;

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

Bilingual view PDF

42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Journals No. 308 Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:00 a.m.

Prayer

Daily Routine Of Business

Tabling of Documents

laid upon the Table, — Report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on activities in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P-1, par. 90(1)(b). — Sessional Paper No. 8560-421-1002-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics)

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), Mr. Lamoureux (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:

— Nos. 421-02247, 421-02262, 421-02263, 421-02266, 421-02267, 421-02268, 421-02269 and 421-02270 concerning discrimination. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-32-19;

— Nos. 421-02258, 421-02260 and 421-02265 concerning the protection of the environment. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-3-50;

— Nos. 421-02259 and 421-02264 concerning food policy. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-113-05;

— No. 421-02261 concerning the tax system. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-1-31;

— No. 421-02271 concerning impaired driving. — Sessional Paper No. 8545-421-7-25.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Mr. Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan), from the Liaison Committee, presented the Eighth Report of the Committee, "Committee Activities and Expenditures – April 1, 2017 – March 31, 2018". — Sessional Paper No. 8510-421-413.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 10) was tabled.

Introduction of Private Members' Bills

Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Ms. Benson (Saskatoon West), seconded by Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe), Bill C-407, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Presenting Petitions

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions certified by the Clerk of Petitions were presented as follows:

— by , one concerning discrimination (No. 421-02410);

— by , one concerning rail transportation (No. 421-02411);

— by , one concerning rail transportation (No. 421-02412);

— by , one concerning national parks (No. 421-02413);

— by , one concerning the protection of the environment (No. 421-02414);

— by , one concerning Old Age Security benefits (No. 421-02415);

— by , one concerning assisted suicide (No. 421-02416);

— by , one concerning the Canada Post Corporation (No. 421-02417) and one concerning the pension system (No. 421-02418);

— by , one concerning marine transportation (No. 421-02419) and one concerning navigable waters (No. 421-02420);

— by , one concerning health care services (No. 421-02421);

— by , one concerning the protection of the environment (No. 421-02422).

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) presented the answer to question Q-1669 on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 39(7), Mr. Lamoureux (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-1660 — — With regard to the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) (2006), which came into force in August 2013: (a) what is the yearly breakdown of ships docking in Canadian waters, broken down by (i) type of ship, (ii) flag state of the ship; (b) for ships that spend more than 30 days in Canadian waters, (i) how many have conducted labour market impact assessments (LMIA), (ii) how many are known to have avoided conducting an LMIA by exiting and re-entering Canadian waters, (iii) how many Canadian workers are employed on board, (iv) how many temporary foreign workers are employed on board; (c) for ships docking in Canadian waters, how many of these ships were inspected through port state control, broken down by (i) the agency or department that inspected the ships, (ii) the exact nature of the inspection, (iii) the outcome of the inspection, (iv) the consequences applied if inspection results did not comply with international maritime law and national labour conventions, (v) the compliance rates to MLC 2006 and national labour conventions, (vi) the amount of ships that have been found in violation of maritime and labour laws more than once over the past five years; (d) what is the yearly amount of active employees conducting inspections through port-state control, broken down by (i) type of training provided to all inspectors tasked with carrying out inspections through port state control, (ii) length of training provided to all inspectors tasked with carrying out inspections through port state control, (iii) which department they fall under, (iv) department in charge of their training, (v) amount of inspectors hired to inspect ships in Canada outside of port state control, (vi) nature of the inspections they conduct, (vii) organizations or agencies they belong to, (viii) type of training they receive; (e) what are the enforcement mechanisms at the disposition of the government and individual inspectors, including (i) rates at which these enforcement mechanisms are used or applied, (ii) effectiveness in deterring ship owners from breaking the law; (f) what is the comprehensive list of budget measures that pertain to enforcement of maritime law, including (i) those that cater specifically to the employment of temporary foreign workers, (ii) those that cater specifically to the hiring and training of inspectors; (g) what are the organizations that Transport Canada recognizes as being allowed to conduct inspections on ships in Canada, including (i) NGOs, (ii) unions; (h) when employment of temporary foreign workers on ships is known, (i) what is the average wage received daily, (ii) what is the average wage received monthly, (iii) what is the average wage received yearly, (iv) what is the average length of their contract; (i) according to data accumulated from inspections or from other sources, how much is owed to (i) temporary foreign workers, (ii) Canadian workers in unpaid wages for the past five years; (j) according to data accumulated from inspections and from other sources, how many ships that dock in Canadian waters (i) do not feed their workers adequately, (ii) do not pay their workers adequately, (iii) do not provide their workers with adequate safety and security standards in their environment; (k) based on the inspections that are made into working conditions on ships, how many are made (i) based on complaint or call placed by a temporary foreign worker on board, (ii) based on a complaint or call placed by a Canadian worker on board, (iii) routinely; (l) how many lawsuits have been filed by the Seafarers' International Union of Canada against the government over the past twelve years, including (i) the nature of the lawsuit, (ii) the outcome of the lawsuit; (m) how many lawsuits have been filed against the government by any other party over the past twelve years with regards to the treatment of workers on ships; (n) how many of the lawsuits in (l) and (m) separately have led to (i) legislative reform, (ii) investment in enforcement mechanisms, (iii) reform of enforcement mechanisms and in what way; (o) how many of the lawsuits in (l) and (m) separately dealt with a complaint or injustice of the same nature; (p) what are the government’s primary means of implementing MLC 2006; and (q) which department is responsible for infractions of MLC 2006 (i) on Canadian flag ships, (ii) in Canadian waters, (iii) on ships with Canadian workers? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1660.

Q-1661 — — With regard to Health Canada’s Special Access Program (SAP) that considers requests for access to drugs that are otherwise unavailable to Canadians from medical practitioners to treat serious or life-threatening conditions: (a) what is the aggregate number of applications that have been received by the SAP in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (b) of all SAP applications received in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years, what is the number of repeat applications for the same drug or health product; (c) for drugs that have received multiple requests in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years, what are the drug names and the number of requests they have each received; (d) what is the total number of SAP applications that have been approved in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (e) what is the total number of SAP applications that have been rejected in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (f) what are the alphabetized names of all drugs and health products that have been approved by the SAP program in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (g) what are the alphabetized names of all drugs and health products that have been rejected by the SAP program in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (h) how many times has the procedures manual that assessors refer to in administration of the SAP been updated and what are these updates for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (i) what are the measures undertaken by Health Canada to ensure its workers have a good understanding of the medical conditions they're reviewing as part of SAP applications; and (j) what is the aggregate cost of administering the SAP to the government for the 2016 fiscal year? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1661.

Q-1662 — — With regard to the decision taken by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to apply an attestation requirement to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) how many applications were received in total; (b) of the number identified in (a), how many applications were deemed incomplete; (c) how many completed applications included a letter of concern from the applicant; (d) of those identified in (c), how many were (i) approved, (ii) denied or rejected; (e) for each of those identified in (d)(ii), what rationale was given for denial; (f) in the province of Manitoba, how many applications did Service Canada receive, broken down by riding; (g) of those identified in (f), how many were denied or rejected due to a failure to sign the attestation, broken down by riding; (h) how many applicants in Manitoba were requested to re-submit their application, due to a failure to sign the attestation, broken down by riding; (i) of those identified in (f), how many applicants resubmitted their application, broken down by riding; and (j) how many of the applicants identified in (i) were awarded funding, broken down by riding? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1662.

Q-1663 — — With regard to the event featuring Palestinian Authority Archbishop Atallah Hannah in April 2018, in which the Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Erin Mills provided greetings on behalf of the Prime Minister: (a) did the Prime Minister authorize the greetings; (b) does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with the statement given at the event on behalf of the Prime Minister; and (c) if the Member was not speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, or was not authorized to provide the greetings, what disciplinary action or corrective measure has the government taken? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1663.

Q-1664 — — With regard to government expenditures with News Canada Inc., since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) duration, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) titles of “news” stories disseminated as a result of the expenditure; (b) have any departments, agencies, Crown corporations or other government entities discontinued their relationship with News Canada Inc. as a result of the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s January 23, 2017, tweet regarding “fake news”; and (c) will the government commit to ensuring that any unattributed stories written by the government are clearly marked as government propaganda in the story and, if not, why not? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1664.

Q-1665 — — With regard to expenditures made by the government since December 11, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1665.

Q-1666 — — With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot in the fiscal year 2017-18: what grants, loans, contributions and contracts were awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which expenditure was allocated, (vi) date? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1666.

Q-1667 — — With regard to the government’s infrastructure plan of $186.7 billion over 12 years: (a) what amounts have been allocated, to date, to the various infrastructure projects, broken down by (i) amount allocated to each infrastructure project, (ii) project type; (b) what are the government’s infrastructure funding criteria; (c) what are the locations, to date, where government infrastructure investments have been made, broken down by (i) city or municipality, (ii) amount allocated by city or municipality, (iii) infrastructure project type; (d) how much will be spent on infrastructure in the coming years by the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province; (e) how many infrastructure applications have been received by the government since the creation of the infrastructure plan, broken down by (i) number of applications received, (ii) applications approved by the government, (iii) applications rejected, (iv) expected payment date for each government-approved application; (f) why is the minister unable to say what part of infrastructure funding was allocated in budget 2015, 2016 or 2017; (g) what specific steps will the government take to ensure better data sharing with the parliamentary budget officer; (h) when will the government provide more information on the infrastructure plan; (i) have the GDP projections resulting from infrastructure expenditure been adjusted and, if so, what are they; (j) for phase two, (i) what is the government’s deadline for signing agreements with all the provinces and territories, (ii) what are the reasons for missing the March 2018 deadline; and (k) has the department identified any other possible delays and, if so, (i) what part of the funding will be delayed, (ii) what are the causes, (iii) has a plan to address these delays been developed in response? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1667.

Q-1668 — — With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2016-17, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2016-17, in total and broken down by month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2016-17; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2016-17; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2016-17; (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2016-17; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2016-17; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2016-17; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2016-17; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2016-17, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2016-17, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2016-17, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) how much has been spent on the special unit within the department; (ww) what is the expected end date for the special unit within the department; (xx) for 2016 and 2017, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (yy) for 2016 and 2017, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on a reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1668.

Q-1670 — — With regard to the $173.2 million announced on page 211 of the budget plan to support security operations at the Canada-U.S. border and the processing of asylum claimants arriving in 2018-19: (a) what is the breakdown of this amount by department, program and province, both financially, expressed in dollars, and in human resources, expressed in full-time equivalents; and (b) to determine that this amount can meet demand, what is the number of migrants that the government expects to be crossing the Canada-U.S. border in 2018-19 and what is the breakdown by province? — Sessional Paper No. 8555-421-1670.

Government Orders

The Order was read for the consideration at report stage of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with amendments.

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

Group No. 1 — Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79 and 81 to 216.

Group No. 1

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 1, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel), moved Motion No. 3, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 28 with the following:

“(d) any impact that the designated project”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 4, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 28 with the following:

“Canada recognized and affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and by section 35 of the”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 5, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 34 with the following:

“ter and only one member of the review panel may be appointed from the roster.”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 8, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 45 with the following:

“tion, direction or approval issued, granted or given, as the case may be, by a federal authority other than the Agency.”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 9, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 46 with the following:

“provided by the proponent, the public or the Indigenous peoples of Canada on the matter, establish the”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 10, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 46 with the following:

“vided by the proponent, the public or the Indigenous peoples of Canada on the matter, extend the period”

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel), moved Motion No. 11, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 55 with the following:

“assessment, as well as any assessment of the effects of past physical activities, of alternative means of carrying out the physical activities and of options for the protection of the environment, human life or health or public safety.”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 12, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 55 with the following:

“assessment, as well as any treaty rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and any cumulative impacts associated with other projects or activities.”

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 13, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 56 with the following:

“account the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and used any Indigenous knowledge provided”

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 15, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 16, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 17, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 18, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 19, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 20, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 21, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 22, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 23, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel), moved Motion No. 25, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 105 with the following:

“protection of the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.”

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel), moved Motion No. 26, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 174 with the following:

“mitments in respect of climate change, the environment and biodiversity;”

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), seconded by Mr. Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel), moved Motion No. 27, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 207 with the following:

“commitments in respect of climate change, the environment and biodiversity; and”

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 28, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 29, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 30, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 31, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 32, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 33, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 34, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 35, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 36, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 37, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 38, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 39, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 40, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 41, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 42, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 43, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 44, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 45, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 46, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 47, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 48, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 49, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 50, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 51, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 52, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 53, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 54, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 55, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 56, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 57, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 58, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 59, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 60, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 61, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 62, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 63, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 64, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 66, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 67, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 68, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 69, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 70, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 71, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 72, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 73, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 74, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 75, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 76, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 77, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 78, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 79, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 81, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 82, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 83, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 84, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 85, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 86, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 87, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 88, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 89, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 90, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 91, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 92, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 93, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 94, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 95, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 96, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 97, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 78.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 98, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 79.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 99, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 100, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 101, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 102, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 103, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 104, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 105, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 106, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 107, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 108, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 109, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 110, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 111, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 112, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 113, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 114, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 115, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 116, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 117, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 118, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 119, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 120, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 121, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 122, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 123, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 124, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 125, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 126, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 127, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 128, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 129, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 130, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 131, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 132, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 133, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 134, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 135, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 136, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 137, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 138, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 139, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 140, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 141, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 142, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 143, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 144, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 145, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 146, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 147, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Ms. Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona), seconded by Ms. Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé), moved Motion No. 148, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 128, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 328 with the following:

“5.002 The Canadian Energy Regulator shall establish a”

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 149, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 150, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 151, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 152, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 153, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 154, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 155, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 156, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 157, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 158, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 159, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 160, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 161, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 162, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 163, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 164, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 165, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 166, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 167, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 168, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 169, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 170, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 171, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 172, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 173, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 174, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 175, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 176, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 177, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 178, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 179, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 180, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 181, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 182, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 183, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 184, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 185, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 186, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 187, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 188, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 189, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 190, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 191, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 192, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 193, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 194, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 195, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 196, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 197, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 198, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 199, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 200, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 201, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 202, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 203, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 204, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 205, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 206, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 207, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 208, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 209, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 210, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 211, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 212, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 213, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 214, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 215, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Mrs. Stubbs (Lakeland), seconded by Mr. Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove), moved Motion No. 216, — That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

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.

Deferred Recorded Divisions

Business of Supply

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou), seconded by Mr. Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley), — That the House: (a) re-affirm its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including article 32(2), which guarantees “free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources”; and (b) acknowledge that advancing Constitutional Reconciliation through a nation-to-nation approach means respecting the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples and the will of their representative institutions, like the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs which has said with respect to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that “No means no – the project does not have the consent it requires”, which is a principled position conducive to achieving the ends of the UNDRIP.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 724 -- Vote n^o 724)
YEAS: 40, NAYS: 245
YEAS -- POUR Aubin Barsalou-Duval Beaulieu Benson Blaikie Blaney (North Island—Powell River) Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brosseau Cannings Choquette Cullen Donnelly Dubé Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona) Duvall Fortin Garrison Gill Hardcastle Hughes Johns Jolibois Laverdière MacGregor Malcolmson Mathyssen May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) Moore Mulcair Nantel Pauzé Plamondon Quach Rankin Sansoucy Ste-Marie Stetski Thériault Trudel Total: -- 40
NAYS -- CONTRE Aboultaif Albrecht Aldag Alghabra Alleslev Allison Amos Anderson Arseneault Arya Ayoub Badawey Bains Baylis Beech Bennett Benzen Bergen Bernier Berthold Bezan Bibeau Bittle Blair Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis) Bossio Brassard Bratina Breton Caesar-Chavannes Calkins Carr Carrie Casey (Cumberland—Colchester) Casey (Charlottetown) Chagger Champagne Chen Chong Clarke Clement Cooper Cormier Cuzner Dabrusin Damoff DeCourcey Deltell Dhaliwal Dhillon Di Iorio Diotte Doherty Dreeshen Drouin Dubourg Duclos Duguid Dzerowicz Eglinski Ehsassi El-Khoury Ellis Erskine-Smith Eyking Eyolfson Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster) Falk (Provencher) Fast Fillmore Finley Finnigan Fisher Fonseca Fortier Fragiskatos Fraser (West Nova) Fraser (Central Nova) Fry Fuhr Gallant Garneau Généreux Genuis Gerretsen Gladu Godin Goldsmith-Jones Goodale Gould Gourde Graham Harder Hardie Hébert Hehr Hogg Holland Housefather Hussen Hutchings Iacono Jeneroux Joly Jordan Jowhari Kelly Kent Khalid Khera Kitchen Kmiec Kusie Lake Lambropoulos Lametti Lamoureux Lapointe Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry) Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation) LeBlanc Lebouthillier Lefebvre Leitch Leslie Levitt Liepert Lightbound Lloyd Lockhart Long Longfield Ludwig Lukiwski MacAulay (Cardigan) MacKenzie MacKinnon (Gatineau) Maloney Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia) May (Cambridge) McCauley (Edmonton West) McCrimmon McDonald McGuinty McKay McKenna McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam) McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo) McLeod (Northwest Territories) Mendès Mendicino Mihychuk Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound) Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs) Monsef Morneau Morrissey Motz Murray Nassif Nault Ng Nicholson Nuttall Obhrai Oliver O'Regan Ouellette Paradis Paul-Hus Peschisolido Peterson Petitpas Taylor Philpott Picard Poilievre Poissant Qualtrough Raitt Ratansi Rayes Reid Richards Rioux Robillard Rodriguez Rogers Romanado Rota Rudd Ruimy Rusnak Sahota Saini Samson Sangha Sarai Saroya Scarpaleggia Scheer Schmale Schulte Serré Shanahan Sheehan Shields Shipley Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon) Sidhu (Brampton South) Sikand Simms Sopuck Sorbara Sorenson Spengemann Stanton Strahl Stubbs Sweet Tan Tassi Tilson Tootoo Trost Van Kesteren Van Loan Vandal Vandenbeld Vaughan Vecchio Viersen Virani Wagantall Warawa Warkentin Waugh Webber Whalen Wilkinson Wilson-Raybould Wrzesnewskyj Yip Young Yurdiga Zimmer Total: -- 245
PAIRED -- PAIRÉS Nil--Aucun

Government Orders

The Order was read for the third reading of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Mr. Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development) for Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance), seconded by Ms. Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions), moved, — That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Debate arose thereon.

Mr. Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin), seconded by Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word '“That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering clause 186 with the view to requiring the government to reveal how much the carbon tax will cost.”.

Debate arose thereon.

Private Members' Business

At 5:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle), seconded by Mrs. Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London), — That Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (parenting tax credit), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

The debate continued.

The question was put on the motion and, pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

At 6:31 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the Order was read for the consideration at report stage of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children), as reported by the Standing Committee on Health with amendments.

Mr. Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley), seconded by Mr. McDonald (Avalon), moved, — That the Bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Morneau (Minister of Finance), seconded by Ms. Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions), — That Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be now read a third time and do pass;

And of the amendment of , seconded by , — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word '“That” and substituting the following:

The debate continued.

Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable), seconded by Mr. Falk (Provencher), moved the following subamendment, — That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“and that the Committee report back to the House no later than Friday, June 15, 2018.”.

Debate arose thereon.

At 9:22 p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, May 31, 2018, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings.

The question was put on the subamendment and, pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the recorded division was deferred until Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Notices of Motions

Ms. Chagger (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 second reading stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters.

Ms. Chagger (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-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Government Orders

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice), seconded by Mr. Carr (Minister of Natural Resources), — That Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

And of the amendment of , seconded by , — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, since the Bill fails to support victims of crime by, among other things: (a) changing the victim surcharge; (b) removing the requirement of the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; (c) removing the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence; and (d) delaying consecutive sentencing for human traffickers.”;

And of the subamendment of , seconded by , — That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“; and (e) potentially reducing penalties for very serious crimes by proposing to make them hybrid offences, including the abduction of a child under 14, material benefit from trafficking, breach of prison, participation in activity of terrorist group or criminal organization, advocating genocide, amongst many others.”.

The debate continued.

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 — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets for 2017-2018 of the Canadian Museum of History, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-421-858-03. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage)

— by — Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets, and Borrowing Plan for 2018-2019 of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4). — Sessional Paper No. 8562-421-847-04. (Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance)

Midnight

Adjournment Proceedings

At midnight, 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 12:17 a.m., the Speaker adjourned the House until later today, at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).