Debates of March 20th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this important issue and debate the opposition motion. I would like to clarify a few things.

It is clear that the outcome of the last federal election is not in question, and that there is no evidence that any individual races were decided solely on the basis of these allegations.

However, because of these allegations of interference in our democratic processes, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that all proper protocols are in place. I cannot imagine that there is a single member of Parliament who does not take the issue of foreign interference in our democratic process seriously.

This is an important issue, but let me say this. The debates I heard today were not at all about the issue of interference and the best way forward for us as Canadian parliamentarians, but rather about partisan bickering.

Whether it is China, Russia, any other foreign actor state or otherwise that is seeking to influence outcomes in our democratic process, we should be alert and live to that reality. It is important to note that this issue is not new. In fact, it has been said quite credibly throughout the debates that this is something that had been raised over a decade ago by then CSIS head Richard Fadden, who was reporting at the time to then prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government.

In fact, it has been noted that the now Leader of the Opposition was minister of democratic institutions at the time when some of these first allegations were brought forward. I want that not to be a partisan point but for Canadians to understand that this question is not just something that has arisen overnight. This is something that has been contemplated for, as I mentioned, over a decade now. It is also not a question that is just solely pertaining to Canada.

We heard the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills today talking about the United Kingdom and where MI5 alerted representatives in the House of Commons about a Chinese agent who was infiltrating in that manner. We know that in Australia and the United States, there are democracies around the world, where the People's Republic of China and its Communist regime is seeking to try to influence and obscure democratic processes.

The point is that this has been in the bailiwick for quite some time, and it is not just Canada alone that is dealing with these important questions.

I also want to point out that many of the comments made today, especially by the official opposition, treat unsubstantiated allegations as the gospel truth. I completely agree that now is the time to take as long as we need to strengthen our protocols and put in place measures to protect our institutions.

However, it is not the time to shoot from the hip, and I have heard that, without the proper information. Some of the insinuations that are being made today, frankly, in my view, are without basis. They actually add to the reality of driving discontent and sowing division in our society.

It is our job, all of us, indeed, to be asking these important questions, certainly the official opposition, other parties and other parliamentarians, including those on this side of the House, about what mechanisms we could have in place to protect our institutions. However, to make the insinuation that somehow this is a cover-up, that members of Parliament might be implicated, involved or somehow not loyal to their country that they swore an oath to, is problematic.

We need to bring down that level of rhetoric and stay focused on the facts and stay focused on the best process. We may disagree with that process, indeed I have heard it here today, but let us stay focused on that question before just driving partisan wedges in this debate.

To that point, there have been suggestions today in the House that somehow the government has not been transparent and that there have been no mechanisms to deal with this issue, which, as I just mentioned, has been fermenting in Canada for over a decade, starting with the former Conservative government. I would argue, respectfully, that this government has put more mechanisms in place to tackle what we knew to be true when Richard Fadden was raising these questions over a decade ago.

The fact that we are having a conversation today and that there are proper mechanisms allowing members of Parliament to be briefed is a good thing. It shows there is a strength in our democratic institutions, one of which is NSICOP. Secret security clearance has been given to members of Parliament to get the highest-level briefings there, meaning information sharing among all of the parties. There is the critical election incident public protocol, where senior civil servants, non-partisan civil servants, help preside and make sure that information is shared. That is another mechanism. We also have the security and intelligence threats to elections task force. This is where the RCMP, CSIS and other security agencies bring in information to provide intelligence about whether or not there are threats to our democratic process.

There is a recent focus on this topic and the fact that it is a pertinent question not just for China, I would argue, but for other countries. What is missing in part from the text of the Conservative motion today is that this is not just about China. There is a larger playing field here that I think we are missing, and that raises questions about what else can be done.

I thought the member for Yukon did a very good job in his remarks of talking about the concept of intelligence versus the evidence to prosecute. There can be intelligence sharing and information gathering that suggest a certain outcome, but there is a certain threshold that one must meet in order to prosecute that evidence.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills gave the example of the United Kingdom. MI5 would have worked with parliamentarians in that government, and they felt it was absolutely necessary to notify the Speaker of the House. That same member, today in the House, insinuated that indeed CSIS was at that nexus with this government. What I did not have a chance to ask him about in a supplementary question was how he is alleging that to be the case. What information does he have to suggest that this is what is happening? We have a protocol in place where this information can be shared, similar to what is happening in the United Kingdom.

I certainly appreciate that we have heard allegations and heard reports that I think are important for driving the conversation about what more we can do as parliamentarians. I have read the Globe and Mail op-ed myself, with the individual in question who has “whistle-blown” or shared information and the rationale for doing so. However, as mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North, the head of the security task force to the Prime Minister appeared before committee. We have had ministers. We have had other civil servants. It is not clear to me that the view reflected in The Globe and Mail necessarily reflects the entire view of the agencies we are talking about here today. It is a leap to suggest that one individual somehow represents the entire view of the security apparatus in this country. We need to be very careful about making that jump on the basis of information. Is the information about the allegation serious? Absolutely. Should we be continuing to do work? Yes. That is exactly why we have appointed a special rapporteur.

We had two weeks back in our ridings, and I was very disappointed to see the way the Conservatives attacked the integrity of a really genuine Canadian who has served in public service. They could have said they would prefer a public inquiry and that they trust the judgment of Mr. Johnston but are concerned that some of his relationships could create a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, no, it was a character assassination. There is no polish to the way the Conservative Party goes about this.

This was a Governor General appointed under Stephen Harper. This is an individual who has served in multiple different roles for different parties that have been in government. I trust this individual. Whether it is a public inquiry or another mechanism, this individual has such a high level of integrity that we as parliamentarians can trust it. Instead, the opposition wants to burn it down.

I look forward to taking questions on this. This is a serious matter, and I will stand ready for those questions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his impeccable French on this International Day of La Francophonie. However, that is as far as I will go with my thanks and congratulations, because I have some thoughts I want to share with him.

He is quite right in saying that we need to do our best to put partisanship aside when it comes to matters of integrity and ethics, and especially when it comes to our electoral system and the confidence we must have in it.

The facts speak for themselves. When the first rumours began to circulate about the Beijing regime's possible interference in the federal election, the Prime Minister always said that there was never any interference. When The Globe and Mail ran a first-page story saying that there had been interference, he asked how that information had been leaked to the media. That is a classic example of shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message.

Finally, after changing his mind three times, the Prime Minister decided to appoint a special rapporteur, which confirmed that there had indeed been unacceptable foreign interference. It makes no difference whether there was foreign interference affecting just one vote or an entire government.

Can the member acknowledge that his leader failed to lead by example and assume the responsibilities and authority of the office he holds, which is to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for the question and his mini speech.

I will answer with facts. Today's debate and the process under way in the two House committees are very important for finding answers. We need to investigate and find answers so we can restore public confidence in our institutions. When the government receives the report from the special rapporteur, it will act on the recommendations.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his excellent French on this International Day of La Francophonie. That is definitely something that needs to be highlighted.

He began his remarks by saying that his words would be extremely clear. I am going to ask him the question that I asked his colleague. I felt that my question was very clear, but I did not receive a clear answer.

Is the vote a vote of confidence, yes or no?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from the opposition for his question.

I am flattered that my hon. colleague thinks that I am in a position to decide with the government and the government House leader which votes are confidence votes. I do not know what the outcome of the vote will be tomorrow, but I am against the motion for a number of reasons, as I explained in my speech. I am very—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I must give others the opportunity to participate. Normally, the time given for the answer corresponds to the time it took to ask the question.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on behalf of the good folks of Elmwood—Transcona to ask a question of my colleague.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate all the positive response for Elmwood—Transcona in the chamber here today.

I want to say, first of all, that I agree with the member that the kind of partisan circus that has developed around this issue on Parliament Hill has not been helpful for getting to the bottom of the issue that Canadians are rightfully concerned about and deserve answers to. The best way to do that is through a public inquiry. There is no question about it.

That is why the NDP was actually the first party to call for a public inquiry. It is why we continue to call for a public inquiry. If his concern is the political temperature in this place and that this is not the appropriate forum to get to the bottom of these things, why is it the case that he and his government have not already called a public inquiry, and when are they going to do it?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I can answer the question to my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona.

I support the idea of going through processes and perhaps including a public inquiry, but let us work our way up to that process. We have two committees that are studying this issue right now. The government has appointed a special rapporteur who is going to look into this and perhaps even provide terms of reference for what could be a public inquiry moving forward. There are already mechanisms at play. Let us let that work itself out. If we need to have a public inquiry moving forward, we can do so, but let us let the existing processes work themselves through.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I appreciate the enthusiasm from members opposite to hear from me on this important opposition day motion. The motion is to have the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at a parliamentary committee on what she knew and when she knew it with respect to the foreign interference efforts by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing on our elections, specifically in 2019 and 2021.

We have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to investigate matters like this in our committees. The procedure and House affairs committee had undertaken a study specifically on this issue. The ethics committee also initiated a set of hearings on foreign interference. That process was under way before we heard all the explosive details that we are now privy to.

At the procedure and House affairs committee, the government is engaged in a full-blown filibuster cover-up. It has been going on for nearly 24 hours, and anyone who has watched it has been subjected to anything but dealing with the substantive matter. Canadians have reached out to me. I have heard from them, and they are looking for answers.

We know the Prime Minister's chief of staff was named by members of our intelligence community as having received the information with respect to foreign interference attempts. However, that is a departure from what we have heard from the Prime Minister as to what he knew and what individuals in his office knew. Therefore, it is important that we hear from this key witness.

Filibustering, obstructing and engaging in cover-ups are parts of a pattern for the Liberal government. We have seen it time and time again, notably with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. At that time, The Globe and Mail made allegations with respect to the Prime Minister's attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. Interestingly, the Prime Minister said the allegations were false. It was later confirmed by an officer of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, that the Prime Minister had, in fact, been found guilty of breaking the Act for his interference in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This was confirmed in the Trudeau II Report.

We saw the same obstruction with the investigation into the WE Charity debacle, where the government tried to give $912 million, nearly a billion dollars, to friends of the Prime Minister. It did this instead of actually delivering on services and supports to Canadians at a time when they needed it most. This is the Liberals' pattern, and so we are not surprised to see that first they deny, then they deflect and then they try to cover it up. We are witnessing the cover-up as it unfolds.

On the matter of why Mrs. Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, will not come to committee, the Liberals have said she cannot come because we have ministerial accountability. Therefore, that staff member should not come, and it should be the minister who comes. However, the minister is the Prime Minister. In the 24-hour filibuster that we have endured, we have not heard an amendment proposing that the Prime Minister come to committee. What we know is that the chief of staff has come to committee twice before. This was on the WE Charity scandal and the hearings on the sexual misconduct in the military at the defence committee.

We know the chief of staff can come to committee, and Canadians can judge for themselves the quality of the appearances by Ms. Telford. She is a professional, and she is able to handle herself well at committee. We would imagine the same would happen again.

What is different this time? What information is the Prime Minister's chief of staff unable to share with Canadians that would be so damaging to the government that it is pulling out all the stops, up to and including potentially declaring an opposition day motion a matter of confidence in the government so that it can strong-arm the fourth party in the House into supporting it? That is the big question that we are faced with.

We know that the Liberal government is going to obstruct and to continue its cover-up. What we do not know is what the Liberals' coalition partners in the NDP are prepared to do. Are they going to provide that transparency for Canadians on a matter that speaks to the fundamental, foundational principles of our democracy, that it is Canadians at the ballot box who decide the makeup of Canada's Parliament? Or are we about to witness a cover-up of state actors, in this case the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, putting their thumb on the scale to try to elect preferred candidates to engineer an outcome? In this case, there were reports that they were looking for the return of a minority Liberal government.

Frankly, that a diplomat from another country would make that claim on Canadian soil should precipitate a response from the government, and that response should be to expel the diplomat, to kick them out. When someone is bragging about interfering in our democracy, we do not need to substantiate the claim first. They do not get to pass “go” and collect $200. They are declared persona non grata, PNG, and off they go, back to the dictatorship in Beijing.

We have not seen that kind of action in the face of incredibly concerning reports in The Globe and Mail and in Global News, with intelligence sources who have laid out for us what we need to be looking at. The response from the government is that now it says it is taking it seriously. However, the Liberals' actions do not demonstrate that they have been serious about it up to this point.

The Prime Minister is hedging his bets. He has named an individual who has the ability, we are told, to advise the Prime Minister on whether he should or could have a public inquiry. However, the Prime Minister describes the individual he chose as his adviser as a close personal and family friend and as a member of the Beijing-funded Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which returned a contribution of $200,000, that we know about, back to the dictatorship in Beijing.

Are they telling me that with 38 million people in this country, the Prime Minister could not find someone whom he does not call a close personal friend and who does not sit on his family's foundation? Canadians deserve to have transparency and they need to have confidence in the process that is set up. An open, transparent public inquiry is what opposition parties are looking for, and having the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is named in these intelligence reports, testify at committee is essential.

We know the government is going to vote against the motion, and I know I am going to get a question from the fourth party. In that question, I hope to hear from them that they are planning to vote in favour of having Ms. Telford testify at committee and vote to end this Liberal cover-up.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, we have heard Conservative members talk about and try to defame the reputation of David Johnston.

Fred DeLorey, the former campaign manager for the Conservatives, was on a panel recently. I found it interesting. He said that, back when they appointed David Johnston as Governor General and to various different positions, he was accused of being too close to Conservatives. Now I am hearing Conservatives say he is too close to Liberals.

I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not he thinks that David Johnston, despite his connections to anybody, has the ability to properly execute the role he has been put in charge of, regardless of the fact that he happened to live on a street that somebody grew up on, that Stephen Harper happened to appoint him as governor general, or that Stephen Harper happened to appoint him as head of an inquiry back in the day.

Does the member think that David Johnston has the ability to be impartial and to do that job to the best of his ability?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the problem is that Canadians are going to question the appointee because the Prime Minister has said that this individual is a close friend of his. The problem is that the appointee sits on a foundation that has the same name as the Prime Minister.

It is the appearance of the conflict of interest that is going to cause Canadians to doubt the integrity of that process. It taints everything downstream from it.

That is why an independent, transparent public inquiry is important, and that is why we need to hear from Katie Telford at committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Liberals believe, we do not wish to call into question Mr. Johnston's competence. It is more about trying to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and to demonstrate that, as elected members, we take this issue seriously and we are trying to restore the trust of people who have questions about China's interference. It is a serious matter.

As my colleague just explained, to demonstrate that this is a serious matter, the partisanship must stop. This is an urgent matter, and the time for committee meetings has passed, since they would unfortunately be drawn out and filibustered by the Liberals. That is what they did at the Standing Committee on National Defence to try to avoid an investigation into assault in the armed forces. That is what I am concerned about.

To expedite the process, perhaps we do not need a committee that is going to draw things out. Instead, we should immediately establish—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We need to give the hon. member time to answer the question.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, acting with a sense of urgency is very important. I agree wholeheartedly.

That is why the call for an immediate, transparent public inquiry was made. That is also why the issue was to have already had Ms. Telford testify a week ago, not to continue a filibuster over the course of four weeks and not to then have this supply day used to address this issue as well. It already could have occurred, but the government is intent on covering up what it believes is too damning for Canadians to hear.

We should move quickly with it, and all parties in the House, including backbenchers on the government side, should support having the Prime Minister's chief of staff testify at committee.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure the facts are correct.

It is important that Canadians understand this. It was New Democrats who tabled the motion in committee to ensure there was a public, independent inquiry. Conservatives, after much delay, finally agreed, but they agreed only with the exception of removing foreign interference like that of Russia, like that of rich oligarchs, like Putin and his cronies. The Conservatives protected them. They are protecting them now because they would not address the reality that foreign interference is by many state actors.

Would the member comment on foreign interference of other countries, and whether he thinks that is important?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, foreign interference by any country in our democratic institutions is absolutely unacceptable. When we have credible reports about it, as we have seen in this case in The Globe and Mail and in Global News about the communist dictatorship in Beijing, it should call for swift action. We have case-in-point evidence in this case, and that is why we are calling for this motion to be passed and for the Prime Minister's chief of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has the floor.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a time when a future prime minister said, “It's hard not to feel disappointed in your government when every day there is a new scandal.”

When the Prime Minister took power, he proclaimed, “Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve – you.”

From the floor of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said, “I believe in sunny ways.... I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Openness and transparency is what Canadians expect. That is what we will always stand for.”

After eight years, what a fall from grace there has been.

Here we are on the floor of the House of Commons with the final speech of the night. However, instead of keeping to the words the current Prime Minister said, there have been 24 hours of filibuster in committee, including 12 hours last Tuesday, where Liberal members, instead of calling the question and doing any sort of study in public, read from books, clapped at each other and joked about the type of coffee they were sipping. They drew the clock out for 12 hours straight, instead of studying something Canadians want answers to.

It is important to remember here tonight why we are having this debate. It is not because the Prime Minister and the Liberal government were forthcoming with Canadians. It is because a brave whistle-blower came forward to expose bombshell revelations about the magnitude and extent of the interference attempts by the Communist Party of China. The worst part is not the magnitude and extent of all that interference on Beijing's part, but the bombshell revelations that it was the Prime Minister and those at the PMO who covered up the truth.

When they found out about it, they did nothing because it was helping their political interests. When it came to that topic, they swept it under the rug. We owe that whistle-blower a great deal of gratitude as we have the floor asking for more information and testimony from the government. That is why we need to have Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, appear at committee.

We get a lot of fake outrage from the other side, from the Liberals, because they say this is unprecedented and having chiefs of staff should not be allowed. However, chiefs of staff from both Conservative and Liberal governments have testified at committee before, especially when scandals brewed out of their offices. Katie Telford has already spoken twice at committee. She testified on the WE scandal and she testified on the sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and what the PMO knew, what it did and, more importantly, what it did not do to resolve that problem. So the question Canadians are asking now is this: Why is it suddenly a problem so she cannot testify?

With every passing hour of the filibuster, and with the opposition we have seen from the government in the House here today, the truth must be really bad to hear, which is what we can conclude. If Katie Telford had done everything great, if there were no problem and the PMO acted with full integrity, she should have no problem going to committee to defend her actions. However, the third time we want her to come forward, but now on this national scandal, about what she knew, what the PMO knew, what the Prime Minister knew, as well as when, how, and what they did, suddenly every roadblock goes up.

Nobody believes that the Prime Minister was not aware of the magnitude and extent of the election interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections. The solutions government members proposed today are to go back behind closed doors with no public inquiry, have a close family friend give advice behind closed doors on what we should or should not do, which he may do or not do. They want to continue to have a secret committee behind closed doors with reports that go directly to the Prime Minister instead of that sunlight we desperately need to see.

The Liberals and the PMO have lost the right to take this issue behind closed doors again. When they received the reports from our intelligence agencies about the magnitude and the extent, and because they knew it might hurt them, they avoided it, they swept it under the rug and they did nothing. They covered it up.

Tonight, as we wrap up the debate, it is equally important to talk about the issue and the need for support for this motion. We also need to rightfully call out the NDP for its lack of backbone in standing up and in supporting this resolution. The state of the NDP today is very sad to watch. Its members are unable to simply stand up for what is right. They propped up the Liberals originally, and then when the bombshells kept coming from the whistle-blower in the media, they said they supported it.

The NDP whip said, “Sadly, what we have seen in this country is a continuous leak from CSIS that tells us that there's something serious that we need to be concerned with. And after that many leaks, I am persuaded that we now have to take a step that I am not necessarily...comfortable with, because it is imperative”. That was just a couple of weeks ago.

As the Liberals filibuster and hold up a vote and as we come to the floor and force a vote on this tomorrow, all of a sudden the NPD is wavering again.

I want to make a comment to the three million Canadians who voted for the NDP in the last election. No one voted for the NDP to allow this to happen, to cover up time and time again on multiple Liberal scandals. There is outrage and frustration from the millions who placed their faith in the NDP, and for it to suddenly start covering up and defending the Liberals time and time again is shameful.

The NDP can file amendments and do different things. A week ago, its members supported having Katie Telford at committee. They supported hearing this at committee, and all of a sudden they are wavering. Do not fall for their games. We can have a public inquiry. We can study other forms of election interference. The reason this—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask members to allow the hon. member speaking to finish his speech.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, one would think I might be bothered by the heckling of the NDP members. They know they are in trouble. They are confirming what I just said, which is that Canadians believe their cover-up of the Liberals is continuing, and it is absolutely unacceptable.

We need this motion to pass, because the Liberals, PMO officials and the Prime Minister's chief of staff need to be at committee answering questions on what they knew, when they knew it and when they hid it. The question tomorrow is whether the NDP is going to stand up for Canadians or prop up the Liberals again and cover up more of the now Liberal-NDP scandals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division, please.