners come to committee. Hopefully they tell the truth.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Chair, I know my colleague once worked in television. I am sure he is aware there is a show called CBC Kids News, where there has been talk about the dynamics of the Prime Minister's mistakes. We now have the finance minister making mistakes, and they have both expressed they are sorry. Children are given an opportunity to respond, and I find it interesting that my children would not be given this option. They are saying he is sorry, so we need to give him some slack because he said he was sorry and that this was a mistake.

I would like the member to comment on whether or not that level of forgiveness should be given in these circumstances where we are dealing with the Prime Minister of our country and a significant minister, second to him really, on his right hand, supposedly next to our new Deputy Prime Minister.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Chair, yes, as a former journalist for years, this is front-page news. Other than in the Toronto Star, it has been front-page news. I would like to thank Brian Lilley here in the House of Commons for doing an excellent job. He has been the best journalist on this. He has looked at the 300 block of Queen Street, which WE has bought every six months. Building after building, and $43 million later, it now has an empire on Queen Street.

This is why democracy in the House of Commons is so important, because this story now has legs in the news media. It did when we came here on Monday, but following the $41,000 cheque from the second top person in the Liberal government, this should be the front-page story on CBC, CTV and Global for many hours and days to come.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Madam Chair, I want to ask my colleague about the current situation in Parliament and the fact that some media and reporters have done a great job of shedding light on this. I would like to also add Vivian Krause to that mix, and some of the statements she made with respect to WE. I just saw on social media that WE had somehow been involved in getting party lists and information for the Liberal Party before the last election. Those kinds of things do not come to light unless we have people investigating them.

Bringing it back to where we are in the House of Commons, the fact is we have only had so many sitting days. Even this version, for those out there watching, is not a real Parliament; rather, it is called a committee of the whole. This is a committee meeting. It is not a real Parliament. We do not have the normal number of people in the House to really bring these issues to light.

One more thing, before I ask the question, is this. I was the former chair of the ethics committee, and we wanted to have the Ethics Commissioner come and read his Trudeau II Report. We had it all lined up and ready to go, but the Liberals on the committee actually shut it down. This week the member for Winnipeg North said it had already been addressed in a previous Parliament, but it was not addressed because the Liberals buried it there as well.

My question for the hon. member is this. Does he think this kind of setting is conducive to really holding the government to account? That is our job. We are paid very well to do that and we are not really being allowed to do that. I saw one of the members in his RV. Good for him, as he is on holidays, but that is not the way it should be. Parliament has sat through world wars in the past. We have seen many democracies around the world function regardless of the crisis. Does he think the current situation is the way it should be?

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for all his efforts on the ethics committee in the last Parliament.

Ethics is the most important focus for a member of Parliament who sits in the House. If we do not have an ethics base, we do not deserve to be members of Parliament in this country. Other than the committee of the whole that we have here today, the only other two committees of the whole will be on August 12 and 26. We have the biggest Liberal government scandal in years, and we are not going to come back here for three more weeks. As we saw today, there are problems with this virtual setting. Certain ministers cannot hear, and people who are speaking are not heard properly, so we need to get back here each and every day to hammer this out.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

July 22nd, 2020 / 4:10 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Chair, I have been reminded again and again of the kindness and creativity of people across this country these past four months, especially in our own civil service.

That historic weekend in mid-March when the pandemic took hold in Canada began a domino effect of businesses closing to the public, employees losing work and people flocking to government relief programs, fearing whether or not they would be able to pay their rent.

The huge number of applications submitted that have been processed by Service Canada and Canada Revenue Agency staff is incredible. More than six million applications were submitted by mid-April, just two weeks after Canadians started submitting their applications again.

More unsung heroes of this pandemic are the people employed at Global Affairs Canada and the CBSA, who began an incredible effort of repatriating Canadians from across the globe. During the first weeks of the pandemic, these civil servants moved mountains to schedule flights, to confirm travel eligibility, to work with consulates and foreign governments to get Canadian citizens and permanent residents back on Canadian soil. Their efforts were incredible. The minister responsible played a significant leadership role in guiding these efforts, and I wish to thank him as well.

Who can overlook the incredible work of the people involved in Canada's public health infrastructure? Dr. Tam and all of the other provincial health officers' daily updates and leadership and the support of the entire Public Health Agency and the public health departments across each province and territory, which pooled data, tracked cases and implemented protocols, have saved countless lives.

All of these efforts are to be commended, but the staff that dedicated their time to these emergency measures had to step away from their regular workloads, and ongoing cases at IRCC, Service Canada, CRA, Veterans Affairs, etc., have been stuck and languishing for months. What do people do when their federal systems are shutting down? They come to their MPs.

My team and I have been handling an incredible number of these case files and the people whose lives are on hold while their files stagnate in a backlog. Even as our government slowly works to address these files that are piling up on desks across departments, the traditional supporting documentation that people need to track down is not always available, and they cannot possibly complete the requests being made of them. We need these systems to empower workers to find alternative pathways for Canadians. This system collapse is having second- and third-order impacts on individuals and families across the country.

Let me tell members about a few of my constituents.

There is a gentleman in my riding who has been working in Canada for several years now and is applying for his permanent residency. He has submitted all of his documentation, but has been asked to submit one last piece of information: an FBI security check. It is not possible for him to get this document right now, as the FBI is not conducting these checks at this time. Relying on other countries to provide documentation is highly complex, given how hard it is to get documentation within our government. Will he need to leave Canada because we insisted on a document he could not get? How long will we leave this man and his loved ones in limbo? We need flexibility in the immigration system, and case workers who are empowered to identify alternative paths to residency and citizenship, or we risk losing our neighbours who have come to call Canada their home.

In another case, there is a couple in my riding who rely on their GIS cheques each month like so many other Canadians. They both submitted paper versions of their taxes at the same time in February. One of them had their taxes reviewed. One of them had their tax file lost. As a result, they have been denied their GIS payment until they can resubmit their taxes. They are being told that it must be done via e-file, but they have not been able to make that happen. We need flexibility within the CRA and employees in that department to be empowered to work with people and, in this case, to either track down the paper file or to work with this couple to facilitate the refiling of their taxes so they can receive their GIS payments.

In yet another case, there is a mother in my riding who lost her child tax benefit just before the pandemic shut down offices in March, because the father of her children claimed that he had custody when he did not. The CRA has placed the burden of proof on her shoulders to regain the benefit, which she needs to raise these children. One of the supporting documents required was a letter from a health care provider substantiating her claims. For months, doctors, dentists and other health professionals have not been providing these services. Getting these supporting documents has been incredibly difficult.

We need to implement flexible systems that enable federal employees to work more closely with people in these uncertain times.

I know that many of my colleagues in the House worked day and night in the first months of the pandemic to get support to constituents in crisis, and continue to do so. That workload has now shifted to support constituents in their backlogged cases. While my constituent assistants and I are continuing to advocate on behalf of the individual cases that come through my door, we need to fix this at a macro level.

I want to raise this today to articulate a question to my colleagues in government. What comes next? Can we initiate a major hiring push, just as Veterans Affairs Canada announced last month to handle its backlog?

So many Canadians remain underemployed and unemployed. This seems the perfect opportunity to get more hands on deck to start working across government departments.

Can we empower case workers with more flexibility and tools at their disposal to massage case files through the system, recognizing that the standard burden of documentation is not realistic now, and may not be for months to come?

I am but one opposition member of the House, and a rookie member, at that. I do not pretend to have all of the solutions, but I know that the solutions are out there, and I believe they lie in our civil service. The brilliant and compassionate minds that have worked tirelessly through March and April to get support into the hands of Canadians need to be equipped and empowered to put their brilliance to work to address these issues.

Communities across the country are changing. The government must adapt its services and embrace new technology.

There is so much about this virus that we cannot control, but we can control how we respond to it.

I wish to end on a positive note, a “thank you” to our civil service and a pledge to do all I can with my colleagues in the House to ensure that they have the tools and the respect they need to help Canadians in this time and in the future ahead.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, who always speaks with empathy, sympathy and much humbleness. I always enjoy listening to her speeches; they are very heartfelt. I thank her for her words regarding our civil servants: the CBSA, and Service Canada and Global Affairs for repatriating so many Canadians, which they continue to work hard on doing. The number of calls they have received in these last months has been overwhelming. I thank them as well.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the programs that we have put forward, such as the CERB and the CEWS? Does she agree that without them Canadians would have been in very dire circumstances, that these programs are evolving and that they are a work in progress? Does she agree that without these Canadians would have been lost?

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:15 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Chair, I am very supportive of the government's response to COVID-19. I mentioned yesterday just how proud I am to be a member of Parliament and to be a Canadian, at that, because we have fared quite well on the global stage, as far as COVID-19 goes.

The programs are not perfect, but we worked together to make them as applicable as we could to most Canadians. I do feel, however, that I must voice my support for a guaranteed livable income. That was something that, at the onset, would have supported so many more Canadians without the existing strict eligibility criteria. They would have had the support they needed to get through these months and the months ahead.

We are talking a bit about the healing and the recovery and what comes next, and I really hope the government is very open-minded with regard to the concept of a universal basic income or a guaranteed livable income, because I really feel that is the next step that we need to continue supporting Canadians with, as we have done throughout this COVID-19 crisis.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Chair, to build on that conversation further, I know, certainly from our side of the House and I think that we share this with the hon. member for Fredericton, that this cannot just be the end. The government continues to go on and on about how great all of these programs are, and I agree that they have provided help in a critical, unprecedented time, but for the most part they have also shown all the holes in our existing system.

Now is the time that we get to build something better. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona had talked about that, and certainly the hon. member across the way has talked about the creation of bigger and better social programs. I, myself, have worked a lot in the House recently on the idea of a universal system of child care, but maybe she can expand on other programs that we could continue to work on, such as an expansion of our EI system or things like that.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for her work in the House. We certainly align on just about everything, so I am glad to be here with her in the 43rd Parliament.

I am very supportive, as well, of a universal child care system. I have two children of my own; many of my friends, families and Canadians know how important child care is to these next steps in our recovery in building back better for Canada, so we certainly need to put a lot of emphasis on that. We know how women have been disproportionately impacted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Certainly, I have felt some of those pressures as a woman, especially as a newly elected MP and what that brings into play, but I also recognize my privilege, so I cannot imagine those in a less privileged position having to deal with these last few months and then what is to come with all of the uncertainty.

There certainly need to be some changes. You mentioned some changes to the EI system; I really believe, again, that putting that patchwork of supports into a guaranteed basic income for all Canadians would really be the best step forward. It would alleviate a lot of the administrative costs and the stresses that we have experienced as parliamentarians in the rollout of these programs. That would be the direction that I would put my energy and my vote behind.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for Fredericton for her advocacy for her constituents in New Brunswick and for Canadians across the country. She has spoken about the economic and administrative benefits of the guaranteed basic income and a more direct universal payment.

Could the member speak to the difference that this kind of approach would make for her constituents?

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Victoria for joining us virtually. That is a testament to how we have been doing our work here in Parliament.

In my speech, I gave a couple of examples of people struggling during this time. I think specifically about those who are waiting for their GIS cheques to come in. I think about those living on a limited income. I think about mothers who are struggling to find work or who want the option to stay with their children before they go on to their school-age classrooms.

For me, it would help countless individuals such as entrepreneurs, people wanting to take risks in their lives, artists and anyone in the gig economy. Specifically, I am thinking of many people in Atlantic Canada. I think about those with disabilities and those struggling with mental health issues. I feel this is the net we need to cast out into Canada, because it eliminates those holes we have been seeing glaringly throughout this COVID-19 crisis.

Government Business No. 9Government Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I see there are no more questions or comments. I would like to take a few moments to thank our interpreters.

They are doing a great job.

The interpreters co-ordinate the hybrid and floor models. I thank them very much.

It being 4:24 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired and the motion is deemed withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, August 12, at noon.

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)