2012-06-13

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina will have six minutes remaining for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. 
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it being 12 o'clock at night, this is the very late show. This is a question I raised on March 12 this year regarding the adequacy of search and rescue services in Canada. The question at the end was this. When will the Conservatives finally make search and rescue a real priority in this country?
It is after 12 o'clock at night, but there are ships at sea on the west coast of Canada, on the Great Lakes, in the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are ships at sea off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are fishermen fishing as we speak off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are approximately 600 workers working on oil platforms and drilling rigs off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador as we speak. Not only at this hour of the night but 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, there is a need for search and rescue services in Canada.
What we have seen from the government in recent times, including in this budget, are changes to Coast Guard search and rescue services, for example, in my home city of St. John's, Newfoundland, in Quebec City and in Vancouver harbour. We have seen the cancellation of a search and rescue coordinating centre in St. John's and one in Quebec City, and we have seen direct front-line search and rescue services in the port of Vancouver cancelled by the government. What kind of priority is search and rescue receiving? 
We had a motion before the House. It has not been voted on yet, but the motion for the House to vote on tomorrow, at least in theory, is to bring Canada's search and rescue response time standard up to international standards. The method chosen was a 30-minute response standard from tasking to getting airborne. It is known as “wheels up”. Every indication is that the Conservatives will vote against that. In their speeches they said they would vote against it, but nowhere in their speeches was there any rationale as to why we could not have the same standard of 30 minutes wheels up for helicopters and fixed-wing search and rescue as the United States or Australia do, not even the 15-minute one that Norway, Ireland and England have for the majority of the day. 
The only response we received from members opposite was that Canada is different, is unique, and we should have our own standard, our standard being 30 minutes from 8:00 to 4:00 on weekdays and two hours thereafter, and that is at the time when 83% of the taskings occur, outside this window of 30 minutes. However, there was no explanation given as to why they could not support that.
We have an inadequacy of helicopters for the Trenton area. They were supposedly temporarily put there in 2005. They are still there. We have an inability to work in the Arctic and gain access to the Arctic fast. We have a fixed-wing SAR program, which is based on developing airplanes to meet the status quo with no improvement in service expected, and that has been criticized by the government.
Therefore, we do have an inadequacy of priority. The question is this. When will that be changed? Is the government serious at all about search and rescue in Canada?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for this important question and for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight on search and rescue response times.
The Minister of National Defence has already been very clear on this issue. Canadians are fortunate to have one of the most effective search and rescue systems in the world. A vast network operates across the country to ensure that appropriate resources are available to respond to incidents that may arise anywhere within our 18 million square kilometre area of responsibility, an areas of land and sea greater than the size of continental Europe.
Search and rescue crews react as quickly as possible. Each search and rescue operation is complex and the victim's survival depends on many factors. The Canadian Forces continually assess their search and rescue capabilities.
Search and rescue crews respond immediately after being tasked, becoming airborne much sooner than the mandated times required. For example, in 2010, 103 Squadron based in Gander averaged a 19.5 minute reaction time during the 30-minute posture in the daytime and 50.7 minutes during the 2-hour posture in the evening.
Although many incidents are reported to the joint rescue coordination centres, the reporting of an incident does not necessarily mean that search and rescue resources, including Canadian Forces assistance, will be required.
In 2008, the Canadian Forces conducted a study to determine the level of effort required to achieve a continuous 30-minute search and rescue readiness posture and determined the response posture was an optimal one.
The Department of national Defence and the Canadian Forces continue to work with our search and rescue partners at the federal, provincial and municipal levels to improve collective search and rescue efforts and promote education and training to prevent search and rescue incidents from occurring.
Importantly, the Canadian Forces sponsors the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, which makes available more than 300 private aircraft with volunteer crews to assist in aerial search and homing of emergency radio beacons.
As well, virtually all Canadian Forces aircraft and crews may be called upon as appropriate to respond to search and rescue tasks.
The Canadian Forces will continue to evaluate its processes and capacity following search and rescue responses and incidents to ensure that our resources and posture are best suited to meet the needs of Canadians across this great country.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government has cut in half the number of rescue coordinators available in the area of responsibility for the joint rescue coordinating centre in Halifax from six to three, plus it has eliminated the three person on duty search and rescue crew in Kitsilano Beach. In fact, the department's policy has been criticized for a lack of policy, being no standard of service by which performance is getting measured. As quickly as possible is not a standard of service. 
The problem is that the actual performance is based on the availability of assets, not on a standard that is determined to be met. To say blandly that we have a most effective service is to ignore the fact that we lag far behind international standards and we have not given it the priority that it requires.
[Interjection]
Colin Carrie: Actually, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the NDP has voted against each and every one of our budgets to increase the capacity of our Canadian Forces and the search and rescue crews.
The primary mandate of the Canadian Forces is to conduct aeronautical and maritime search and rescue. Provinces and territories have the primary responsibility for ground search and rescue. 
The Canadian Forces support the provinces and territories in the ground search and rescue efforts where and when able, when balancing assets to ensure that the Canadian Forces primary search and rescue mandate, maritime and aeronautical search and rescue is not compromised.
The current search and rescue fleet of Buffalo and legacy Hercules aircraft are approaching the end of their service life and our government recognizes that quick and efficient search and rescue service is critical to many Canadians.
We are moving forward with responsible management of the procurement of a new fleet of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft through close consultation with industry. This process will result in the best outcomes for search and rescue and maximize benefits for Canadians. I hope this time around the NDP might support that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for St. Paul's is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice had been given. Accordingly the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 11 and Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.)
The Speaker: It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led today by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I had the enormous honour earlier today to meet with Bonnie and Gord Johnston of Sundre, Alberta. They came to Ottawa to plead with members of Parliament to remember that when a pipeline leaks it is not just the environment that is devastated, it is families and it is lives. 
Gord Johnston grew up on the 23 hectares where his family lives on the banks of the Red Deer River. Their beautiful river became a flood of oil that has now contaminated their entire property. Bonnie and Gord were in tears as they pleaded with members of Parliament to bear in mind what happens when environmental regulations are weakened. 
In their own words, and they asked me to convey this today, they said, “Please, Mr. Prime Minister, you need to stop and think. The environment is where we live”. 
Cellular TowersMr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, cellular telephones and cellular telephone antennae emit radio frequency, electromagnetic radiation that the World Health Organization has classified as possibly carcinogenic. That is why Apple and RIM warn their customers to not touch BlackBerrys and iPhones during a call and to keep these devices at least 15 millimetres from their bodies. Health Canada tells parents to reduce children's EMR exposure with shorter telephone calls, hands-free devices and text messaging because children are more sensitive.
The people of Oakville do not want cellular antennae that broadcast electromagnetic radiation located near their homes, schools, day care centres or health care facilities. We have good coverage for phone calls and do not need cellular towers everywhere to broadcast hockey games to hand-held devices in every room. 
Rogers and Telus are working with local residents but Bell Canada has placed powerful antennae 11 metres from a child's bedroom and over the heads of our firefighters and refuses to move them. This is intolerable. I would tell the president of Bell Canada, Mr. George Cope, to tear down those antennae. 
Les Grands Rangs Co-operativeMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Thursday, June 14 will mark the official opening of the grocery and deli of the Les Grands Rangs co-operative on Saint-Joseph Street, in the heart of the Saint-Roch neighbourhood, in the riding of Québec. 
The original idea was to create a model for building bridges between rural and urban areas, and between producers and consumers. The co-operative's mission is to bring together various artisan producers of local agri-food and agroforestry products from the greater Quebec City region and other surrounding regions.
The new co-operative will allow for knowledge transfer among generations, thus helping to preserve heritage and ensure the future of farming. This networking between producers, users and the public will contribute to socio-economic development, while respecting sustainable development, equity and local traditions, as well as ties to the territory and community.
Les Grands Rangs co-operative is a powerful symbol for building a local, collective, united economy that respects our environment. Let us celebrate the knowledge of our producers and put some Quebec on your plate.
Canada-Russia RelationsMr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Russia. It was also the 22nd anniversary of Russia Day when the declaration declaring Russia state sovereignty was signed in 1990.
I am proud to speak to the enormous contributions Russians have made to our country. Over half a million Russians have chosen Canada as their home. As the representative of the riding with the largest number of Russian speaking people in Canada, I have had the privilege to participate in the richness, complexity and beauty of the Russian culture first-hand. 
On the commercial front, our bilateral relationship means jobs for Canadians. Just last wee, our Minister of International Trade led a successful trade mission to Moscow and St. Petersburg with a delegation of Canadian companies with an eye to increasing the $2.7 billion worth of bilateral trade that currently exists between our two countries. 
We all know that trade means jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, which we on this side of the House are committed to. I wish our Russian friends Pozdravliau S Dnem Nezavisimosti.
International Year of Co-operativesHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Corporate Knights is a respected quarterly magazine which, for 11 years, has been publishing the list of best 50 corporate citizens of Canada. To do so, it uses 11 indicators that measure social and environmental performance and corporate governance. 
The top three companies this year are: Le Groupe Desjardins, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union and the Co-operators Group. It is fitting that in this, the International Year of Co-operatives, the three leading corporate citizens in Canada are co-ops. 
Monique Leroux, the chair of the board, president and CEO of Le Groupe Desjardins, had this to say, “This speaks volumes about our 'cooperative DNA'. As organizations, we’re rooted in our communities, dedicated to our people and the environment, and managed with a view to long-term development.”
As well, all three companies are led by women: Monique Leroux for Desjardins; Tamara Vrooman, CEO of Vancity; and Kathy Bardswick, president and CEO of the Co-operators Group Limited.
Here also, the co-ops are truly leading the way.
Personal AchievementsMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements of two remarkable constituents from my riding of Etobicoke Centre. The first is Johanne Fisch, who has, for the past 30 years, planted a tree in Broadacres Park on Earth Day. In 2004, he incorporated his organization, Open Flag Planet Earth, whose objectives are to educate the public on the preserving the environment and to host an open house in green space annually.
I admire and I congratulate Johanne on his commitment to the environment. 
I also congratulate Brittany MacLean, a grade 12 student in Etobicoke Centre. On March 27, Brittany competed in Canada's Olympic trials and won the 400-metre freestyle event. Her time of 4 minutes and 6.8 seconds not only broke her personal best but also beat the Canadian record which has stood since 2005. Most remarkably, her win qualified her for the London Olympics. I look forward to cheering her on this summer.
I congratulate both Johanne and Brittany on their personal achievements. I am proud of the exceptional residents who call Etobicoke Centre their home and who I have the honour to represent.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we know there are skill shortages in this country and yet the government has hit the delete button on about 300,000 skilled worker applications. It is shoddy public administration, economic mismanagement and is callous.
 It has also prompted a number of visits to my office from constituents, including one whose sister and family have been in the queue since 2006. She wrote to me stating, “As a landed immigrant and now a proud Canadian Citizen, I am absolutely devastated to hear about the proposal of handing back my sister's application...[along] with their future dreams and opportunities of a better life for themselves and their children in Canada.
“I cannot believe it has come to this...this is not the Canada we immigrated to. I am left with a heavy heart and an emptiness in the pit of my stomach, and the deep sadness for why I chose to come to Canada and call it home. This is not what Canada stands for”.
Indeed, it is not.
Child Health InitiativesMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to an important organization that helps raise awareness for the health of Canadian children and youth, the sandbox project. 
The main goal of this charity is to make Canada the healthiest place on earth for a child to grow up in. With a focus on anti-obesity strategies, injury prevention, children's mental health and the environment, the Sandbox project's ambitious but achievable goal is to make measurable progress against these health issues through collaboration.
In an effort to raise awareness about the importance of child health initiatives, today this organization has the world's largest sandbox here in Ottawa. Elementary school students from across Ottawa were joined by ministers, members of Parliament, NGOs, as well as industry, media and academic leaders to participate in sandcastle building. It was a great event. I especially thank my fellow members of this House who came out and generously gave of their time to participate in this event.
 I encourage every member to learn more about this organization at sandboxproject.ca. I know the health and well-being of Canada's children and youth is an important priority for every member of Parliament as this generation represents our future.
Trinidad and TobagoMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House to congratulate the nation of Trinidad and Tobago on its 50th anniversary of independence. Trinidad and Tobago over the years has developed a great relationship with Canada.
Recently, our Governor General, His Excellency David Johnston, was in Trinidad and Tobago to officially convey good wishes on behalf of the people of Canada. While he was there, he shared his great wisdom by addressing the faculty of the University of the West Indies. 
Canada is privileged to have a community of people who are from Trinidadian descent, some of whom live in my riding of Don Valley East. I am also pleased to say that my riding of Don Valley East has benefited from their hard work, dedication and contributions to Canada.
 I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating His Excellency Phillip Buxo, the high commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago, and his delegation on this 50th anniversary. May the future bring growth and prosperity to the people of Trinidad and Tobago.
Bill C-38Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today all members of this House will begin voting on amendments put forward by New Democrat colleagues and other opposition members of this House to delete sections from and to attempt to stop this grossly undemocratic Conservative Trojan Horse budget bill. 
People from across this country and in my riding of Surrey North are outraged that the Conservatives are trying to sneak through hundreds of sweeping changes, including cutting OAS, environmental assessment and fish habitat protection. 
This is an attack on democracy that is masquerading as a budget bill. I know people are outraged because, unlike the Conservatives, the New Democrats went out and listened to the concerns of the Canadians and they are speaking out in incredible numbers against this bill. We are fighting on their behalf inside and outside of the House.
Today I am asking Conservative members to do the right thing and vote to respect the will of Canadians and the basic principles of democracy.
Foreign AffairsMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada strongly condemns the attacks Sunday on churches in Plateau and Borno states, Nigeria, where at least six people were killed and many more were injured. The terrorist group Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for both attacks. We are deeply saddened to see that Nigerians gathering to practise their faith have again become the target of terrorist acts.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently met with his Nigerian counterpart to reaffirm that Canada stands in solidarity with the government and people of Nigeria in their fight against terrorism. Canada urges all people in Nigeria to work with the Nigerian government to counter extremism and terrorism, and bring to justice those responsible for these reprehensible crimes.
Last, we pray for the safety of all innocent Nigerian women, men and children. God bless Nigeria and God bless Canada.
Pay EquityMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as chair of the NDP women's caucus, today, I would like to express our deep indignation over the disastrous consequences that Bill C-38, a real Trojan Horse, will have in many areas of gender equality in Canada.
Cuts to old age security and employment insurance and the elimination of the Canadian Women's Health Network and the National Aboriginal Health Organization will have a greater impact on women than on men. 
Equality is not a priority for this government. Clause 602 of Bill C-38 eliminates federal contractors' obligation to respect pay equity. This will have serious consequences for women's access to employment.
I am proud that the NDP continues to work for Canadian women so that gender equality is not just wishful thinking but a reality.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has a plan to keep Canada's economic recovery on track. Unfortunately, the NDP has opposed and attempted to delay that plan at every turn. Sadly, this comes as no surprise from a party that is anti-jobs, anti-trade and anti-economic growth.
 NDP members have opposed our pro-trade plan by voting against free trade agreements that we have brought before this House. They also, shamefully, sent an anti-trade delegation to the U.S. to advocate against Canadian jobs. The NDP's anti-jobs and anti-growth views were further revealed when the NDP leader called Canada's resource industries a disease.
When will the NDP members realize that they should be standing with us to support jobs and economic growth instead of against Canadian jobs?
Religious FreedomHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the National Assembly of Quebec on its unanimous motion commemorating the 180th anniversary of a law.
This law, which was passed unanimously, granted Jews equality and complete political and religious emancipation.
This move to grant Quebec Jews full civil and political equality was one of the first of its kind, arising out the case of Ezekiel Hart, a Jew from Trois-Rivières elected to l'Assemblée nationale, but twice prevented from sitting solely because of his faith.
We must always remember our history, our heritage and the fight for equality.
The 1832 emancipation of Quebec's Jews was a landmark step in the struggle for freedom and justice for all.
This was a significant milestone in the fight for minority and human rights.
I invite all members of the House to join me in celebrating his most historic occasion.
We remember.
International CooperationMs. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw attention to the recent release of CIDA's Development for Results 2010-11 report.
This report contains compelling stories that highlight our government's results in developing countries and speak to the value Canadians share in making a difference in the lives of those who count on, and benefit from, Canada's support. These results include building or renovating 110 health facilities in Sudan, treating more than 17,000 children against AIDS in Mozambique, helping to feed 11 million people affected by famine in East Africa, giving one million Tanzanians access to credit, helping train 1,000 teachers in Colombia, and delivering hot meals to 400,000 boys and girls in Haiti.
I encourage my colleagues and citizens in all corners of the country to read the moving stories in Development for Results 2010-11 to find out exactly how Canada's aid is making a real difference.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Conservative backbenchers are slowly falling out of favour with the PMO. They dare to speak the truth. The Trojan Horse budget bill is dividing their caucus.
A couple of weeks ago, the member for Kootenay—Columbia told constituents that the massive bill should be divided. Now, we find out that the member for Dufferin—Caledon is trying to get an environmental assessment for the proposed megaquarry in his riding, but the Minister of the Environment has shot him and his constituents down.
Whether it is because of an environmental assessment, cuts to OAS, EI, food safety or any of the other attacks, Canadians want this Trojan Horse budget bill stopped. 
We salute these two brave Conservative backbenchers. We hope the PMO will allow them to speak their minds and represent their constituents. When the voting starts, we hope they will back up their words with action and vote with their hearts.
The BudgetMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Economic action plan 2012 is the next step in our plan to create jobs across this great country.
Tonight, as we vote into the early hours of the morning on our economic action plan, I urge the opposition members to put aside the interests of their big union bosses and activist allies and think about the priorities that matter most to Canadians. They should put aside their parliamentary games and focus on growth for our economy. The lengthy voting tonight will bring to an end a sad chapter of ineffectiveness for the opposition: no witness to back up their opinions at committee, failing to even show up and blocking the passage of an important bill. 
The opposition members should put away their ineffective games and support Canada's economic action plan 2012, a plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Oral Questions
SyriaMr. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have all witnessed the atrocities committed against the Syrian people by the Assad regime, which is now carrying out targeted attacks on children.
Can the Prime Minister update Canadians on diplomatic efforts undertaken in response to the Syrian crisis, especially diplomatic efforts toward Russia, which remains a key Syrian ally?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.
The actions of the Syrian regime and the violence against its own citizens are completely unacceptable.
We have been working very hard, Mr. Speaker, as you know, with our allies to impose binding sanctions with other United Nations actors through the UN Arab League peace initiative. We encourage all to work together to implement that initiative. We encourage Russia and others to join with us to apply binding sanctions against what is a murderous regime. This is unacceptable to Canadians and, I believe, to the broader international community.
The EnvironmentThomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister. 
Let us get back to the mammoth budget bill. Today, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy released a scathing report on the Conservatives' failure to take action on climate change.
The report is clear: Canada will not meet its greenhouse gas reductions target and, by not taking action now, the Conservatives will force future generations to pay a high price. 
Is the real reason why the Prime Minister is dismantling the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy that it is doing its job well and condemning the Conservative government's failures in environmental policy?
Stephen Harper:  Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I note that the report indicates that the government made considerable progress last year with respect to its targets.
There are obviously other actions to be considered. However, the reality is that emissions in Canada were increasing rapidly when this government came to power. Today, however, our greenhouse gas emissions are declining. We intend to continue down this path.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already admitted that his Trojan Horse budget will be used to slash funding for any group that has the gall to disagree with Conservative policy. That apparently includes the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because it gives him facts that contradict the decisions he has already made.
Last year, the Supreme Court had to order the Prime Minister to practise fact-based decision making, not decision-based fact making. Why does he keep getting it wrong?
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, as the report notes, the Government of Canada has made increased progress toward its commitments to the actions it has undertaken over the past year. The government will look at additional actions. The reality, as I said before, is that when this government came to office, the emissions of greenhouse gases were increasing rapidly. Under this government, emissions of greenhouse gases have actually begun to decline and this government has done that while our economy continues to grow. We have every intention of continuing down this path.
Employment InsuranceMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are dismantling employment insurance without even consulting those who contribute to it.
Thousands of women already have a hard time accessing EI. Two out of three women who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance, and the Conservatives' Trojan Horse is only going to make matters worse.
When will the Conservatives start consulting workers instead of attacking them?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is job creation, economic growth and getting Canadians back to work. The government is making improvements to the EI program to ensure that it is fair, continues to meet the needs of Canadians and is responsive to local labour market demands both now and in the future.
As we know, we are facing unprecedented labour skill shortages. It will be critical that we work directly with Canadians to make sure they have access to available jobs.
Employment EquityPeggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, this budget does not put people back to work. It cuts jobs, cuts growth and hurts seasonal industries.
This budget bill also quietly deletes employment equity rules for federal contractors, provisions brought in by the Mulroney government. These rules are not a problem for bidders, yet Conservatives are recklessly dismantling a program that helps businesses tackle discrimination.
Why is the Prime Minister using a Trojan Horse budget bill to go after some of the most vulnerable Canadians? Why would he do that?
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the federal contractors program is actually being strengthened by our actions.
What we are doing is we are actually making it a contractual obligation with the federal government to ensure that contractors have employment equity plans if they want to do business with us. I think that is an excellent change.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto Centre.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Federal-Provincial RelationsHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now they love me! 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Bob Rae:  I have a question for the Prime Minister.
When the Atlantic premiers met a couple of weeks ago, they expressed strong concern about the impact of federal legislation on their jurisdiction. When the western premiers met, they called for a national energy strategy, something they felt was lacking with respect to the federal government.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of the fragile economic situation to which he refers so often, does he not think it is finally time to call the first ministers of this country together, to develop a national plan for our economy to get this country moving and to stop the divisiveness and lack of consultation—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course this government consults regularly across the country, not just with provincial premiers but with all affected Canadians.
There were literally hundreds of consultations done in preparation for this year's economic action plan. I believe the fact that we do those kinds of consultations explains why the economic policies of this government have been so strongly supported by Canadians, and have shown such good results for the Canadian economy.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must admit that the Atlantic premiers are quite concerned about the problems with Bill C-38. The western premiers have called for some strategies as well.
Does the Prime Minister not see the contradiction here? He goes to Europe demanding fiscal co-operation between the European countries, but when it comes to Canada, he refuses to even meet face-to-face with this country's premiers. 
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. As I just said, we consult regularly across the country, not just with provincial premiers but people who represent the public interest. This government obviously respects provincial jurisdictions. One of the results of these consultations is the superior performance of Canada's economy.
EthicsBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary has admitted that he wrote a cheque for $21,000 prior to the election to a company called the Holinshed Research Group. He has also admitted that in the middle of the election campaign, an invoice was changed to lower the amount so that it would be underneath the election expenses of his campaign. The records now show that at least 630 hours of calls took place, which have not been explained or justified. 
The member who is heckling me now is the member who promised just a couple of days ago to reveal all, that he would answer all the contradictions.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has the answer to these questions. 
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the hon. member for Peterborough has submitted all of his information to Elections Canada.
In fact, that report was certified several years ago. The member of Parliament not only won that election but has since won a subsequent election. He serves his constituents and this House honourably, and I think we all should treat each other with a little more consideration than that.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, hidden in the Conservatives' outrageous budget bill is the rejection of foreign skilled workers who have played by the rules and waited in line. Conservative mismanagement, on top of Liberal mismanagement, has left a huge backlog of applicants. How many of them are doctors? How many are skilled tradespeople? Now, we will never know, because the Conservative budget bill simply rejects them all, sight unseen.
Will the minister reverse this reckless and unfair decision?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. When this government came to office in 2006, it inherited from the Liberals a backlog of immigration cases, with 840,000 people waiting for up to eight years in the system. That is absolutely true.
In 2008, we brought forward amendments to the immigration act to allow us to begin to reduce those backlogs. The Liberals and the NDP voted against those amendments. Had we not adopted those amendments in 2008, the backlog would now be 1.5 million cases, with people waiting for up to 15 years. Thanks to the actions in this budget, in Bill C-38, we will have a just-in-time immigration system.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NDP will always vote against the Conservatives' irresponsible budgets. These changes should have been debated independently from the budget measures.
The people who wish to immigrate here followed the rules. They put their lives on hold, believing, as they should, that Canada would process their applications in a fair and equitable manner. However, under clause 707 of Bill C-38, exactly the opposite will happen.
Instead of wiping out tens of thousands of applications with the stroke of a pen, will the minister agree to withdraw this clause from the bill?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, no, absolutely not, because if we were to follow the NDP's policy, the processing times for immigration cases would go from eight years to 10, 12 or 15 years. That is completely irresponsible. Canada needs an effective immigration system, one that can match new immigrants with the jobs that are available. Our reforms to the economic immigration system will increase income and employment levels among newcomers.
We want a system that works well for the Canadian economy and for newcomers.
PensionsMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, without any consultation, without any facts and without any consideration for what happens to people and their families, the Conservatives' Trojan Horse budget bill is pulling the rug out from under Canadians who have worked hard and played by the rules.
Many Canadian seniors are already living in poverty because the Conservatives have refused to invest properly in OAS and GIS. However, instead of trying to better serve seniors, they are actually making things much worse.
Why this attack on tomorrow's seniors?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, just to state again, there will be no reduction in seniors' pensions.
Just this week, the OECD released its “Pensions Outlook 2012”, which urges countries to make the necessary changes to ensure long-term sustainability of these retirement plans. I will quote the Secretary-General of the OECD:
 Bold action is required. Breaking down the barriers that stop older people from working beyond traditional retirement ages will be a necessity to ensure that our children and grand-children can enjoy an adequate pension at the end of their working life. 
We are taking action to create sustainable programs. I ask the NDP why it has never supported—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Hochelaga.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, old age security has a proven track record. It is a viable system.
Maybe the Conservatives do not realize this, but for tens of thousands of low-income seniors, this program is the difference between living in dignity and living in poverty.
If the Conservatives' math is so reliable, then why are they unable to justify their decision to start stealing money from seniors in 2023, and not 2030 or 2050?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let me state once again, there will be no reductions in seniors' pensions. 
In order to ensure the sustainability of OAS in the future, we are increasing the age from 65 to 67 over a gradual period of time, from 2023 to 2029. Our government is committed to sustainable social programs and a secure retirement for all Canadians.
Once again, I ask the NDP, why is it that we on this side of the House support sustainable social programs for this and future generations, and it does not?
The EnvironmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NDP respects Canadian seniors, and that is why we will not vote in favour of the budget.
The environment commissioner said that with Bill C-38, there would be only 20 to 30 federal environmental assessments a year.
These irresponsible cuts will allow pipelines to cross our rivers with virtually no safeguards. But Canadians are already carrying the weight of $7 billion in environmental debt.
Why add to the environmental debt of future generations? Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is from a colleague who did not even bother to attend the committee.
Our goal in this government is to strengthen world-class protection of the environment, even as we make Canada the most attractive country in the world for resource investment and development. We will implement a policy of one proposal, one review in clearly defined time periods. We will strengthen environmental protection. We will make reviews of resource projects more predictable. We will reduce duplication. We will enhance consultations with aboriginal Canadians. 
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, there are Conservative MPs who have actually read Bill C-38 and understand its implications. The hon. members for Wellington—Halton Hills and Dufferin—Caledon have demanded full environmental assessments for the Dufferin County megaquarry. They say that their constituents deserve no less than full environmental assessments.
We agree. In fact, we say that all Canadians have the right to full environmental assessments for these projects, all of them. However, these Conservative MPs will be forced tonight to vote for a bill that guts assessments. 
Why are they increasing environmental risks? Why are they being so irresponsible to Canadians?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, the project my colleague referred to is undergoing an environmental assessment under the responsible authority of the Government of Ontario.
At this point my officials have advised me that none of the triggers required to spark a federal intervention have been, or are likely to be, tripped.
EthicsMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not take anything seriously, not even the Elections Canada investigation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's election return.
Yesterday, my colleague from Nepean—Carleton kept handing us the same insipid line about how all of the documents were turned over and how everything else was made up.
Yesterday evening, we learned that the individual in question, the member for Peterborough, was still turning over new information. It seems that not everything has been revealed after all.
We are simply asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to do the right thing while this matter is under investigation. When will he step down?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the member keeps asking the same questions, she will keep getting the same answers.
The hon. member turned all of the documents over to Elections Canada nearly four years ago. He has won another election since then. Elections Canada has not asked him for any more information.
The New Democrats should be more open and transparent about telling Canadians how much union money they have accepted illegally and how much of that money they have paid back.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I love the political musings of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. I really do. I think he would make a great Republican blogger.
Unfortunately, he makes a pretty lousy defence attorney because he needs to get his story straight with his client. Yesterday and today he said that all of the documents have been provided. Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough came forward and said that the $21,000 bill from Holinshed was not a real bill, just an invoice.
We are dealing with serious allegations. Will the hon. member stand up, fire his defence attorney and tell this House that he has been compromised? He needs to step down until this investigation is complete.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member given all the information required of a filing over to Elections Canada, not only have those filings been audited and verified by Elections Canada, not only has another election passed since that time, but he has also not even been contacted by Elections Canada in search of additional information.
By contrast, he has taken the stance that the NDP should come clean on the illegal union donations for which it was caught and for which it had to plead guilty. Now all that we ask is for the leader of the NDP to rise, explain how much illegal money his party took, and how much it gave back.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I have to keep Band-Aids on my ankles from the partisan ankle biter trying to change the channel. What we have here—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not think referring to each other in that manner is helpful to the debate. I will ask the member to get to his question without using that type of characteristic.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, yesterday you thought it was okay, but I will accept your judgment on this.
What we are dealing with is a $21,000 bill that the Conservatives claim is a non-bill. Around this bill, we have personal cheques, cancelled cheques and refunded cheques. We have an investigation, lawsuits and court files. These are serious issues.
I ask the member for Peterborough to do the right thing and stand up and say that he will step down while this investigation is under way. That is what he needs to do.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, all I ask is for that hon. member to stop gnawing on his own ankles and join with me in an effort to raise the level of discourse around here.
 We on this side of the House are focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, no matter how hard the opposition members try to distract from that economic agenda. Tonight, they have a chance to join with us and do what Canadians actually care about, and that is to keep taxes and debt low, to keep the economy strong and to build on the 750,000 net new jobs we have already created.
The EnvironmentMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians care about the environment too. Albertans are grappling with up to a half a million litres of crude oil spilled from a ruptured pipeline, which experts say may never be cleaned up.
 Gord and Bonnie Johnston watched their waterfront property become a lake of oil. They are now living in a hotel wondering what to do next. Fifty years ago, when this pipeline was built, there was no effective environmental assessment in place, and now we see the consequences.
Will the Prime Minister explain personally to Mr. and Mrs. Johnston just why he is using Bill C-38 to unravel decades of work to improve environmental safeguards and results?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the spill referred to by my colleague, the lead agency is the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board. Environment Canada officials are standing by to provide advice, but to this point we have not.
However, to my colleagues point, through economic action plan 2012, which we will vote on tonight, our government will increase funding for pipeline safety by over $13 million. We also provide, through responsible resource development, more frequent pipeline inspections.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we really want to improve our assessment process, we need more scientists at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Instead, the government decimated the agency and transferred its responsibilities to the National Energy Board, but this kind of work is not in the board's bailiwick. Then the government cut the board off at the knees so that pipelines could be built without appropriate assessments meant to protect the natural resources that communities depend on.
Why will the government not split up the indigestible mishmash that is Bill C-38 so that these environmental reforms can receive the parliamentary consideration they deserve? 
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the responsible resource development plan and our legislation to support it will enhance, in a very significant way, environmental protection. There are $160 million going into environmental protection to enhance maritime safety and pipeline safety, as the hon. member knows very well.
The BudgetHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is rubbing his hands as he advances his “fend for yourself” destruction plan. However, for seasonal workers, seniors and working families, the PM's smile is far more menacing than comforting. His plan would rip moneys from the hands of seniors and would attack the EI benefits of seasonal workers, while funnelling money into jets and expensive orange juice for high-rolling ministers.
 Why is it that the economic distraction plan 2012 can only be successful if the poor and vulnerable are thrown under the Conservative campaign bus?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is the economy, long-term prosperity and ensuring that Canadians have a job. We have created 760,000 net new jobs since the economic recession began. 
At the same time, we do recognize that there are Canadians who have difficulty finding work. That is why we are better connecting Canadians through these substantive changes that we are making to the employment insurance program as well as others so we can ensure Canadians are connected to jobs in their local areas with their qualifications. They can therefore have a successful future.
Public SafetyMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety usually loves scoring political points at the expense of victims of crime, but yesterday, we learned that, to him, not all victims are equal. Imagine. He tried to change the wording of the RCMP's apology to victims of serial killer Robert Pickton in order to ensure that someone other than the RCMP can be blamed for the botched investigation.
Why is the minister acting so shamefully regarding one of the most horrific cases in Canada's legal history?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take any lessons from NDP members who have consistently voted against victims' rights in the House.
 I am the minister in the House responsible for the RCMP and to all Canadians. We work with the RCMP to ensure that its communications are appropriate in all circumstances. I have no reason to question the RCMP's conclusion that an apology was appropriate.
For our part, our government is taking action to stand up for victims and to give police officers the tools they need to do their jobs. I wish the NDP would do it just once.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister's actions are shameful. It is right and important that the government apologize to the victims of this tragedy and their families for the botched investigation and dismissal they experienced.
For too long these women were ignored, shut out and silenced. It is a fact that the RCMP could have done more. The RCMP has acknowledged that.
Will the minister acknowledge his political interference was callous and demeaning? Will he now apologize?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite amazing that the NDP is constantly asking me to take responsibility for the RCMP and to ensure that I do my job. That is exactly what I have done.
As I have indicated, I have no reason to question the RCMP's conclusion that an apology was appropriate. The apology was clear. It was sent out by the RCMP. 
I want to get back to that member's failure to stand up for victims. She has been in the House for over a decade and has done nothing for victims.
National DefenceJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the case of Corporal Stuart Langridge at the Military Police Complaints Commission is a litany of failure by the Department of National Defence.
The family was not told about the existence of his suicide note for 14 months. Corporal Langridge put himself in to psychiatric care, but was not allowed to remain there even when he said he was considering suicide. He was put onto menial cleanup duty when he should have been on suicide watch.
Why has the minister chosen to intervene to stop documents from going to the commission?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): It is untrue, Mr. Speaker. As always, the member once again is trying to insert himself and politicize a serious investigation and process that is under way. The Military Police Complaints Commission has received nothing but co-operation and compensation from this government with respect to this matter to get to the bottom of what really is a tragedy.
It is for that reason that I met with Corporal Langridge's mother and that we have been supportive of this process throughout. This process is now well under way. It is going to come to a conclusion. It will be instructive for the military as we go forward.
 I wish the hon. member would simply let that process work and stop trying to politicize a very tragic case.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the minister would avoid acknowledging he is stopping documents from going to the commission and other documents are heavily censored. The commission counsel knows it. The Fynes family knows it. The minister's own lawyers know it. Has the Fynes family not suffered enough? 
A board of inquiry done by DND and presented to the family blamed the death of Corporal Langridge on his own mother. Why is the minister holding documents back from the commission? Is he afraid of more facts coming to light?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is completely false and vexatious evidence now being presented by the member in the House of Commons on an ongoing process that has been funded, now well over $3 million, to ensure the process is fair.
Why is information not being given? It is something called the Supreme Court of Canada, which has ruled repeatedly on the issue of solicitor-client privilege, which the member knows full well. Yet he chooses to be mendacious, to stand in the House of Commons and give false information in an ongoing process.
The EconomyMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, later today the House will begin voting on legislation to implement economic action 2012. This important and necessary legislation takes long-term responsible steps to ensure Canada's finances are sustainable and support jobs and economic growth.
Around the world, Canadians see the negative economic and social consequences of countries that delay and defer necessary reforms. Canada simply cannot afford to delay action.
Could the Minister of Finance please underline for Canadians and the House the importance of Bill C-38 and economic action plan 2012?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2012 is about taking responsible and necessary steps to keep Canada in a position of strength in the global economy today and into the future. It is about ensuring that there are more jobs, ensuring that we can help spur economic growth, ensuring that we have sound public finances and ensuring that we can get back to balanced budgets. This is responsible, necessary and will make Canada's economy stronger.
Official LanguagesMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives cannot seem to agree whether linguistic duality is important to them or not. Agents of Parliament must be able to communicate in both English and French. It is necessary if they are to provide oversight for over 300 members of Parliament. It is an important part of our tradition and it is something of which the New Democrats are very proud.
 However, Conservatives continue to give official languages lip service. Canadians deserve to be served in the language of their choice. Will the Conservative government agree with our proposal to ensure that all officers of Parliament are bilingual?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our engagement with regard to official languages is without precedent. Our road map for linguistic duality has gained praise. Actually, the New Democratic Party is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this subject. 
The NDP has unilingual anglophone members of Parliament from majority francophone ridings. It has critics for official languages who are unilingual. In fact, two of its three deputy leaders in the House of Commons are unilingual anglophone. 
If NDP members want to preach to others about bilingual standards, perhaps they ought to hold themselves to their own standards.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we had to introduce Bill C-419 to ensure that our officers of Parliament are bilingual because the Conservatives appointed a unilingual anglophone Auditor General.
It should be fairly simple. In Canada, we have two official languages: French and English.
Although he is a Conservative, the hon. member for Beauce understands why this was important. However, some members of the Conservative caucus still do not get it. 
Will the government vote in favour of Bill C-419, yes or no?
James Moore:  Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, our policies, engagement and investments with regard to official languages are without precedent. With regard to the government's commitment when it comes to bills, we will continue to protect both official languages across the country and within the federal government. 
 It is the NDP that is two-faced on this issue with its unilingual anglophone members of Parliament in francophone ridings. They are the ones talking out of both sides of their mouths. We, the federal government, are responsibly representing both official languages in all our commitments.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage  has decided that the Conservatives do not care about French culture in the Prairies.
We recently learned that the Franco-Manitoban newspaper La Liberté is in serious financial trouble. The minister says that there are no cuts, only changes. In reality, La Liberté will lose 50% of its funding under the publications assistance program. 
If that is not a cut, what is it exactly?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, the envelope has not been eliminated. Subsidies for this publication are based on a formula. The agreement remains intact. We made changes to the formula three years ago. Why has the member done nothing for francophones in her region in the past three years since we changed the formula? 
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, instead of insulting the opposition, I would like the minister to listen to the residents of Saint Boniface and the francophones from western Canada on this matter.
In fact, there is some concern even within his own caucus. None other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who is all too familiar with the art of making cuts, wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to implore him to reverse his decision.
The hon. member for Saint Boniface has said that La Liberté will be getting just 50% of the money it was allocated. She is concerned that the Conservatives are killing this newspaper.
Is that what the Conservative government wants its legacy to be?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. The investments are based on a formula. The decision was not made by the minister or the government. The investments are based on a formula that was designed and developed by the department three years ago. In future, changes to the formula will no doubt be considered, provided those changes will help us do things better.
Why does the NDP constantly vote against our official languages action plans and against our commitments to protect francophone publications outside Quebec? Why has the hon. member not done anything in years for the francophones in her riding?
EthicsMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the member for Peterborough  was under scrutiny, he told his constituents and local media that he would be coming forth with his records. Unfortunately, he has not fulfilled this promise. We all know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister rightfully owes his constituents and Elections Canada an explanation, but they are not getting it. 
Will the Prime Minister force his parliamentary secretary to step aside and take action toward reducing the cloud of Conservative corruption that hangs over the government?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has already submitted his elections filings. It was almost four years ago. He has since fought a second election campaign and he has not heard anything from Elections Canada suggesting that there is a problem with any of the audited and verified filings that he has already submitted. 
The real issue is that members of the Liberal Party, like their friends in the NDP, are voting against an economic action plan that has already helped to create 700,000 net new jobs, that is growing the economy, that will help us become one of the only countries in the world to balance our budget without raising taxes. 
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the government has traded in its old ethics spokesperson and has a used one out for a test drive.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport  gained experience at political polling while he owned 3D Contact and did work for some 24 Conservative candidates in the 2006 election. 
Could the member explain to us how he paid $21,000 in during the pre-writ period and reported only $1,500 out during the election period? We have all seen this in and out scheme before.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for yet another thoughtful and mature question here on the floor of the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Peterborough has followed all of the rules. He has submitted the documents. They have been audited and verified. He has not heard anything to the contrary from Elections Canada. He has conducted himself honourably in the House and on behalf of his constituents. That is something which not all members of the opposition can say for themselves. 
VIA RailMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a Conservative leak has revealed that drastic cuts to VIA Rail will be coming later this month. Conservatives are waiting until Parliament's summer break before letting Canadians know the truth. Travel from Toronto to Vancouver will be cut to only two trains a week. There will be cuts to services in southern Ontario and cuts to service from Halifax to Montreal. 
Will the Conservative government make these cuts public before we vote on their Trojan Horse job-killing budget bill?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail regularly reviews its operations and makes changes where they make sense. We continue to work with VIA Rail to ensure economically efficient passenger rail for Canadians. 
We will be voting tonight. I wonder if the members across the way could ask themselves why they want to send billions of dollars over to Europe, to countries that do not manage their funds properly, and not focus on Canada.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is just another empty answer. Yet it was a simple question. Will the Conservatives make the announcement before—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
[Interjection]
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a simple question. Will the Conservatives make the announcement before the House rises for the summer?
The service cuts that my colleague mentioned are not the only ones. Rail service between Montreal and Halifax will be offered only two days a week in the winter, instead of the current six possible departures. The trains that serve the people of Rimouski, Rivière-du-Loup and all of eastern Quebec are being cut. Not only does this sabotage a mode of transportation that is practical, environmentally friendly, safe and historic in Canada, but it will also undermine regional economies even more.
Are these cuts just another way to force the regions to pay for the Conservatives' ideological cuts?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, this government has made unprecedented investments in VIA Rail, almost $1 billion since we have come to power. We have built infrastructure and we will focus on jobs and improve on service for passengers. From time to time, VIA does review its scheduling to ensure that taxpayers and passengers get the best service for their investment. 
Again, I wish the NDP would look at the world view and instead of advocating for billions of dollars for Europe—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.
Public SafetyMr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can count on our government to ensure that our streets and communities are kept safe and that our correctional system actually corrects criminal behaviour. Since being elected in 2006, we have taken strong action to do just that, from the Truth in Sentencing Act. to ending the faint hope clause, to eliminating record suspensions for serious criminals.
Would the Minister of Public Safety please give the House an update on how our government is improving victims' rights and strengthening offender accountability?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is fulfilling our promise to keep our streets and communities safe. Today, several measures from the Safe Streets and Communities Act have come into force, including enshrining the rights of victims to appear at parole hearings, ensuring our correctional system actually corrects behaviour by rewarding good behaviour and punishing the bad, and giving police officers the power to arrest offenders who appear to be violating their parole conditions. Shockingly, the NDP again voted against rights for victims.
Official LanguagesHon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.
The minister is sensitive to bilingualism because he has learned that it is important to speak and understand both languages in the House. I have done exactly the same thing. Now officers of Parliament must be bilingual.
Does he agree that they should be bilingual when hired, when appointed by Parliament? Yes or no? That is what we want the minister to tell us.
James Moore: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important asset for all government appointees. We will continue to take this approach in the future.
We will also keep working on our action plan for official languages, not just here on the Hill, but across Canada, to protect both official languages in all regions of the country.
Last week, I started a series of round tables in the regions to talk to people at the grassroots level. We want to know how to promote French and English in the regions.
Aboriginal AffairsMrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Information Governance Centre has issued a report that paints a bleak picture of living conditions for first nations people. Almost one out of four first nations adults lives in overcrowded houses, half live in homes with mildew, and one out of five reduces the size of his or her meals simply because there is not enough food.
The worst thing is that these problems have gotten worse since the Conservatives came to power.
Will the government finally admit there is a problem and actually do something about first nations living conditions?
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we continue to work to improve the quality of life and the economic prosperity of aboriginal peoples. We had a meeting with the first nations chiefs at the historic Crown-First Nations Gathering to discuss shared priorities and explore new ways of working together. We are building the foundations for economic and social success. Concrete actions are being taken on education, economic development, housing, child and family services, access to safe drinking water, and matrimonial real property.
Status of WomenMs. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a recent survey conducted by Thomas Reuters Foundation involving 63 global experts from five continents, Canada was ranked as the best place to be a woman among the G20 nations.
This was based on key indicators of health, education, justice, access to resources and freedom from violence, trafficking and slavery.
Could the Minister for Status of Women tell this House what the government is doing to make Canada an even better place for women and girls?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all the great work she is doing on behalf of women across Canada.
These 63 global experts from five continents recognize that our efforts to promote gender equality, to safeguard women and girls against violence and exploitation, and to ensure their access to health care are what make Canada a great country for women.
Women in Canada can count on our government to continue our efforts in that respect. We have increased funding for women to its highest level ever, funding over 500 projects now to end violence against women across Canada.
We will continue to fight for women's economic opportunities, their safety, their political participation and equality.
Government SubsidiesMr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-38, the Conservative government continues to muzzle anyone who has the misfortune of saying or thinking something that contradicts the Prime Minister's Office.
After attacking scientists, the Conservatives are now attacking civil society groups.
Environmental groups are not the only ones being put through the wringer. It is happening to other groups that are politically active, fighting to eliminate poverty or demand better housing, for example.
Why are the Conservatives so intent on going after all the groups that contradict them, instead of learning from their experience? Is this the Prime Minister's vision of democracy—starving anyone who says what he does not want to hear?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but what he said is untrue.
We are calling on all of our colleagues across the floor to stand tonight and support a piece of legislation which, among other things, includes responsible resource development.
One way or the other, I can assure my colleague that the government will prevail, that the environment will be better protected, and that Canadians will be better served in terms of protecting jobs and the economy.
The EnvironmentMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-38, by eliminating the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and putting strict limits on the number of environmental assessments, the Conservatives are playing along with the oil companies and looking to accelerate pipeline approvals and oil sands development.
In an open letter to the Prime Minister, more than 100 environmental lawyers criticized this approach and cautioned that it could lead to many more legal battles. 
Since it is not too late, does the government plan on withdrawing the provisions that are detrimental to the environment, as called for by the vast majority of Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to my colleague is no. Our responsible resource development legislation in fact strengthens the environmental assessment process at the same time as it strengthens Canada's position in a highly competitive global economy to attract investment and to create jobs.
Tonight as we sit through the long hours voting on a number of unnecessary amendments, my colleague should bear that in mind and think very carefully about balancing protection of the environment and the creation of jobs.
House of CommonsThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Board of Internal Economy on the administration of the House of Commons.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In Memoriam--1972 Munich Olympics AthletesIrwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That the House offer its support for a moment of silence to be held at the 2012 London Olympics in memory of those killed 40 years ago in the tragic terrorist events of the 1972 Munich Olympics wherein 11 Israeli athletes were murdered. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)

Routine Proceedings
Firearms ActVic Toews: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the proposed firearms information regulations regarding non-restricted firearms in accordance with section 118 of the Firearms Act.
 I am proposing these regulations to ensure that there will not be a long gun registry by the back door and that Parliament will be respected, as well as to ensure that the leader of the NDP will not be able to use data collected by CFOs to attack the rights of law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters through recreating the long gun registry, as he has promised to do should he ever get the chance.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 47 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsAnnick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association respecting its participation in the second round of the French presidential election, held in Paris, France, from May 3 to 6, 2012.
Terminator Seeds Ban ActMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-434, An Act to prohibit the planting, cultivation, release, sale and importation of seeds incorporating or altered by variety-genetic use restriction technologies (V-GURTs), also called “Terminator technologies”, and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce a bill I had reintroduced in previous Parliaments, an act to prohibit the planting, cultivation, release, sale and importation of seeds incorporating or altered by variety-genetic use restriction technologies, V-GURTs, also called “terminator technologies”.
As members probably know, in 2006 the UN upheld the moratorium on terminator seed technology. This technology allows genetically engineered plants to produce sterile seeds at harvest. Unfortunately Canada, along with the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, attempted to undermine this moratorium, but they were not successful.
Adoption of this legislation will ensure that Canada takes a firm stand against this devastating technology.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on November 23, 2011, be concurred in. 
I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
This refers to the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and it involves government support for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I think we all know that small and medium-sized enterprises play a crucial role in our economy. They account for something like 98% of all firms, 60% of all jobs, and 70% of all net new jobs, so anything government can do to support small and medium-sized enterprises is very positive and helpful.
We decided to examine two cases and we questioned witnesses to determine whether these programs were good or bad, whether they should be renewed and whether they should be changed in any way.
One of these items that we examined was the Canadian innovation commercialization program. This was a program designed for small and medium-sized enterprises, whereby they could put bids in for government support to help fund their innovation, and then their innovation would be examined and commented on by government departments. 
We had a number of witnesses both from within the government and outside the government, and the general consensus was that this program was a success. It was helping Canadian small companies to innovate, be successful and improve productivity.
The program was to run for two years. In our committee report, we recommended that this program be made permanent. The government, in its answer, gave a somewhat ambiguous reply, but we then learned in the budget that the government had indeed cancelled the program.
It is ironic that the government should have cancelled the program, because just today a new OECD report came out on the Canadian economy, and the primary recommendation was that Canada had to do something and get its act together to deal with our very lacklustre performance in the areas of productivity and innovation. 
This program that the government killed was precisely designed to help small businesses be more productive and innovative. All of the witnesses said that this program was having success, and yet the government chose to kill it.
As I have said before, often there have to be some reductions in government expenditures. We on the Liberal side do not object to that, but when the Conservatives focus their cuts on science, on Statistics Canada, on knowledge-generating, innovation-generating activities of government, then we certainly take exception to that.
Canada's productivity has lagged since 2002, I believe, which is a long period of time. It is actually lower today than it was 10 years ago.
All kinds of new programs and new activities should be considered to improve Canada's very dismal productivity and innovation performance. The fact that the government chose to eliminate one of the more successful programs in this area is certainly not good news for Canadian innovators and Canadian small businesses in general.
The second case that we examined was the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises.
Government can be very difficult to understand for a small company without massive numbers of employees, particularly in the area of procurement. The idea of this agency is that it could help small and medium-sized businesses have access to government procurement. Government procurement, as we have heard in recent weeks, has been a total flop in certain areas, as in the case of the F-35s, but it involves billions of dollars.
It is important that small and medium-sized businesses have access to these programs since it is difficult for them to obtain all the required information. It is important that a government program help these businesses find the information and participate in government procurement. 
I know from my time in government that often these procurements are very large. An effort is made to bundle the smaller components to make them into a bigger contract.
Again we heard from stakeholders that this program was a success. We heard that there were certain things that could be done to improve it, but that over time the agency had been increasing the number of companies benefiting from its activities and increasing the amount of procurement going to the smaller companies.
The committee report was unanimously concurred in. All political parties agreed. We are disappointed that the government cancelled the first program that I talked about because, in this day and age, Canada needs more innovation and productivity, as the OECD said today. 
By cancelling this program, the government is negatively affecting the productivity and innovation of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat aghast at what the hon. member for Markham—Unionville just said about the Canadian innovation and commercialization program being abolished.
I will read from the budget itself: “Economic Action Plan 2012 proposes...[an additional] $95 million over three years, starting in 2013–14, and $40 million per year thereafter to make the Canadian Innovation Commercialization Program permanent and to add a military procurement component.”
Perhaps the member for Markham—Unionville did not read the budget. It states right there that it is to be made permanent. I was part of that committee and was delighted to work with that member to make that recommendation. 
Did the member read the budget, and does he have any comments to make to correct his statement that the program has been abolished?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I do remember doing the report, and I also enjoyed working with the hon. member on that report. 
I would have to go back and consult with my colleagues. It seems I may have been misinformed on this issue, but I will check.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, there have been a litany of actions on the part of the government that have been difficult for small and medium-sized businesses and very few to benefit small and medium-sized businesses. 
One of the recent initiatives that retailers tell us is harmful is that the doubling of duty-free shopping has not been accompanied by the removal of duty on those goods when they are purchased by retailers in Canada. As a result, they are now at a huge disadvantage, as a lot more people will be going across and spending their dollars in the United States instead of through retailers in Canada. 
Can the member tell us if there is anything in this budget that is positive for small businesses?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Quadra does a lot of work involving small business. She is our critic in that area. She raises a very good example in relation to this new measure that allows Canadians to buy more south of the border.
 I know that many retailers, particularly those with operations relatively close to the border, are suffering immensely from this move and have the potential to suffer more, so I certainly would agree with her that this measure is not good for small business.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is an economist and knows a bit about finance. He sits on the finance committee and is the former finance critic.
The government always boasts about being able to introduce certain tax reductions. All it has done to boost productivity, as the member's speech was focused on productivity, was to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance. However, companies have been asking for it to be extended it for longer periods of time, because the purchase of large machinery and equipment requires a four- or five-year commitment down the line. I wonder if the member is in agreement with this.
As well, the government is boastful about reducing taxes, but what we have actually seen is an increase in unemployment premiums, an increase in income tax rates in the first years of this government and increases in all kinds of other hidden taxes. I am wondering if that adds anything to productivity.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague that the government keeps talking about cutting taxes and has cut a few, but it never tells us when it raises taxes.
I remember that the government raised the income tax rate back in 2006, but claimed that it had actually cut it. The income tax form that every Canadian filled out made it abundantly clear that the rate had gone up, not down. The government did not seem to know the difference between up and down.
I think the EI premium hike that started at the beginning of the year was $600 million, if I remember the figure correctly, and EI premiums, as we all know, are a tax on jobs. The government chose to increase the tax on jobs to the tune of $600 million. All of the experts agreed that premiums should be raised far more gradually, over a longer period of time, and not increased at this time of what the Prime Minister calls a “fragile economy”.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this particular issue.
For the most part, the government has been fairly negligent in dealing with an industry that is critically important to all Canadians. When I talk about industry, I am referring to small and medium-sized businesses, the entrepreneurs who, ultimately, many would argue, are the backbone of our economy. The amount of contributions to future potential job growth that is within those small and medium-sized businesses is phenomenal. When the government does not take this industry responsibly as an issue, we lose opportunities. 
I want to focus on that because we had a report that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates brought forward. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville is quite familiar with that report as he is one of the co-chairs of the committee. The report details the importance of procurement. The Government of Canada spends billions of dollars every year on procurement and on a number of contracts. There is a very vital and important role for small and medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs to be engaged in those procurement contracts. 
We want to emphasize just how important that is to the government. We, in the Liberal Party, have acknowledged it. Years ago, we set up frameworks to ensure that small businesses would have the opportunity to get engaged in those procurement contracts. We look forward to seeing a more progressive government that will ultimately see small and medium-sized businesses more engaged.
I will cite a couple of specific examples. I could talk about the F-35 and military procurement and the manner in which the government has made a mess of the whole procurement process. For example, why was there no tendering process for the F-35? To what degree could we have ensured there would have been bundled small contracts incorporated into these larger contracts when government issues billions of taxpayers' dollars on one procurement?
Those are the types of things we need to look at and give good and detailed diligence to. There is a great deal of merit to breaking up these larger contracts that are bundled into one.
There are industries across Canada. I have had the opportunity to tour a couple of facilities in Winnipeg where mobile military tracks built are built. These are very small components. Those are bundled into a larger contract. These are good quality jobs. Those are the types of things that we need to be very much cognizant of.
That is why even in government expenditures, the amount of dollars we spend every year on these procurements, there is a vital and important role these small and medium-sized businesses play. We in the Liberal Party have acknowledged that role. We want to encourage the government to review the budget process it has been entering into over the last number of years, which has denied many of these small and medium-sized businesses the opportunity to legitimately participate, thereby losing millions of dollars or potential contracts, which prevents jobs from being created. The government needs to approach it in a much more open-minded way.
I think of Winnipeg's garment industry. I had a wonderful tour of Peerless Garments Limited. Peerless has been one of many different businesses in Winnipeg that has used government procurement contracts to sustain good quality jobs in the city of Winnipeg. It has done that and it has been very effective. 
I could talk about Peerless, StandardAero or the aerospace industry as a whole. We can see that in the relatively smaller communities like Winnipeg, compared to Toronto, Mississauga, Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary, and then we have many of the medium-sized cities such as Edmonton, Halifax and St. John's, but all of these communities should have the ability to compete for some of those government contracts. 
There has been some progress. For years the Martin and Chrétien government talked about how important the Internet was. I can recall having discussions with the former president of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock, on how important he thought it was for procurement contracts to be done on the Internet because that technology would be better able to provide opportunities for all small and medium-sized businesses to participate in government contracts.
At the end of the day, the more aggressive and committed the Government of Canada is at widening the field and ensuring that these small and medium-sized businesses are in a position to compete for those tendered contracts, the better for the taxpayer and the better for the economy itself.
We need to look at the technology that is there. It is very real today and the opportunity is greater today than it ever has been because of that technology. However, we need to go beyond that. There are many different minority groups, whether they be professional women running businesses or the many different ethnic minority groups that may not be as familiar with the government contract process. What can we do to enhance and encourage their involvement in the process?
One of the things I would suggest is to have seminars. We see some of that happening today through the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, and that is a great thing to see, but we can never see enough of that because, at the end of the day, if we can get more people interested in participating in the process and get more businesses interested and aware of the number of contracts that are on the Internet the better we will be.
A great Internet site is buyandsell.ca. When I click into that site I can see how many hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of potential contracts are there. We need to ensure t there is a very strong educational component that engages small and medium-sized businesses. We need to challenge our chambers of commerce from coast to coast to coast to come up with ideas to ensure those community businesses are aware of the types of contracts that the Government of Canada is engaged in and encourage their participation.
If we do that, then I believe at the end of the day there will be more jobs created for Canada, more opportunities and better quality products. We believe that the government needs to work with the stakeholders to engage both small and medium-sized businesses. I think that is critically important to our economy and all of us would do well to give more attention to that issue.
Having said that, I move:
 That the House do now adjourn. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members. 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #283
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I declare the motion defeated. 
There are now five minutes of questions and comments for the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The hon. member for Vancouver—Quadra.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, could we stop the clock until people have cleared the room?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Could all hon. members who are leaving the chamber please do so, so that we might continue and move the agenda forward expeditiously.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
[Interjection]
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of my colleague from Winnipeg North, who clearly has a lot of experience in supporting small- and medium-size enterprises in his community and province. He is passionate on the subject.
I note that a recent study by the Procurement Ombudsman revealed that while some data are being collected about government procurement, there is a lot of missing data and that the data that are collected are not being used. 
Measurement and data collection are key to being able to improve a system and to wider participation in government procurement. Businesses have been asking the government to address the issue for more than six years, saying that there is not proper measurement and not proper evaluation of procurement. Both are key to participation by small- and medium-size business. 
Could my colleague tell us how this lack of data and measurement might impact small and medium businesses in the new Canadian community?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Quadra demonstrates, just as I indicated in my speech, that the government has dropped the ball in not recognizing the important role it can play in government procurement. Information is gold and we must have the information there in order to make the types of decisions necessary. Whether it is the role of an ombudsman or an opposition member, at the end of the day we want the information to be in the right hands so that more small- and medium-size businesses will be engaged in the whole area of government procurement.
As I tried to illustrate before, having more small- and medium-size businesses engaged in the procurement process equates to more jobs and better quality products. Every Canadian will win in that situation. That is the type of support we want to see and Liberal Party is encouraging the government to take action on that. 
Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend for Winnipeg North indicated his alleged support for small business. There is significant support for small- and medium-size businesses in the next phase of the government's economic action plan. For example, there is the doubling of resources for IRAP, which will have a significantly positive impact on high-tech companies in my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, and there is $400 million for a venture capital fund, again providing capital for companies with high-growth potential. 
 Earlier my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore clearly indicated that the Canadian innovation and commercialization program would be made permanent despite the intervention of our colleague across the floor. Now that we know that the CICP will be made permanent, will the Liberal Party vote in favour of our budget this evening?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for a Conservative to say that we in the Liberal Party only have alleged concern for small- and medium-size businesses when in fact it was the Liberal Party of Canada that led the charge to ensure that small- and medium-size businesses were a part of the government agenda. It was the Liberal Party of Canada last fall that said this was about jobs, jobs, jobs, and we recognized the important role that small- and medium-size businesses play in ensuring that those jobs will be there. Instead, we saw the government bring in a budget document that I would argue does not deliver what is necessary for those small- and medium-size businesses to prosper and to be able to generate the—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, order.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize and recognize that a member is supposed to bring a point of order to the floor of the chamber at the moment he or she realizes there could be an infraction or something of that nature. During the vote, a serious issue was brought to my attention and there needs to be some clarification by the Speaker and possibly the clerks for the simple reason that I am anticipating that we could be going into a series of important votes. Here, all members of the House recognize the importance of being fully engaged in voting. 
I feel that this is the most appropriate time for me to raise this issue, for the simple reason that we need to get guidance from the Clerk. 
There are two components to it. The first one is with regard to the process or procedure for an individual member of Parliament when there is, let us say, a series of four or five votes. What is the proper procedure for a member to exit and possibly have to miss one vote in order to be able to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
The hon. member has risen on a point of order, but rather than raising a point of order he is asking for clarification of the rules. I would suggest that the rules, the Standing Orders of the House, are available here at the table. If members would like to refresh themselves on the rules related to votes, these are available to all members and obviously will be applied appropriately by the Chair. 
The hon. member for Toronto Centre on the same point of order?
Points of OrderBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a different point of order that I would like to raise.
Since question period, I have had an opportunity to reflect on an exchange that took place between the Minister of National Defence and the member for St. John's East. Since the minister is here, perhaps he could comment on this. 
In the course of his answer to the member for St. John's East, he accused the member for St. John's East of something called “mendaciousness”. I am a very up-to-date guy, having now had an opportunity to look up the word “mendacious”. I want people to know that mendacious, according to the dictionary, means “lying, untruthful, false, untrue”, and it goes on and on. Going through the dictionary there are many other examples in which it is very clear that mendacious means “given to lying, as in a mendacious child”; “untruthful”; “intentionally untrue”; and that a “mendacious statement” means “false, not in accordance with the fact or reality, as in giving false testimony under oath”. 
My point is that the Minister of National Defence, in using a somewhat fancier word than perhaps we are used to hearing in the House, and certainly from that side of the House, in any event—
[Interjection]
Mr. Bev Shipley: He had to look it up, not us.
[Interjection]
Bob Rae: I had to look it up. I am not ashamed of having to look it up. 
I say to the hon. member, my good friend from Chatham, that he should look a few things up from time to time. It might do him some good.
The minister is standing up, Mr. Speaker, but I have not yet concluded my remarks. I know the minister has a habit of standing up long before—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto Centre has risen on a point of order and he is correct that he can make that point, but it is not up to individual members to determine when their time on the floor is completed. That is for the Chair to determine. 
If the member for Toronto Centre could quickly summarize his point, I believe the Minister of National Defence is prepared to respond to that. 
[Interjection]
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best. If people would stop interrupting, it would be easier for me to respond. All I am saying is that—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Bob Rae:  This is worse than a caucus meeting, Mr. Speaker.
I would just say to my colleague, I know that he would not want to be using unparliamentary language and would not want to accuse another member of lying, even if he uses a fancy word to make that point. 
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is a Rhodes scholar. I am surprised that he had to look that word up, but he has acknowledged that he did. 
The word mendacious, I understand, may in fact be unparliamentary, so I withdraw the word.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair appreciates the intervention by the Minister of National Defence and will consider this matter closed.
The hon. member for Bourassa is rising on the same point of order?
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, therefore we must add the word “mendacious” to the list of unparliamentary words. Every time we hear this word, the speaker can stand up and call the member to order. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. minister has withdrawn his comment.
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, all I am asking is that since that word is unparliamentary it should now be on the list, so that any time we hear it the Speaker will have to stand up and put the member in order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): We will leave this matter in the hands of the Speaker.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake on a different point of order?
[Interjection]
Mr. James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members that you stood twice to put the question. It says in Standing Order 16(1):
 When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance. 
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you recognize that the delaying tactics being put forward by the Liberals right now are completely out of order and you should put the question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In fact, I was in the process of informing the House that it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, National Defence; the hon. member for York South—Weston, Air Canada.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to thank the member for Toronto Centre for raising the point of order, and thank the minister for withdrawing the comment. At least he was far more sincere than his withdrawal yesterday.
Committees of the House[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.
 And the bells having rung: 
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until after duty hours tomorrow.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the time of adjournment tomorrow.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize I am relatively new to the House. I appreciate the fact that the government House leader went to the head of the table and asked for the vote to be deferred until tomorrow. I want to get clarification in terms of how that rule—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. When we get to the point of a recorded division, the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip can ask unilaterally to have that vote deferred until the end of the next sitting day of the House.
Once again, I would remind all hon. members, if they are unclear on the rules of this place or the Standing Orders, it is not appropriate in each case to stand for an explanation under the guise of a point of order, but rather they may go to the lobby and someone there will be able to assist them with that matter.
PetitionsMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents in my riding, I rise to present a petition that asks the House of Commons to quickly enact legislation to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.
With respect to the first petition, there is a project afoot to develop a megaquarry north of Toronto, in Melancthon country. This quarry would be big enough to swallow up 60% of my riding and deep enough to bury a 20-storey building. This megaquarry would sit atop a complex watershed and threaten to poison the drinking water of about one million Canadians. The farmland that it would take out of production produces about half the potatoes eaten in the GTA each year. 
This is an issue that brings into stark relief the challenge of sustainable urban development. I am, therefore, happy to table in the House a petition calling upon the Government of Canada to conduct an environmental assessment of this megaquarry development.
May this petition, and the next one I will present, serve as a last minute reminder of what a tragic disservice the government proposes to visit, not only on Canadians, but on our Earth, with the anti-environmental provisions of Bill C-38.
 I am honoured to table my second petition from citizens in and around my riding.
The petitioners are deeply concerned with the current perilous trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and the rapidly closing window to avert dangerous global warming in a socially responsible manner.
Among other things, the petitioners call upon this Parliament, in concert with provinces and territories, to create and implement a science-based and innovative Canadian energy strategy that would position Canada as a world leader on climate change solutions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the next hon. member, I would remind all hon. members to keep their explanation brief. There appears to be many people who would like to present petitions in the 15 minutes.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of people in Sturgeon Falls, West Nipissing and Verner. The preamble is too long and therefore I will read only the last sentences.
 We call on Parliament to adopt the following policy goals: 
 Demonstrate international responsibility by re-committing Canada to contribute 0.7% of GDP to Official Development Assistance; 
 Prioritize responsive funding to those NGOs that Canadians support and which have seen their funding cut by CIDA; 
 In the spirit of global solidarity, provide in full the funding of $49.2 million requested by D&amp;P over the next five years. 

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table four petitions from people all across my riding, places like Alexandria, Bourget, Hammond, Curran, Pendleton, Plantagenet, St-Eugène, Vankleek Hill. 
The petitioners call upon Parliament to review Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being, which says that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth. This is contrary to modern science.
I would also like to point that on the Hill there was a demonstration of about 20,000 Canadians supporting this type of motion.
Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from hundreds of concerned Guelph residents on the need to implement recommendations designed to retool our international aid commitments through an expert panel, focused implementation and making CIDA projects more open and transparent.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from many residents from Terrace Bay, Neebing, Schreiber, Ear Falls and Thunder Bay.
The petitioners are deeply concerned with the recent closure of the Thunder Bay blood plasma clinic, the only dedicated blood plasma clinic in all of Canada. They point out that an increase in costly U.S. blood plasma imports may put our supply at risk since it is from paid donors. They note that FDA approved infected plasma product exported in the 1980s led to thousands of lives lost.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from the residents of Thunder Bay, Shuniah, Markdale, Jacques and Fort William First Nation. 
The petitioners petition the House to reinstate funding cut from aboriginal health and health research undertaken by the National Aboriginal Health Organization, First Nations Statistical Institute, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Métis National Council, the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They note that the cuts would undermine health outcomes for aboriginal people in Canada and will cost more in health spending in the long run.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from northeastern B.C..
The petitioners note that Canada is the only nation in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea, without any laws restricting abortion and that Canada's Supreme Court has said that it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the petition I am presenting concerns old age security. It states:
 We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain funding for the OAS and make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty. 
It is a pleasure and an honour for me to submit this petition.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I have 12 petitions in which members of the metro Vancouver community call upon the government to maintain the current retirement age for old age security benefits. 
The petitioners from Surrey, Richmond, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, north Vancouver, Vancouver, my riding of Vancouver Quadra and many other communities in metro Vancouver point out that over half of old age security recipients earn less than $25,000 a year, that this two year delay will cost up to $30,000 per person over two years for those with the lowest incomes and that single women will be disproportionately affected by the change.
The petitioners call upon the government to remove the two year increase from Bill C-38 to ensure that we do not increase income inequality with this measure.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions.
 The first petitioner is signed by 58 constituents from southwestern Ontario. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to issue an invitation to international states to gather in Canada to begin discussions needed for a global ban on nuclear weapons.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from about 150 residents from southwestern Ontario. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as a human being by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from constituents in my riding. 
The petitioners are concerned about the failure of governments to invest in public transit, in particular in electric public transit, given that the WHO has today declared that diesel exhaust is of the same calibre and has the same carcinogenic effect as asbestos and arsenic.
The petitioners suggest that the Government of Canada enact a national public transit strategy seeking to involve all levels of government in developing and planning a funding strategy to provide fast, affordable and accessible public transit across Canada.
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. 
The first petition is signed by members of my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo pertaining to Bill C-31.
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the Canadian government to take a global leadership role in recommending the phase-out of dental mercury.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from thousands of Canadians.
The petitioners call upon the Conservative government to keep section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act as it is currently written with its emphasis on habitat protection. They believe that the weakening of habitat protection in section 35 of the Fisheries Act will negatively impact Canada's water quality, the environment and the fisheries.
The petitioners also want to bring to the attention of the House that it is critical that any changes to the Fisheries Act not jeopardize the ecosystems on which we and future generations depend simply to provide short-term profits.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by voters. It reads as follows:
 We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: 
 WHEREAS the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), as the national public broadcaster, plays an important role in reflecting Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions 
 WHEREAS, in our current media environment, public broadcasting is an essential promoter and defender of Canadian culture, in both French and English 
 WHEREAS Canadians should continue to have access to Canadian stories and Canadian content and media should provide vibrant and rewarding new avenues for expression by Canadian artists 
 WHEREAS Canada requires a broadcaster that reflects the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities 
 WHEREAS Canadians can benefit from a shared national consciousness and identity 
 WHEREAS the public broadcasters, Radio Canada and CBC, have a crucial role to play in achieving these objectives 
 WHEREAS the CBC requires steady funding to maintain national, regional and local programming, including news coverage and services to linguistic minorities throughout Canada— 
I will leave it at that, but there is more.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by many people from Sherbrooke who are upset the Development and Peace organization has seen its budget reduced by three-quarters. These cuts will result in almost $35 million less in matching government monies for Development and Peace over the next five years. This organization was supporting over 250 partners in about 40 different countries.
CIDA’s new agreement designates funds for a mere seven countries, only one of which is in Africa. Development and Peace has already had to reduce financial support to 32 partner groups in the Global South. And funding for 48 other countries will likely have to be cut completely. Furthermore, 15 staff positions have been lost in Canada. 
In the interests of international solidarity, the petitioners are calling on the government to fully restore the $49.2 million in funding to Development and Peace.
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first petition is from petitioners calling on the federal government to enact a national public transit strategy. Their reason behind this is because Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that over the next five years, there will be an $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure needs.
The petitioners are calling for a transit strategy that would provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit that is fast, reliable, accessible and affordable. They are calling for different levels of government to work together to provide sustainable, predictable, long-term and adequate funding for public transit. They also call for accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from cyclists and pedestrians who are concerned about very large trucks in big cities. The petitioners are concerned that Canada does not have a requirement for side guards on large trucks and trailers. The coroner, in 1998, looking into the death of a Toronto cyclist, found that large vehicles were involved in 37% of collisions resulting in cyclist fatalities.
Therefore, the petitions recommend that Transport Canada look into the feasibility of mandating large trucks to have side guards—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. A few minutes ago I had urged all hon. members to present their petitions quickly so that their colleagues would have time. Presenting petitions, there is a few seconds left for the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present two petitions.
The first petition is on the subject of the importance of stable, affordable, long-term funding for our national public broadcaster. It is signed primarily by residents of the Toronto area, but also by some from British Columbia.
These petitioners call for stable, long-term funding for the CBC, a call we have heard from many petitioners before.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by nearly 600 people from almost every province in Canada.
These written petitions resonate with the over 58,000 signatures that were revealed earlier today by the group Avaaz.
These petitioners from my riding, Mayne Island, North Saanich, Sidney, as well as from other places within British Columbia, Ottawa, Montreal, Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton, virtually coast to coast, from almost every province, call on this House of Commons to reject Bill C-38. They are calling on the current Privy Council officers to withdraw the parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the budget so that parliamentarians can do their job and vote on a budget implementation bill without voting to destroy environmental laws.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 634 and 638.
Hon. Wayne Easter:  With regard to funding assistance by the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC): (a) what is the total funding assistance, of any kind, that the CCC provided to Canadian businesses operating in Cuba during each of the fiscal years from 2000 to 2011; (b) what were the names of each of the Canadian companies doing business in Cuba for the period from 2000 to 2011 that received CCC funding or financial assistance of any kind; and (c) over the same time period, what was the specific nature of the commercial activities in each case being funded or financed, in whole or in part, by the CCC?
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to questions (a), (b) and (c), during each of the fiscal years from 2000 to 2011, Canadian Commercial Corporation, CCC, did not provide funding or financial assistance to Canadian businesses operating in Cuba. 
In Cuba, CCC enters into a contract with a foreign government entity for the purchase of products and services from Canada and, in turn, enters into a contract with a Canadian supplier to fulfill the obligations of the foreign government contract. As part of the method of payment of this contract, CCC pays the Canadian supplier for the invoiced value of the goods provided and extends payment to the Cuban purchaser of goods, who then pays CCC within a certain number of days, as specified in the contract. 
Mr. Dany Morin:  With respect to cuts to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program for First Nations and Inuit outlined in Budget 2012: (a) what is the breakdown of expected savings for each department, agency and organization for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017; (b) what programs and services are expected to be cut; and (c) how many jobs will be lost?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), implementing operational efficiencies as described below will deliver expected savings for the non-insured health benefits program of $6.7 million in 2012-13, $10.6 million in 2013-14 and $11.3 million in 2014-15 and ongoing. 
With regard to (b), while looking for potential savings, the priority was to protect front-line health services for first nations and Inuit communities. As a result, opportunities to create efficiencies were identified in non-service delivery areas and through simplification of internal operational processes and structures, such as reducing and restructuring the size of the first nations and Inuit health branch headquarters office to better support regional offices and their focus on front-line service delivery to communities. As these areas identified for savings did not deliver health care services to communities, no direct services will be affected. 
Services provided to first nations and Inuit through the non-insured health benefits program, such as prescription drug coverage and dental care, will not be reduced. By simplifying internal processes, Health Canada will make the non-insured health benefits program more sustainable. 
With respect to the non-insured health benefits program, all savings identified are based on internal administrative, operational and policy changes that will not negatively impact access to benefits for eligible first nations and Inuit clients of the program. For example, Health Canada will gradually centralize review and processing of dental health claims and improve the coordination of benefits where clients have third party insurance coverage. 
With regard to (c), simplifying internal processes and structures will eliminate five positions. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 626 to 633 inclusive, and 635 to 637 inclusive could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Ms. Charmaine Borg:  Regarding the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and digital television: (a) how many complaints has the CRTC received about the transition to digital television; and (b) how many people no longer have access to television since the transition to digital television, based on the CRTC’s estimates?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Christine Moore:  With regard to all contracts issued by each department, agency and crown corporation to Xe services since January 1, 2011, what is the: (a) description of the contents of the order; (b) date of payment; (c) total amount awarded; and (d) event reason for purchase?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rosane Doré Lefebvre:  With regard to private security contracts for each department and crown corporation, for each year since 2007: (a) what is the name of the providing company; (b) what is the cost of the contract, (c) what are the terms of the contract, including (i) hours of security provided, (ii) cost per hour of security, (iii) other costs, (iv) any other stipulations of contracts; (d) what was the location of security use; (e) what is the budgetary line where expense is accounted for; and (f) was this contract open for competition or sole-sourced? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rosane Doré Lefebvre:  With regard to Kingston Penitentiary, Kingston’s Regional Treatment Centre and the Leclerc Institution, for each facility: (a) what are the current occupation levels of inmates; (b) what are the current employment levels, broken down by (i) title, (ii) salary; (c) what is the current plan for the transfer of inmates, including (i) location(s) of potential transfers, (ii) cost of transfers of inmates; (d) what will be done with the existing facilities; and (e) has the potential purchase of public prisons been the subject of any reports or studies, and, if yes, what are the (i) dates, (ii) authors, (iii) names of the documents?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Matthew Dubé:  With regard to spending by the government, the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Privy Council Office on promotional items for each year since 2007: (a) by vendor name, how much was spent on (i) hockey pucks, (ii) golf balls, (iii) sports jerseys, (iv) plastic wrist bands; (b) what was the total amount spent by each department and office; (c) what are the dates of each contract awarded; and (d) were these contracts open competitions? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Matthew Dubé: With regard to all contracts issued by each department, agency and Crown corporation to MPrinthouse (7332319 Canada) since January 1, 2009: (a) what was the content of the order; (b) what was the date of payment; (c) what was the total amount awarded; (d) what was the event or reason for purchase; and (e) were these contracts open competitions?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Matthew Dubé:  With regard to all contracts issued by each department, agency and Crown corporation to Marketeks (6066356 Canada) since January 1, 2009: (a) what was the content of the order; (b) what was the date of payment; (c) what was the total amount awarded; (d) what was the event or reason for purchase; and (e) were these contracts open competitions?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Matthew Dubé:  With regard to all contracts issued by each department, agency and Crown corporation to Wavertree (3252906 Canada) since January 1, 2009: (a) what was the content of the order; (b) what was the date of payment; (c) what was total amount awarded; (d) what was the event or reason for purchase; and (e) were these contracts open competitions? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Libby Davies:  What is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East during the fiscal year 2011-2012, broken down, (i) by department or agency, (ii) for each department or agency, by initiative or project?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Libby Davies:  With regard to Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2012, within the Health Portfolio: (a) with respect to Health Canada, (i) where will positions be cut, by branch and by division, (ii) which programs will be cut or eliminated, (iii) of programs cut or terminated, how many of these programs provide services to Canada’s Aboriginal, Inuit, or Métis peoples; and (b) with respect to Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB), (i) where will jobs be cut, by division, (ii) which programs will be cut or eliminated, (iii) what is the process and average timeline for a medication price review, (iv) will this process or timeline be changed due to funding cuts?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program (AGLRP): (a) has the government handed out payments to all 752 of the former fishers who were involved in the Victor White v. Canada federal court case; (b) if not, how many of the 752 remain to be paid; (c) what is the total number of members of the AGLRP who were not involved in the court case but who had requested reassessment or similar measures before the case went to court and had their decisions delayed as a result, and does the government plan to make payments to these people similar to those payments made to the fishers involved in the court case; and (d) what correspondence containing erroneous tax advice did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) send to AGLRP members, (i) on what dates were these letters sent, (ii) to what regions were they sent, (iii) what is the total number of individuals who received these letters? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Motions for PapersTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
PrivilegeKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the other day the official opposition raised a question of privilege of great importance. We indicated then that we would like to be able to respond to it. All Canadians would be concerned about what is taking place in the House of Commons. I will take this opportunity to get on the record why it is so critically important that the Speaker take into consideration what the House Leader of the Official Opposition has put on the record in this particular question of privilege.
As I am sure many members of the House recall, it is all related to Bill C-38. This bill would have a significant and profound impact on the lives of all Canadians. I want to express our concerns related to the question of privilege. This is probably the most opportune time to do so.
I take the issue very seriously. I have had many years to address important process questions inside the chamber. I, for one, believe in process. It is a critically important component of our democratic system to be able to stand in my place and express what I think is perhaps in the minds of many a boring issue, dealing with process. The Conservative government, likely more than any government before it, has been very negligent on the whole issue of process. So I want to share with the government some of my concerns.
We need to recognize that we are really talking about information. We have all heard the expression “information is gold”. It is critically important it is that we as legislators have access to information.
Over the years, I have met with a lot of youth. When I was over at the Manitoba legislature, young people would come down. Here, a lot of youth come and meet with their local members of Parliament to talk about what the politicians do in these buildings. When we reflect on the question of privilege that the House Leader of the Official Opposition brought to the floor the other day, it is important that we put into perspective what it is that we are telling people outside of this wonderful room. What we are really talking about is the rights of individual members of Parliament. We have to do what we can to protect those rights.
Over the years I have talked to hundreds, possibly thousands, of students and I often tell them that we do three things—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has risen to comment on a question of privilege that has been brought in this place and other points of order have been raised.
I would like to remind all hon. members that the process by which the chamber hears questions of privilege and points of order is a serious one. It is important that all hon. members have the opportunity to rise and address those issues when they are brought forward. Having said that, it is not the purpose of this process that hon. members can rise under the suggestion of a point of order or a question of privilege and speak indefinitely. 
This question of privilege has been discussed, points have been brought forward. If the hon. member has a point to make or any new information to bring before the House, that would be welcome. It is not the right of the member to speak indefinitely by providing simple commentary on the matter before the House
I would encourage the hon. member for Winnipeg North to get to the point and to bring forward his information, so that the Speaker can consider it. 
The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, I presume on the same point.
[Interjection]
Mr. Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I trust that I did not misinterpret your comments. Obviously the member for Winnipeg North is addressing the very important question of privilege that was brought up by the House leader of the opposition. I think that in explaining our concern and commenting on it, sometimes that requires some illustration to explain exactly what we feel needs to be said about that question of privilege.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the other hon. member on the same point, I would agree with the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie that members need to be given the latitude to make their points and add new information. I was merely cautioning the member that it does not translate into the right to speak indefinitely. All hon. members are urged to make their point and to bring new information before the House if they have it, so that the Chair can take that into consideration when a decision is made on something as important as a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a critical issue.
 I have been attentive to this debate. I have already made my submissions on the substantive question of privilege and do not intend to enter into that again. I have had my opportunity. However, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made his point in an approximately 20-minute statement of argument around that question of privilege. I responded briefly. Now the Liberal Party in the House has chosen this moment to provide its guidance.
 The Speaker has not yet ruled on that question of privilege. Falling back on parliamentary tradition, it seems to me that this is akin to what we would have in the British Commonwealth tradition of natural justice. One must allow all parties, in a timely fashion, to put forward their argumentation. 
I agree, it would not be appropriate to talk forever. On the other hand, I think it is awkward for the Speaker to comment on the quality of a presentation until the hon. member for an official party of this House has concluded his or her remarks. This is not to criticize you, Mr. Speaker, I never would, but I think it is an important point.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I would simply remind all hon. members that any time a question of privilege is brought forward in this place it is an important matter. The House leader for the official opposition has made this question of privilege and it is under consideration. Absolutely, members have the opportunity to add comment. 
The chair did not cut off the member for Winnipeg North but merely wished to point out that the ability to speak to a question of privilege is not indefinite. I was urging him to make his point, to present new information and to move forward with this as expeditiously as possible.
The hon. member for Bourassa.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting in this House for the past 15 years. I truly hope that your ruling will not set a dangerous precedent.
Some members deliver their speeches off the cuff. Other members read their speeches.
There is sometimes an impression that when members read their texts, we can measure their time better and there is a beginning and an end. Just because my colleague is speaking off the cuff does not mean that he should be cut off. 
It would be more judicious and more respectful to pay attention and to allow my colleague to express his point of view. I do not wish to give the impression that, here, in this cradle of democracy, a member can be cut off, especially when it is a point of privilege and not a point of order. When a question of privilege is raised, members should be allowed enough time to fully express their points of view. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair appreciates the input and advice offered by all hon. members of this place. As I said before, the Chair did not cut off the hon. member for Winnipeg North, but merely asked him to move expeditiously.
With that, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North would like to continue with his address to this question of privilege, he has the floor. 
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate your comments and interjection. 
I want to assure all members that in my experience through the years I have come to recognize that privileges are important. The reason so much attention is given to and a lot of discretion is allowed when a question of privilege is raised is so the member who raises the issue feels comfortable enough to adequately express what he or she believes is important to say. That is the spirit in which I raised point today.
I was present when the NDP House leader raised the privilege. I have had the opportunity to listen to many speeches regarding Bill C-38 and issues related to privilege.
The timing of my standing right now is critically important. Mr. Speaker, you have the power to make a difference in terms of what is going to happen over the next period of time. The Liberal Party as an entity, from what I understand, has not had the opportunity to express its thoughts on the privilege which the New Democratic Party member brought forward.
In the best way that I can, I will try to keep my comments short and concise, but I want to make sure that people understand why I feel it is so important and where I am coming from in regard to addressing this issue.
First and foremost, all members of Parliament have an important responsibility. Our constituents want to know that we are doing our job. Part of that job is what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. We do our job in many different ways. 
The privilege to which the member made reference is in regard to information that we have not been able to access. Not having access to information seriously impacts on our ability as members of Parliament to make good decisions.
The public has a great deal of interest in what we do inside the House. I always like to cut it down to two or three things. One of those things is the budget.
The Government of Canada spends a lot of money, in excess of $250 billion. As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to try to understand the kind of money that is being spent. We also need to be able to obtain information that the government has talked about in putting together its budget to present to the House. I could give a specific example in terms of my own critic portfolio. It is a relatively small expenditure, but it is an important expenditure which has a profound impact. That is why I say information is critically important. We ask the government to provide numbers and to tell us what type of offices are going to be closed down. We ask what impact it is going to have in terms of tax dollars. 
There have been some significant changes in immigration. I want to cite a specific one. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism made an announcement not that long ago, in which he said that the government wants to deal with the immigration backlog. In wanting to deal with the immigration backlog, he referred to skilled workers. He said that workers who had applied through the skilled workers program prior to 2008 were going to be deleted from the data banks. The government has put money aside that ultimately is going to be used to reimburse the landing and processing fees.
In looking at that, we say that we are debating a very important bill on the budget and we need specific information related to that. How do we know that the numbers mentioned by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism actually represent adequate compensation for those individuals? One could argue, as I have, that particular policy announcement was a cruel thing to have done, but at the end of the day, if we read the budget bill that we are expected to vote on intelligently, we need to have some very important information, and I am not convinced that information has been provided to us.
Let me use the example of someone from the Philippines who five years ago put in an application. According to this budget bill, the government is going to return that person's application fee and processing fee or landing fee. I am not 100% sure, but is important information to have. The government, with the passing of this budget bill, is going to be reimbursing those fees. If we look into it more deeply—
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Speaker has told the member that this is supposed to be relevant to the question of privilege. It seems that the member is getting into the budget debate. I wonder if he understands that he is still speaking to a question of privilege. Just to keep him on track, I am curious to know if he has that in mind when making his statement now.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Point or order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, at the time the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River rose, I was also rising to interrupt. 
I would like to provide all hon. members with some guidance in terms of the way in which a point of order or question of privilege ought to be raised. I will quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by O'Brien and Bosc, page 143, related to the initial discussion of points raised. It states:
 A Member recognized on a question of privilege is expected to be brief and concise in explaining the event which has given rise to the question of privilege and the reasons why consideration of the event complained of should be given precedence over other House business. 
It goes on to state on page 144:
 The Speaker will hear the Member and may permit others who are directly implicated in the matter to intervene. In instances where more than one Member is involved in a question of privilege, the Speaker may postpone discussion until all concerned Members can be present in the House. The Speaker also has the discretion to seek the advice of other Members to help him or her in determining whether there is prima facie a matter of privilege involved which would warrant giving the matter priority of consideration over other House business. When satisfied, the Speaker will terminate the discussion. 
I bring this to the House's attention. Before I go to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and back ultimately to the member for Winnipeg North, I will remind all hon. members that in the case of a question of privilege, the floor is not the members' until they choose to stop. The Speaker has the right to terminate that discussion if the Speaker feels that relevant points that have not been previously raised have not been brought forward. That is left to the judgment of the Speaker.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, my interventions usually do not last very long, so I will make it quick. On the point of order by the member opposite from B.C., I am not sure if he understands what the question of privilege is. The member for Winnipeg North is responding on behalf of the Liberal Party.
As the member for Bourassa mentioned, just because the member does not speak from prepared notes and has a time limit of 5, 10, 15 minutes or half an hour, he is going to make a point.
I have the question of privilege by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He has easily made four or five points and spoken about two acts. To make a comment on each and every one of those points is going to take over two or three hours. The member, I think, is going to speak for another five minutes. I think we should allow him to make his point. We are talking about something that is timely. We are about to vote on a budget bill that is over 500 pages long and which affects over 70 acts. We do not have all the proper information. Parties on this side of the House are asking for information. The points have been relevant and I think it has to be put on the record. 
With all due respect, I think the member for Winnipeg North should be given the time--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has suggested that the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who in this case is speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus and wishes to put forward the position of the caucus ought to be given reasonable time. The Chair agrees that reasonable time should be provided. The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has suggested that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North had five more minutes, that would be sufficient. I am willing to take that suggestion. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North could complete his remarks in five minutes, I think that would be reasonable. 
I thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for his advice on that matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member from B.C.—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The discussion from the Chair is not to do with what the hon. Conservative member from B.C. raised, but is rather on the question of privilege itself. If the member could restrict his comments to that, it would be greatly appreciated by the Chair.
The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for you to say that you are easily influenced. However, it seems to me that the tone changed after the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons whispered in your ear.
As an MP, I think that if the official opposition has the right to raise a point of order, the Liberal Party of Canada has the right to respond appropriately. I find that attitude unacceptable. The member for Winnipeg North is in the right in this case. We are all equal. When we have something to say, we rise. The question of privilege is important because it applies to all members. I would not want anyone to have fewer rights than anyone else just because someone whispered in someone else's ear.
The official opposition had the right to raise its point of order in the appropriate way, and this is not about holding up a stopwatch and timing five, six or seven minutes. If the member can raise a point of order, he is fully within his rights to do so. We have to be careful not to provoke anyone. Even if they have a serious cough, they have to last the night. They should be careful and look after themselves right away.
The Liberal Party has as much right as any other party to express all its points of view. This is not a question of 5, 10 or 15 minutes. They all have the right to express their views, and so do we, because we belong to a party in the House, too.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair would like to clarify for all hon. members, including the member for Bourassa, that this Chair is not influenced by individual members, and if the hon. member for Bourassa is suggesting otherwise, that is a serious accusation. If that is the point that is being made, that point needs to be made clearly. 
It is quite clear that several minutes ago I pointed out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the right to speak in response to a question of privilege is essential and is respected in this place, but that does not mean that any member rising on a question of privilege has unlimited time on the floor.
Just a moment ago, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel pointed out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North was speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, that he was making important points and that he thought it reasonable that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North was given an additional five minutes, he could make those arguments. I was in agreement with that and was at the point of giving the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The hon. member for Bourassa.
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for this House and for the Chair. I started by simply saying that I have a huge amount of respect for you and I think you do an outstanding job.
However, that is why I was wondering, because I am very sure that you are not influenced. That is why I said that since the official opposition had given its opinion, standard practice is to allow my colleague a full chance to express himself. This is not a filibuster. As it is a question of privilege, the member for Winnipeg North should have the right to express himself.
With all due respect, I just wanted to share some of my 15 years of experience—that is not nothing—because I have seen all kinds of things. I know that the member for Winnipeg North is acting in good faith. We should give him the time to fully express his opinion because that is the point of a question of privilege.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, maybe I misspoke in offering five minutes. It was just a gesture of compromise. The member for Winnipeg North spoke for five minutes and was interrupted on two occasions. I would like it if the members opposite would not interrupt, because once a member has the flow going it does not make sense to start over again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Winnipeg North rose at 4:57 p.m., which was fully 28 minutes ago, of which I would presume about 18 or 20 minutes was from the member.
 I would like to point out to all hon. members that the Chair has not cut off the hon. member for Winnipeg North but has merely pointed out two things: first, that his time to address his point of privilege is not unlimited, and second, as I pointed out in the rules and will read again, “When satisfied, the Speaker will terminate the discussion”. This is to clarify that the Speaker does have the right to terminate this discussion whether an hon. member feels he or she is finished or not.
With that, I would give the hon. member five minutes to quickly make his summary at which point I would ask him to complete his remarks so that the House can move along with its business. 
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disruptive in the sense that one tries to expand upon what one thinks is the core issue and then there are interruptions that come from the government side. I appreciate that there is some sensitivity, but I can honestly say that if the member from B.C. had listened closely to what I was citing as an example, the member would have heard how very relevant it is to the privilege that was raised by the NDP House leader. The privilege is all about information. It is about the rights of all members, not just opposition members. Believe it or not, there are even some Conservative backbenchers who would no doubt share the same opinion that I would have in regard to the importance of having information in order to make good decisions.
The example that I was giving in this budget document is that we are not talking about $10 million, we are talking about $100-plus million. These are tax dollars that are being allocated to provide compensation for those individuals who put in an application to become skilled workers to fill many of the jobs that we are unable to fill here in Canada. The Minister of Immigration made that decision.
I believe there is information that is critical for us to know. The immigration file is not alone. For example, does the government realize that those individuals who put in the application also would have paid for immigration services back home, consultant fees and so forth. It was not just a hard cost. Are they being fairly compensated?
I understand that now there is a possibility of a class action lawsuit against the government. We need to know that kind of information. We just need to look at the F-35. We know the government knew it had completely different figures and it sat on those numbers. 
Parliamentarians of all political stripes need to understand just how important it is that we have access to that information. The NDP House leader stood in his place and argued that we are being denied that access. If we are being denied that access, how is it possible for us to make the decisions that are so critically important to all Canadians.
If we look at Beauchesne's Sixth Edition—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. As I read a few minutes ago, the Speaker will hear from members and others relating to a question of privilege. Again I will quote from the book, ”When satisfied, the Speaker will terminate the discussion”.
At this point, the Chair is calling orders of the day.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier on a point of order.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, for which I gave notice at the request of the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you may recall that, on Tuesday of last week, I rose on a question of privilege about not being able to receive information that allows me to do my work. I indicated at the time, if that information would be forthcoming before the weekend because I had to attend a convention, that the point would be moot.
An hour after I rose in the House to raise a question of privilege, my office did get a phone call to set up a briefing. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I had not at the time identified, nor will I now, which department, because my objective was not to be critical, aggressive or to be an attack the minister. It was only to seek and obtain information that is allowed to be obtained by all members of Parliament. The briefing was held on the Thursday, so that point is moot.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have before you cut me off but there is a much broader—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier is rising on a point of order and he will be allowed to continue after the vote.

Private Members' Business
Study on Income Inequality[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 315 under private members' business. 
Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
 (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) 
Vote #284
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Search and Rescue[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 314.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #285
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (vexatious complainants), as reported with amendment from the committee, be concurred in.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in Bill C-293 at report stage under private members' business.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #286
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Interjection]
Ms. Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the member for Trinity—Spadina that there have been discussions and there is unanimous agreement for the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House the hour for private members' business today be cancelled and the order for the resumption at second reading of Bill C-305, an act to establish a national public transit strategy, be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yes
 No
The Speaker:  There is no consent.
It being 6:33, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
National Public Transit Strategy Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 26, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-305, An Act to establish a National Public Transit Strategy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina's bill to establish a national public transit strategy.
The rising economic cost of congestion and traffic delays, under-financed transportation networks close to their capacity limits, and our growing population all point to one thing, that in order to move Canada forward we need a national public transit strategy.
The gap between available funding and infrastructure needs is growing and our communities need reliable and sustainable federal investment in public transit. This bill would secure a permanent investment plan for public transit and innovation research, thereby creating the predictability and stability in funding that lower levels of government need in order to take action.
I was at the FCM conference a few weeks ago, where I kept hearing over and over again from mayors that what they needed was plan-based, long-term and predictable funding.
Canadians living in rural communities have different transportation needs than those living in urban centres. I am proud to see that my colleague's bill, Bill C-305, responds to the needs of Canadians living in rural areas.
My riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is made up of 42 municipalities, the vast majority of which are small communities far from urban centres. The lack of public transportation is a major problem for these people who live outside the larger urban centres and who are cut off from necessary services if they do not have access to a vehicle. This makes getting to work too costly and sometimes even impossible.
My colleague's bill also makes planning possible across the different modes of transportation. A number of excellent public transit projects are being implemented in Canada. This plan would make it possible to ensure that these projects are completed effectively and efficiently and that they work together.
The bill would mean better public transit, which is vital to the movement of people and has immeasurable social, environmental, economic and health benefits. Investment in public transit creates jobs, fuels economic growth, contributes to clean air, lowers greenhouse gas emissions, decreases congestion and reduces the pressure for more roads. 
Transportation in rural communities is a matter of health and fairness. Last fall, during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Carolyn Kolebaba, the vice-president of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, was passionate about how a public transit strategy extended to rural areas could help reduce poverty and greatly improve life for people who cannot afford to own a vehicle. A good public transit service would allow them to participate fully in the life of their community.
What is more, there is currently a health crisis in my riding. There are truly very few health professionals available to serve the remote communities. We are seeing that in Argenteuil, where eight doctors have left the health and social service centre in the past few months. According to the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, in 1991, 14.9% of Canadian doctors were working in rural regions. However, by 1999, that number had plummetted to 0.79% and it is estimated that it will continue to drop to 0.53% by 2021.
In the meantime, the population across Canada is aging and my riding is no exception. Access to public transit is an important solution for providing seniors with access to the health care system, at a time when they might no longer have access to a car of their own.
People with reduced mobility also frequently rely on public transit for their work and community life and in rural areas their needs are pressing. Transportation can make the difference between their isolation and dependence on loved ones, and their independent and healthy involvement in their community. 
The lack of public transit is also an obstacle for young people who want to pursue higher education. 
These young people should not have to choose between leaving their home regions to pursue higher education and abandoning their studies to remain in their regions.
In my riding, for instance, many students who complete their studies at the Polyvalente Lavigne high school want to study at the Cégep de St-Jérôme. Since transportation is currently very expensive, the RCM is doing everything it can to serve those students. But the RCM needs a lot more support in order to ensure that these students have access to transportation.
The Papineau region is facing the same problem: students are going to Gatineau to study at the UQO. The same thing is happening in the Mirabel region: students are going to study in Montreal. These young people need public transit so they can live at home and still make ends meet.
An effective public transit system, whether by bus or by train for longer distances, would not be an extravagant indulgence. Indeed, it would be an excellent way to keep the lifeblood of our rural areas where it belongs.
This bill can help everyone in my riding in several ways. For instance, a high percentage of workers from the city of Mirabel commute every day between Mirabel and Montreal.
We know the government has studies in its possession showing that daily commuting and traffic have a negative impact on workers and on the environment.
According to a Statistics Canada study done in 2001, approximately 4.8 million workers in Canada, or one-third of all workers, cross municipal boundaries to go to work. Another study done by Statistics Canada in 2010 shows that, for many workers, commuting daily to and from work is a major source of stress and frustration. It is also a waste of time and a waste of potential productivity for them or of time that these workers could have spent at home with their children. 
Traffic congestion is a major problem that reduces productivity and, by contributing to pollution, endangers public health. However, there is a simple and accessible solution to reduce workers' stress and solve the environmental problem caused by all this inefficient travel: an affordable, practical and efficient public transit system. 
Public transit is not just a solution for public health, for greater fairness and for the protection of the environment; it is also the solution to a major economic problem. 
According to a 2006 Transport Canada study, the annual cost to Canadians of chronic congestion in urban and peri-urban regions is somewhere between $2.3 billion and $3.7 billion. These figures are from 2002. The problem of traffic congestion has only gotten worse since. Over 90% of the congestion costs relate to the time lost by drivers and their passengers. 
We cannot let workers get stuck in traffic for hours every day. And we cannot ignore this issue by dumping it onto the provinces and municipalities, as this government is doing.
What we have before us is a good bill, both from a collective and an individual point of view.
I am going to conclude by congratulating the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina on this important legislation to promote public transit. I also want to thank the Speaker for giving me the opportunity to address this issue. 
I hope all hon. members will support Bill C-305.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to talk about this wonderful bill, a bill to establish a national public transit strategy.
My riding has 200 communities and it is about as rural as can be, maybe not as rural as some other members ridings, but certainly the vast majority of ridings.
It is somewhat ironic that I am talking about a national transit strategy when a lot of the big spending would be on subway systems. The nearest subway system to my riding is in Boston, Massachusetts. 
I do believe in the importance of the bill. Whether it is in Montreal, Toronto, or the SkyTrain in Vancouver, public transit and mass transit in this situation, like the subway or the SkyTrain, is beneficial to the nation.
There are several aspects of the bill that I appreciate fully. It will help to encourage dialogue about large cities and urban centres. It gives us the opportunity to discuss just how people will be moved around at a time when cities are expanding, like the greater Toronto area, where millions of people are set to arrive by 2020. Vancouver and Montreal are both going to expand. In places such as St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or even Halifax, the transit system, primarily bus, or in the case of St. John's the metro bus, the infrastructure is there. 
Public transit improves the environment because people can be moved into one vehicle. It also helps people who live in poverty and who are unable to find transportation of their own, either a car or motorcycle. Insurance costs are high and fuel costs are rising. Something like this would help alleviate poverty in a major way.
What I see is a bill that has a national dialogue about who we are. It takes stock of what we have thus far when it comes to infrastructure and builds and improves upon that.
I have lived in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. In each and every city I took advantage of the transit system. It was an advantage for me because I did not have a vehicle because I could not afford one, especially living in Vancouver. I was able to avail myself of the transit system there namely, the SkyTrain and the bus system to get to work. 
Several aspects of the bill will improve the conversation in our country in addition to eventually improving the infrastructure situation.
Municipalities struggle. My hon. colleague mentioned earlier the FCM meeting that was held in Saskatchewan. Right now there is a funding deficit. Many municipalities, small or large, are now in a situation where they want to renew a fiscal framework with the provinces. 
As members would know, municipalities are creations of the provinces. The Constitution recognizes two levels of government, federal and provincial. The provincial government, through its own municipal affairs department, looks after municipalities. 
Only 8¢ of the average tax dollar winds its way through to municipal coffers. Imagine a city the size of Toronto, or even a mid-size city like Halifax, having to support a transit system primarily through its revenue from 8¢ of the tax dollar. That is not a substantial amount of money. This is what the FCM is talking about. 
This bill provides us with the opportunity to have a discussion about transit and the strategies for each and every municipality. It would be a pan-national conversation. We could discuss options such as direct subsidies to individuals through the tax code or direct subsidies to the municipalities themselves. 
We talk quite a bit about the gas revenue, which is shared with municipalities through the provinces. This initiative was started in 2005. A portion of the gas tax revenue or the excise tax is given to the municipalities and a lot of that goes to transit. Investing in public transit infrastructure benefits the people of Canada. Better public transit would result in cleaner, more productive cities and communities in which people could access the jobs and services that would be needed for economic growth.
Is it not ironic that in the budget we will vote on tonight, Bill C-38, are employment insurance reforms. One of the issues at play is the government trying to hook up people with full-time work within an hour's drive. That would be highly problematic in rural areas, especially with respect seasonal industries. Some people have said that EI recipients could go from the fish plant and work in tourism to help to expand it. However, according to the philosophy of what the government is putting in place when it comes to EI reforms, they cannot go from one seasonal industry to another unless it is expanded by a couple of weeks. Even still, the government is looking to have people work all year round. It wants to ensure that people do not become repeat users of EI, which is very problematic when it comes to seasonal work.
One of the solutions to employment is that people have to be within an hour's drive. If they are in a situation where they are offered a job that is less than an hour away and they do not have a vehicle in a rural area, forget it, it just will not work. However, in an urban area they have to look at investing in a monthly pass for either the bus or the subway, or perhaps a combination of the two.
How can we help these people who find themselves impoverished and have this kind of opportunity for work. When it comes to EI reform, it is not normally the situation that they are forced to do this, that they go about getting a job and have to invest in transportation for that. Is there a way we can use the tax code, which the government has done in certain circumstances, to provide a benefit for those who want to buy that monthly pass? At the same time, we should be compelled to look at some kind of system of direct subsidy to make it affordable so people can afford a monthly transit pass.
We are talking about the national public transit strategy act. In this act, the conversation is what is key. There are certain things, like the coordinated approach, that I find very beneficial to this nation.
The Minister of Transport, in consultation with the provincial ministers responsible for public transit, and with representatives of municipalities, transit authorities, and aboriginal communities, must encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation of the national strategy for public transit and advise for the assistance, development and implementation of programs and practices in support of that strategy. How is that for a novel idea, a first ministers conference of some sort, where on the agenda they talk about a strategy for public transit?
Right now it seems as if the conversation between the federal and provincial governments is non-existent. We saw that during the supposed negotiations for the new health accord. There were no negotiations. There was an edict from the Prime Minister's Office. It came down to the provinces, and they were told to accept it.
Prior to this, when the Liberals were in government, negotiation took place between Paul Martin and the rest of the provinces.
Here is a novel idea. On the agenda a first ministers conference is an item in which there is a decent, fair discussion on how to provide affordable, effective and efficient transit for the major metropolitan areas and, by extension, on how to increase transport and infrastructure facilities such as highways in smaller rural areas.
The report to Parliament is also very interesting. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities must cause a report on the conference, described in section 6, to be laid before the House. The House gets to debate any future national strategy for public transit. That too is a beneficial idea.
 Therefore, I support this because it allows for the best practices from each major metropolitan area and, by extension, from the provinces. Then there can be discussions to determine if the best practices in British Columbia, whether it be the Lower Mainland of B.C., can be exercised in the greater metro Halifax area. We can share best practices with the Prairies, Winnipeg, maybe Saskatoon and Regina, and the cities of Toronto and Montreal. We then can determine the most efficient system that helps cut down on greenhouse gas emissions as well as helps to alleviate poverty, whether it is taxes or direct subsidies. However, the federal government needs to be engaged with the people who provide the services, namely the provinces, but specifically the municipalities.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it has been a long time since I said I was pleased to rise in this House to address Bill C-305. I see this legislation as a breath of fresh air after the debates that we have had over the past few weeks, and particularly before the marathon session that will begin in the next few hours, if not minutes.
This legislation is refreshing because it has been a long time since we had a bill that presents a vision for the future, a bill that takes Canada into the 21st century, where it should be.
I want to point out, because this is somewhat funny, that while we are often presented with statistics from the OECD to boast about Canada's place in the world, our country is the only OECD member that has yet to adopt a public transit strategy at the national level.
What are the objectives of the national strategy proposed in the hon. member's bill? They are very simple and quite appropriate: to have fast, affordable and efficient public transit in Canada.
We have to be aware of the time lost by people because of traffic congestion. According to a study that I read recently, over a period of one year, a worker in a large urban centre like Montreal or Toronto spends the equivalent of about 32 working days in his car, commuting to and from work. This time could be reduced significantly with a fast, affordable and efficient public transit system.
We must make the necessary investments. I emphasize the word “investments”, because I think one of the main differences between the Conservative Party and the NDP is that the NDP sees the development of a true public transit strategy as an investment instead of an expenditure. It may cost us in the short term, but the return on the investment will be significantly greater than the money spent.
The Conservatives will likely tell us that financial support for transportation infrastructure is increasing every year, and I am not disputing that. However, the growing needs are outpacing this infrastructure more and more rapidly. Child-rearing incentives, particularly in Quebec, have created a mini-baby boom, which means that the population of Canada is growing fairly rapidly and that the need for public transit is critical.
I would like to add that the younger generation is increasingly aware of the importance of adopting a greener approach to the economy and to transportation. The new generation is sending a message to all the slightly older generations, such as the one I belong to, that significant efforts must be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course this involves a public transportation system that is more effective at every level: public transit within municipalities, within the provinces and even between provinces. I will have the opportunity to elaborate on that later.
So what are the fundamental elements of this policy that we want to see implemented to enhance the development of this country's public transit system? First, we must ensure that we have predictable, ongoing funding. The various stakeholders that have to deal with the problem of public transportation must have a vision for the short, medium and long term. In order for that to happen, they have to be able to count on predictable, ongoing funding.
We have to invest in research and development. For the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Transport, where we have been studying new transportation technologies. Witnesses appeared before the committee and explained in very clear terms the changes that could be made if we had a little more support for research and development.
We should encourage the different levels of government to work harmoniously together. We know that transit is a municipal, provincial and interprovincial matter, and one day we will have to sit all the players down at the table so they can harmonize their policies, share their successes and, together, set a course for the future.
We should also develop greater synergy between urban development and infrastructure. The positive outcomes of this type of policy are just as straightforward as they are simple, and they are expected by the vast majority of the population. First, there is a quick and effective decrease in greenhouse gases. For every bus put on the road, for every suburban train, for every interprovincial transit ride, hundreds or even thousands of cars are taken off the road. The means of transportation, together with industry, are the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases. This is a clear, straightforward, specific and quick way to optimally decrease greenhouse gases.
We can also expect improved health outcomes. Studies have shown that, in big cities, traffic congestion has a direct effect on respiratory diseases and on people who are more severely affected. More public transit means lower greenhouse gas emissions; lower greenhouse gas emissions means lower health care costs related to respiratory diseases.
Take my own case, for example. I live in the riding of Trois-Rivières, which is populated densely enough to have a public transit system and has excellent rail infrastructure. We have a magnificent station, but the train does not go there anymore. If I want to travel between Ottawa and my riding every week, I have to go by car. 
Imagine if we had a high-speed train. By high speed train, I do not necessarily mean TGV technology. A high-speed train would enable people to travel from one major centre to another within a reasonable period of time. It would also help people save time because they can work while using public transit. For example, there are bus routes that now offer Wi-Fi connections to all passengers. More and more people who work for small, medium-sized and large businesses are choosing this option because they want to make the most of their working hours.
People in my riding are very optimistic that rail services will come back to Trois-Rivières, high-speed rail at that, regardless of which technology is chosen.
Several organizations have confirmed that this bill is a step in the right direction. I will read some quotes quickly because time is short.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association said:
 ...the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) has always been supportive of a strong participation of the federal government in public transit. Indeed, we believe that close collaboration between all orders of government is essential in addressing the challenges our communities are facing when it comes to offering sustainable mobility options...In order to adequately respond to the growing demand for public transit, communities must develop long-term plans with the support of their local, territorial, provincial and federal governments. 
That is in keeping with what I was talking about just a few minutes ago.
I believe that I am running out of time, so I would like to share some statistics that I believe are important and that demonstrate that this truly is a policy for developing and investing in the future, and that this is not about spending and putting band-aids on wooden legs, as we see too often with existing policies. 
Canada's transportation industry represents 45,000 direct and 24,000 indirect jobs. Imagine creating growth within this investment sector, and we can already see how the government could quickly and easily see a return on its investments.
 Earlier I mentioned 32 days being spent in a car. That is $6 billion in costs related to workers arriving late to work because of traffic jams. We are talking about $115 million in health care savings. 
Once passed, the bill will bring together the Department of Transport, provincial transport ministers, municipalities, transit authorities and aboriginal communities to design and establish a national public transit strategy to meet the needs of our communities. The result of this collaboration would be brought before the House of Commons. 
That is what we hope to see as quickly as possible.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of having a national transit strategy has been on the agenda for many years. I can recall having discussions on this issue as far back as the late 1990s and it has carried forward. It seems to becoming more of an issue as all levels of government are recognizing that they do have a role to play.
Obviously, municipal governments over the years have recognized they have a leading role in making sure there is on-the-ground service for those individuals who need the services of rapid transit, subways, or whatever it might be. 
Provincial governments over the last number of years, and a lot depends on the province and the municipalities within the province, have also recognized that they have a significant role to play. Some provinces, such as the province of Manitoba, provide direct grants and subsidies that go toward ridership and ensuring there is a transit system not only in Winnipeg, but also in other municipalities. The province itself has seen that it has a role to play.
Having said that, there has been a lack of leadership from the national government in recognizing that it, too, has a role to play. Many, including myself, would ultimately argue that the federal government needs to play a much larger role than it is playing today.
That is why in principle many of the different stakeholders across Canada would see a bill of this nature as a positive step forward as we try to come to grips with where we should be going on the whole issue of mass public transit, trains versus buses, to make sure our cities are keeping up with the demand. 
The future projections for virtually all of Canada's major cities indicate that significant growth is happening. In some municipalities, it is a fairly profound growth that is taking place. As such, they need to get involved in looking at ways in which they can provide that public transportation.
It is important for us to recognize that generally speaking, municipalities do not have the financial resources or the means to get into these huge capital projects. We are not talking about a few million dollars here and there. It is well into the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the project. I could cite some specific examples in the city of Winnipeg, but the need for infusion of capital, cash, if I could put it that way, is very high.
It would be nice to see a government take an interest in looking at the bigger picture, looking at the needs of the different municipalities while recognizing there is a very finite amount of money that can be raised at the municipal level.
A vast majority of the funds that get into the city coffers come from property taxes. Property owners will tell us that their property taxes are already high enough. Because of the expenditures that would be incurred if we started investing in public transit, it is just not practical in many cases for municipalities to move forward. Municipalities end up saying that it might make sense to move toward a faster mode of public transportation, but they just do not have the financial resources, so instead they will expedite things by putting in bus-only lanes in order to increase ridership.
That is why, in fairness to municipalities, the federal government needs to come to the table, sit down and start talking about that national strategy with regard to public transportation.
If we recognize that role up front, I believe that at the end of the day we will have healthier communities. We will have communities that would be able to accommodate the potential demand if we could provide the proper mode of transportation. For example, in cities the size of Toronto and Montreal—let us focus on Toronto and Montreal, because Vancouver has the SkyTrain, which is an above-ground mode of travel—there is a great deal of investment in their subway systems.
Back in the days when I had the opportunity to take some university courses on urban development, we talked about how subways and the construction of subways is a long-term project because of the hundreds of millions of dollars required. The impact on development huge. Wherever that subway actually stops, we will see a core of development, quite often, take off to feed into the subway's system. A great example is Canada's largest city, the city of Toronto. Could members imagine if Toronto did not have the subway system it currently has? It would not be able to facilitate the type of demand on growth, on population, if it did not have a reliable subway system. 
 However, if we were to talk to politicians of different political stripes and at different levels of government, we would find that Toronto's need to expand is very real. It is there. It would be very difficult for a municipality like Toronto to be able to do that without any commitment coming from Ottawa and the provincial government. 
That same principle would apply also to Montreal or even, to a certain degree, to cities such as Calgary and Edmonton, which are developing their subway systems. 
I had the opportunity last fall to ride the Vancouver SkyTrain. It is an amazing system. It is amazing how quickly one can get from the airport to the downtown core. These modes of transportation are, in good part, what allow our cities to continue to grow.
In Winnipeg we talk about light rail transit and how we could speed up travel in the south corridor, although Mayor Sam Katz has been aggressively pursuing other ways to speed up our bus system. 
However, arguments have been brought forward even in the city of Winnipeg as to what potential we have in subway development, because when we look to the future, we want to continue to grow as a city and prosper. That means we need to be able to sit down with the different levels of government so that we can get that joint project.
If we took a look at a lot of major projects across Canada, we would find all three levels of government getting involved in order to turn a project into reality.
In essence, that is what this bill wants to do: develop a public transit system policy through which Canadians would benefit as a whole. That infrastructure needs to be worked on. We can talk about expansion, but we also need to recognize that even the current infrastructure needs repair, more in some areas than in others.
It is important for the federal government to take a serious look at what is being proposed in this private member's bill to see how we can enhance our role here in Ottawa to ensure that we have great public transportation systems that will allow people to travel between larger cities and to commute. That would allow us to continue to grow and prosper well into the future. 
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for having the tenacity and the doggedness to push ahead with the decision by this party to support a national public transit strategy across this vast land of ours, not just in urban centres but in rural Canada as well.
At the transport committee we conducted a study of a national public transit strategy. Unfortunately, government members opposite decided that they did not want a strategy, so they changed the name of the study, after it had been completed, to a study of public transit, which is an indication, I am afraid, of the government's current mentality when it comes to public transit.
We need a public transit strategy in this country. One has to look no further than Toronto to understand why a strategy is essential. We had a situation in which a political decision was made, not a public decision. The political decision was to build subways in areas where they are currently being very lightly used and to fill in a hole where a subway was being built. 
Tragically, that hole is being dug up again. We have spent probably 200 million public dollars by digging a hole, filling it in, and now digging it again, all because of changes in government.
Public transit is a 200-year investment. It is not a four-year investment, as many government members would have us believe. “Is it going to get me re-elected in four years' time?” is the only question they care about. 
It is a 200-year investment, and we need thinkers who think in 200-year timeframes, as the people who built this country did when they installed railroads across this country 160 years ago. The bridge over the Humber River that crosses into my riding was put there 158 years ago, and it is still standing and still carrying trains. It is actually being added to, not being torn down; it is being rebuilt to carry more trains, which brings me to the next piece of the folly of not having a strategy.
In the early 1990s the Ontario government, which was at the time an NDP government, decided that there was a need for more public transit in Toronto. The government started a big series of projects to build transit. The Conservative government that took over in 1995—and some of the members opposite were in that government—decided to cancel most of that public transit investment and filled in the holes that had been dug.
The City of Toronto, realizing that it needed transit, asked the federal government to come forward and help build a subway to the airport. What did we get from David Collenette and the federal Liberals? We received a rapid transit line in the form of a diesel train that was going to be only for business passengers. It was going to be incredibly disruptive and incredibly expensive, and it was not real public transit. However, he told us not to worry, since not one nickel of public money would be spent on the train.
The trouble is, here we are, 13 years after the promise that it would not be public money, and the $1.5 billion investment that we received, some of it from the federal government, will not do anything to improve public transit in the city. We are spending $1.5 billion to build a train to the airport that will only be used by a relative handful of people. We will be the only major city on the planet that runs diesel trains to its airport from downtown. 
All the people I have talked to who live along that line have unanimously agreed that to build diesel trains in such incredible numbers is not smart transit. Not only can they not use it, because it is only for the well-heeled, and not only can they not access it, because it will not stop anywhere along the route, but It will also pollute tremendously in every part of Toronto. A total of 464 diesel trains will be whizzing by neighbourhoods in ridings just south of mine. There will be over 300 in my riding, many of which will be running to the airport. 
The government said, after a “thorough” environmental assessment, that a new diesel fuel is out there, a better and cleaner diesel, and that we would just run with that. 
The public wants electric. 
That is part of what a national public transit strategy could give us: a direction from the government so that transit would be funded in an intelligent way, in a way that does not pollute, in a way that actually gives people public transit they can use and in a way that is healthy.
It is remarkable that today the World Health Organization has released a report that now lists diesel exhaust as a carcinogen in the same category as asbestos, arsenic and mustard gas. The provincial government—with some money from the federal government, as there is a considerable amount of federal money in this project too—is going to expose people and their children to the proven carcinogen of the diesel exhaust coming from literally thousands and thousands of trains a year. 
That is not smart transit.
We should, in all rights, go back to the drawing board with the environmental assessment, but what is the government doing with environmental assessments? It has decided that human health should not be part of environmental assessments. The only thing an environmental assessment should look at from the federal perspective, because schedule 2 is missing, is whether aquatic wildlife, species at risk, or fish are harmed. Humans do not matter. 
That is wrong.
 It is for that reason that we need a strategy. It is not just to make sure that we are spending our scarce public transit dollars effectively or to make sure we are not doing it in a wasteful way; it is to make sure we are doing it in a way that does not actually harm the health of humans, of the people who vote for us.
 For that reason, I am supporting Bill C-305, and I would urge the members opposite to think long and hard about supporting this bill as well.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-305, concerning a public transit strategy.
While I appreciate, support and applaud the member for Trinity—Spadina. who proposed this bill, I would like to provide my own perspectives on the whole definition of transit and to arrive at a little bit of a comparison or at least a contrast to other public priorities related to transportation.
Investment in transportation infrastructure obviously is very important to a country as vast, as huge and as densely populated as Canada. Transportation infrastructure is a costly but necessary venture.
The substance of the bill deals with the conveyance of people on that infrastructure. It is about how we provide the means to convey people over an existing transportation network. It is the rail cars on the rail tracks. The transit portion would be the rail cars, the transportation infrastructure would be the rail tracks. The bill focuses in on the transit, on the conveyance of people and goods, but, most specifically, people.
It is worth pointing out that the needs of Canadians are ever evolving when it comes to transit, to transportation infrastructure, our cities modernized, but as well, the needs of our rural communities and our suburbs also change as well.
Often we look at public transit and we assume that it is necessarily a big city issue. In fairness, Bill C-305 does indeed seem to reflect that while there are notions or elements in which communities are invited to participate, generally speaking, this is about city transportation, city transit, intercity transit.
The needs are evolving because, as we know, the government of the day is not demanding the mass mobility of people in rural areas. With its employment insurance reform and conform requirements, it will be expecting citizens to travel up to one hour away from their principal homes to wherever employment may be. That may not seem such a daunting task for some, but when we consider that an hour's travel from a rural area could be over roads that are just not kept up, but, most important, from a transit point of view, travelling one hour's distance from one major city to the suburb of a city to inner city, s a transit system is available to convey those passengers.
For example, for the people of the lower north shore of Quebec to transit one hour's distance from their own community to where a potential job may be available, there is no transit system. It does not exist.
In my own home province and in my own riding, the community of Conche, for example, is a beautiful place, absolutely incredible in terms of not only the scenery but its people. Unfortunately, in the off-season and certain times of the year there are very few jobs. For them to transit just 28 kilometres away to the community of Roddington, for example, they would travel over a dirt road, but, most important, they are expected to do so with no transit system available.
For a single mother, a single person or for someone who is making a very small wage and does not have access to the means to buy a vehicle, that transit is not available to them and they do not have the means themselves.
If I were to make one point on this matter before moving on, it is absolutely essential that this Parliament be seized with understanding that the needs of not only transportation infrastructure but of transit requirements is constantly evolving and we are not keeping up. 
While I applaud and will be supporting the private member's bill, I would implore that we look broader and deeper and think bigger when it comes to understanding exactly what the evolving transit needs are in our country. While this is a template and a blueprint for mapping out a strategy for larger cities and their suburbs, it is not an effective means or template for mapping out a strategy for the entire country.
 I will also reflect on the fact that while transit is already in play, there are other types of transit systems in which the federal government has an active role. An example is the public transit between Îles-de-la-Madeleine, a small island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and a beautiful part of the province of Quebec, and the province of P.E.I. One of the most significant communication links is not to the St. Lawrence Seaway but to P.E.I. There are other links between Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the port of Montreal but one of its most significant major points of conveyance is between the island and P.E.I. 
This bill is about transit. It is about the conveyance of people, goods and services via a mode of conveyance that is supported by the public interest. This bill does not necessarily contemplate the inclusion of those concerns and those needs in with a public transit strategy. I would ask for consideration that the notion of what public transit is all about be broadened from that point of view.
I will also reflect on what the government considers to be public transit. It considers public transit to be that which is available to larger urban centres. However, the provision of a strategy within the transit system is actually funded or encouraged through taxation policy. The government does not actually commit to any public transit strategy that uses the public interest and the public purse to establish the means and mechanisms to advance the strategy. The entire public transit strategy, in the government's point of view, is simply to offset some of the costs to the individual user of that transit system through the taxation system. Specifically, the government grants what I and the majority of people would consider to be a relatively nominal tax rebate on a portion of a limited element of the total fee paid for that transit by the individual. While it is not objectionable, it does not go far enough. It is a very minimalist response to the true needs of the transit and of a transit strategy in this country to offer a 10% or 15% tax credit on payments that are already offered or already provided from the user when the benefits of that tax credit are not realized by the user until as much as 12 to 14 months after the expense has occurred.
It is one thing to talk about a transportation infrastructure strategy but it is another thing to talk about a transit strategy. If we do not have the means to move people because a transit system does not exist, then the availability of a tax credit to individuals seeking work, with the requirements of the pending new EI regulations of having to move up to an hour's distance away from their home communities, is just not valuable. It may be valuable to those who could use it, even with all of its limitations and lack of completeness, what we need in this country is a true strategy and it is, sadly, missing.
The Speaker: The time provided for debate has expired. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 20, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
PrivilegeThe Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 11 by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding information on the impact of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
I thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this question, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Winnipeg North for their comments.
The House Leader of the Official Opposition maintains that he was unable to secure the government's co-operation when he attempted to obtain information on the impact of Bill C-38 by means of written questions, questions asked during question period and in committee, and requests made through the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
He charged that this failure to respond to a requests for information impeded members in their ability to hold the government to account and “makes them vote blind on the actual budget”, thereby constituting a breach of members' privileges and a contempt of the House.
The House Leader of the Official Opposition also maintained that by refusing to respond to the request by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government had violated the Federal Accountability Act, because the reasons given by the Clerk of the Privy Council to justify the refusal were not justifiable under the law.
The government House leader argued that the opposition House leader had failed to bring this matter to the attention of the Chair at the earliest opportunity. He contended that no specific part of Bill C-38 was objected to, arguing that the information referred to by the opposition House leader was, in any event, germane, not to budget implementation bills like Bill C-38 but rather to appropriation bills that Parliament would be asked to consider.
At the outset, it is important for members to know that it is not for the Speaker to decide whether the opposition House leader is correct in stating that the government is required by law to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with certain types of information. This is a legal question and is not a matter for the Chair to advocate, much less enforce.
In my ruling of October 24, 2011, which is found on pages 2404 and 2405 of Debates, I reminded the House of the long-standing principle that has guided the Chair in interpreting constitutional and legal matters. At the time, I also said:
 ...it is important to delineate clearly between interpreting legal provisions of statutes—which is not within the purview of the Chair—and ensuring the soundness of the procedures and practices of the House when considering legislation—which, of course, is the role of the Chair. 
Thus, should members feel that the government is in breach of the Federal Accountability Act, redress for such grievances may be sought through the courts, not here in the chamber. 
Echoing the ruling given by Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010, on the question of privilege concerning the Afghan detainee documents, the opposition House leader argued that in a system of responsible government, the right of the House to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege. In the 2010 case, however, the circumstances were quite different. There had been a House order and committee orders requiring the production of documents. So it was the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the orders of the House were obeyed. In the case before us, there are no such orders and, in their absence, the Speaker has neither the authority nor the power to compel the production of information. 
This brings us to the opposition House leader's core argument, namely, that members are being impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties because the government is not providing them with certain information that they need to properly consider legislation and hold the government to account. The Chair treats all matters that touch on the privileges of members with great seriousness.
In that regard, it is completely legitimate to try to obtain information through a variety of means available to parliamentarians. Speaker Parent confirmed this when he stated, on page 688 of the House of Commons Debates:
 In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, members should of course have access to the information they require. 
Members have every right to seek financial information at any time, they need not wait for it to be found in appropriation bills or any other legislative proposal. Such requests have happened before and they will doubtless happen again.
In the case before us, the opposition House leader has acknowledged that information was unsuccessfully sought through various means including written questions, questions posed during question period and questions posed in committee. I cannot presume to judge the quality of the responses that have been received.
Speaker Milliken clearly established this on December 1, 2010, on page 6677 of the House of Commons Debates:
 ...it is not for the Chair to decide whether an answer or response given to a question constitutes an answer to that question. It is beyond the competence of the Chair to make that kind of decision under our practice. 
Similarly, O'Brien and Bosc at page 523 points out that it is not for the Speaker to determine the quality or accuracy of the information provided by the government. This is consistent as well with a ruling given by Speaker Bosley on May 15, 1985 at page 4769 of the Debates in which he states, “I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.”
Furthermore, as I noted earlier, there is no House or committee order requesting the information sought by the hon. member. The Chair appreciates his frustration and I understand that he may feel aggrieved in view of his unsuccessful quest for more detailed information. 
However, while the member may have a legitimate grievance, I can find no evidence that he or any other member has been impeded in the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case.
 I thank hon. members for their attention.

Government Orders
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me.
It is a great pleasure for me to discuss Bill C-38 this evening.
The United States and especially Europe are in grave trouble. Canada's economy has emerged from the global recession much better than other industrialized countries, especially those in Europe.
 Because this government has done its homework since its first victory in 2006, the 2012 election was the first in Canadian history that a government won following a recession. I had voted against holding that unnecessary election.
Those on the other side who had voted for the dissolution of the 40th Parliament remind me of turkeys who vote for an early Christmas. Through this election, voters gave us a clear mandate to keep up the good work with the economy and balance the books as quickly as possible. Canadians want jobs to be created and that is what they expect from us.
Locally, Ottawa roughly had 542,200 people employed at the beginning of the month of May 2012. Between April and May 2012, Ottawa witnessed a drop in unemployed by 9,000, which led to a decrease in unemployment by a tenth of a percent. Since October 2010, the unemployment rate has dropped by an eighth of a percent.
In accordance with the information presented in the 2012 economic action plan, this government has established that it would be near a balanced budget in 2014 and that a balanced would be obtained in 2015.
 It is crucial that we return to a balanced budget. It is only under these circumstances that our government can continue to make important investments. 
In Ottawa, there is no lack of projects waiting to happen. The cities of Ottawa and Gatineau are calling for a new interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island. The National Capital Commission is currently holding public consultations on this matter. In fact, it held a public hearing yesterday at the Shenkman Arts Centre next door to my constituency office.
On the topic of transportation networks, another project will remain at the centre of discussion for the city over the next few years. July 13, 2011, the City of Ottawa adopted a motion presented by councillor Stephen Blais, to extend the route of the light rail transit towards the east as quickly as possible.
The 2008 transportation master plan does not call for extending the light rail line from Blair station to Trim Road before 2031.
By bringing this motion forward before the master plan is reviewed, the city council is ensuring that the feasibility study for the Orleans LRT extension can be completed as soon as possible so that residents from the east end can have access to light rail sooner. For that, Councillor Blais and his partners, Councillor Rainer Bloess, Councillor Bob Monette and Councillor Tim Tierney deserve kudos.
And Ottawa–Orléans is the North American leader in respect to the use of public transit.
If we want major infrastructure projects like these to become reality, both in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada, we need to balance the budget. It is always easier to make investments with a healthy financial position than with a deficit.
In 2012, federal support for the provinces and territories reached a record high and will continue to rise.
In 2012-13, Ontario will receive record support through major federal transfers, most of which is earmarked for health and will provide this province with $19.2 billion.
This investment represents a 77% increase in transfers relative to those made by the previous government. Even if the government, under the mandate of its Canadian electorate, tightens its belt, its methodology differs from the previous government, now a third party in the House of Commons.
They had slashed the transfers to the provinces. They had slashed the funds reserved for health and education. They had forced the provinces to lay off nurses and teachers.
In addition to drastically cutting funding to the public sector, the previous government balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces, while this government continues to increase its share of federal transfers, therefore towards health care, and proposes a 2% decrease in budget spending in the public service. The previous government had cut tens of thousands of jobs from the public service in one fell swoop.
Our approach is incremental. This means that, despite what doomsayers predicted, job losses have been far less significant than certain predictions would have had us believe, the worst of which predicted that 60,000 public servants would be shown the door.
We are now talking about cutting 4,800 jobs in total in the national capital region in the next three years, and that is after increasing the number of public servants by 13,000 over the past five years.
Despite everything, this decision was not made lightly. We have one of the most competent public services in the world.
But, when we look elsewhere, things do not look so bad here. We are far from the situation in Greece, where 15,000 public-sector employees were cut, and an additional 30,000 people were temporarily laid off.
We are far from the situation in Italy, which almost went bankrupt before an interim government resolved to take the measures deemed necessary. Since then, Italy has increased its sales, housing and property taxes. These are things we are not doing.
Since 2006, the Canadian government has kept its word regarding taxation. Canadian taxpayers today are paying less tax than at any point in the last 30 years. 
The budget we are now debating today strongly supports world-class innovation and research. This government believes in innovation. On March 27, I was pleased to announce that nearly $1 million would be allocated for an IT professional mentoring program to encourage primary and secondary school students in Ottawa to take an interest in science and innovation.
I see this measure as a great opportunity for the National Research Council of Canada, located at the doorstep of Ottawa–Orléans.
The good and wise people of Ottawa—Orléans know of my unfailing support for scientific research and development. In this budget the Minister of Finance has taken action on the Jenkins report and is investing $1.1 billion in direct support for R and D and $500 million in venture capital. 
Small and medium-sized enterprises are at the core of the Canadian economy and that of Ottawa–Orléans.
Constituents, who on three occasions have given me the honour to serve them in the House, can count on dynamic small businesses. The Orléans Chamber of Commerce alone counts on the support of over 200 members. 
Before the budget was drafted, businessmen and businesswomen in Orléans took part in a brainstorming session that I chaired, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, my friend from Ottawa West—Nepean. 
The owners of two SMEs in Ottawa–Orléans, Access Print Imaging and Sure Print &amp; Graphics, shared their ideas, as did Joanne Lefebvre, chair of the Regroupement des gens d’affaires de la capitale nationale, and Jo-Anne Bazinet, chair of the Orléans Business Club.
I am sure that they will be pleased, as will other dynamic members of the Orléans business community, with the important measures we have put forward in Bill C-38. Our government recognizes the vital role that small businesses play in the economy and job creation. 
The 2012 economic action plan provides several key measures to support them in their growth.
The hiring credit for small business, a credit of up to $1,000, has been extended. This measure will benefit up to 536,000 employers. 
Everyone knows red tape hinders efficiency. It was a point raised at the round table I chaired along with the member for Ottawa West–Nepean.
The government has committed to cutting red tape. It has established the one-for-one rule and pledged to create a red tape reduction plan--
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has run out. 
We will now move on to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear the member for Ottawa—Orléans say that the national capital region will experience extraordinary economic development. He says that only 5,000 public service jobs will disappear, but all the economists put that number at 20,000, and let us also not forget the economic impact on businesses in general.
I would love to understand the thinking of the member for Ottawa—Orléans. Instead of fighting for public service jobs and services, he has the nerve to tell us that the national capital region will somehow benefit from everything that is happening in the government, and that includes people who are waiting for jobs, and people who require services.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer very much for her question.
She thinks the only good jobs are public service jobs. Public service jobs are very important. However, taxpayers are not the only ones who can support the economy.
Recently, over the past month, 9,000 new jobs were created in the national capital region. These are good jobs, even though they are not public service jobs.
As for the cuts, it is all relative. They are not the drastic cuts that the unions announced. We are not talking about 60,000 jobs, as we were told, or even 20,000 jobs, as claimed by the hon. member. These are minimal cuts that will be more than absorbed by the jobs created in the private sector.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I know that my colleagues want me to ask a question on OAS. 
Certainly, if there is a group of Canadians who are most hard done by this provision in the bill, it is those turning 66 or 67 years old down the road. It is those who live on low income and try to get by week to week. It is those Canadians with disabilities who, when they hit 65, think they have won the lottery because they are able to received OAS and the guaranteed income supplement. They think they have struck it rich. However, they will now have to wait another two years in order to realize that, and for no reason whatsoever, with no rationale whatsoever.
I would ask my colleague this. Why did the government not at least make some kind of provision for those most vulnerable, for those on restricted incomes, for the disabled people across this country? Why did the Conservatives not make provision for them?
If the member comes back with the point about income splitting, he has to know that one needs an income to split before benefiting from that. 
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that I always enjoy his rhetoric. However, in the meantime, I would ask that the member for Malpeque recognize that he has not been recognized. 
The hon. member is asking about OAS. He is trying to scare people with stories that do not happen. 
We are an incrementalist government. What he says is going to happen will not happen for another 13 years and when it does, it will happen incrementally, starting seven years from now. He does not have to scare people with this. People will have time to plan for this, and by planning they will be able to deal with their future on their own.
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-38. The theme of my remarks is “How have the mighty fallen”.
Those of us with some sense of history and memory can recall the spirit that brought Reform into this House. It was the spirit of parliamentary accountability. It was the spirit of free votes. It was the spirit of constructive dissent. It was the spirit of recall. It was the spirit of bringing the executive to heel. It was the spirit of letting Parliament be free and letting Parliament be sovereign and letting Parliament be powerful.
How have the mighty fallen on that side of the House, from those basic premises of a Reform Party led by the likes of Preston Manning, who stood in this place, not in the front row but among the members because he did not want to be seen as any different or better than any of the other members.
I say to my colleagues that they should look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves “Where was the Reform Party spirit in this legislation, an omnibus bill that, like a Mac truck, drives through parliamentary sovereignty, drives through the power and ability of Parliament to control the public purse, ignores any scrutiny by committee and denies the rights of members to dissent?”
The poor member over there from Kootenay—Columbia had four hours of freedom, four hours of conscience, four hours of power, where he told his constituents that if he had his way he would split the bill. We can only imagine the woodshed to which that member was taken. We can only imagine the number of young enthusiasts in the Prime Minister's Office who tied him up to a chair and made him watch the speeches by the Prime Minister over and over again. They would not have taken the masking tape off his mouth until he had promised that he would never express independence or dissent again.
On this side, we say “Shame on the Conservative Party.” Shame on a party that has lost its way, that has lost its principles, that has tied up its members and denied them the right of conscience and the right to speak. That is the great irony of ironies.
Who would have believed that it would be the spiritual successors of the Reform Party that would in fact be denying Parliament, tying it up in knots, insisting on our voting on 70 different pieces of legislation, totally gutting all of the environmental legislation, passing a brand new environmental assessment act in just one clause. 
It was the greatest conservative, who is also a great liberal, Edmund Burke, who reminded us that society is a contract not only of the living but also between those who have died, those who are living and those who are yet to be born.
When we look at the importance of the environment to a genuine conservative movement, a movement that wants to conserve, contrast that with those who want a pipeline in every backyard without any kind of environmental hearing, who have a Minister of Natural Resources who takes off after individuals who appear before an environmental inquiry, where we have legislation that takes away the protection of the fish habitat from the basics of our legislation, and that also, as has already been said by my distinguished colleague from Cape Breton, deprives the poorest of seniors in the future of access to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
That is what has happened to the Conservatives. They are not real Conservatives because they do not want to conserve the thing that matters most to us: our environment, the thing that we have to pass on to the next generation. That is what they are changing.
This government is prepared to deny Parliament all the rights we have had for years: the ability to study a bill, the ability to change it and the ability to amend it. Above all, in this Parliament, every MP should have the right to his or her own conscience, the right to make decisions and the right to act independently. 
I can say that that is what the Liberal Party of Canada is committed to.
If we are serious about democracy, then we have to be serious about the environment.
By way of contrast, regarding the comments made over the past several weeks by the leader of the official opposition with respect to the question of the environment, with respect to the so-called Dutch disease, and with respect to the issue of how we need to go forward, I want to make this very clear: The Liberal Party is committed to sustainability. We are committed to the principle of sustainability over time. We are also committed to the principle of development. Nothing is gained for Canada when we pit one region of the country against another. Nothing is gained for Canada when we say that those provinces that are rich in resources are somehow responsible for the difficulties and challenges facing those provinces with less. 
I have been in this House for a while and I can recall and know the impact these divisions can have on this federation of ours. It will do nothing for us as a country if we say, even as a momentary proposition, that the success of one region of the country or one province is somehow being purchased at the expense of others. That is never going to be a way to build a country. A country cannot be built on resentment. A country cannot be built by way of saying that those who are successful must somehow be torn down. We do not agree with that. We do not share that perspective.
That is why I believe that at this moment in Canadian history, there has never been a time when the message of the Liberal Party has been more important for all the people of the country. I am very proud to say that this message has to come through loud and clear. Yes, we want development, and we want it to be sustainable. 
I can say to those people who are being laid off at the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to come to us. We want to talk to people about these issues. When I talk to the leaders of the business community in Alberta, they want a clearer price for carbon. They want to have a clear indication of what it is going to cost them to build and to rebuild. They know that perfectly well. 
This is an issue where we need to bring people together, where we need to reason together. 
This is an issue we need to unite the public on. There has been enough division. We do not want any more division. We do not want a world where the Leader of the Opposition sees the Prime Minister when he looks in the mirror and where the Prime Minister sees the leader of the official opposition when he looks in the mirror.
Are the members of the official opposition free to express themselves? I doubt it. Are they free to have an opinion that differs from their leader's? I doubt it.
In contrast, I can say that my MPs are free to make their own decisions. They are free to choose how they will vote. They are free to speak. I can assure everyone that all our caucus meetings are a great expression of the principle of democracy, a profound, open and, I must say, liberal democracy.
Therefore, when we see Bill C-38, it is impossible in 10 minutes to go through all of its aspects and all of its different parts. It is grotesque in the way it attempts literally to drive a truck through basic principles and institutions that have been critical to the good governance of the country. Whether it is the round table, the inspector general for CSIS, or whatever the institution may be, a genuine conservative does not drive a truck through these institutions. One protects and preserves and improves them. 
One does not cut down, one does not destroy and one does not divide simply for the sake of division. One does not polarize simply for the sake of polarization. 
This country needs to come together in an important way. 
I want to express my appreciation to the Speaker tonight and my dear colleagues who are speaking so well on this issue and have provided leadership. We will be voting not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but 160 times against this terrible piece of legislation.
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague, who sounded a bit like a wounded bear. I would like to challenge him on some of the things he said and ask him a question.
This budget is really about building Canada and the vision he talked about so inappropriately of Preston Manning, his vision of smaller government, greater opportunity for the private sector, lowering taxes to enable that and to help the private sector make this country what it truly is, the greatest nation in the world, the one that has the most prosperous opportunity, as endorsed by the IMF, the OECD, other organizations, and Forbes magazine as well.
How could my colleague, as a supposed Rhodes scholar and an individual who ran Ontario into the ground, be a person of that stature and be so misinformed on Preston Manning, the Reform Party and what we on this side believe are the opportunities that Canadians should have and do have? How could he be so misinformed on those ideas and why—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.
[Interjection]
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Yellowhead, I am an expert on Rhodes, which is why I am not a supposed Rhodes scholar, I actually am a Rhodes scholar.
I would say to the member for Yellowhead that I listened to Mr. Manning over many years and debated with Mr. Manning when both of us were out of Parliament. The one thing about Mr. Manning which always impressed me was that he was a servant of Parliament. He believed in the voice of Parliament. He believed in free votes. He believed in real openness in terms of discussions.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Singular legislation.
Bob Rae:  He believed in singular legislation which would deal with one subject at a time. He believed in the accountability of Parliament, the accountability of the executive to Parliament.
[Interjection]
Hon. Ralph Goodale: Opposed closure.
[Interjection]
Bob Rae: He would have opposed closure. 
He would have opposed this legislation because it is legislation that abuses the power of the executive. The power of the executive is now only in the hands of the Prime Minister. There is no more governor in council. There is simply the power of the Prime Minister, and this is the issue that we are having to deal with. This is the first—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I see many people rising.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about his selective recollection. He talked about all these spirits that seem to be missing. I think he forgot to mention the spirit of Christmas past. 
There was a lot of mythology about a former government that he wanted to recollect. I remember the days of good old Liberal freedom and some of the members over there do as well under a former prime minister.
In the 37th Parliament when I was first elected, I remember being at committee and seeing members who had heard testimony pulled when it came time to vote on the outcomes and conclusions of that committee hearing and replaced by members who had not heard the testimony. I also remember a former Liberal prime minister who wanted to override his members' freedoms of religion and conscience because he had made a decision on a moral issue that he wanted to decide for all of his members.
I want to ask the member if the good old days of Liberal government were actually the good old days of the member's selective memory.
[Interjection]
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni that I could not help noticing it took a while for his light to go on. 
We all have memories and whether they are selective or not, I do not know. I am sure he has notes to back up what he said and file books on the question.
 I have led a government. Of course, when one is in government one has to make some difficult choices. We all recognize the discipline of Parliament. I say it with great respect to the hon. member that the Canadian people are increasingly infuriated by the inability of parliamentarians to talk to one another in a civil way, to have a civil dialogue about what they are hearing. The government cannot, in one single piece of legislation, get rid of the entire Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and change it whole-hog, change all the fisheries regulations—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Unfortunately, time has run out.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Oakville.
Terence Young: Madam Speaker, I was listening to the member for Toronto Centre and I would have liked the chance to ask him a question. 
He said it is an authoritarian government now. I lived in Ontario under his government when he was premier of Ontario. He brought in the most restrictive, backward labour legislation in the history of Canada. It basically tore up every labour contract in the public sector in Ontario. I wanted to ask him how much freedom his caucus had at that time. How did he tie them to chairs, and why was it okay then?
The member talked about contracts. We should think about the social contract, his creation, a monstrosity that abolished the rights of collective bargaining. Then the member for Toronto Centre wrote a book and blamed it on the public sector unions. Then the Liberal Party appointed him as its interim leader. I do not know if someone wants to talk about that.
If we ask the NDP and the Liberals what they cherish most about being a Canadian—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would ask for order in the House and to allow the member for Oakville to speak without being heckled or interrupted. The member who spoke previously said that it is important to speak to one another in a civil way and allow for civil debate. For the remaining time, I would ask for some civility and some respect.
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Madam Speaker, if we ask the NDP and the Liberals what they cherish most about being Canadian, inevitably we would hear about our social programs: the Canada pension plan, OAS, our health care system, employment insurance and GIS. They fall all over each other taking credit for these programs. “We are the party of health care,” say the Liberals. The NDP say, “No, we are the party that created health care,” in talking about the former premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, “We gave Canadians the health care system”.
Of course, it was Canadians who decided that they wanted to have a publicly funded health care system. No party gave them anything. Canadians work hard and pay taxes to support that system. 
What we never hear about from members on the other side is that Tommy Douglas needed a partner in the federal government to finance public health care, someone who looked out for ordinary people. That partner was a small-town lawyer from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. They do not talk about that because it does not support their version of history, their myth that only the NDP care about people.
Members know who that leader was, and he was a Conservative prime minister. It was John Diefenbaker, the same man who cared about the rights of minorities so much that he introduced the first bill in Canada's history, the Canadian Bill of Rights, to protect equal rights for all Canadians, 22 years before our Constitution was adopted.
Being a Conservative, John Diefenbaker supported health care reform for publicly funded health care, but would never have allowed government spending to grow to a point where debt and deficit put that very system in jeopardy. That is what this budget is about. The only way to maintain the programs that Canadians cherish, our health care system, the Canada pension plan and the others, is to be absolutely certain they are fully funded. That means economic growth is no option for Canada.
My constituents in Oakville understand that. Economic growth is essential. It is critical to our future if we want to keep those benefits, if we want to maintain our health care system, if we want to hold on to our employment insurance program.
The opposition parties are opposing this budget, they say, because of the process. They are willing to play procedural games to attempt to force the government to back down on its major election commitments. What they are not telling Canadians is that when we vote in Parliament tonight for some 24 hours, they all do not have to be here. They can work in shifts and go for a good night's sleep, while the government members have to be either here or in the lobby with little or no sleep. That is our Conservative commitment.
What they do not realize is that this government will never back down on our election commitments to focus on building our economy and creating new jobs, the jobs of the future for this country. With all our natural resources, that must mean development of the resources, more trade and more innovation.
Canada is on the cusp of tremendous economic growth. This is Canada's time. We are leading the G7 in economic growth. We are leading the world in banking stability. The world needs what Canada has, and not just aerospace excellence, BlackBerrys, or telecommunications expertise; they need our nickel, gold, diamonds, uranium and rare earth metals. 
This bill would provide for superior and predictable environmental reviews so that investors worldwide would know that Canada is the best place to invest. When they put $100 million on the table to open mines in parts of Canada, those mines would not be held in limbo while environmentalists from other countries did their utmost to hold things up for years and years on end. Those environmentalists, by the way, usually already have a job or a pension.
Trade is Canada's manifest destiny. That is where the wealth of the future will come from to pay for our social programs. There are over $500 billion in new projects coming to Canada by 2020, but there is a big if in that projection, and that is if the conditions for investment in Canada remain positive, if the budget bill is implemented, if it applies as well to our cherished social programs. They will only exist in 2020 if Canada's economy grows. 
Yet, members of the no development party have voted against every single trade deal we have negotiated because their union bosses told them to. The NDP's debt of gratitude to the big unions is so powerful its members are voting against any measure that we introduce to bring in new investment, and that includes measures to improve productivity. The NDP are stuck in the old rhetoric from the 1960s, the old labour paradigms of us versus them, dividing Canadians east against west, union member versus private sector. They are the party of the past. 
Our Conservative government is moving forward. Moving forward includes not just a balanced budget and new trade, but innovation. Once implemented, the budget will invest over $1 billion in innovation for our country, and there is no better way to increase our productivity that is essential to pay for the social programs the NDP claims to value.
Canada has been a source of innovation for over a hundred years. There is a list as long as my arm of Canadian innovations and inventions that have revolutionized the way we conduct business, communicate, heal the sick and create economic growth. The easiest example I can point to is the one that most parliamentarians carry around, the BlackBerry. I can remember when it first hit the market and the fanfare for its revolutionary design in conducting day-to-day business. 
There are many other examples such as the telephone, the Canadarm, the zipper, the pace maker, and I have to mention two inventions that some Canadians value the most, the snow blower and the snowplow. 
Canadians have proven time and time again that innovation can literally save lives and improve the way we live, while creating more jobs. Our government understands this and is taking action to plant over $1 billion of seed money into our scientific fields and help our innovators also deliver world-class research. 
We are committing $500 million for venture capital. We are supporting innovation in science and technology by providing $37 million annually to Canada's granting councils. We are injecting $60 million to Genome Canada, $10 million to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, $500 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and to the chagrin of the opposition, there are even more measures in the budget that would make Canada a pinnacle of innovation. 
We are increasing our direct support for business innovation. That includes $110 million per year to the Industrial Research Assistance Program, administered by the National Research Council. The funding will also help expand the services offered by the NRC, like the industrial technology advisors. 
There are $95 million dollars over three years and $40 million per year ongoing, which will make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent and a pillar of support for innovation businesses. 
Finally, $14 million has been allocated to support the Industrial Research Development internship program, which would place hundreds more of our brilliant Ph.D. students into practical research internships with Canadian businesses. 
What does all this demonstrate? It demonstrates that under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada is proving we can achieve economic growth, while balancing our budget without raising taxes.
That is the dream of every country in Europe, most of whom—
[Interjection]
Mr. Justin Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a measure of respect, we ask that a member not use the name of a member in the House of Commons. He just referred to the Prime Minister as Mr. H.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the member is aware of the rule to not allude by name, but simply by title. 
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Madam Speaker, I am so glad the members across are paying such close attention. I thank them for that.
That formula is also the dream of our American friends whose deficit this year will hit $1.5 trillion. 
Canada is leading the world under this government to grow our economy to ensure our social programs are sustainable. The budget must be implemented to do that. That is why every member of the House should vote for it. The opposition members should drop their House of Commons tactics and tricks now and vote for this bill. 
Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague focused on the fact that this budget will spur job creation and growth in Canada, but I would like to ask him a specific question about employment equity, an issue that I hope he takes to heart.
Clause 602 of Bill C-38 deletes a section of the Employment Equity Act that required contractors to abide by the principle of employment equity in the federal contractors program. This will have an impact on access to employment for women, people with disabilities, aboriginals and visible minorities. Since 1986, over 1,000 audits have been carried out as part of this program. 
Can the member tell me how deleting a clause that ensures fair treatment for women with respect to federal contracts will create jobs and promote economic growth in Canada?
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Madam Speaker, our party's commitment to employment equity is unshakable and we have moved to improve employment equity. The best way to improve life for all Canadians is by improving the economy.
Day after day in the House we hear the NDP and the Liberals propose expansion of programs and new programs that are unaffordable, without taking more money off the paycheques of Canadians. There is always a good reason for every program, but we never hear any ideas about how to get things done without bigger spending and higher taxes. They are a one trick pony. They are against everything we do to build the wealth we need to pay for our social programs. They fight the trade we need. They fight development. They want to close down entire industries. They would shut down the oil sands, throwing 600,000 Canadians out of work. 
Frank Valeriote: Madam Speaker, you, parliamentarians and, frankly, the viewing public need to know that what has been said by the member opposite is completely inaccurate, particularly with respect to the Conservatives' investment in innovation.
Researchers are heading south now because of the government's lack of commitment to innovation. I have heard from farmers and industry across Canada, because it cut one of the most important programs, the Canadian agricultural adaptation program, tens of millions of dollars deployed to regions across Canada, given to projects that are identified by people in those regions. This program will be gone by 2014, and he has the gall to stand and talk about how the government is investing in innovation when in fact the opposite is true.
 I would ask the member to stand and apologize for misleading Parliament.
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Madam Speaker, we have heard many times in the House from the minister that no government in Canada's history has invested more money in research and development and innovation. In this budget, we want to add $1.1 billion to that investment.
Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, my colleague from Oakville talked about investment. I hope he is not so blinded by ideology and talking points.
The member is from Oakville and knows about the car business and the role of the unions. How can he say that the unions are opposed to investment? Was it not the auto workers who insisted that the car companies invest more money and asked the government to ensure that more money was invested? Did these unions even give up wages and benefits in order to encourage investment?
Could the member take off the blinders and recognize that what he has said is just not true?
[Interjection]
Terence Young: Mr. Speaker, realistically, what the unions in Canada are opposed to is change. Contrary to what most people think, the unions are the most reactive group in society. They are opposed to change. They see change as a threat. They should not.
 I know the government invested money in the Ford plant in Oakville. It built a $1 billion Flex line four or five years ago. The Flex line is so busy at Ford now, the folks in the CAW are working 10-hour shifts a day. There are two 10-hour shifts going back-to-back every day, building the MKX, the Ford Edge, et cetera. The union members are doing extremely well in Oakville based on the investment from the auto innovation fund from this government.
 The same has happened in Windsor. Ford came to the government and asked for some money to invest, $150 million, to create a new engine plant in Windsor—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member's time has elapsed.
 Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Nycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, any MP who says that unions do not help Canada progress, have not created good working conditions, have not protected workers' health and safety, have not helped improve the status of women and have not helped the Canadian economy is wrong and is saying things without really understanding the reality in this country. 
I think it is unfortunate that I have to make my presentation in the shadow of a closure motion, which does not really give me enough time to explain to the members opposite what is really going on and how we can collaborate on a budget that would help Canada and Canadians.
In a democracy like ours, MPs have the right and the duty to do the work they were elected to do.
If the Conservatives really believed that the measures in their bill were justified, they would give us a chance to debate the bill and attempt to improve it. But that is not the case. By now, we all know that the Conservatives prefer to keep people in the dark. They are allergic to transparency. 
Bill C-38 is a mammoth bill that is over 400 pages long and amends some 70 laws. The environment, the economy, labour rights, old age security, the Auditor General's authority, health care transfers to the provinces and more will all be affected by Bill C-38.
This government is asking us to sign a blank cheque and to vote blindly. That is unacceptable.
I have already heard the Conservatives explain that the gag orders were justified because time is of the essence when it comes to the economy. We could say that, right now, they are the ones who are hurting Canada's economic future.
The Conservatives are also basically saying that the situation is so urgent that we must abandon our right to conduct an in-depth assessment of all the effects that Bill C-38 will have.
They even used the same argument to justify the three special back-to-work bills they made us vote on in the past 12 months. They are telling us the same thing over and over again—that this is an urgent matter and that we need to hurry up. But that is not what Canadians want. They want their democratic institutions to operate as usual and they want a real debate to be held in the House.
Everyone knows the reality: for the first time in Canadian history, the middle class is losing ground. Over the past 25 years, the income of the richest 20% of our society has increased. This trend had continued since the founding of our country, but for the other 80%, which includes the middle class, living conditions and salaries have declined.
This is the first time in Canadian history that this has happened, and we simply cannot ignore this phenomenon. 
What are the Conservatives doing to address this? Nothing. Or instead, I should say, they are making the situation worse by attacking workers' rights, old age security, public health care and the services that Canadians need.
This is one of the fundamental differences between the Conservatives and the NDP. The Conservatives want growth at all cost, regardless of the consequences—growth at the expense of the environment, growth at the expense of workers and families, and growth at the expense of future generations. That is what the Conservatives are proposing in Bill C-38.
We in the NDP are in favour of economic growth, yes, but this growth must be achieved in a reasonable manner. We say yes to economic development, but it must be sustainable development that will benefit future generations. We say yes to economic development that everyone can benefit from, and not just the wealthiest Canadians. We say yes to development that creates high-quality jobs rather than unstable, low-paying jobs.
That is what we want, and Bill C-38 proposes the exact opposite.
In terms of jobs, for several months now, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been asking for details about the cuts the government plans to make, but it refuses to give him those details despite the fact that its own Accountability Act requires it to do so.
Will the Conservatives tell Canadians how many jobs will be eliminated in the public service and what effect this will have on the programs that benefit all Canadians?
The Conservatives are preparing to rise for the holidays and leave thousands of people in the dark about their future. Thousands of mothers and fathers will not know if they will keep their jobs. In my riding of Hull—Aylmer, the tension is palpable. Every day I hear from people who are wondering about the economic impact of the cuts. People are really afraid of losing their jobs. My constituents and all Canadians have a right to know what awaits them.
As I was saying earlier, Bill C-38 is a bill that is taking us in the wrong direction and that will weaken the rights of all Canadian workers. The reform of employment insurance, the repeal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and the amendment of the Employment Equity Act are a few examples.
Bill C-38 also raises other questions. The cuts announced in the latest budget will result in the loss of over 300 jobs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, whose mission includes ensuring the safety of our food. The Conservatives are acting as though the listeriosis crisis never happened. They are also forgetting what happened in Walkerton. It is as though those incidents never occurred.
In the words of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, more and more, Canadians are eating at their own risk. Instead of addressing the shortcomings of our food safety system, the Conservatives are making them worse. Today, Canadians are asking themselves serious questions about this government's priorities, and I can understand why.
Another good example is old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. By increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, the Conservatives are trying to balance their budget at the expense of seniors. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and many other experts have said on more than one occasion that our system is sustainable. There is no reason for this government to attack a program that has been helping to keep millions of seniors out of poverty for the past 50 years.
Old age security currently makes up half the income of 1.2 million people in Canada, mostly women. The government tries to justify its decision by saying that Canadians are living longer now. That may be, but many workers are physically unable to work after 65. In fact, 25% of retirees say they left their jobs for health reasons. For them and for others, the increased eligibility age is a one-way ticket to poverty. It will also create a burden for the health care system and youth employment.
The most reprehensible thing in all this is that in the last election campaign, the Prime Minister misled the public about his intention to cut pensions. He was not transparent. Hiding the truth from Canadians has become a habit for this government. It has to stop. Canadians are entitled to the truth.
We are opposed not only to the content of this bill, but also to the undemocratic way in which the Conservatives have chosen to get it passed. This government is abusing its majority power to pass a regressive bill that will set us back years.
This could have been an acceptable budget for Canadians, a budget that promoted a stable economy and created jobs, but it turned out to be the complete opposite. Bill C-38 goes against the values of justice and progress promoted by the NDP and supported by Canadians. 
Canadians deserve better. They have the right to a better bill and they have the right to know what is going on and what the future holds for them. Canadians must know what the Conservatives are imposing in Bill C-38. That is why we are opposed to it.
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to dispute the opening remarks of the member in which she suggested that we would not be helping middle-class Canadians. The middle class has some focus from our budget, as do the working poor, through WITB. We have had WITB for the working poor to ensure they can take more income home, and there is our $100 per month child payments.
 Also I would like the member to be more forthcoming on the fundamental rights that would be included and protected in collective bargaining. When she suggests that we took away women's rights, when the change was made it was fundamental rights and collective bargaining and women not having to go to court for years to have those rights. I suggest that the member put some correct comments on the record and continue to—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, in my speech, I said that the rich are getting richer. The gap between the rich and the poor has become much wider.
One of my colleagues brought up the issue of employment equity. This government decided to do away with employment equity for government contractors.
In terms of collective agreements, my colleague should remember that, three times now, the government has passed back-to-work legislation affecting workers and pension plans.
The government claims that it is trying to be fair and that it wants to help middle-class families, but that is not what I see. 
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I see as a contradiction between the government's budget policy and one of the items in Bill C-38.
On the one hand, in the budget the government would try to encourage innovation in Canada through the federal government's procurement policy. So, for example, the federal government would make procurements from small and medium-sized enterprises that are innovative and provide some funding for that. It is good to use government procurement, which involves a lot of spending, to encourage innovation.
On the other hand, in Bill C-38, the federal Fair Wages Act would be repealed. This amounts to the government actually doing the opposite. Instead of preventing companies from competing with one another on the basis of lowering wages, it would encourage that by repealing the federal Fair Wages Act, and that is not a good way to encourage innovation. It would just encourage more competition—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer an opportunity to respond.
The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent explanation of the situation. At present, everything dealing with the budget and legislation that will be amended by this budget does not really encourage employment stability or economic stability.
A competition could easily be announced where salaries would be lower and working conditions would be worse. We must also consider pension plans, and it is no longer possible to have good pension plans. 
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many public servants reside in both my colleague's riding and my riding. We are very concerned about the public service.
My question is this: If the government really wanted to support the economy, it would understand how important these jobs and these salaries are to the region's economy. What impact will these cuts have on the economy of the Outaouais region?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
Indeed, all four members from the Outaouais region share this concern. Right now, we sense uncertainty. There are employees, workers, who want to serve the public and who want to provide the programs that the people of Canada need. What is happening right now is that these workers are finding envelopes on their desks, which creates instability. So, right away, they are not going to have the same commitment, which will create a work environment and an economic climate of uncertainty in the national capital region for some time. This is very unfortunate for the economy.
[Stage Direction]
[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]
[Continuation of proceedings from part A]
The Speaker: It being 8:41 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, June 12, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Before we complete deliberations at report stage of Bill C-38, I want to explain the process to the House.
Since motions in Group No. 1 have already been proposed, I will only refer to the motion number when putting the questions on the motions in that group.
As for the motions in the remaining groups, they will be proposed to the House in the usual fashion. Once the House is ready to proceed to putting the questions on the motions in these groups, I will only refer to the motion number.
To this end, I have asked that copies of the report stage section of today's notice paper be placed on each member's desk for ease of reference.
We will now proceed to the putting of the question on Motion No. 1.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 5, and 8 to 12.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 4 and 15.
 The next question is on Motion No. 13.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 13 stands deferred.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 16 to 23 in Group 2 to the House.
Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 16 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 19. 
 Motion No. 17 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 21. 
 Motion No. 18 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 23. 
 Motion No. 19 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 24. 
 Motion No. 20 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 25. 
 Motion No. 21 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 26. 
 Motion No. 22 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 45. 
 Motion No. 23 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 46. 

The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 17 to 23.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: I shall now propose Motions Nos. 24 to 26, 28, 30 to 38, 40 to 54, 62 to 70, 72, 74, 76 to 82, 84 and 86 to 367 in Group No. 3 to the House.
Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 24 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 52. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 25 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 31 the following: 
 
 “Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development by conserving and enhancing environmental quality and by encouraging and promoting economic development that conserves and enhances environmental quality; 
 Whereas environmental assessment provides an effective means of integrating environmental factors into planning and decision-making processes in a manner that promotes sustainable development; 
 Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to exercising leadership, within Canada and internationally, in anticipating and preventing the degradation of environmental quality and, at the same time, in ensuring that economic development is compatible with the high value Canadians place on environmental quality; 
 Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to avoid duplication or unnecessary delays; 
 And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to facilitating public participation in the environmental assessment of projects to be carried out by or with the approval or assistance of the Government of Canada and to providing access to the information on which those environmental assessments are based;” 
 Motion No. 26 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 31 the following: 
 ““comprehensive study” means an environmental assessment of a designated project that is conducted under section 12, and that includes a consideration of the factors required to be considered under section 19.” 
 Motion No. 28 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 17 on page 32 with the following: 
 ““environmental assessment” means, in respect of a project, an assessment of the environmental effects of the project that is conducted in accordance with this Act and the regulations.” 
 Motion No. 30 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 33 with the following: 
 “mental assessment of a project;” 
 Motion No. 31 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 33 with the following: 
 ““interested party”, with respect to a” 
 Motion No. 32 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 34 with the following: 
 “project;” 
 Motion No. 33 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 34 with the following: 
 “tal effects of a project;” 
 Motion No. 34 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 34 with the following: 
 “project;” 
 Motion No. 35 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 34 with the following: 
 “environmental effects of a project;” 
 Motion No. 36 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 34 with the following: 
 “environmental effects of a project,” 
 Motion No. 37 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 34 with the following: 
 “carrying out of a project.” 
 Motion No. 38 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 35 with the following: 
 “is referred to in section 16 with respect to a project that is subject to an environ-” 
 Motion No. 40 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 35 with the following: 
 “with respect to a project, that a” 
 Motion No. 41 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 35 with the following: 
 “with respect to a project, that a group or individual is an interested party if, in its opinion, the group or individual, including those who use adjacent land for recreational, cultural or hunting purposes, is directly — or could potentially be indirectly — affected by the carrying out of the project, or if, in its opinion, the group or individual has relevant information or expertise:” 
 Motion No. 42 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 35 with the following: 
 “(a) in the case of a project for” 
 Motion No. 43 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 34 on page 35 with the following: 
 “(b) in the case of a project in” 
 Motion No. 44 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 36 with the following: 
 “(a) to protect the environment from any significant adverse environmental effects caused by a project;” 
 Motion No. 45 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 13 on page 36. 
 Motion No. 46 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 36 with the following: 
 “assessments processes for projects;” 
 Motion No. 47 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 36 with the following: 
 “(d) to promote communication, cooperation and consensus between responsible authorities and, fully respecting the fiduciary duties of the Crown and the inherent rights of aboriginal peoples, aboriginal peoples with respect to environmental assessments;” 
 Motion No. 48 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 36 with the following: 
 “for timely and meaningful public participation during an environmental assessment process;” 
 Motion No. 49 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 33 on page 36 with the following: 
 “federal lands in Canada, or those that are outside Canada and that are to be carried out or financially supported by a federal authority, are considered in a careful and precautionary manner to ensure that such projects do not cause significant adverse environmental effects;” 
 Motion No. 50 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 36 with the following: 
 “(h) to ensure that federal authorities take” 
 Motion No. 51 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 41 on page 36 with the following: 
 “(i) to ensure that federal authorities possess sufficient regulatory power, and oversight and monitoring capacity, to study and respond to the cumulative environmental effects of physical activities in a region and to guarantee the inclusion and consideration of those study results in environmental assessments.” 
 Motion No. 52 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 37 to line 27 on page 38 with the following: 
 “environmental effects—within or outside Canada—that are to be taken into account in relation to an act or thing, a physical activity, a designated project or a project are 
 (a) any impact that may be caused on biological, ecological, hydrological or chemical systems or other systems of the environment, including any change that may be caused to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act; 
 (b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on 
 (i) health and socio-economic conditions, 
 (ii) physical and cultural heritage, 
 (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, or 
 (iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance; and 
 (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment.” 
 Motion No. 53 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 38 to line 9 on page 39 with the following: 
 “6. The proponent of a project that is required to undergo an environmental assessment under this Act must not do any act or thing in connection with the carrying out of the project, in whole or in part, if that act or thing may cause an environmental effect referred to in subsection 5(1) unless the proponent complies with the conditions included in the decision statement that is issued to the proponent under subsection 31(3) or section 54 with respect to that project.” 
 Motion No. 54 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 24 on page 39 with the following: 
 “than this Act that would permit a project that is required to undergo an environmental assessment under this Act to be carried out in whole or in part unless the decision statement with respect to the project that is issued under subsection 31(3) or section 54 to the proponent of the project indicates that the project is not likely to cause” 
 Motion No. 62 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 20 on page 43. 
 Motion No. 63 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 8 on page 45. 
 Motion No. 64 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 45 with the following: 
 “project if it is referred to a review panel under section 38.” 

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, could you please read the number of the motion when you start to read it, so that we can keep track of where we are?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, absolutely. If I do not do that, it is a mistake. I will try to do that every time. I thank the hon. member.
Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 65 
 Motion no 65 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 17 on page 45 with the following: 
 “a project must ensure that 
 (a) a screening or comprehensive study of the project is conducted; 
 (b) a report is prepared with respect to that screening or comprehensive study; and 
 (c) where applicable, a follow-up program is designed and implemented.” 
 Motion no 66 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 45 with the following: 
 “project and preparing the report with respect to the environmental assessment of the project, use any information that is” 
 Motion no 67 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 29 on page 45 with the following: 
 “environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 68 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 46 with the following: 
 “25. (1) The responsible authority must ensure that a draft report with respect to the environmental assessment of a project is prepared, and must ensure” 
 Motion no 69 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 46 with the following: 
 “received from the public, the responsible authority must finalize the report with respect to the environmental assessment of the project and” 
 Motion no 70 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 23 on page 46 with the following: 
 “spect to a project may delegate to” 
 (b) by replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 46 with the following: 
 “project, the preparation of the report with respect to the environmental assessment of the project and any part of the design and implementation of a follow-up program, but must not” 
 Motion no 72 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 47 with the following: 
 “(2) The decisions must be made” 
 Motion no 74 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 27 on page 47 with the following: 
 “(6) If, under subsection 23(2), the responsible authority requires the proponent of a project to collect information or undertake a study with respect to the project, then the period that is taken by the proponent, in the responsible authority’s opinion, to comply with the requirement is not included in the calculation of the time limit within which the decisions must be” 
 Motion no 76 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting line 34 on page 47 to line 6 on page 51. 
 Motion no 77 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 51 with the following: 
 “assessing the environmental effects of projects that is followed by any jurisdic-” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 28 on page 51 with the following: 
 “project would be an appropriate” 
 Motion no 78 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 51 with the following: 
 “be given in respect of a project or a class of projects.” 
 Motion no 79 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 43 on page 51 with the following: 
 “project in relation to which the environmental assessment has been referred” 
 Motion no 80 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 52 with the following: 
 “(b) the public will be given meaningful opportunities to participate in the assessment that are at least as extensive as those required in relation to an environmental assessment carried out under this Act;” 
 Motion no 81 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 52 the following: 
 “(c.1) the process to be substituted provides for community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge to be taken into account;” 
 Motion no 82 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 33 on page 52 with the following: 
 “project that is received by the” 
 Motion no 84 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting line 39 on page 52 to line 25 on page 53. 
 Motion no 86 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 35 on page 53 with the following: 
 “assessment of the project to a review” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 38 on page 53 with the following: 
 “(a) whether the project may cause” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, lines 2 and 3 on page 54 with the following: 
 “adverse environmental effects that the project may cause; and” 
 (d) by replacing, in the English version, line 7 on page 54 with the following: 
 “environmental effects of the” 
 Motion no 87 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 54 with the following: 
 “assessment of the project to a review” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 54 with the following: 
 “of the project to the Minister; and” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 54 with the following: 
 “project.” 
 Motion no 88 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing, in the English version, line 28 on page 54 with the following: 
 “project to a review panel, and a” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 54 with the following: 
 “establishes in relation to the project” 
 Motion no 89 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 36 on page 54. 
 Motion no 90 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 38 on page 54 with the following: 
 “mental assessment of a project to a” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 42 on page 54 with the following: 
 “require the proponent of the project” 
 Motion no 91 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 5 on page 55 with the following: 
 “ronmental assessment of a project to” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 12 on page 55 with the following: 
 “of the project, respecting the joint” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 55 with the following: 
 “project is to be conducted by that” 
 Motion no 92 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 18 on page 55 with the following: 
 “mental assessment of a project to a” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 26 on page 55 with the following: 
 “project, respecting the joint establish-” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 28 on page 55 with the following: 
 “the environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 93 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 30 on page 56 with the following: 
 “environmental assessment of a” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 35 on page 56 with the following: 
 “conflict of interest relative to the” 
 Motion no 94 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 56 with the following: 
 “environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 95 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 7 on page 57 with the following: 
 “project and may, at any time,” 
 Motion no 96 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 57 with the following: 
 “interest relative to the project” 
 Motion no 97 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 57 with the following: 
 “the project;” 
 Motion no 98 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 58 with the following: 
 “project to the Minister and may, at” 
 Motion no 99 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 58 with the following: 
 “ing the environmental assessment of a project and preparing the report with” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 58 with the following: 
 “project, use any information that is” 
 Motion no 100 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 29 on page 58 with the following: 
 “ment of the project, it may require” 
 Motion no 101 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 41 on page 58 with the following: 
 “environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 102 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 41 on page 59 with the following: 
 “environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 103 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 60 with the following: 
 “proponent of the project to collect” 
 Motion no 104 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 60 with the following: 
 “a project to collect information or undertake a study with respect to the” 
 Motion no 105 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 60 with the following: 
 “49. (1) The Minister may terminate the” 
 Motion no 106 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 60 with the following: 
 “assessment by a review panel of a” 
 Motion no 107 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 60 with the following: 
 “ment by a review panel of a project if” 
 Motion no 108 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 21 on page 61 with the following: 
 “of a project is terminated under” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 24 on page 61 with the following: 
 “the environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 109 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 61 with the following: 
 “assessment of the project that was” 
 Motion no 110 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 61 with the following: 
 “appropriate, the project” 
 Motion no 111 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting lines 41 to 43 on page 61. 
 Motion no 112 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 62 with the following: 
 “project is likely to cause significant” 
 Motion no 113 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 62 with the following: 
 “section 5, the decision maker must” 
 Motion no 114 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 12 on page 62. 
 Motion no 115 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 62 with the following: 
 “effects that the project is likely to” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 62 with the following: 
 “effects that the project is likely to” 
 Motion no 116 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 23 on page 62 with the following: 
 “subsection 52(1) that the project is” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 29 on page 62 with the following: 
 “tion that the project is likely to cause” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 34 on page 62 with the following: 
 “project must comply.” 
 Motion no 117 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 36 on page 62 with the following: 
 “subsection 52(1) that the project” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 63 with the following: 
 “permit a project to be carried out,” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 63 with the following: 
 “tion with which the proponent of the” 
 Motion no 118 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 63 with the following: 
 “project that” 
 Motion no 119 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing, in the English version, line 22 on page 63 with the following: 
 “(a) informs the proponent of the” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 25 on page 63 with the following: 
 “project and, if a matter was” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 28 on page 63 with the following: 
 “relation to the project; and” 
 Motion no 120 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 31 on page 63 with the following: 
 “project and that must be complied” 
 Motion no 121 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 63 with the following: 
 “decision under subsection 52(1) in relation to the project for the purpose” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 39 on page 63 with the following: 
 “of the project was referred to a” 
 Motion no 122 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 64 with the following: 
 “the environmental assessment of the” 
 Motion no 123 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 13 and 14 on page 64 with the following: 
 “the project to collect information or undertake a study with respect to the” 
 Motion no 124 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 64 with the following: 
 “55. The responsible authority must ensure that” 
 Motion no 125 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 64 with the following: 
 “tion to a project is” 
 Motion no 126 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 52, be amended 
 (a) by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 65 with the following: 
 “a project is considered to” 
 (b) by replacing, in the English version, line 9 on page 65 with the following: 
 “project; or” 
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 13 on page 65 with the following: 
 “relation to the project.” 
 “relation to the project.” 

[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, could you confirm whether you forgot to read item (c) of Motion No. 116?
The Deputy Speaker: In case I did forget, I will read it or re-read it:
 (c) by replacing, in the English version, line 34 on page 62 with the following: 
 “project must comply.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 127 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 53. 
 Motion No. 128 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 54. 
 Motion No. 129 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 55. 
 Motion No. 130 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 56. 
 Motion No. 131 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 57. 
 Motion No. 132 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 58. 
 Motion No. 133 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 59. 
 Motion No.134 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 60. 
 Motion No. 135 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 61. 
 Motion No. 136 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 62. 
 Motion No. 137 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 63. 
 Motion No. 138 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 64. 
 Motion No. 139 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 65. 
 Motion No. 140 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 66. 
 Motion No. 141 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 67. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 142 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 98 with the following: 
 “force on April 30, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 143 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 68. 
 Motion No. 144 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 69. 
 Motion No. 145 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 70. 
 Motion No. 146 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 71. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 147 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 99 with the following: 
 “an application, the Chairperson may propose a motion to put in place a” 
 Motion No. 148 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 71, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 99 with the following: 
 “authorized to deal with the application if a motion for such a representative action is carried by vote of the members of the Board.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 149 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 72. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 150 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 40 on page 100 with the following: 
 “(2.1) For greater certainty, if the number of members authorized to deal with an application as a result of any measure taken by the Chairperson under subsection 6(2.2) is less than three, the Board shall elect a third member to satisfy the quorum requirements established under subsection (2).” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 151 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 73. 
 Motion No. 152 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 74. 
 Motion No. 153 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 75. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 154 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 101 with the following: 
 “14. (1) The Chairperson may propose a motion to authorize one” 
 Motion No. 155 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 101 with the following: 
 “under an authorization that is carried by vote of the Board is considered to have” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 156 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 76. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 157 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 76, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 101 with the following: 
 “15. (1) The Chairperson or the Board may authorize one” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 158 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 77. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 159 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 44 on page 101 with the following: 
 “or 15 becomes incapacitated or dies during the hearing or after the conclusion of the hearing but before making a decision or report, the Board, with the consent of all those who are parties to the hearing, may authorize another member” 
 Motion No. 160 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 3 on page 102 with the following: 
 “incapacity or death occurs during” 
 Motion No. 161 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 102 with the following: 
 “incapacity or death occurs after” 
 Motion No. 162 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 102 with the following: 
 “tated or dies during the hearing or after” 
 Motion No. 163 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 17 to 22 on page 102 with the following: 
 “(a) the Board may vote in another member to replace the incapacitated or deceased member for the rest of the hearing and to participate in the decision if the incapacity or death occurs during the hear-” 
 Motion No. 164 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 29 on page 102 with the following: 
 “(b) if the incapacity or death occurs after the conclusion of the hearing but before a decision is given, the remaining members may, if unanimous, give a decision as if the incapacitated or deceased member were present and” 
 Motion No. 165 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 102 with the following: 
 “incapacitated or dies during the hearing” 
 Motion No. 166 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 43 on page 102 with the following: 
 “(a) the Board may elect another member to replace the incapacitated or deceased member for the rest of the hearing and to participate in the finalizing of the report, if the incapacity or death occurs” 
 Motion No. 167 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 45 on page 102 to line 3 on page 103 with the following: 
 “(b) if the incapacity or death occurs after the conclusion of the hearing but before the report is finalized, the remaining members may, if unanimous, finalize the report as if the incapacitated or deceased member were” 
 Motion No. 168 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 103 with the following: 
 “cludes the Chairperson from proposing a motion to take a measure” 
 Motion No. 169 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 27 on page 103 with the following: 
 “do so by the Board and on any terms and conditions that the Board prescribes, continue to inquire into, hear and determine any proceeding to which that person was assigned while that person was a member and the person shall for that purpose be considered to continue to be a member if the continued membership is carried by vote of the members of the Board.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 170 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 78. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 171 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 103 with the following: 
 “(1.1) Except in any instances where, based on what the Board considers necessary or desirable in the public interest, the Board considers it is advisable to do so, subsection (1) does not apply in respect” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 172 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 79. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 173 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 79, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 103 with the following: 
 “(2) Except in any instances where, based on what the Board considers necessary or desirable in the public interest, the Board considers it is advisable to do so, subsection (1) does not apply in respect” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 174 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 80. 
 Motion No. 175 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 81. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 176 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 104 with the following: 
 “(2) A public hearing may be held in respect of any other matter that the Board considers advisable, however a public hearing need not be held where” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 177 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 82. 

[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow in French, but the interpreters are having a hard time keeping up with you.
Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 178 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 104 with the following: 
 “(4) Subsections 121(3) to(5) apply to” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 179 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 83. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 180 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 105 with the following: 
 “shall consider the objections of any interested person or group that, in their opinion, appear to be directly or indirectly related to the pipeline, and may have regard to the” 
 Motion No. 181 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 105 the following: 
 “(c.1) the expected and potential environmental and health impacts, both local and generalized, of the pipeline on surrounding communities and the general public;” 
 Motion No. 182 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43 on page 105 with the following: 
 “opinion may be affected, directly or indirectly, by the granting, refusal or dismissal of an application, or by the issuance of a certificate.” 
 Motion No. 183 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 106 with the following: 
 “the report must also reference the” 
 Motion No. 184 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 106 with the following: 
 “Board. The specified time limit must be” 
 Motion No. 185 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18 on page 106 with the following: 
 “respect to the pipeline, the period that is taken by” 
 Motion No. 186 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 106 with the following: 
 “by order, issue a directive to the Board that requires the Board to” 
 Motion No. 187 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 107 with the following: 
 “53. (1) If, after the Board has submitted its report under section 52, any of the considerations set out in subsection 52(2) have changed in respect of the application and approval of the application is no longer deemed to be in the public interest, then the Governor in” 
 Motion No. 188 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 107 with the following: 
 “(8) The Board’s” 
 Motion No. 189 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 108 with the following: 
 “54. (1) After the Board has submitted a report under section 52 or 53 that determines that the application is in the public interest, the Governor in” 
 Motion No. 190 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 108 with the following: 
 “making the order and must be made public within 15 days after it was made.” 
 Motion No. 191 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 109 with the following: 
 “(“the Court”) within 30 days after the day on” 
 Motion No. 192 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 109 with the following: 
 “so, but only if one or more of the considerations set out in subsection 52(2) have changed in respect of the application and approval of the application is no longer deemed to be in the public interest.” 
 Motion No. 193 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 31 on page 109 with the following: 
 “interested person or group, including 
 (a) persons or groups that are directly affected by the granting or refusing of the application, including those who use adjacent land for recreational, cultural or hunting purposes; 
 (b) persons or groups that are or could potentially be, in its opinion, indirectly affected by the granting or refusing of the application; and 
 (c) persons or groups that, in its opinion, have relevant information or expertise. 
 For greater certainty, a decision of the Board as to whether it will consider the objections or representations of any person or group is conclusive.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 194 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 84. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 195 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 109 with the following: 
 “the time limit specified by the Chairperson pursuant to a motion and vote among Board members,” 
 Motion No. 196 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 109 with the following: 
 “son pursuant to a motion and vote among Board members must be no longer than 15 months after the” 
 Motion No. 197 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 110 with the following: 
 “(a) prepare a report with respect to its” 
 Motion No. 198 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 110 with the following: 
 “(b) comply with that Act with respect to that assessment.” 
 Motion No. 199 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 110 with the following: 
 “paragraph (1)(b) to which the application relates, the” 
 Motion No. 200 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 110 with the following: 
 “Governor in Council under” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 201 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 85. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 202 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 111 with the following: 
 “the Board shall have regard to all representations referred to in section 55.2.” 
 Motion No. 203 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 111 with the following: 
 “that it specifies,” 
 Motion No. 204 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 111 with the following: 
 “(5) The time limit specified by the Board must be no longer than 15 months after the” 
 Motion No. 205 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 111 with the following: 
 “project within the meaning of the” 
 Motion No. 206 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 111 with the following: 
 “(a) prepare a report setting out its opinion of the” 
 Motion No. 207 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 111 with the following: 
 “respect to the line or any power line referred to in subsection (1) to which the application relates, the period that is taken by” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 208 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 86. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 209 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 86, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 112 with the following: 
 “V, except sections 74, 76 to 78, 108, 110 to 111.3,” 
 Motion No. 210 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 86, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 113 with the following: 
 “except sections 74, 76 to 78, 108, 110 to 111.3, 114” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 211 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 87. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 212 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 114 with the following: 
 “a work to which that Act applies, unless it passes in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable water.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 213 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 88. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 214 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 117 with the following: 
 “under which section 58.29 does not apply or leave from the Board under” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 215 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 89. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 216 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 117 with the following: 
 “certificate under section 52 or 53 authorizing the” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 217 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 90. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 218 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 90, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 118 with the following: 
 “was constructed in accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and that passes in, on, over, under, through or” 
 Motion No. 219 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 90, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 118 with the following: 
 “that was constructed in accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and that passes in, on, over, under, through” 
 Motion No. 220 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 90, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 119 with the following: 
 “that was constructed in accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and that passes in, on, over, under, through” 
 Motion No. 221 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 90, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 18 on page 119. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 222 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 91. 
 Motion No. 223 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 92. 
 Motion No. 224 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 93. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 225 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 124 with the following: 
 “oil or gas, the Board shall, after all required consultation with members of the public and with First Nations and taking into account all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, satisfy itself that the” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion no 226 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 94. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 227 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 124 with the following: 
 “recommendation, the Board shall, after all required consultation with members of the public and with First Nations, seek to avoid” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 228 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 95. 
 Motion No. 229 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 96. 
 Motion No. 230 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 97. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 231 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 125 with the following: 
 “120.5 The Board may issue a ” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 232 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 98. 
 Motion No. 233 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 99. 
 Motion No. 234 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 100. 
 Motion No. 235 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 101. 
 Motion No. 236 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 102. 
 Motion No. 237 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 103. 
 Motion No. 238 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 104. 
 Motion No. 239 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 105. 
 Motion No. 240 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 106. 
 Motion No. 241 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 107. 
 Motion No. 242 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 108. 
 Motion No. 243 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 109. 
 Motion No. 244 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 110. 
 Motion No. 245 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 111. 
 Motion No. 246 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 112. 
 Motion No. 247 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 113. 
 Motion No. 248 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 114. 
 Motion No. 249 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 115. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion Nos. 250 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 138 with the following: 
 “and 99 to 114 come into force on September 1, 2015.” 
 Motion Nos. 251 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 139 with the following: 
 “force on January 1, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 252 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 116. 
 Motion No. 253 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 117. 
 Motion No. 254 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 118. 
 Motion No. 255 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 119. 
 Motion No. 256 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 120. 
 Motion No. 257 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 121. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motions No. 258 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 121, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 141 with the following: 
 “June 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 259 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 122. 
 Motion No. 260 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 123. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motions No. 261 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 123, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 141 with the following: 
 “seven months.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motions No. 262 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 124. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 263 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 124, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 141 with the following: 
 “replace a licence after consulting the public, expert opinion and peer-reviewed scientific evidence, or decide whether it is in the public interest to authorize its transfer, on” 
 Motion No. 264 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 124, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 142 with the following: 
 “the Commission, after consulting expert opinion, the applicant or, in the case of” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 265 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 125. 
 Motion No. 266 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 126. 
 Motion No. 267 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 127. 
 Motion No. 268 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 128. 
 Motion No. 269 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 129. 
 Motion No. 270 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 130. 
 Motion No. 271 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 131. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 272 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 131, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 149 with the following: 
 “force on August 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 273 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 132. 
 Motion No. 274 
 Mr. Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) — That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 133. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 275 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 150 with the following: 
 “thing impeding the free” 
 Motion No. 276 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 150 with the following: 
 “that fish may potentially be harvested under the authority of a” 
 Motion No. 277 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 151 with the following: 
 “to fish includes 
 (a) the death of, or harm to, any fish; and 
 (b) any temporary or permanent harmful alteration to, or disruption or destruction of, any fish habitat.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 278 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 134. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion no 279 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 151 with the following: 
 “programs and, if the Minister has determined, on the basis of the features and scope of the programs, that the programs are equivalent in their capabilities to meet and ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act, otherwise harmonizing those” 
 Motion no 280 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 151 with the following: 
 “tween the parties and the public, including the exchange and public dissemination of scientific information and any other information relevant to the public; and” 
 Motion no 281 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 151 with the following: 
 “(c) facilitating public consultation, participation in decision-making processes and the entry into arrangements with third-party stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected.” 
 Motion no 282 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 151 with the following: 
 “(2) An agreement may, while ensuring the integrity of the federal government's constitutionally defined jurisdiction and responsibility with respect to fisheries, establish” 
 Motion no 283 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 151 with the following: 
 “the parties, including the exchange and dissemination to the public of scien-” 
 Motion no 284 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 152 with the following: 
 “into or renewing the agreement that shall ensure that meaningful public participation is sought and taken into consideration.” 
 Motion no 285 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 152 the following: 
 “(3.1) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), any agreement entered into with a province must ensure the integrity of the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction over fisheries, by 
 (a) establishing that the province, for the purposes of the agreement, acts as an agent of the federal government in executing the agreement; and 
 (b) requiring the province, as a condition of the agreement, to report to the Minister.” 
 Motion no 286 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 24 on page 152 with the following: 
 “provision under the laws of the province that, after consulation with experts, stakeholders and members of the public, is determined to be equivalent in effect to a provision of the regulations, the Governor in Council may, by order, declare that certain provisions of the regulations do not apply in the” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 287 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 135. 

Elizabeth May:  , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion no 288 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 154 with the following: 
 “commercial, recrea-” 
 Motion no 289 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 154 with the following: 
 “in place to prevent serious harm to fish or fish habitat, including those that are part of a commercial, recreational” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 290 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 136. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 291 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 154 to line 1 on page 155 with the following: 
 “(2) If, on the basis of expert opinion, the Minister considers it necessary to ensure the free passage of fish or to prevent harm to fish, the owner or person who has the charge, management or control of any water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irrigating, manufacturing, power generation, domestic or other purposes shall, on the Minister’s request, within the” 
 Motion No. 292 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 155 with the following: 
 “Minister considers, based on expert opinion, sufficient to permit the” 
 Motion No. 293 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 155 with the following: 
 “quantity of water that the Minister considers, based on expert opinion,” 
 Motion No. 294 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 156 with the following: 
 “(e) in any way stop, impede or hinder fish from entering or passing through any fishway or canal, or stop, impede or hinder fish from sur-” 
 Motion No. 295 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 156 with the following: 
 “(g) fish in any manner within 25 m downstream from the lower entrance to any fishway, canal, obstacle or leap.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 296 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 137. 
 Motion No. 297 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 138. 
 Motion No. 298 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 139. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 299 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 157 with the following: 
 “32. (1) No person shall kill or harm fish by any” 
 Motion No. 300 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 157 with the following: 
 “the killing of or harm to fish is done in such a way as to ensure, according to expert advice based on an independent analysis, the absolute minimum destruction of or disturbance to fish populations and habitats necessary in order to carry out the work, undertaking or activity and” 
 Motion No. 301 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 31 on page 157 with the following: 
 “(2)(a) to (e) that applies to them is guilty of 
 (a) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both; or 
 (b) an indictable offence and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to both.” 
 Motion No. 302 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 157 the following new clause: 
 “139.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 32: 
 32.1 Every owner or occupier of a water intake, ditch, channel or canal referred to in subsection 30(1) who refuses or neglects to provide and maintain a fish guard, screen, covering or netting in accordance with subsections 30(1) to (3), permits the removal of a fish guard, screen, covering or netting in contravention of subsection 30(3) or refuses or neglects to close a sluice or gate in accordance with subsection 30(4) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 303 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 140. 
 Motion No. 304 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 141. 
 Motion No. 305 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 142. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 306 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 158 with the following: 
 “(2) If conducted in accordance with expert advice that is based on an independent analysis so as to ensure the absolute minimum of destruction or disruption of fish populations and fish habitat, a person may carry on a work, under-” 
 Motion No. 307 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 158 with the following: 
 “harm to fish or fish habitat, including those that are part of any commercial,” 
 Motion No. 308 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 158 with the following: 
 “(d) the serious harm to fish or fish habitat is produced as a result of” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 309 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 143. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 310 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 159 with the following: 
 “made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5) applicable to that” 
 Motion No. 311 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 159 with the following: 
 “by the Governor in Council under subsection (5.1) and that is deposited” 
 Motion No. 312 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 143, be amended by deleting lines 26 to 29 on page 159. 
 Motion No. 313 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 143, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 160 the following: 
 “(5.2) No regulation made under subsection (5.1) may authorize any deposit of a deleterious substance unless the deposit is conducted in such a manner as to ensure the absolute minimum of destruction or disruption of fish populations and fish habitat.” 
 Motion No. 314 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 143, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 13 on page 160 with the following: 
 “under subsection (5) or (5.1) shall, when” 
 (b) by replacing line 15 on page 160 with the following: 
 “made under paragraph (5)(e) or (5.1)(d) or any” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 315 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 144. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 316 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing lines 46 and 47 on page 161 with the following: 
 “results or is likely to result in alteration, disruption or serious harm to any fish or fish habitat, including those that are part of a commercial, recreational” 
 Motion No. 317 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 162 with the following: 
 “results or is likely to result in alteration, disruption or serious harm to any fish or fish habitat, including those that are part of a commercial,” 
 Motion No. 318 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 163 with the following: 
 “activity results or has the potential to result in alteration, disruption or serious harm to any fish or fish habitat in an ecologically significant area, the” 
 Motion No. 319 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 164 with the following: 
 “(c) defining, on the basis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion, “ecologically significant area”” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 320 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 145. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 321 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 164 with the following: 
 “enforcement of this Act, provided that, with regard to the designation of any analyst, the analyst has been independently recognized as qualified to be so designated.” 
 Motion No. 322 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 164 with the following: 
 “habitat or serious harm to fish or fish habitat, or” 
 Motion No. 323 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 165 with the following: 
 “prescribed by the regulations of any alteration, disruption or destruction of fish” 
 Motion No. 324 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 165 with the following: 
 “substance in water that is not” 
 Motion No. 325 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 165 with the following: 
 “humans of fish results or could potentially result from the occurrence, then” 
 Motion No. 326 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 167 with the following: 
 “(i) alteration or disruption of fish habitat, or serious harm to fish or fish habitat, including those that are part of a” 
 Motion No. 327 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 167 with the following: 
 “that results in any alteration or disruption of fish habitat, or serious harm to any fish or fish habitat, including those that are part” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 328 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 146. 
 Motion No. 329 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 147. 
 Motion No. 330 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 148. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 331 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 148, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 21 on page 174 with the following: 
 “42.1 (1) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each house of Parliament a report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act relating to fish habitat protection and pollution prevention for that year, including for those fisheries of particular commercial or recreational value and any fisheries of cultural or economic value for Aboriginal communities.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 332 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 149. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 333 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 174 with the following: 
 “(i.01) excluding certain fisheries, on the basis of public consultation and expert opinion, from the defini-” 
 Motion No. 334 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 176 with the following: 
 “(2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, add” 

[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you misread Motion No. 333. It reads “excluding certain fisheries”, and you said “including certain fisheries”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair appreciates the assistance of all hon. members. 
Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 335 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 176 with the following: 
 “(3) Regulations made under subsection (2)” 
 Motion No. 336 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 149, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 176 with the following: 
 “(5) The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of emergency response and after consulting with experts, make” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 337 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 150. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 338 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 150, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 29 on page 176 with the following: 
 “recommendation of the Minister following consultation with the public and experts or, if they are made for the purposes of and in relation to the subject matters set out in an order made under section 43.2, on the recommendation of the minister designated under that section following consultation with the public and experts.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 339 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 151. 
 Motion No. 340 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 152. 
 Motion No. 341 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 153. 
 Motion No. 342 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 154. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 343 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 154, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 177 with the following: 
 “Act may not be commenced later than twenty-five years” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 344 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 155. 
 Motion No. 345 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 156. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 346 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 156, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 178 with the following: 
 “and 153 come into force on July 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 347 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 157. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 348 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 157, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 178 with the following: 
 “and, subject to the regulations, after consulting relevant peer-reviewed science, considering public concerns and taking all appropriate measures to ensure that no ecosystem will be significantly adversely affected, renew it no more than once. 
 (1.1) Before issuing a permit referred to under subsection (1), the Minister shall ensure that the issuance of the permit will not have any adverse effects on critical habitat as it is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act. ” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 349 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 158. 
 Motion No. 350 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 159. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 351 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 159, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 179 with the following: 
 “mental Registry as well as in the Canada Gazette.” 
 Motion No. 352 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 159, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 179 with the following: 
 “(b) in every other case, at least 30 days” 

Marc Garneau: Motion No. 353
 moved:
 Motion No. 353 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 160. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 354 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 160, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 180 with the following: 
 “published in the Environmental Registry and in the Canada Gazette; or” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 355 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 161 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 356 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 161, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 39 on page 180. 
 Motion No. 357 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 161, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 10 on page 181. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 358 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 162. 
 Motion No. 359 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 163. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 360 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 163, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 181 with the following: 
 “(6.1) Subject to subsection 73(9), the agreement or permit must set out” 
 Motion No. 361 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 163, be amended by deleting line 31 on page 181 to line 8 on page 182. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 362 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 164. 
 Motion No. 363 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 165. 
 Motion No. 364 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 166. 
 Motion No. 365 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 167. 
 Motions No. 366 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 168. 
 Motions No. 367 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 169. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 24 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 127 to 141.
The next question is on Motion No. 143. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 143 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 144 to 146, 149, 151 to 153, 156, 158, 170, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179, 194, 201, 208, 211, 213, 215, 217, 222 to 224, 226, 228 to 230 and 232 to 249.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  The question is on Motion No. 252. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
 Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 252 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 253 to 257.
The question is on Motion No. 259. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 259 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 260, 262 and 265 to 271.
The question is on Motion No. 273. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 273 stands deferred. 
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 274, 278, 287, 290, 296 to 298, 303 to 305, 309, 315, 320, 328 to 330, 332, 337, 339 to 342, 344 and 345.
The next question is on Motion No. 347. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 347 stands deferred. 
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 349, 350, 353, 355 and 358.
The next question is on Motion No. 359. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 359 stands deferred. 
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 362 to 367.
 I shall now propose Motions Nos. 368 to 410, 413 to 544, 546 to 569, 572 to 575, 577 to 625, 629, 631 to 841 and 844 to 871 in Group 4 to the House.
Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 368 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 170. 
 Motion No. 369 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 171. 
 Motion No. 370 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 172. 
 Motion No. 371 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 173. 
 Motion No. 372 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 174. 
 Motion No. 373 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 175. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 374 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 175, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 185 with the following: 
 “financial statements of the Council, and the Council shall make the report available for public scrutiny at the offices of the Council.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 375 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 176. 
 Motion No. 376 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 177. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 377 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 177, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 186 with the following: 
 “financial statements of the Council and the Council, shall make the report available for public scrutiny at the offices of the Council.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 378 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 178. 
 Motion No. 379 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 179. 
 Motion No. 380 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 180. 
 Motion No. 381 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 181. 
 Motion No. 382 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 182. 
 Motion No. 383 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 183. 
 Motion No. 384 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 184. 
 Motion No. 385 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 185. 
 Motion No. 386 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 186. 
 Motion No. 387 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 187. 
 Motion No. 388 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 188. 
 Motion No. 389 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 189. 
 Motion No. 390 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 190. 
 Motion No. 391 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 191. 
 Motion No. 392 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 192. 
 Motion No. 393 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 193. 
 Motion No. 394 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 194. 
 Motion No. 395 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 195. 
 Motion No. 396 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 196. 
 Motion No. 397 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 197. 
 Motion No. 398 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 198. 
 Motion No. 399 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 199. 
 Motion No. 400 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 200. 
 Motion No. 401 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 201. 
 Motion No. 402 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 202. 
 Motion No. 403 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 203. 
 Motion No. 404 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 204. 
 Motion No. 405 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 209. 
 Motion No. 406 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 210. 
 Motion No. 407 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 211. 
 Motion No. 408 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 212. 
 Motion No. 409 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 213. 

Peggy Nash:  moved: 
 Motion No. 410 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 214. 
 Motion No. 413 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 215. 
 Motion No. 414 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 216. 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 415 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 217. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 416 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 217, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 194 with the following: 
 “217. This Division comes into force on April 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 417 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 218. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 418 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 219. 
 Motion No. 419 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 220. 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 420 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 221. 
 Motion No. 421 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 222. 
 Motion No. 422 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 223. 
 Motion No. 423 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 224. 
 Motion No. 424 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 225. 
 Motion No. 425 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 226. 
 Motion No. 426 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 227. 
 Motion No. 427 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 228. 
 Motion No. 428 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 229. 
 Motion No. 429 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 230. 
 Motion No. 430 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 231. 
 Motion No. 431 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 232. 
 Motion No. 432 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 233. 
 Motion No. 433 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 234. 
 Motion No. 434 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 235. 
 Motion No. 435 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 236. 
 Motion No. 436 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 237. 
 Motion No. 437 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 238. 
 Motion No. 438 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 239. 
 Motion No. 439 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 240. 
 Motion No. 440 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 241. 
 Motion No. 441 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 242. 
 Motion No. 442 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 243. 
 Motion No. 443 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 244. 
 Motion No. 444 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 245. 
 Motion No. 445 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 246. 
 Motion No. 446 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 247. 
 Motion No. 447 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 248. 
 Motion No. 448 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 249. 
 Motion No. 449 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 250. 
 Motion No. 450 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 251. 
 Motion No. 451 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 252. 
 Motion No. 452 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 253. 
 Motion No. 453 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 254. 
 Motion No. 454 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 255. 
 Motion No. 455 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 256. 
 Motion No. 456 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 257. 
 Motion No. 457 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 258. 
 Motion No. 458 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 259. 
 Motion No. 459 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 260. 
 Motion No. 460 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 261. 
 Motion No. 461 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 262. 
 Motion No. 462 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 263. 
 Motion No. 463 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 264. 
 Motion No. 464 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 265. 
 Motion No. 465 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 266. 
 Motion No. 466 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 267. 
 Motion No. 467 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 268. 
 Motion No. 468 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 269. 
 Motion No. 469 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 270. 
 Motion No. 470 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 271. 
 Motion No. 471 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 272. 
 Motion No. 472 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 273. 
 Motion No. 473 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 274. 
 Motion No. 474 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 275. 
 Motion No. 475 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 276. 
 Motion No. 476 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 277. 
 Motion No. 477 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 278. 
 Motion No. 478 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 279. 
 Motion No. 479 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 280. 
 Motion No. 480 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 281. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 481 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 281, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 226 with the following: 
 “April 1, 2016.” 
 Motion No. 482 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 281, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 226 with the following: 
 “on April 1, 2016.” 
 Motion No. 483 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 281, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 226 with the following: 
 “force on May 1, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 484 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 283. 
 Motion No. 485 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 284. 
 Motion No. 486 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 285. 
 Motion No. 487 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 286. 
 Motion No. 488 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 287. 
 Motion No. 489 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 288. 
 Motion No. 490 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 289. 
 Motion No. 491 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 290. 
 Motion No. 492 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 291. 
 Motion No. 493 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 292. 
 Motion No. 494 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 293. 
 Motion No. 495 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 294. 
 Motion No. 496 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 295. 
 Motion No. 497 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 296. 
 Motion No. 498 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 297. 
 Motion No. 499 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 298. 
 Motion No. 500 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 299. 
 Motion No. 501 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 300. 
 Motion No. 502 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 301. 
 Motion No. 503 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 302. 
 Motion No. 504 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 303. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 505 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 303, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 235 with the following: 
 “on September 1, 2015.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 506 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 304. 
 Motion No. 507 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 305. 
 Motion No. 508 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 306. 
 Motion No. 509 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 307. 
 Motion No. 510 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 308. 
 Motion No. 511 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 309. 
 Motion No. 512 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 310. 
 Motion No. 513 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 311. 
 Motion No. 514 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 312. 
 Motion No. 515 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 313. 
 Motion No. 516 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 314. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, moved:
 Motion No. 517 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 314, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 242 with the following: 
 “on May 1, 2013.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 518 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 315. 
 Motion No. 519 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 316. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 520 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 317. 
 Motion No. 521 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 318. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 522 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 243 the following: 
 “(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include, for the previous calendar year, all information related to any action or enforcement measure taken in accordance with subsection 6(1) under any Act or regulation set out in Part 3 or Part 4 of the Schedule.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 523 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 319. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 524 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 319, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 39 on page 243 with the following: 
 “(2) The Minister shall conduct a comprehensive review of the manage-” 
 (b) by replacing line 41 on page 243 with the following: 
 “protected heritage area at least every 10 years, taking into account any feedback received from the public under subsection (2.1),” 
 (c) by adding after line 43 on page 243 the following: 
 “(2.1) In every year, the Minister shall 
 (a) publish on the departmental website the management plan for each national historic site or other protected heritage area; and 
 (b) open the plan to public consultation and feedback, to be taken into account by the Agency in future decisions regarding changes to the management plan.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 525 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 320. 
 Motion No. 526 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 321. 
 Motion No. 527 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 322. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion no 528 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 323. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion no 529 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 324. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 530 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 324, be amended 
 (a) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 244 with the following: 
 “(2) The Minister shall conduct a comprehensive review of the management plan for each park at least every 10 years, taking into account any feedback received from the public under subsection (2.1),” 
 (b) by adding after line 16 on page 244 the following: 
 “(2.1) In every year, the Minister shall 
 a) publish on the departmental website the management plan for each national historic site or other protected heritage area; and 
 (b) open the plan to public consultation and feedback, to be taken into account by the Agency in future decisions regarding changes to the management plan.” 

Marc Garneau: moved: 
 Motion No. 531 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 325. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 532 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 325, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 20 on page 244 with the following: 
 “(2) The Minister shall conduct a comprehensive review of the manage-” 
 (b) by replacing line 22 on page 244 with the following: 
 “at least every 10 years, taking into account any feedback received from the public under subsection (2.1), and shall cause any” 
 (c) by adding after line 24 on page 244 the following: 
 “(2.1) In every year, the Minister shall 
 (a) publish on the departmental website the management plan for each national historic site or other protected heritage area; and 
 (b) open the plan to public consultation and feedback, to be taken into account by the Agency in future decisions regarding changes to the management plan.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved: 
 Motion No. 533 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 353. 
 Motion No. 534 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 356. 
 Motion No. 535 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 359. 
 Motion No. 536 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 361. 
 Motion No. 537 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 362. 
 Motion No. 538 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 363. 
 Motion No. 539 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 364. 
 Motion No. 540 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 366. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 541 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 367, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 272 with the following: 
 “force on January 1, 2014.” 
 Motion No. 542 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 367, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 272 with the following: 
 “comes into force on January 1, 2014.” 
 Motion No. 543 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 367, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 272 with the following: 
 “May 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 544 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 368. 
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you could read the number of the motion you are referring to. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.
Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 546 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 368, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 274 the following: 
 “(3) Every officer appointed under this section must conduct every operation, wherever it takes place, in a manner respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” 
 Motion No. 547 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 368, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 276 the following: 
 “(3) For greater certainty, the detention of any person by an officer is not permitted unless the officer has been appointed as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer under section 7.” 
 Motion No. 548 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 368, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 277 the following: 
 “17. The provisions of this Act, the related amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and the Customs Act cease to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after June 1, 2017, unless, before the end of that day, the application of those provisions is extended by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 549 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 369. 
 Motion No. 550 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 370. 
 Motion No. 551 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 371. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 555 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 374, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 280 with the following: 
 “374. This Division comes into force on April 30, 2016.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 556 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 377. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 557 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 378. 
 Motion No. 558 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 379. 
 Motion No. 559 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 380. 
 Motion No. 560 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 381. 
 Motion No. 561 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 382. 
 Motion No. 562 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 383. 
 Motion No. 563 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 384. 
 Motion No. 564 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 385. 
 Motion No. 565 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 386. 
 Motion No. 566 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 387. 
 Motion No. 567 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 391. 
 Motion No. 568 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 392. 
 Motion No. 569 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 393. 
 Motion No. 572 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 394. 
 Motion No. 573 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 395. 
 Motion No. 574 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 396. 
 Motion No. 575 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 397. 
 Motion No. 577 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 398. 
 Motion No. 578 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 399. 
 Motion No. 579 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 400. 
 Motion No. 580 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 401. 
 Motion No. 581 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 402. 
 Motion No. 582 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 403. 
 Motion No. 583 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 404. 
 Motion No. 584 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 405. 
 Motion No. 585 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 406. 
 Motion No. 586 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 407. 
 Motion No. 587 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 408. 
 Motion No. 588 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 409. 
 Motion No. 589 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 410. 
 Motion No. 590 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 411. 
 Motion No. 591 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 412. 
 Motion No. 592 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 413. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 593 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 413, be amended by deleting lines 25 and 26 on page 291. 
 Motion No. 594 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 413, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 291 with the following: 
 “accessible to the public.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 595 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 414. 
 Motion No. 596 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 415. 
 Motion No. 597 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 416. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 598 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 416, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 292 with the following: 
 “considers appropriate and must be subject to regulatory approval.” 
 Motion No. 599 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 416, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 24 on page 293. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 600 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 417. 
 Motion No. 601 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 418. 
 Motion No. 602 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 419. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 603 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 419, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 295 with the following: 
 “force on January 1, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 604 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 420. 
 Motion No. 605 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 421. 
 Motion No. 606 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 422. 
 Motion No. 607 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 423. 
 Motion No. 608 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 424. 
 Motion No. 609 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 425. 
 Motion No. 610 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 426. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 611 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 426, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 299 with the following: 
 “426. This Division comes into force on May 1, 2013.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 612 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 427. 
 Motion No. 613 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 428. 
 Motion No. 614 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 429. 
 Motion No. 615 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 430. 
 Motion No. 616 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 431. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 617 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 440, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 305 with the following: 
 “force on January 1, 2013.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 618 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 441. 
 Motion No. 619 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 442. 
 Motion No. 620 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 443. 
 Motion No. 621 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 444. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 622 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 444, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 306 with the following: 
 “444. This Division comes into force on April 30, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 623 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 445. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 624 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 446. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 625 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 447. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 629 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 448. 
 Motion No. 631 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 461. 
 Motion No. 632 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 463. 
 Motion No. 633 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 465. 
 Motion No. 634 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 466. 
 Motion No. 635 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 467. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 636 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 467, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 322 with the following: 
 “464 and 465, come into force on June 15, 2015.” 
 Motion No. 637 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 467, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 322 with the following: 
 “force on July 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 638 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 468. 
 Motion No. 639 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 469. 
 Motion No. 640 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 470. 
 Motion No. 641 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 471. 
 Motion No. 642 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 472. 
 Motion No. 643 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 473. 
[For continuation of proceedings see Part C ]
[Stage Direction]
[Continuation of proceedings from part B]
Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 644 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 473, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 323 with the following: 
 “tion 4.2, including their issuance and their” 
 Motion No. 645 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 473, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 323 with the following: 
 “available to the public;” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 646 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 474. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 647 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 474, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 324 with the following: 
 “that he or she considers appropriate for assuring the quality of seeds and seed crops, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (5).” 
 Motion No. 648 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 474, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 324 the following: 
 “(5) For greater certainty, no licence referred to in subsection (1) shall be issued to persons who have a direct commercial interest in the sale, importation or exportation of seeds in Canada.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 649 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 475. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 650 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 475, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 324 with the following: 
 “tion 4.1, including their issuance and their” 
 Motion No. 651 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 475, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 325 with the following: 
 “that he or she considers appropriate for assuring the quality of seeds and seed crops, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (5).” 
 Motion No. 652 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 475, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 325 the following: 
 “(5) For greater certainty, no licence referred to in subsection (1) shall be issued to persons who have a direct commercial interest in the sale, importation or exportation of seeds in Canada.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved: 
 Motion No.653 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 476. 
 Motion No. 654 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 477. 
 Motion No. 655 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 478. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 656 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 478, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 325 with the following: 
 “478. This Division comes into force on September 15, 2015.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved: 
 Motion No. 657 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 479. 
 Motion No. 658 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 480. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 659 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 480, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 326 with the following: 
 “subsection 23(1) and all criteria and factors considered in reaching a decision or sending notice under that subsection, with the exception of all commercially sensitive information;” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 660 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 481. 
 Motion No. 661 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 482. 
 Motion No. 662 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 484. 
 Motion No. 663 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 485. 
 Motion No. 664 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 486. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 665 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 486, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 328 with the following: 
 “January 1, 2013.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 666 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 487. 
 Motion No. 667 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 488. 
 Motion No. 668 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 489. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 669 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 489, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 329 with the following: 
 “February 1, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 670 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 490. 
 Motion No. 671 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 491. 
 Motion No. 672 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 492. 
 Motion No. 673 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 493. 
 Motion No. 674 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 494. 
 Motion No. 675 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 495. 
 Motion No. 676 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 496. 
 Motion No. 677 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 497. 
 Motion No. 678 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 498. 
 Motion No. 679 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 499. 
 Motion No. 680 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 500. 
 Motion No. 681 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 501. 
 Motion No. 682 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 502. 
 Motion No. 683 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 503. 
 Motion No. 684 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 504. 
 Motion No. 685 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 505. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 686 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 505, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 333 with the following: 
 “on January 1, 2016.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion no 687 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 506. 
 Motion no 688 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 507. 
 Motion no 689 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 508. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 690 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 508, be amended 
 (a) by replacing line 1 on page 336 with the following: 
 “(b) humanely dispose of that animal or thing or require” 
 (b) by replacing line 3 on page 336 with the following: 
 “care or control of it to humanely dispose of it if, according to expert opinion, treatment under paragraph (a) is not feasible or is not able to be carried out quickly enough to be effective in eliminating the disease or toxic substance or preventing its spread.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 691 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 509. 
 Motion No. 692 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 511. 
 Motion No. 693 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 514. 
 Motion No. 694 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 515. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 695 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 515, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 338 with the following: 
 “September 1, 2013 or, if it is later, on the day on” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 696 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 516. 
 Motion No. 697 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 517. 
 Motion No. 698 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 518. 
 Motion No. 699 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 519. 
 Motion No. 700 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 520. 
 Motion No. 701 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 521. 
 Motion No. 702 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 522. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 703 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 522, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 340 with the following: 
 “possible after the end of each fiscal year but” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 704 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 523. 
 Motion No. 705 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 524. 
 Motion No. 706 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 525. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved: 
 Motion No. 707 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 525, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 340 with the following: 
 “Whereas a strong, efficient and publicly accountable banking sector” 

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):  moved:
 Motion no 708 
 Que le projet de loi C-38, à l'article 525, soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 11 à 14, page 341, de ce qui suit: 
 « que le respect des lois provinciales d'application générale est nécessaire pour assurer la qualité des services bancaires offerts, » 
 Motion no 709 
 Que le projet de loi C-38, à l'article 525, soit modifié par suppression des lignes 11 à 14, page 341. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion no 710 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 525, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 341 the following: 
 “And whereas, in the interest of informed public debate and decision-making, it is in the national interest for the Government of Canada to publicy and transparently account for all financial assistance provided to the Canadian banking sector by the Government of Canada, including that provided through the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation;” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 711 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 526. 
 Motion No. 712 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 527. 
 Motion No. 713 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 528. 
 Motion No. 714 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 529. 
 Motion No. 715 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 530. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 716 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 530, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 342 with the following: 
 “on January 15, 2016.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 717 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 531. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 718 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 532. 
 Motion No. 719 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 533. 
 Motion No. 720 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 534. 
 Motion No. 721 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 535. 
 Motion No. 722 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 536. 
 Motion No. 723 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 537. 
 Motion No. 724 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 538. 
 Motion No. 725 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 539. 
 Motion No. 726 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 540. 
 Motion No. 727 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 541. 
 Motion No. 728 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 542. 
 Motion No. 729 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 543. 
 Motion No. 730 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 544. 
 Motion No. 731 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 545. 
 Motion No. 732 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 546. 
 Motion No. 733 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 547. 
 Motion No. 734 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 548. 
 Motion No. 735 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 549. 
 Motion No. 736 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 550. 
 Motion No. 737 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 551. 
 Motion No. 738 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 552. 
 Motion No. 739 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 553. 
 Motion No. 740 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 554. 
 Motion No. 741 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 555. 
 Motion No. 742 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 556. 
 Motion No. 743 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 557. 
 Motion No. 744 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 558. 
 Motion No. 745 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 559. 
 Motion No. 746 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 560. 
 Motion No. 747 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 561. 
 Motion No. 748 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 562. 
 Motion No. 749 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 563. 
 Motion No. 750 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 564. 
 Motion No. 751 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 565. 
 Motion No. 752 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 566. 
 Motion No. 753 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 567. 
 Motion No. 754 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 568. 
 Motion No. 755 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 569. 
 Motion No. 756 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 570. 
 Motion No. 757 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 571. 
 Motion No. 758 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 572. 
 Motion No. 759 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 573. 
 Motion No. 760 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 574. 
 Motion No. 761 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 575. 
 Motion No. 762 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 576. 
 Motion No. 763 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 577. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 764 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 577, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 361 with the following: 
 “577. This Division comes into force on June 1, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved: 
 Motion No. 765 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 578. 
 Motion No. 766 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 579. 
 Motion No. 767 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 580. 
 Motion No. 768 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 581. 
 Motion No. 769 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 582. 
 Motion No. 770 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 583. 
 Motion No. 771 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 584. 
 Motion No. 772 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 585. 
 Motion No. 773 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 586. 
 Motion No. 774 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 587. 
 Motion No. 775 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 588. 
 Motion No. 776 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 589. 
 Motion No. 777 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 590. 
 Motion No. 778 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 591. 
 Motion No. 779 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 592. 
 Motion No. 780 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 593. 
 Motion No. 781 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 594. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 782 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 594, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 365 with the following: 
 “on April 30, 2016.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 783 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 595. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 784 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 602. 
 Motion No. 785 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 603. 
 Motion No. 786 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 605. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 787 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 606. 
 Motion No. 788 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 607. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 789 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 608. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 790 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 609. 
 Motion No. 791 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 610. 
 Motion No. 792 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 611. 
 Motion No. 793 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 612. 
 Motion No. 794 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 613. 
 Motion No. 795 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 614. 
 Motion No. 796 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 615. 
 Motion No. 797 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 616. 
 Motion No. 798 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 617. 
 Motion No. 799 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 618. 
 Motion No. 800 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 619. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 801 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 619, be amended by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 378 with the following: 
 “608(2) and (3) come into force on April 30, 2016.” 
 Motion No. 802 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 619, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 378 with the following: 
 “on July 1, 2014.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 803 
 Que le projet de loi C-38 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 620. 
 Motion No. 804 
 Que le projet de loi C-38 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 621. 
 Motion No. 805 
 Que le projet de loi C-38 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 622. 
 Motion No. 806 
 Que le projet de loi C-38 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 623. 
 Motion No.807 
 Que le projet de loi C-38 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 624. 
 Motion No. 808 
 Que le projet de loi C-38 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 625. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 809 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 654. 
 Motion No. 810 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 655. 
 Motion No. 811 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 656. 
 Motion No. 812 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 657. 
 Motion No. 813 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 658. 
 Motion No. 814 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 659. 
 Motion No. 815 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 660. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 816 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 661. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 817 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 662. 
 Motion No. 818 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 663. 
 Motion No. 819 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 664. 
 Motion No. 820 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 665. 
 Motion No. 821 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 666. 
 Motion No. 822 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 667. 
 Motion No. 823 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 668. 
 Motion No. 824 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 669. 
 Motion No. 825 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 670. 
 Motion No. 826 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 671. 
 Motion No. 827 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 672. 
 Motion No. 828 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 673. 
 Motion No. 829 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 674. 
 Motion No. 830 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 675. 
 Motion No. 831 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 676. 
 Motion No. 832 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 677. 
 Motion No. 833 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 678. 
 Motion No. 834 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 679. 
 Motion No. 835 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 680. 
 Motion No. 836 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 681. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 837 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 681, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 34 on page 394 with the following: 
 “681. This Division comes into force on January 1, 2016.” 
 Motion No. 838 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 684, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 396 with the following: 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 684, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 396 with the following: 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 839 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 685. 
 Motion No. 840 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 686. 
 Motion No. 841 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 687. 
 Motion No. 844 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 688. 
 Motion No. 845 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 689. 
 Motion No. 846 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 690. 
 Motion No. 847 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 691. 
 Motion No. 848 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 692. 
 Motion No. 849 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 693. 
 Motion No. 850 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 694. 
 Motion No. 851 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 695. 
 Motion No. 852 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 696. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 853 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 696, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 401 with the following: 
 “on September 15, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 854 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 699. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 855 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 699, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 401 with the following: 
 “2007, is repealed as of April 30, 2015.” 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 856 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 700. 
 Motion No. 857 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 701. 
 Motion No. 858 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 702. 
 Motion No. 859 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 703. 
 Motion No. 860 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 704. 
 Motion No. 861 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 705. 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 862 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 706. 

Marc Garneau:  moved:
 Motion No. 863 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 707. 
 Motion No. 864 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 708. 
 Motion No. 865 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 709. 
 Motion No. 866 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 710. 
 Motion No. 867 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 711. 
 Motion No. 868 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 712. 

Elizabeth May: , seconded by the member for Etobicoke North, moved:
 Motion No. 869 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 753, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 424 with the following: 
 “force on September 1, 2012.” 
 Motion No. 870 
 That Bill C-38, in Clause 753, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13 on page 424 with the following: 
 “723, 726 and 741 to 751 come into force on June 15, 2015.” 

Peggy Nash:  moved:
 Motion No. 871 
 That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting the Schedule. 

[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on Motion No. 368. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 368 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 369 to 373, 375, 376 and 378 to 404.
The next question is on Motion No. 405. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 405 is deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 406 to 409.
The next question is on Motion No. 410. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 410 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 413 and 414.
The next question is on Motion No. 415. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on the Motion No. 415 stands deferred. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The next question is on Motion No. 417.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on the motion stands deferred and the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 420 and 421.
The next question is on Motion No. 418. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?