Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, for years Iranian Canadians have called on the Trudeau government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist entity. They did so before and after the IRGC shot down Flight PS752, killing Canadian citizens and permanent residents. They did so last year, after a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, was murdered. They did so again in the wake of the evil attacks on Israel by Hamas, which was surely backed by the Iranian regime.

Minister LeBlanc said he asked his officials to update their advice about listing the IRGC. How much longer, Senator Gold, will it take to criminalize this terrorist group?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Plett.

Canada’s response generally to the activities of Iran, including our sanctions and other measures, are some of the toughest in the world, as colleagues know. Canada will continue to put pressure on the regime. All options are on the table.

You know as well as I do that the government has already banned IRGC officials from Canada forever and imposed sanctions on elites in the IRGC and the regime security, as well as intelligence and economic apparatus. It is a whole-of-government effort. Canada will not hesitate to use all of its tools, diplomatic and other, to respond to the Iranian regime’s aggressions whether in Iran or abroad.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. This analysis is critically important, as I’ve already mentioned in connection with one committee. The government is aware of committee members’ expectations. I’m going to insist on the importance of this aspect of the legislative process with the government.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you for your speech. You said in your speech that those lands are owned and controlled by Parks Canada. Are they not in unceded territories? Otherwise, why are we doing land acknowledgments and quoting number treaty areas in the work that we do?

Senator Sorensen: Thank you for your question. Perhaps the wording was not appropriate. What I can say is that all the lands that are being expanded on are currently under the management of Parks Canada, and what is important is that by putting them into these two acts — the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Canada National Parks Act — they can do the enforcement they need to on these lands.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I am, after consulting the Speaker, ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by Senator McCallum on October 19, concerning government motion 132.

Senator McCallum referred to rule 13-4 in her question of privilege, but I would note that there is a specific provision dealing with notices given during Routine Proceedings. Rule 4-11(2) states that:

A Senator may raise a question of privilege relating to:

(a)a notice given during Routine Proceedings only at the time the order is first called for consideration.

This point only rarely comes up, but it is the provision that must be taken into account when dealing with questions of privilege concerning items on notice. In the particular case we are dealing with, the result is the same, and the issue was raised at the proper time, but this need not always be the case.

In terms of the substance of the issue, we are guided by the four criteria set out in rule 13-2(1) when considering a question of privilege. All the criteria must be met.

The first criterion is that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Senator McCallum raised her concerns as soon as possible after notice was given, so this requirement has been met.

The second and third criteria require that a question of privilege “directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator”, and that it “be raised to correct a grave and serious breach”. When considering these criteria, we must consider the fact that privilege exists to allow us to fulfil our duties as senators. This point has been made in various rulings, including those of May 23, 2013; February 24, 2016; March 22, 2018; and October 29, 2020. The Speaker has noted “… that the privileges and rights exercised by the Senate itself take precedence over those of individual senators”. The rights and privileges of an individual senator can therefore be restricted by the Senate.

Perhaps the most fundamental right of the Senate is control over its internal affairs, including its Rules and how proceedings are conducted. The Senate itself adopted its Rules, and the Senate can vary from them as it sees fit. This is what we regularly do by deciding to only sit on Mondays or Fridays when necessary, and by adopting sessional orders concerning the 4 p.m. adjournment on Wednesdays.

Senator Gold’s motion proposes another such variation. It would change the normal time of adjournment on Thursdays. Adopting this motion would be an exercise by the Senate of its fundamental right to regulate its proceedings.

In terms of the fourth criterion — that there must be no alternate parliamentary process reasonably available to pursuing a question of privilege — the issues raised are most appropriately dealt with in debate on the motion itself. Senators may indeed have concerns, as Senator McCallum expressed, that such a proposal could unduly restrict opportunities to debate non‑government business. While this motion was the result of discussions between the leaders and facilitators, every senator can now enter into debate, argue for or against the proposal, and vote for or against it. Amendments can be moved. Only if the motion is accepted by the Senate itself — exercising its fundamental right to govern its proceedings — does the proposal become binding.

There is, therefore, no question of privilege, and debate can continue.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, for the remainder of the current session and notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, when the Senate sits on a Thursday, it stand adjourned at the later of 6 p.m. or the end of Government Business, as if that time were, for all purposes, the ordinary time of adjournment provided for in rule 3-4.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 132. I would like to begin by registering concern over the limiting of debate. Any time we move to limit debate in this place, we set a dangerous precedent for ourselves while simultaneously sending a poor message to Canadians.

Colleagues, through Motion No. 132, the Government Representative Office proposes to adjourn the Senate at the later of 6 p.m. or the end of Government Business on every Thursday for the remainder of the current session — further limiting our debate in this place.

In debate on the question of privilege that I initiated on this matter on October 19, it was raised that, perhaps, I did not understand the intent and ramifications of this motion — possibly thinking that it meant non-government bills would no longer be considered on Thursdays. I would like to assure all honourable colleagues that my understanding of the outcome of this motion was clear, and I remain as concerned about it today as I was when I raised my question of privilege.

At the time, we were moving to a vote on this matter with no debate or explanation for its rationale. If I hadn’t raised my question of privilege, we would not have received any information from the government on the matter.

Honourable senators, in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

Parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context is the sum of the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually, without which they could not discharge their functions . . . .

In the Senate, there has historically been no focus on the absence of Indigenous people’s issues, and that is what I am attempting to change through my work, which is being adversely impacted through limiting debate.

Colleagues, in his remarks on October 19, Senator Gold stated that we may continue to do non-government business on many Thursdays — pointing to the possibility that this motion could conceivably see many Thursdays when we do not deal with non‑government business at all.

Senator Gold also went on to state — I am paraphrasing — that there will come a time when we will become consumed with Government Business. That will probably take us well into the evenings on Thursdays.

It is a well-established fact that as we get closer to the breaks in December and June, the pace and timing surrounding Government Business picks up rapidly. Many of us would concede that these weeks, or months, necessitate a write-off of Other Business as Government Business takes precedence. When this onslaught of Government Business commences, will we still be excusing senators to travel home on Thursdays, or will we be expected to stay?

Colleagues, in acknowledging that there are already months of the year when we legitimately cannot meaningfully get to non-government business, does that not mean, then, that we should be placing a premium on dealing with such non-government business while we have the opportunity to do so? Instead, Motion No. 132 further sacrifices what time has been set aside to deal with these critical matters.

It should also be stated that the expectation of our reformed Senate is an increased diversity in our representation and, therefore, in the work that we do. In the article, “Birds of a Feather? Loyalty and Partisanship in the Reformed Canadian Senate,” the authors state that recent Senate appointments have led to an increase in gender and racial diversity. They go on to state that the two main functions of the Senate are complementary: the protection of political minorities and the provision of legislative review. In this way, the protection of political minorities is actualized by promoting minority interests in amending, defeating or even creating legislation. However, we are unable to adequately perform these functions if non‑government business continues to be seen as non-vital, and, accordingly, the gaps in legislation will continue to grow.

Honourable senators, Senator Gold estimated that there were 75 Senate public bills on the Order Paper, excluding a large number of non-government motions and inquiries, all of which also raise various matters of great importance.

While it is true that the number of items under these various rubrics may be larger than they have traditionally or historically been, that is simply the result and function of the modern Senate that we all pride ourselves in having worked to establish.

Given that we are seeing an uptick in senators bringing forward matters of critical import to those communities and regions they serve, how can we justify meeting this increase in items to be considered with a corresponding decrease in the time we spend considering them?

Colleagues, expectations of a reformed Senate would organically see heightened activity in the legislative process. There is nothing wrong with the number of interventions being made, but there is something wrong when leadership restricts the process of dealing with these interventions by not allowing them to receive a vote, by not assigning a critic, by not allowing committees to sit with regularity while the Senate sits, by refusing the option of hybrid sittings and by limiting the number of hours to debate specific items.

Honourable senators, the ultimate justification for Motion No. 132, as alluded to, was predicated on a discussion at the leadership table of needing to ensure that senators could get home in a timely manner. One of the reasons and benefits of the Senate not sitting on Mondays and Fridays is so that those may serve as travel days, ensuring we can move between our regions and Ottawa in order to be home and in the community — uninterrupted — for the weekends.

The fact of the matter remains that on sitting weeks, we are typically scheduled to sit three days a week. We know that due to various committee and caucus group meetings — that must also be fit into these three days — the Senate typically only begins sitting at 2 p.m. We also know that the Senate adjourns early on Wednesdays to allow for further committee meetings to occur in the evenings. To now propose that we also adjourn early on Thursdays is, frankly, hard to justify when we realistically have such precious little time in the Senate to begin with.

Colleagues, for all intents and purposes, Motion No. 132 indicates that senators are agreeable to the fact that Other Business can be adequately dealt with, reliably, one day a week — on Tuesdays — with the hope and prayer that we may be able to squeeze some of these items in before early adjournment on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Honourable senators, as it is fundamental to the overall argument that I am hoping to make, I would like to reiterate the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2014 Senate reference question. As part of their judgment, and found within paragraphs 15 and 16 of their ruling respectively, the court affirmed the role of the Senate in assuring:

. . . the regions that their voices would continue to be heard in the legislative process even though they might become minorities within the overall population of Canada . . . .

Colleagues, I would also like to specifically read paragraph 16 of this 2014 Supreme Court ruling, as it states:

Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process . . . .

Taken together, honourable senators, the Supreme Court has struck the heart of the work that we do here, and that we are intended to do here. We serve to fill issues that are not well served in the other place by providing a voice and a platform for those populations who have been — and who remain — underserved in our wider population.

Colleagues, we must always be mindful of the responsibilities that are inherent to the position of senator. These include the following:

The first is expectations of the highest standard of conduct as a role model to maintaining public confidence and trust. How can this be claimed if we are seriously considering cutting off Senate debate on a sitting day to enable senators to travel home on Thursdays when we have the privilege of travel time on Mondays and Fridays? Many senators already leave early on Thursdays.

The second is communicating and engaging in public debates while seeking to genuinely understand and respect the view of other senators who bring voices to the floor — when these voices have never previously been given the opportunity to do so. As senators, we all benefit from the interventions of one another in understanding myriad issues that arise in this chamber. Limiting debate effectively limits us all.

The third is carrying out senatorial duties with diligence and in the public interest. This entails not only making space for regional and under-represented issues, but also making adequate time to hear and debate these issues. Additionally, this entails ensuring legislation is permitted to come to a vote once debate has been exhausted, and transcending the partisan posturing that has led to historical inefficiencies in our operations.

The fourth is promoting constitutional legal requirements, values and goals, including equality and freedom from unlawful discrimination. Many of the non-governmental items on the floor deal with historical and current institutional, geographical and environmental racism — issues never before broached in this place. By limiting debate on these and similar items — items that are underpinned by constitutional legal requirements — we are forcing certain groups, including First Nations, to be continually reliant on courts and litigation to enforce their constitutional rights.

I thank colleagues for listening, and I appeal to each of you to act so that we collectively do the right thing in ensuring that we do not further restrict and limit debate on non-government business.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the message from the House of Commons:

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

EXTRACT, —

That,

(a)the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying;

(b)five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co‑Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c)in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d)the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e)the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g)membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(h)where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions relating to hybrid committee proceedings contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall also apply to the committee;

(i)the committee have the power to:

(i)sit during sittings and adjournments of the House,

(ii)report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee,

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel,

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons,

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites;

(j)the committee submit a final report of its review, including any recommendations, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024; and

(k)following the presentation of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall expire; and

that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I support this motion. I just want to clarify something. Paragraph (b) of the motion states, and I quote:

 . . . the Senate co-chair shall be from the Opposition and the House co-chair shall be from the governing party;

I’d like to remind senators that this motion is about reconstituting the committee. Under the original motion, the Senate co-chair was chosen by senators on the committee. Following a meeting that Senator Gold had the pleasure of chairing, we agreed to designate Senator Martin as co-chair of the committee. She did an excellent job, and I commend her for that. I support this motion because it refers to the fact that the Senate co-chair must be a member of the opposition, in this case Senator Martin. I also support the motion because it reconstitutes the committee in the way that we had set it up originally, not because I support the principle that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons that is co-chaired by a member of the government party in the House should automatically be co-chaired by a member of the Conservative Party in the Senate. Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Colleagues, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am delivering my remarks on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) at second reading.

I don’t want to reiterate the arguments put forward by the bill’s sponsor, Senator Gerba, or by Senator Forest, because they ably explained why we have supply management and what it’s supposed to achieve.

I also know that the topic of dairy, egg and poultry supply management can be polarizing for many Canadians. Why should we pay more for imported cheese and eggs, milk and poultry? That’s certainly a legitimate question.

Many economists, including my husband, are against supply management, particularly if they like certain types of French cheese that we can’t get here.

I’m an economist too, but I don’t feel that economic theory is grounds for me to reject Canada’s system out of hand.

I don’t think I’m adequately informed to make definitive statements about supply management and the fact that its costs clearly outweigh the associated benefits. I think it’s a complex and highly regulated system, and I don’t think we should attack it unless we really know what we’re talking about.

In my speech, I will try to convince you that we need to vote in favour of Bill C‑282 quickly.

Why? Because this bill is not a vote on supply management, but on a matter of principle. The principle is this: Do we want to remove from the free trade negotiations institutional aspects that set us apart as a country, as in the case of Canadian cultural industries and our social programs?

I’m now getting to the substantive part of my speech.

Bill C‑282 is just a few lines long. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments on behalf of the government to increase the import of dairy products, eggs or poultry or reduce the tariffs.

In short, the bill prohibits the minister from negotiating, on behalf of the government, free trade agreements on the back of supply management.

Why is such an effort being made in support of supply management? It is simple: This system, based on controlling production, prices and imports, is complex and worth a lot of money, more than $36 billion — in fact, nearly $37 billion. I’ll come back to that.

If Canadians want to change this system, they can. I suggest they do so with transparent choices and decisions that are made in the context of a public debate.

At first glance, this supply management system works quite well and has proven effective in ensuring the stability of local supply for essential goods, which was its objective.

Tackling this issue indirectly through free trade negotiations lacks legitimacy because the stakes are high. The public policy choices made in the 1970s can really only be called into question in the context of other, fully informed public policy choices. As others before me have said, the supply management system was put in place in the 1970s in response to issues of overproduction that were driving down the prices of certain essential goods and threatening the viability of Canadian farms.

Before I go on, I’d like to share a little personal anecdote. Senator Cotter often prefaces an argument with a little personal anecdote that always manages to capture my attention. I’m drawing my inspiration from him.

My father was a taxi owner and driver for a long time, until I was 10. He was a professional driver and proud of it. He worked long hours and enjoyed being self-employed. That’s why he owned his own cab.

Then, as now, the taxi industry was heavily regulated and adhered to supply management principles. A person could not then, and cannot now, just hang out their shingle as a taxi driver. That was before Uber. Supply was strictly regulated by the availability of a limited number of taxi vehicle permits. My father bought a taxi permit that allowed him to operate a taxi in the city of Montreal. A taxi driver like my dad needed a driver’s licence, a vehicle and a taxi permit. The price of a taxi permit varied depending on the economy, but there was always a limited number of permits.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, economic activity in Canada had slowed considerably, and my father, who was the breadwinner of the family, was having trouble covering the costs of his taxi and earning enough money to feed his family of four children. The cost of taxi permits was starting to drop. It was normal. There was less activity and things were more difficult. My father got the idea to sell his Montreal taxi permit before the price dropped too much and to buy a less expensive permit from a small neighbouring town so that he could continue to work long hours driving a cab and keep himself out of debt. I have very strong memories of those conversations because my mother was very concerned about that decision.

In the end, it took a long time for the taxi industry to recover from the recession in the early 1960s, and my father had to sell the second taxi permit and stop driving a taxi. Despite his long hours of work, he was unable to cover the costs of his business.

This period had a profound effect on me and helped me to better understand the workings of the taxi industry and the basis for supply management a little better. In this case, it was about controlling the service offering by issuing a limited number of taxi permits.

When I was doing my master’s at the University of Western Ontario, it helped me pass an exam, when most of my peers didn’t understand the question. Obviously, supply management is a complex issue.

You’re probably wondering what this has to do with Bill C‑282. The connection is simple. Farmers in the dairy, egg and poultry sectors also need to buy a permit to produce. These are basically production quotas. These production quotas are limited in number. When the government issued them in 1970 to limit production, they were distributed free of charge. Over time, as farms have changed hands, quotas have become more valuable. Today, quotas are traded monthly based on the price of supply and demand.

As such, farmers can’t simply decide to produce milk, eggs or poultry. They must first buy production quotas, much like taxis need a licence. For a medium-sized farm in Quebec, production quotas can be worth around $1.5 million. If I remember correctly, that’s for a farm with 64 cows. This $1.5-million investment for a production quota doesn’t take into account the value of the animals, the farm or the land.

That is why production quotas are considered financial assets. To indirectly undermine the supply management system through free trade agreements that open the market to imports is to gamble with the farming assets and financial arrangements of Canadian farms. It is an important aspect because the farmers go into debt to buy quotas.

Honourable colleagues, as Senator Gerba and Senator Forest explained so well, supply management of dairy products, eggs and poultry rests on three pillars: production quotas, price control and import control. It is clear that market liberalization through free trade agreements will have an impact on the price of products and on the value of the production quotas.

Supply management of the dairy, egg and poultry sectors is a complex system, especially because of the underlying regulation. This sector is very important to Canada.

According to a 2018 Library of Parliament study using 2017 data, the sector represents some 350,000 jobs, $29.6 billion in production and almost $7 billion in government revenue. There’s more, though. In 2017, the value of production quotas was almost $37 million. That is the total value of supply management, and that amount is spread out across all the provinces in all our senatorial divisions.

For example, in Ontario, quota value is $14 billion. In Quebec, it’s about $10 billion.

In the West — British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — it’s $11 billion in financial assets. In the Maritimes, it’s $2 billion. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

When we open the Canadian market to foreign producers that are heavily subsidized by their own governments, that disrupts our system. We don’t know how serious the unexpected consequences of that can be.

That’s why I support this bill, which prevents the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making concessions during free trade negotiations. The supply management system is too complex to be part of the back-and-forth of free trade negotiations. In my opinion, it is far too valuable.

For all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of the bill, and I invite you to do the same, regardless of your position on supply management.

As you know, the vote at second reading of a bill is on the principle of the bill. The question is, do we agree with the principle of this bill? Now, this legislation stems from the general principle that we don’t want to transform our institutions, whether cultural, social or economic. In this case, it is within the context of free trade agreements.

By the way, I’d like to remind everyone that this bill passed third reading in the other place and was supported by all four party leaders.

It doesn’t seem legitimate to me to vote against this bill at second reading.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (goods from Xinjiang).

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moncion, for the second reading of Bill S-259, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15 and I’m not prepared to speak to it. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gerba, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, for the second reading of Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: No extension is granted, and your time has expired.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to replace its outdated program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly, digital solutions that transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians, and ultimately reduce the cost of program delivery.

Hon. Senators: No.

[English]