44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 9, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, oath of office, which was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I want to thank the hon. member for the work he has put into this piece of legislation. Like any experienced lawyer, he has left no stone unturned. He has anticipated every argument and every detail.
It is a simple enough change that would have no impact outside of Parliament Hill, but it has the potential to revitalize the institution itself, arguably helping Parliament evolve and usher in a new era. This bill would see future parliamentarians have the choice to swear allegiance to the monarch, as is presently the case, or take an oath of office swearing to act in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution before taking their seat in Parliament. Some may choose to both swear allegiance and take the oath of office. This is the important principle on which the bill rests, and that is the principle of choice.
It is my belief that all parliamentarians, both in the House and in the other place, and yes, including Conservatives, work day in and day out for the betterment of this great nation. Whether it be in our respective ridings, in committee or in this chamber, we strive to act in the best interest of Canadians. We might not always agree on what that looks like, but we have a shared goal of supporting Canadians now and setting the stage for a positive future.
The oath of office proposed in Bill C-347 would remind us of this shared goal and would set the stage from the get-go that we are here for Canada. This would not in any way diminish the role of the monarchy in our Constitution, but it would allow for future members to celebrate their purpose in Parliament and remember that they are accountable to Canadians in everything they do. Having sworn the oath of allegiance on four instances now, I know that an oath of office, in addition to or instead of the oath of allegiance, would serve as a powerful motivator for new parliamentarians as they take their seats.
Then there is the matter of inclusivity. The oath of allegiance itself emerged in the 16th century due to political and religious conflicts in Great Britain. The Act of Supremacy established the Crown as the head of the Protestant Church and members of Parliament had to swear allegiance to the sovereign in their capacities as both the head of state and the head of the church. The goal at that time was to exclude based on religious belief as Roman Catholics and Jewish people would not recognize the Crown as supreme in all matters and thus would not have access to public office.
In Canada, we have shaped things since then in a uniquely Canadian way, with the oath not only reflecting allegiance to not only the Crown but also the institutions it represents in our country. The aim here is to ensure that members remember that they are acting in the best interests of Canada and to impress upon them the serious responsibilities they are assuming. These same goals can be achieved by an oath of office.
In an increasingly diverse Parliament, we must reflect on the necessity of asking first nations, Métis and Inuit members to swear allegiance to a system of monarchy that has long disadvantaged them. Understanding that the Government of Canada has long affirmed that its most important relationship is the one with indigenous peoples, we must work toward reconciliation and allow indigenous self-governance to exist on Parliament Hill as it does elsewhere across the country. This also rings true for other potential members who, for historical or ethnic reasons, might hesitate to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This hesitancy does not make anyone less Canadian, nor does it make them less suited for public office. In fact, some of these perspectives are essential and may serve as lessons to us as we debate legislation, undertake studies and make important decisions that affect Canadians. We must find ways to allow members to take their seats without compromising their identities.
I know that talk of amending the Constitution is justifiably met with skepticism, but this is where the simplicity of the bill makes it effective. It proposes that the Constitution Act, 1867, be amended to give every federal parliamentarian the option to take and subscribe the oath of office contained in the act instead of, or in addition to, the oath of allegiance. If the bill had included provincial legislative bodies in the proposed amendment, we would indeed have to go through the general procedure, as outlined in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, the amendment specifically refers to the House of Commons or Senate, thereby having no impact on provincial or territorial affairs.
By limiting the scope of the bill to Parliament, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is triggered, which reads:
Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
Hence, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over decisions that impact only its affairs. Thus, by a simple act of Parliament, we can modernize both chambers without going through the general procedure for amending the Constitution. This amendment does not in any way change the Constitution's architecture or spirit, nor does it jeopardize the democratic institutions of Canada. In fact, it improves them.
This is also not the first time in history that our democracy has been modernized in Parliament. As was stated earlier in debate, from 1905 onward, members have been able to make a solemn affirmation of allegiance instead of an oath, acknowledging the religious diversity of our country. Let us reflect on that for a minute. In 1905, we made it optional to make any reference to God in our oath. Here we are in 2024, debating whether we should make it mandatory to include the monarch in the oath.
This 1905 development is in line with the living tree doctrine in Canadian law that the Constitution must be read in a progressive manner, allowing it to adapt to changing times. It must reflect the realities of Canadian society and evolve with it. This, once again, is a simple, meaningful change.
I thank the member for introducing the bill, which brings a modern, inclusive and uniquely Canadian perspective to our institutions, and I will be proud to stand with him in support of it.
1130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:23:22 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has five minutes for his right of reply.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank all those who spoke to my bill.
The purpose of Bill C‑347 is to amend the constitutional requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch following the election of a federal member or the appointment of a senator. As we know, this requirement appears in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
My bill proposes to make this oath of allegiance to the monarch optional while allowing, for the first time in the history of our country, an oath of office by which we swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution.
A person can choose to swear both oaths. What could be more inclusive? The current option of a single oath of allegiance to the British monarch no longer really reflects the modern Canada of today.
In this regard, I would like to reassure my colleagues and Canadians who are listening that my bill is neither monarchist, anti-monarchist nor republican. This bill is inclusive and 100% Canadian.
As I said, and as my colleague from Prince Edward Island noted, the constitutional amendment I am proposing affects only members who are elected to this Parliament or members who are appointed to our Senate, period.
Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allows us to make the constitutional amendments I am proposing. It states that “Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons”. These words are legally robust, significant and unambiguous.
In its 2014 reference on Senate reform, the Supreme Court supports my claims. We are all lawmakers here, so I invite all my colleagues to read this decision and get to know it.
My bill in no way affects the roles and functions of the cornerstones of our country's constitutional architecture, such as our two levels of government with their own areas of jurisdiction and our Parliament, which is made up of an elected House and a Senate. Any changes to this constitutional architecture would have required the unanimous consent of the provinces, Parliament and the Senate.
Similarly, my bill in no way affects the interests of Canada's provinces or their areas of jurisdiction. If that had been the case, the government would have had to open up the Constitution, as some like to say, and ask seven out of 10 provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, for their consent.
To the contrary, Bill C-347 is much simpler. It is specifically designed to limit the effect of its constitutional amendment to Parliament Hill. It has no ambition to interfere with the constitutional architecture of our country or even the interests of the provinces.
At the risk of repeating myself, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make the constitutional amendment that I am suggesting in my bill.
There is no doubt in my mind that this Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to amend our Constitution to make this bill a modern, inclusive and one hundred per cent Canadian law.
I therefore invite my colleagues to support my all-Canadian, all-inclusive bill, Bill C‑347. May never again one of our own, for historical, ethnic or religious reasons, have to feel less than fully Canadian before sitting in the seat he or she has earned in this quintessential place of democracy called the Parliament of Canada.
575 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:28:01 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:28:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:28:42 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the government in December about the carbon tax and Bill C-234. Notably, the question I asked got over 13 and a half million views on Instagram; clearly, many Canadians are very interested in the issue. It also might have had something to do with the hearty laughter from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was sitting behind me at the time.
The issue is with Bill C-234, which we continue to champion today in this House. Conservatives are fighting for farmers to be exempt from the carbon tax.
We believe in axing the tax completely. However, in this Parliament, in order to make some incremental progress, we have put forward a bill that has gained the support of a majority of the House of Commons, seeking to exempt farmers from the carbon tax.
This bill was on the verge of passing in the Senate when the government started to lean into their supposedly independent senators, making personal phone calls to try to pressure them to change their vote. The bill is now back in the House of Commons, and Conservatives are pushing to pass it in its original form, to exempt our hard-working farmers from the carbon tax.
Applying the carbon tax to farmers does not make any sense even if one believes in the carbon tax in general. The carbon tax is designed to be a Pigovian tax, that is, a tax on something that is believed to generate a negative externality in order to try to discourage that behaviour. That is the theory behind the carbon tax.
It seeks to make gasoline and airplane travel more expensive in the hopes that people will drive less, fly less, etc. That is the theory of the government's carbon tax. However, on what basis is it applied to our farmers?
Does the government hope that people will farm less if it makes farming more expensive? Does it think that farmers should do the essential work of farming less in response to the Pigovian tax that they are applying? It does not make any sense.
Farming is not an activity we want to discourage. Farming is an activity we should be encouraging. We should be making it easier for people to go into farming, to work in farming, to continue with this critical livelihood, feeding people across the country wherever they live.
Why is the government applying a punitive tax on farmers? What possible rational policy objective could taxing farmers in this way have? It just does not make any sense.
To be clear, Conservatives oppose the carbon tax in general. We will axe the tax after the carbon tax election. At a minimum, the Liberals should understand that, even in theory, the carbon tax makes no sense. Even on its own justification, the tax makes no sense when applied to farmers. That is why Conservatives have championed and will continue to champion the passage of Bill C-234, to push the government to pass the bill in its original form.
We have also called on the government to meet with the premiers; along with the Canadian public, they overwhelmingly oppose the carbon tax. Liberals are afraid to gather and meet with the premiers to have a carbon tax conference. I am sure that, if they did, they would clearly hear a call from the premiers to axe the carbon tax on farmers and on all Canadians.
585 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:33:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to be back in adjournment debate with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
The member spoke about pressure on senators. I think it is relevant to the debate to talk about what pressure on senators actually made the news, with respect to the failed former Conservative leader from Regina—Qu'Appelle's bullying tactics towards some non-Conservative senators, which actually resulted in their feeling extremely unsafe. People were showing up at their private residence. That kind of bully politics is unbecoming of any member. It should not be part of how we come to decisions, how we debate in the House and how we put forward good ideas.
I would say that the only senators who are partisan in the other place are Conservative senators. The Liberals do not have senators at our caucus meetings. There are independent senators. There are senators who have their own views. That is the way it should work. For the member to suggest that pressure was put on any senators, other than the pressure that was very clearly documented in the media, from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and other Conservatives, was totally unbecoming of the offices they hold. They should have apologized for that.
On the topic of farmers and agriculture, farmers are the backbone of our country. Their work is essential. It is difficult, especially with climate change heavily impacting their livelihood. The number one risk and the number one impact that farmers are experiencing is our changing climate and severe weather. Drought, floods, very focused precipitation and wildfires are having a devastating impact on the agriculture sector, with people having to evacuate their homes and communities in the summer, during wildfire season. Last year, I think 1.5 million acres of our forests burned; actually it was much more than that, but I do not remember the total number off the top of my head. Farmers face climate change's harsh realities every single day, whether it is through drought, wildfires, floods or invasive species. They are all becoming more prevalent.
Our government supports agriculture, farmers and their families, and the practice of farming. We subsidize innovations. We ensure that farmers are made whole. It goes without saying that they are the breadbasket of Canada. It is absolutely essential that we make sure farmers can continue their important work. I meet with my local farmers in Milton on a frequent basis, and I am very grateful for all of the work they do.
That is why 97% of on-farm fuels are exempt from carbon pricing altogether. It is also worth mentioning that farmers in Quebec and British Columbia are not subject to the federal backstop of carbon pricing, because those provinces have a plan to fight climate change and lower their emissions. It is up to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario, if they do not want to continue to have Canada carbon rebates go to their constituents, or if they do not want to have the federal price on pollution, to come up with their own plan.
In the last federal election, the last time my colleague from Alberta went to the doors, he ran on a commitment to price carbon. With Erin O'Toole as their leader, the Conservatives ran on a promise to have a carbon pricing scheme. It was called “The more you burn, the more you earn”, because every dollar would get deposited in some kind of green bank account. However, they did not win the last election. In a hypothetical alternate universe, if the Conservatives had won the last election, farmers would be paying the price on pollution.
It is clear to me why they made such a big deal about the April 1 hike, and that is because in Alberta, Danielle Smith increased the price of gas by 4¢ on April 1. That was not a rebatable increase; it was just an increase in provincial tax, and it had an impact on the cost of living in Alberta. However, we do not hear about that from the Conservative Alberta MPs.
693 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member began with a ridiculous and irrelevant attack on the Conservative House leader. I want to be very clear about what happened. The Conservative House leader made a post on social media with the names and photos of senators, in terms of how they voted, with their publicly available office phone numbers, and invited people who disagreed with the public votes of senators to contact their office and share their views.
I would just say that if any citizen has a concern or an opinion about how an elected official voted, they should have the ability to phone their office and share their perspective. If anyone disagrees with anything I say or do in the House, they can call my office at 780-467-4944. I am not afraid of accountability. No minister, no member of the government nor a senator should be afraid of people calling their publicly available office number in order to share their perspective.
What farmers want and need in this country is the ability to grow their food without the punitive carbon tax. That is why the government should axe the tax.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians do not need to hear it from me. They can hear it directly from the senators in question. Three independent senators said they were bullied by the Conservative leader in the Senate, in the red chamber, after a member from their group attempted to put off debate on a controversial bill. Police and the Senate had also investigated the matter, and the Conservative leader in the Senate did concede that he got a little angry over the matter.
The Conservatives can stand over there and justify that behaviour if they would like, but there are senators who did not go home that weekend. They stayed in a hotel because they feared for their safety due to the bullying of the Conservative Senate leader. That is unbecoming of the office they hold. Certainly, there is lots of time for debate, but instructing people to harass senators, or any other elected or non-elected official, is wrong.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:39:31 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that there are no more opportunities for him to reply.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. If the hon. members want to continue having their conversation, they should take it outside.
I would also ask members to stick to the subject matter they brought before the House, as opposed to trying to expand into other debates and issues.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:40:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I last spoke in the House on this particular issue about the carbon tax being imposed on Canadians, including to a young farmer trying to raise a family, the response I got from the minister was far from satisfactory. As long as the Liberals decide to keep the carbon tax in place and raise it every year, there is nothing they can say. Canadians will not be satisfied until the government finally gets rid of it.
Conservatives will not stop until we axe the tax for good. That is why we have been debating a new Conservative motion in the House today on the carbon tax. Maybe the members from all the other parties are tired of talking about it, but they need to continue to hear it because the issue is not going away. More and more people are doing their best and working hard every day, and they can barely afford to live anymore. Instead of easing that burden, the NDP-Liberal coalition went ahead with its out-of-touch plan to raise the carbon tax by another 23%.
Before the Liberals did that on April 1, we heard from a growing number of Canadians telling them not to do that. Apparently, they were not paying attention and they ignored all this. I want to at least highlight the impact the carbon tax is having back home. Hopefully it will help the government to understand the damage it is doing.
The mayor of Shaunavon wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and broke it down for him. He offered a straightforward explanation of the problem created for a rural community like this one.
This is what Mayor Bennett had to say about the carbon tax increase that impacts communities like ours all across the country. He wrote, “the Town of Shaunavon's total utility costs for public buildings on an average monthly basis during the winter months amount to... about $38,477.18. It is highlighted that a total of 14% or $5,267.91 of this total is paid toward the Carbon Tax. This Carbon Tax is set to increase by 23% as of April 1, 2024, amounting to a new total of approximately $6,500 per month”, which is an an annual impact of $78,000.”
To understand this in proportion, that alone would require a town such as Shaunavon to increase its municipal taxes by 8% or more to generate enough to cover the federally implemented carbon tax.
The mayor continues, “We bring this to your attention out of concern towards the Federal Government's lack of transparency around the Carbon Tax and that personal tax rebates do not accurately reflect the actual costs of this program.”
Unlike the federal government, municipalities do not have the ability to borrow and spend like the feds do. The mayor of Swift Current also released an open letter to the Prime Minister. He included this information in his quote: “Two percent...of our municipal taxes will be required this year to pay the carbon tax—this 2% comprises more than half of the property tax increase we requested from our ratepayers in 2024. We estimate that over $400,000.00 in carbon charges will be paid by the City of Swift Current to the federal Government of Canada this year alone.”
The Liberals have the nerve to tell the public that they are not increasing the tax burden, but that is misleading. What is really going on is that their federal policy forces taxes to go up at the lower levels. How is that fair to anyone? I shared two examples, but it happens in a lot of other places. The carbon tax adds to the cost of everything, and some of the worst damage is done indirectly. Along with municipalities, small businesses have not yet received a rebate of $2.5 billion in carbon tax revenue. The government has repeatedly said it will return that money, but the delay has continued.
There are so many ways that the carbon tax is harming families, communities and businesses. That is why it is not good enough for them to pretend that a rebate will solve everything. It does not cover all the costs for everyone. A strong majority of Canadians oppose it. I am going to ask the question on Canadians' minds: Why will the NDP-Liberals not axe the tax, or at least pause it? What excuse do they have left?
755 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:44:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me first correct my colleague. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the carbon price is not a tax. It is a regulatory charge that is essential to reducing the pollution that is causing climate change and all the money is returned to Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay toward the fuel charge, with lower- and middle-income households receiving the most. They benefit the most.
Claims that the carbon price is increasing the cost of living are false. It has been widely refuted by hundreds of economists across this country. The math has been done by those who conduct the research on a regular and frequent basis and the fuel charge is a slow and steady increase, which does not affect inflation to a large degree and also does not increase the cost of living.
I have been reflecting on why the Conservatives have taken this approach on April 1. I started considering who they are working with. The fact is that, on April 1, Danielle Smith increased the price of fuel in Alberta by four cents. That was more than the increase. They talk about a 23% increase. That 23% increase on just the very small carbon price on gasoline added up to three cents. There is a three-cent increase in the price of a litre of gasoline, but Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, increased it by four cents. The difference between those two increases is that the four-cent increase did not come with a rebate, whereas the price on pollution with the Canada carbon rebate is sent back to Canadians. It is an incentive. It is a proven strategy and it works. It is lowering our emissions in Canada.
However, my colleague is not from Alberta, so who might he then be working for? There are a couple of options, I suppose. One is that big oil and gas posted record profits last year. The vast majority of the price of fuel goes to profits for big oil and gas executives, which is worth considering, but there have also been calls in Saskatchewan, the home province of my colleague across the way, to reduce its provincial tax, which is in excess of 15¢ per litre. The Saskatchewan government has refused to, despite the fact that other provinces have recognized that there is an affordability crisis and their governments ought to do what they can to lower the cost of fuel.
One might say that the federal government just increased the cost of fuel with the price on pollution going up on April 1. That is true, but the rebate went up as well. It is a fully rebated increase on the price of fuel, but the provincial excise tax in Saskatchewan is the highest in the country. It does not come with a rebate and Saskatchewan has refused to cut it. It is also possible that Conservative members are kind of creating this Conservative cover-up campaign to make it look like gas is expensive just because of the price on pollution, whereas there are multiple factors. There is corporate greed from big oil and gas. There are provincial excise taxes that are not rebated and a lot of other global factors, including climate change, which has an impact on the price of fuel.
Climate change is the number one cause of the increase in the cost of living with respect to groceries. It is another well-documented thing by the 200-plus economists from right across the country who the member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservatives, called “so-called experts”. That is unfair. Those experts are experts. They work at Canadian universities and conduct that research, and that is the evidence, the facts and the science, the pure mathematics, that the government relies on when making decisions.
Carbon pricing is a proven strategy to lower emissions. It is working. Since 2018, our emissions are down 8%.
I would remind Canadian voters that Conservatives ran on a plan to price pollution in the 2021 election under the auspices of Erin O'Toole, the former Conservative leader. The member across the way ran on a promise to price pollution. He went door to door with that campaign commitment and platform. Since then, the Conservatives have decided that carbon pollution and climate change is not an issue. However, it is an issue and it requires all of us to work on it.
757 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things I need to clarify for the member. The only people I work for are the residents of southwestern Saskatchewan. Those are the only people I work for. Also, I have never campaigned on a carbon tax. Regardless of what the former leader of the Conservative Party may have tried to do, I never ran on that promise. I never have and I never will. That is also reflected in what the people of southwest Saskatchewan want.
I have some more data that works. The Premier of Saskatchewan said:
When the latest consumer price index came out, Saskatchewan was at 1.7%, down from the 2% projected target that the Bank of Canada hit and one full point lower than the Canadian average. Statistics Canada said specifically that this was due to a decision the Saskatchewan government made to remove the carbon tax from home heating. You can imagine what would happen to our CPI nationwide if we were to pause, first of all, and then remove the consumer carbon tax on Canadians.
Right there we can see the benefits of removing the carbon tax for all Canadians.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:49:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said previously, carbon pollution pricing systems across Canada are designed to limit impacts on farmers, on the cost of living, on the cost of food, and they have been doing that. However, when premiers either refuse to cut their very high provincial excise tax, which is still 15% in the province of Saskatchewan, or actually increase it, as the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, did, they are creating inflation within their provinces. Perhaps the inflation in Saskatchewan, as the member opposite just said, has not gone up by as much. The Premier of Saskatchewan has not increased the price of gas; it was already more expensive than in other provinces.
This is a journey that we take together. Carbon pollution and climate change are inescapable realities, and we need to help Canadians lower their emissions as well as navigate this affordability challenge. Climate change is upon us. The wildfire season has already started, and it is only April. Last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record.
I am hoping the Conservatives will come up with some kind of plan to lower our emissions, to fight climate change and to make sure that our grandkids have a planet to live on.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:50:50 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:51 p.m.)
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
