Skip to main content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Status of House Business
PDF
41st PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Journals

No. 28

Monday, December 2, 2013

11:00 a.m.


Prayers
Private Members' Business

At 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The Order was read for the consideration at report stage of Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with amendments.

Mr. Warawa (Langley), seconded by Mr. Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry), moved, — That the Bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Bill, as amended, was concurred in at report stage.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(11), Mr. Warawa (Langley), seconded by Mr. Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry), moved, — That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Order made Tuesday, November 26, 2013, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Interruption

At 11:42 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:00 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Government Orders

The Order was read for the consideration at report stage of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported by the Standing Committee on Finance without amendment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Speaker selected and grouped for debate the following motions:

Group No. 1 — Motions Nos. 1 to 284.
Group No. 1

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 1, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), moved Motion No. 2, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 3, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 4, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 5, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 6, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 7, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 8, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 9, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 10, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 11, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 12, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 13, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 14, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 15, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 16, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), seconded by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), moved Motion No. 17, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 18, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 19, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 20, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 21, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 22, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 23, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 24, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 25, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 26, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 27, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 28, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 29, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 30, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 31, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 32, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 33, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 34, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 35, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 36, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 37, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 38, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 39, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 40, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 41, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 42, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 43, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 44, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 45, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 46, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 47, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 48, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 49, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 50, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 51, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 52, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 53, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 54, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 55, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 56, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 57, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 58, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 59, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 60, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 61, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 62, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 63, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 64, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 65, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 66, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 67, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 68, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 69, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 70, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 71, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 72, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 73, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 74, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 75, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 76, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 77, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 78, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 79, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 80, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 81, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 82, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 83, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 84, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 85, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 86, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 87, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 88, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 89, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 90, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 91, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 92, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 93, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 94, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour), moved Motion No. 95, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 96, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 97, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 98, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 99, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 100, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 101, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 102, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 103, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 104, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 105, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 106, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 107, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 108, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 109, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 110, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 111, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 299.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 112, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 113, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 114, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 115, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 116, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 117, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 118, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 119, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 120, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 121, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 122, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 123, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 124, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 125, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 126, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 127, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 128, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 129, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 130, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 131, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 132, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 133, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 134, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 135, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 136, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 137, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 138, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 139, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 140, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 141, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 142, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 143, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 144, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 145, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 146, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 147, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 148, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 149, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 150, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 151, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 152, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 153, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 154, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 155, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 156, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 157, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 158, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 159, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 160, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 161, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 162, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 163, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 164, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 165, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 166, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 167, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 168, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 169, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 170, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 171, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 172, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 173, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 174, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 175, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 176, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 177, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 178, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 179, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 180, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 181, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 182, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 183, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 184, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 185, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 186, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 187, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 188, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 189, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 190, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 191, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 192, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 193, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 194, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 195, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 196, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 197, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 198, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 199, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 200, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 201, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 202, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 203, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 204, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 205, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 206, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 207, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 208, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 209, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 210, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 211, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 212, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 213, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 214, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 215, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 216, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 217, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 218, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 219, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 220, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 221, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 222, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 223, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 224, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 225, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 226, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 414.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 227, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 415.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 228, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 416.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 229, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 417.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 230, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 418.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 231, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 419.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 232, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 420.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 233, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 421.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 234, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 422.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 235, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 423.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 236, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 424.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 237, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 238, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 239, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 240, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 241, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 242, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 243, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 244, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 245, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 246, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 247, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 248, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 249, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 250, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 251, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 252, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 253, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 254, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 255, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 256, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 257, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 258, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 259, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 260, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 261, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 262, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 263, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 264, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 265, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 266, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 267, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 268, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 269, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 270, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 271, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 272, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 273, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 274, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 275, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 276, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 277, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 278, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 279, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 280, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 281, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 282, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 283, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Ms. Nash (Parkdale—High Park), seconded by Mr. Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), moved Motion No. 284, — That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

Debate arose on the motions in Group No. 1.
Statements By Members

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.
Oral Questions

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House proceeded to Oral Questions.
Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Notice of a Ways and Means motion to introduce an Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. (Ways and Means No. 5) — Sessional Paper No. 8570-412-5.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), at the request of Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), an Order of the Day was designated for the consideration of this Ways and Means motion.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement and Tripartite Governance Agreement". — Sessional Paper No. 8525-412-6.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) laid upon the Table, — Document entitled "Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement" for the period of April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012. — Sessional Paper No. 8525-412-7.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) laid upon the Table, — Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society for the fiscal year 2010-2011. — Sessional Paper No. 8525-412-8.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) laid upon the Table, — Report of the Nisga'a Final Agreement: Implementation Report for 2010-2011. — Sessional Paper No. 8525-412-9.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) laid upon the Table, — Report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, together with the Auditors' Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-732-01.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) laid upon the Table, — Government responses, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), to the following petitions:
— No. 412-0005 concerning the Employment Insurance Program. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-27-02;
— Nos. 412-0007 to 412-0034 concerning horse meat. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-59-01;
— No. 412-0055 concerning foreign aid. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-34-03;
— No. 412-0056 concerning climate change. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-50-03;
— No. 412-0060 concerning health care services. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-7-02;
— No. 412-0196 concerning national parks. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-37-02;
— Nos. 412-0245 and 412-0246 concerning petitions in the House of Commons. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-412-51-02.

Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), Mr. Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London) presented the report of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) concerning its participation at the 62nd Westminster Seminar on Practice and Procedure, held in London, United Kingdom, from June 17 to 21, 2013. — Sessional Paper No. 8565-412-53-03.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Brown (Leeds—Grenville), from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented the First Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (B), 2013-14 — Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 50b, 65b and 70b under CANADIAN HERITAGE). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-17.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 6) was tabled.

Mr. Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga), from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented the First Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (B), 2013-14 — Votes 1b, 5b, 10b and 20b under ENVIRONMENT). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-18.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 6) was tabled.

Mr. Kent (Thornhill), from the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented the First Report of the Committee, "NATO's Strategic Concept and Canada's Role in International Defence Cooperation". — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-19.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 4) was tabled.

Mr. Kent (Thornhill), from the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented the Second Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (B), 2013-14 — Votes 1b, 5b, 20b and 25b under NATIONAL DEFENCE). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-20.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 7) was tabled.

Mr. Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon), from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented the First Report of the Committee (Supplementary Estimates (B), 2013-14 — Votes 1b, 5b and 7b under CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-21.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 7) was tabled.

Mr. Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London), from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented the Third Report of the Committee (Review of the Board of Internal Economy). — Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-22.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 4 to 10) was tabled.

Pursuant to Order made Thursday, November 28, 2013, the 42nd Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, "Access to Information Requests and Parliamentary Privilege", presented to the House in the First Session of the 41st Parliament, was deemed presented. — Previously Sessional Paper No. 8510-411-188.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca), seconded by Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam), Bill C-557, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Vancouver Island), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Motions

Pursuant to Order made Thursday, November 28, 2013, the motion, — That the 42nd Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House in the First Session of the 41st Parliament, be concurred in, was deemed moved and seconded.

Debate arose thereon.

Pursuant to Order made Thursday, November 28, 2013, the motion was deemed adopted on division.


Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:
— by Ms. Leslie (Halifax), one concerning lighthouses (No. 412-0550) and one concerning navigable waters (No. 412-0551);
— by Ms. Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan), one concerning navigable waters (No. 412-0552), one concerning genetic engineering (No. 412-0553) and one concerning the tax on gasoline (No. 412-0554);
— by Ms. Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville), one concerning access to information (No. 412-0555);
— by Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), one concerning federal electoral districts (No. 412-0556);
— by Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), one concerning China (No. 412-0557) and one concerning climate change (No. 412-0558).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answers to questions Q-35 and Q-45 on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the returns to the following questions made into Orders for Return:

Q-1 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to aboriginal justice, broken down by year from 2006 to the present: (a) how much money was dedicated to the Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS); (b) how much money was devoted to other aboriginal justice programs; (c) with respect to (a) and (b), by program, how much money was spent; (d) by whom were monies in (a) and (b) spent, on what dates, and for what purpose; (e) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were provinces and territories consulted with respect to funding of the AJS for the upcoming year; (f) broken down by province and territory, on what dates were the provinces and territories consulted with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (g) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to the AJS; (h) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (i) with which First Nations groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (j) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to the AJS; (k) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to the AJS, by what means and on what dates; (l) broken down by province and territory, how much did each request of the government with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (m) broken down by province and territory, with which First Nations did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (n) with which First Nations groups and NGOs did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (o) with which other stakeholders did the government consult with respect to other aboriginal justice programs; (p) how does the government determine stakeholders regarding aboriginal justice concerns; (q) by whom, with what criteria, and when was the AJS budget determined; (r) in what ways, by whom, and when is AJS evaluated; (s) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers' meetings was the AJS raised;
(t) what commitments were made by the government; (u) were those commitments met; (v) which stakeholders were informed of budget decisions relative to other aboriginal justice programs, by what means and on what dates; (w) by whom, with what criteria, and when were these budgets determined; (x) in what ways, by whom, and when are these programs evaluated; (y) in which Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers' meetings were these programs raised; (z) what commitments were made by the government; (aa) were those commitments met; (bb) in what ways do these programs work to implement the Gladue principles; (cc) in what other ways are the Gladue principles being implemented; (dd) by what means, how often, with which criteria, and by whom does the government evaluate its implementation of the Gladue principles; (ee) what programs and strategies are in place to ensure both respect for and compliance with the Gladue principles; (ff) how many Gladue courts operate in Canada; (gg) in what ways is the government engaged with Gladue courts; (hh) in what ways does the government support Gladue courts; (ii) in what ways does the government ensure training for judges on the Gladue principles; (jj) in what ways does the government ensure training for prosecutors on the Gladue principles; (kk) in what ways does the government ensure the consideration of Gladue principles in its filings and submissions before the courts; (ll) in what ways is the government addressing the over-representation of aboriginals in prisons; (mm) what are the principles of the government’s aboriginal justice approach; (nn) how does the government evaluate whether its approach to aboriginal justice is working; (oo) by what specific standards, by whom and how often do such evaluations occur; (pp) in what ways does the government undertake predictions or forecasts with respect to the incarceration of aboriginal offenders; (qq) how are these forecasts taken into account in criminal justice policy development; (rr) in what ways are proposed justice laws evaluated for their impact on aboriginal persons; (ss) in what ways is the government incorporating aboriginal justice into its overall justice strategy; (tt) what policies exist to ensure aboriginal justice concerns are taken into account at every stage of policy and legislative development; (uu) who is responsible for keeping statistics on aboriginal justice; (vv) with respect to (uu), what statistics are available and from which departments; and (ww) with respect to (vv) what are the figures for each of the last three years? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-1.
Q-2 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s statement in the House of Commons on March 14, 2012, that “we have issued an operational bulletin to our visa officers and CBSA (Canada Border Service Agency) agents indicating that the African National Congress (ANC) is an organization that has undergone substantial change and, therefore, membership in it should no longer be considered grounds for inadmissibility”: (a) when was this directive issued, (i) was this directive issued in written form, (ii) if so, is it publically available and where can it be accessed, (iii) on what date was it posted to the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (iv) why, as of June 4, 2013, is it unavailable on the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, (v) what are the details of the directive, (vi) how was the directive communicated to CBSA agents, (vii) how was the directive communicated to Citizenship and Immigration Canada personnel in Canada, (viii) how was the directive communicated to Embassy and Consulate personnel abroad, (ix) with respect to (vii) and (viii), on what dates did said communication occur, (x) on what date did the directive become effective; (b) does the exemption to inadmissibility created by this directive apply only to ANC members or does it apply to members of any organization that has undergone a fundamental change, (i) if the former, does it apply to both current and former ANC members regardless of the time period during which they were associated with the organization, (ii) if the latter, are there specific guidelines regarding the determination of whether an organization has undergone a fundamental change, (iii) if so, are these guidelines publically available and where can they be accessed, (iv) if not, how is this determination made, (v) what organizations are currently considered to have undergone fundamental change; (c) under what sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have ANC members been found inadmissible, (i) broken down by year and section, how many ANC members have been found inadmissible, (ii) how long did the determination of inadmissibly take in each case; (d) does this directive necessarily exempt the ANC from inadmissibility pursuant to section 34 of the IRPA; (e) does this directive necessarily exempt the ANC from inadmissibility pursuant to section 37 of the IRPA; (f) does the new directive apply to any organization that has undergone a fundamental change; (g) what provisions of IRPA are specifically targeted by this new directive to ensure that inadmissibility determinations do not solely rest on ANC membership; (h) are specific determinations regarding the admissibility to Canada of current and former ANC members based on individual answers provided to questions on visa application forms;
(i) upon a finding that a current or former ANC member is not admissible to Canada, can this determination be appealed and, if so, on what grounds; (j) is it necessary that an applicant have engaged in criminal activity related to his current or former membership in the ANC in order to be denied admissibility based on his membership in this organization, (i) if so, is it necessary that the applicant have a criminal record, (ii) is it necessary that the conduct at issue be currently criminalized in Canada in order to result in inadmissibility pursuant to section 37 of the IRPA; (k) were there any exemptions to the inadmissibility of a current or former ANC member prior to the adoption of this new operational directive; (l) have the new directive and any resulting operational guidelines been applied since their adoption to the cases of any current or former ANC members; (m) to whom can an applicant present evidence that a relevant organization has undergone a fundamental change; (n) what standard of evidence is required for showing that an organization has undergone a fundamental change, (i) how are such decisions made, (ii) by whom and applying what criteria; (o) is a finding of inadmissibility in this regard, or a finding as to the applicability of the “fundamental change” exemption, at the complete discretion of the particular border guard who reviews a particular application, (i) is a finding of inadmissibility in this regard reviewable, (ii) if reviewable, to whom is an application for review made and are the relevant procedural guidelines for review specified, (ii) if there are specified guidelines for review, where can they be accessed; (p) has the Minister proposed any further measures to address the problem of the inadmissibility to Canada of current and former ANC members, (ii) if the Minister has directed that new measures be applied in this regard, to whom has the directive been made and where can they be accessed, (iii) if the Minister has not directed that new measures be applied in this regard, what steps are being taken to ensure that current and former members of the ANC are not automatically denied admissibility to Canada on the basis of their association with that organization; (q) on what occasions and through what channels has the government discussed the ANC visa issue with the Government of South Africa; (r) was the Government of South Africa advised of the operational bulletin and if so, on what date; (s) how is the operational bulletin being evaluated for its effectiveness and what steps are in place to ensure it is working; and (t) prior to their recent South Africa trip, were the Governor General, Foreign Affairs Minister, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister informed of the operational bulletin and, if so, on what dates and by whom? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-2.
Q-3 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to the State Immunity Act (SIA): (a) what is the process by which the Governor in Council sets out the names of foreign states that are believed to support or to have supported terrorism on the list established pursuant to the SIA; (b) what is the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ role in this process; (c) what is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ role in this process; (d) do the Ministers engage in regular consultations for the purpose of reviewing and updating the list, (i) how frequently do the Ministers engage in such consultations, (ii) how do the Ministers determine when to consult in this regard, (iii) how do the Ministers determine what states to consider when engaging in such consultations, (iv) on whose initiative are such consultations undertaken, (v) what guidelines control the consultation process, (vi) are consultations conducted privately, (vii) are the minutes of these consultations recorded and, if so, where can they be accessed, (viii) what information is available regarding the substance of these consultations; (e) what foreign states are currently being considered for listing pursuant to the SIA, (i) are the Ministers currently involved in any consultations in this regard, (ii) at what stage do these consultations currently stand, (iii) are there any plans for upcoming consultations in this regard; (f) what steps are being taken to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that any other states not currently listed have been or are engaged in the support of terrorism; (g) what has been the impact thus far of listing states, (i) broken down by state, how many lawsuits of which the government is aware were initiated against these states prior to the listing, (ii) broken down by state, how many lawsuits of which the government is aware are currently pending against listed states, (iii) how much has the government thus far spent in cases in (ii), (iv) who is responsible for defending cases in (ii), (v) what budget exists for defending cases in (ii); (h) on what evidence does the Minister of Foreign Affairs rely in making the determination that reasonable grounds exist to believe that a state is or has been engaged in the support of terrorism, (i) does a determination by the Ministers that a foreign state is or has been engaged in the support of terrorism automatically result in a recommendation by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to list that state pursuant to the SIA, (ii) is it necessary that both Ministers agree in the determination that reasonable grounds exist in order for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to recommend the listing of the state pursuant to the SIA, (iii) what evidentiary rules control the type of evidence that may be considered in making this determination, (iv) can and does the Minister rely on classified information in making this determination, (v) may individuals and groups make submissions in this regard, (vi) how may such submissions be made, (vii) what publically available sources are consulted in the consultation process, (viii) which individuals are involved in the consultation process; (i) does the listing of a state result in that state being subject to the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in an action brought pursuant to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) in all instances;
(j) in what instances may a listed state enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in an action brought pursuant to the JVTA; (k) what types of immunity are covered by the SIA, (i) what types of immunity are not covered by the SIA, (ii) can a state that is listed still claim any type of immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court, (iii) what claims in (ii) will the government defend on behalf of a state, (iv) how, by whom, and applying what standards is the determination in (iii) made; (l) with regard to the listed state of Iran, (i) is it the policy of the government that all Iranian-owned property located in Canada is immune from attachment, (ii) what specific Iranian-owned properties located in Canada are immune from attachment, (iii) on what basis are such properties immune from attachment, (iv) by whom, and applying what standard is the determination in (iii) made; (m) with regard to listed and non-listed states, on what basis does the government support diplomatic immunity for states in civil actions, and how is the determination on (l) made, by whom, and with reference to what authorities; (n) with regard to listed states, on what basis do these states benefit from diplomatic immunity, (i) who makes the determination on the part of the government to invoke such immunity, (ii) in what instances, if any, have states requested that such immunity be invoked, (iii) does the government’s obligation to protect diplomatic or consular properties include the obligation to defend a listed state in court, (iv) is it the government’s policy that it is obligated to defend a listed state in court, (v) if so, to what extent and how is this determination made, (vi) in what cases has the government made this argument, (vii) in what cases is the government making this argument, (viii) how much has the government spent so far on cases in (vii); (o) with respect to the listing of Iran, was the decision in part based on evidence that the former Iranian embassy in Ottawa has been used to support terrorism, (i) if so, how was the government aware that the embassy was being used for such purposes and on what dates, (ii) does the use of the property that is located in Canada of a foreign state in support of terrorism exempt that property from the immunity provided by the SIA, (iii) does the use of the property that is located in Canada of a foreign state in support of terrorism exempt that property from all immunity, (iv) what type of immunity can still be claimed by a listed foreign state to protect property that is located in Canada that has been or is being used in support of terrorism, (v) does diplomatic immunity protect embassy property even where the relevant embassy was used or is being used in violation of international law or in support of terrorism; (p) with respect to the listed state of Iran, how much money has been spent defending it in court, (i) what are the anticipated costs of defending the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (ii) is there a government policy or directive indicating the acceptable costs to be expended in defending the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (iii) from where does the government obtain the funds necessary to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran in court, (iv) what is the maximum amount of money that the government will spend in defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran in court; (q) with respect to the listed state of Iran, can the property located in Ottawa at which the former embassy of Iran was located be attached in a civil action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations toward the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (r) can the property located in Ottawa at which the former residence of the Ambassador of Iran to Canada is located be attached in a civil action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court;
(s) can the property located in Toronto at which the former Iranian cultural center is located be attached in an action by victims of Iranian-sanctioned terrorism to enforce a judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran, (i) what are the government’s obligations towards the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard, (ii) does the government know this property to be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iii) does the government know this property to have at any time been owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, (iv) is it necessary that the property be currently owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran for it to receive immunity from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court; (t) by whom, how often, and by what criteria will the SIA’s effectiveness be evaluated and who is responsible for this review; (u) by what means were listed states informed of their listing, (i) on what dates, (ii) by whom, (iii) is there a policy with regard to informing states of their having been listed, (iv) if so, what is it; (v) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts have been made to inform Canadians of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (i) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts have been made to inform Canadian companies of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (ii) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts will be made to inform Canadians of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations, (iii) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts will be made to inform Canadian companies of the listing of states and their corresponding obligations; and (w) what education, outreach, and awareness efforts were made with respect to changes to state immunity occasioned by the coming into force of the JVTA, (i) in particular, how were judges informed of the changes, (ii) how were states informed of the possibility of a listing pursuant to the JVTA, (iii) were efforts made to reach out to potential claimants affected by changes to the SIA, (iv) if so, what were these efforts, how were they undertaken, by whom, and on what dates? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-3.
Q-4 — Mr. Cotler (Mount Royal) — With regard to international treaties and conventions dealing in whole or in part with human rights and with Canada’s international obligations in this regard: (a) does the government have any formal or informal procedures for regular review of those international human rights treaties that Canada has not yet signed, ratified, or otherwise accepted; (b) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking conflicts with the Constitution Act, 1867, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (c) do the guidelines referred to in (b) specify the standard according to which the government determines if any obligation contained in a treaty or other international undertaking violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867; (d) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); (e) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking require implementing legislation in order for Canada to be able to ratify or otherwise accept it, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (f) does the government have a position as to whether international agreements that establish a complaints mechanism or communications procedure for enforcement of the rights and obligations contained therein are necessarily unconstitutional; (g) does the government have a policy as to whether Canada will accept such agreements referred to in (f); (h) does the government undergo review of proposed international human rights agreements that would establish such a mechanism or procedure referred to in (f) on a case by case basis, (i) who is involved in this review, (ii) are the provinces and other interested stakeholders consulted in this regard; (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to make the relevant declaration under Article 14 of CERD, which would indicate Canada’s acceptance of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s competence to receive individual complaints, (i) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to make the declaration referred to in subsection (i), (ii) does Canada’s failure to make the necessary declaration referred to in (a) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either CERD or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iii) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under CERD, (iv) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to CERD regarding its obligations under the CERD, (v) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (iv), (vi) does the government have a position as to whether Article 14 of CERD violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (vii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept Article 14 of CERD; (j) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Optional Protocol), which establishes a communications procedure for individuals to file a complaint before the ICESCR Committee alleging a violation of the rights or obligations contained in the treaty, (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either ICESCR or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under ICESCR, (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to ICESCR regarding its obligations under ICESCR, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Optional Protocol referred to in (i);
(k) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Optional Protocol), which establishes a system of unannounced visits by international and national monitoring bodies to places where persons are being deprived of their liberty, (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either CAT or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to CAT regarding its obligations under CAT, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (ix) has the government received any requests either from a State Party to CAT or from any international or national monitoring group or other organization to visit a specific location in order to confirm allegations that Canada is derelict with regard to its obligations under CAT or where an individual is alleged to be deprived by Canada of their liberties, and if so how has the government responded, (l) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Amendment to Article 43(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography, (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure (Third Optional Protocol), which establishes a complaints procedure by which individuals can allege a State Party’s violation of its obligations set out in the conventions or optional protocols referred to in (i), (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either ICESCR or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to any of the international agreements referred to in (i) regarding its obligations under any of those agreements, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations, either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders, regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i);
(m) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICPRMW), (i) does Canada’s failure to sign the ICPRMW referred to in (e) cause it to be derelict with regard to its obligations pursuant to any international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (ii) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint pertaining to Canada’s obligations towards migrant workers and temporary foreign workers under international law, (iii) is it the position of the government that temporary foreign workers in Canada who believe there rights pursuant to either domestic or international law have been violated should be allowed to remain in Canada pending the outcome of judicial proceedings in this regard, (iv) is there any formal policy in place by which temporary foreign workers in Canada can ensure that they are not deported pending the outcome of judicial proceedings relating to an alleged violation of their rights under international law, (v) does Canada have an obligation under international law to ensure that temporary foreign workers have access to Canadian courts to adjudicate violations of their rights under domestic or international law, (vi) is there any legal or constitutional barrier to Canada becoming a State Party to the ICPRMW referred to in (e); and (n) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), (i) has the government engaged in any discussions or consultations regarding Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol to the CRPD, (ii) has the government or any minister consulted with any individuals or organizations who have expressed any positions with regard to Canada’s failure to sign the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (iii) does Canada’s failure to sign the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) cause it to be derelict with regard to its treaty obligations, pursuant to either CRPD or any other international treaty or tenet of customary international law, (iv) is there any process, formal or otherwise, by which an individual can issue a complaint or communication to any international or intergovernmental organization or international tribunal pertaining to Canada’s obligations under the Optional Protocol referred to in (i), (v) has the government received any complaints or communications from any individuals, organizations, or State Parties to the international agreement referred to in (n) regarding its obligations under any of those agreements, (vi) has the government taken any action in response to such complaints referred to in (v), (vii) does the government have a position as to whether the Optional Protocol referred to in (i) violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, if so, what specific sections does it violate, (viii) has the government engaged in any consultations – either with the provinces or with any other relevant stakeholders – regarding Canada’s failure to sign and accept the Third Optional Protocol referred to in (i)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-4.
Q-7 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Government-wide Chart of Accounts: (a) how does the Receiver General for Canada fulfill his official languages obligations; (b) how does the Treasury Board Secretariat fulfill its official languages obligations; (c) what positive measures have been taken as regards official languages; (d) are official languages integrated into the Chart and if so, how, or if not, why not; (e) how does the Chart allow for data on financial transactions to be identified, collected and reported in such a way as to fulfill the government’s official languages obligations; and (f) what are the program codes regarding official languages, and for which institutions are they used? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-7.
Q-8 — Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst) — With regard to the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–2018: (a) has the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat issued a directive or other instruction to all federal institutions participating in the implementation of the Roadmap to ensure that they consult the official language minority communities when establishing objectives, parameters, targets and performance indicators for their programs under the Roadmap; (b) how will Canadian Heritage ensure that the institutions participating in the implementation of the Roadmap effectively consult the official language minority communities in a timely manner to determine the program objectives, parameters, targets and performance indicators that must be identified before presenting an overview memorandum to Treasury Board; (c) among the federal institutions participating in the implementation of the Roadmap, are there any that have already consulted the communities with regard to program objectives, parameters, targets and performance indicators and, if so, which community groups and organizations were consulted; and (d) what deadline was given to the federal institutions for consulting the communities and for presenting their memorandum to Heritage Canada? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-8.
Q-13 — Mr. Casey (Charlottetown) — With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what are the contents of all news releases, media advisories or any form of communication, national, regional or "proactive local outreach” in scope, issued by the Department between November 6 and November 15, 2012? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-13.
Q-14 — Mr. Regan (Halifax West) — With regard to the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC): (a) what is the position of the government on the matter of overturning decisions of the CRTC; (b) what criteria or policies are used by the Cabinet to overturn decisions of the CRTC; (c) how many times since 2006 has the Cabinet overturned decisions of the CRTC and what were those decisions; and (d) who are the current members of the CRTC and what are each member’s date of appointment or reappointment? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-14.
Q-18 — Mr. Mulcair (Outremont) — With regard to government spending in the constituency of Outremont, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, broken down by (i) the date the money was received in the riding, (ii) the dollar amount of the expenditure, (iii) the program from which the funding came, (iv) the ministry responsible, (v) the designated recipient? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-18.
Q-27 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in the fiscal year 2009-2010, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-27.
Q-28 — Mr. Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) — What is the total amount of government funding, allocated within the constituency of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in the fiscal year 2010-2011, listing each department or agency, initiative and amount? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-28.
Q-32 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — With regard to all ministerial visits to British Columbia, from September 1, 2013 to October 16, 2013, that involved discussions or announcements related to energy: (a) what was the total cost of these visits; (b) what were the costs of these visits, broken down by (i) minister, (ii) event, (iii) travel cost per person, (iv) travel cost per event, (v) advertising or promotional cost per event; (c) what is the list of events; and (d) who travelled for these events? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-32.
Q-33 — Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) — With regard to ministerial business, including that of the Prime Minister, since May 2, 2011: (a) how many invitations to speak at, appear at, or attend a function has each minister or the Prime Minister, or their ministerial or departmental staff, accepted or initiated; (b) how many requests to speak at, appear at, or attend a function has each minister or the Prime Minister, or their ministerial or departmental staff, made; (c) what were the details of each such invitation or request, including the date, location, and nature of the function; (d) what were the costs of transportation, accommodation, meals, and security related to the travel of the minister or Prime Minister to and from each such function; (e) what were the costs of transportation, accommodation, and meals incurred by the minister's or Prime Minister's exempt staff members in relation to each such function; and (f) what are the file numbers of any files generated in respect of each such function? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-33.
Q-34 — Mr. Thibeault (Sudbury) — With regard to Industry Canada's "More Choices" campaign, relating to the government’s auction of the 700Mhz spectrum, what was the total spending by the government (a) on print advertising to promote this campaign; (b) on television advertising to promote this campaign; (c) on radio advertising to promote this campaign; (d) on online or web advertising to promote this campaign; and (e) to design the www.canada.ca/morechoices website? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-34.
Q-38 — Ms. Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's) — With regard to changes in employment insurance (EI), in each province and economic region, broken down by age (18-24, 25-54, 55 and over), and for the time period between January and June, broken down by month and totaled for each year since 2004: (a) how many unemployed Canadians (i) applied for EI, (ii) received EI, (iii) how many applicants were rejected; (b) what was the cost to process these applications; (c) what were the total costs of these benefits; (d) how many in receipt of EI benefits in 2013 have previously received EI (i) one time, (ii) two times, (iii) three times or more; (e) how many claimants with three or more claims totaling more than sixty weeks in the past five years have had to accept a job that paid thirty percent less than their last job; (f) how many claimants worked while on EI; (g) how many total applicants have dependents, and how many of these applicants were rejected; (h) of the three new classes created, how many applicants fall under (i) long tenured workers, (ii) frequent claimants, (iii) occasional claimants; and (i) how many applicants live (i) in rural areas, (ii) in urban areas? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-38.
Q-39 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to the so-called “carbon bubble”, or the inflation of hydrocarbon and oil and gas sector company stock valuation beyond their utilisable assets, what modeling, planning, estimates or mitigation strategies have been carried out since 2008 on this investment bubble or its potential impacts on the Canadian economy by (i) the Department of Finance, (ii) Industry Canada, (iii) Natural Resources Canada, (iv) any other government department or agency? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-39.
Q-40 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to adaptation to climate change and future impacts of climate change on department or agency operations: (a) what planning has been done since October 14, 2008 by (i) the Department of National Defence, (ii) Health Canada, (iii) Transport Canada, (iv) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, (v) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, (vi) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (vii) Canada Revenue Agency, (viii) Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, (ix) Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, (x) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (xi) Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, (xii) Industry Canada, (xiii) Foreign Affairs, (xiv) Infrastructure Canada, (xv) International Joint Commission, (xvi) National Capital Commission, (xvii) Parks Canada, (xviii) Public Health Agency of Canada, (xix) Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (xx) Natural Resources Canada, (xxi) Environment Canada, (xxii) Emergency Preparedness Canada; and (b) since October 14, 2008 what climate change economic impact assumptions have been made or budgetary estimates been done for the departments and agencies listed in (a)(i) through (xxii)? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-40.
Q-41 — Mr. Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North) — With regard to government funding distributed in the constituency of Thunder Bay—Superior North from the 2011-2012 fiscal year to the current fiscal year inclusive, listed by date: (a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (b) how many full time and part-time jobs is this estimated to have created? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-412-41.
Government Orders

The House resumed consideration at report stage of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported by the Standing Committee on Finance without amendment;

And of the motions in Group No. 1 (Motions Nos. 1 to 284).

The debate continued on the motions in Group No. 1.
Notices of Motions

Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) gave notice of the intention to move a motion at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration at report stage of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported by the Standing Committee on Finance without amendment;

And of the motions in Group No. 1 (Motions Nos. 1 to 284).

The debate continued on the motions in Group No. 1.
Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), papers deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table as follows:
— by Mr. Flaherty (Minister of Finance) — Report on operations under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act for the year 2013, pursuant to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, R.S. 1985, c. B-7, s. 13. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-74-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)
— by Mr. Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) — Report of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, together with the Auditors' Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, S.C. 1995, c. 45, sbs. 21(3). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-37-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development)
— by Mr. Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) — Report of the First Nations Lands Advisory Board, together with the Auditors' Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the section 41.2 of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, as ratified by the First Nations Land Management Act, S.C. 1999, c. 24, sbs. 4(1). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-862-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development)
— by Mr. Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) — Annual Report of the Specific Claims Tribunal for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 22, s. 40. — Sessional Paper No. 8560-412-1045-01. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development)
Petitions Filed with the Clerk of the House

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions was filed as follows:
— by Mr. Stanton (Simcoe North), one concerning funding aid (No. 412-0559).
Adjournment Proceedings

At 6:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), the question “That this House do now adjourn” was deemed to have been proposed.

After debate, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, at 6:51 p.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).