Bill C-29 (Historical)
Appropriation Act No. 2, 2001-2002
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002
This bill was last introduced in the 37th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2002.
Lucienne Robillard Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament.
Committees of the House
June 19th, 2002 / 3:15 p.m.
Bill Casey Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented to the House on Tuesday, June 11, be concurred in.
I thank the House for allowing me to move this important motion. It comes on the coattails of the good work of the hon. member for St. John's West. He moved a similar concurrence motion of one of the best reports that ever came out of any committee in the House in recent years. I am speaking of the report entitled “Foreign Overfishing: Its Impacts and Solutions”, which made a number of recommendations to help address the incredible overfishing problem off the Atlantic coast.
This overfishing is having a profound impact. Most people do not realize this but a census published a short time ago showed that every federal riding in Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered a loss in its population. Much of that is because of a lack of opportunities in the fishery which has been taken away because of overfishing. It is a serious issue not only for the fishery but for the whole province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the country. As the population of Newfoundland and Labrador declines because of overfishing, then the burden on taxpayers in the rest of the country becomes even greater.
Something the census did not show was that most of the people who are leaving Newfoundland and Labrador are young people. They are the people who would make our provinces in Atlantic Canada grow, especially Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the people who would buy houses and create new businesses. They are the people who would raise families. Without this whole generation of people this issue creates even more profound social and cultural problems.
Much of the problem comes from overfishing outside of Canada's 200 mile limit. The committee came up with a sensible and totally unanimous recommendation suggesting that Canada become the custodian of the area outside the 200 mile limit that is now controlled by members of NAFO. This has proven to be a total failure as far as enforcement goes.
As recently as last week another ship was inspected. It was caught breaking fishing rules outside of Canada's 200 mile limit. This 200 mile limit issue is flaunted because it provides these ships with safety because there is no enforcement. NAFO enforcement can register the problem, but it cannot enforce it and impose penalties or fines. That is left up to the home country of the ship involved.
In this case it was a Russian ship that was sent to Spain and who knows what will happen. We can bet that ship will be back overfishing again shortly, taking away the jobs and livelihood of Canadians because there is no enforcement beyond the 200 mile limit. The NAFO agreement has failed in that there is no enforcement. It has no teeth to provide protection for us or anyone else.
The committee's main recommendation was that Canada extend custodial management beyond the 200 mile limit. NAFO would create the rules. It would identify quotas for fishing, but Canadians would enforce them. There would be enforcement for the first time ever. This again is on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, an important part of the fishery where the 200 mile limit extends beyond our jurisdiction and where there is effectively no control.
This started out as a good thing when countries formed NAFO. They thought there would be some enforcement and control over overfishing, but it has proven ineffective and a failure.
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, was organized in 1978 to provide for conservation and management, but again that has not worked. It will not work until there is enforcement and an organization with a real interest in it like Canada and Canadian enforcement agencies that can understand the impact.
European countries come to Canada and it does not matter to them what happens off our shores. It does not matter to them what happens to our fishery inside or outside the 200 mile limit. They come here to get as much fish as they can. There is no honouring of agreements and no respect for our concerns, our people, our culture and our thousands of fishermen and plant workers who are now out of work because of this situation.
The committee did a lot of work. It had excellent members and came up with a unanimous set of recommendations. It is time for the House and the minister to accept the committee's recommendations. It was surprising when the minister refused to accept the recommendations before he even read the report.
I noticed that the minister of fisheries in Newfoundland applauded the committee for its good work but the minister of fisheries in Ottawa did not even take the time to read the recommendations. They are simple and clear recommendations. The summary of the recommendations is on one page, so anyone can understand them. If the minister took a few moments he could read this one page and know what the committee worked on and what conclusions it arrived at. They are simple recommendations and I will run through them.
Recommendation number one is that observer reports would be more transparent and would be submitted in a timely fashion instead of the process now where they are clouded and delayed, and no one is held accountable.
Recommendation number two is that the Government of Canada amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to implement the custodial management of fisheries resources on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. This is the most important one which would provide once and for all an enforcement body of Canadians with an interest, knowledge and understanding of the situation that would enforce the rules outlined by NAFO and the quotas.
Recommendation number three is that the Government of Canada inform NAFO and its contracted parties that Canada will withdraw from NAFO and proceed with the implementation of this management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks no later than one year following the September 2002 NAFO meeting. It puts a deadline on it. It makes sense because it cannot go on forever.
Recommendation number four is that the Government of Canada conduct a targeted public information campaign to increase public awareness of violations of NAFO.
Recommendation number five is that Canada make clear that it is prepared to use the provisions of Bill C-29 against NAFO members who have not ratified the UNFA, and that in the case of NAFO members who have not ratified UNFA, Canada is prepared to use the provisions to ensure conservation.
These are basic, common sense recommendations. The House should ratify the committee report and the minister should implement it as quickly as possible.
I live in Nova Scotia. There are communities up and down the coast of Nova Scotia that have been devastated by overfishing, both within the 200 mile limit and beyond the 200 mile limit. We cannot talk about fishery devastation without mentioning Canso, a little town in the riding of the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough that recently lost its fish plant, the main employer in the whole community. It has shut down and the town will be devastated.
It is a terrible example of what happens when this fishery crisis hits a small community. People are already moving out and a lot more will move out as the school year ends because there are no opportunities for the fish plant workers. There are no opportunities for the fishermen and fisherwomen. There are no opportunities for the young people graduating from school now. They have no choice but to leave.
This again puts a bigger burden on the people who remain. It guarantees there will be no future. If there are no young people, there is no future. There are no future small businesses. It puts in jeopardy the schools and the health care institutions. Everything is in jeopardy when this happens. That is why the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has worked so hard trying to convince the minister of fisheries to help, and the minister has not helped even a little bit.
This is a renewable resource if it is managed right. It is not like an exhaustible resource. The member for St. John's West pointed out the other day that this resource can be renewed and be there for decades and hundreds of years for future generations of people along the Atlantic coast to earn their livings, create their communities and protect their culture. However no one is protecting the resource. It is a renewable resource that should be protected and it is not.
The committee's report would take steps to guarantee that the renewable resource is protected and would stay there. It would allow for careers for our young people. It would also allow for the culture of our communities and the population to remain. Without this protection all these communities along the Atlantic coast would be hurt.
It was surprising when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans rejected the report without even reading it. The minister has a responsibility to at least respect the work of the hon. members on the committee who worked so hard to develop these recommendations. They travelled from coast to coast, town to town and village to village. They met with unions, fishermen, mayors and councillors. They did a great deal of work. To table the report and have it whisked off the table is disrespectful and disappointing to say the least.
We urge the minister to reconsider his approach to this. Rather than state all the reasons it cannot work, he should say that perhaps we can make it work. Perhaps we could take a risk. The government does not take many risks but here is a chance for it to take one.
Why does he not go to the NAFO meetings in September, put this position forth and stand up and be counted rather than say we cannot do this or that because we have never done this or that? It is time to do something new and different or our fisheries will be completely devastated. It is hard to believe that we are still talking about overfishing after what the country has been through since the early 1990s and the trauma that the provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have gone through with the cutbacks and restrictions.
When the cutbacks first started we thought it was a delay and if we waited two or three years the fishery would come back. Here we are 10 years later still talking about overfishing. It is hard to believe we are doing it. No other country in the world would allow that to happen.
The answer is here. The minister does not even have to think. All he has to do is read one page and then implement the recommendations. It makes it real easy for him. All he has to do is read the one page of recommendations. The answers are there to resolve this issue.
We urge the minister to think about the impact on villages, communities and workers all along our Atlantic coast and say that perhaps it is time we did something proactive. Rather than say we cannot do anything, perhaps it is time to take a risk, to take a stand at the NAFO meeting in September, and say we will do this and then do it.
March 21st, 2002 / 8 p.m.
Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burin--St. George's.
I am pleased to take part in this important debate proposed by the member for St. John's West. The member for Gander--Grand Falls has talked about this issue for as long as I have known him and I have been in the House eight years now. Other members from Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken about this issue consistently, including the member for Burin--St. George's and the member for Labrador. They have expressed to the House the concerns of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about the serious issue of overfishing off the Grand Banks.
Yes, these members have brought forward the issue but I can tell everyone that there is nothing like being in Newfoundland and Labrador as we were last week to hear the people directly, to feel the emotion, to sense the frustration, to see the tears in some cases and to almost touch the anger over this issue in which people see their livelihoods being illegally taken away. They have every right to request directly that parliament and this nation as a whole stand behind them in terms of dealing with that question.
Last Friday and Saturday, March 15 and 16, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had the privilege of holding hearings on this very issue in St. John's. We heard the concerns in spades. I will discuss some of those concerns in a moment.
I want to express first the reason that we were there. Members of our committee, including members from their home ports and coastal communities and members in the House, brought forward to our committee the concern of foreign overfishing. We set up a hearing on the point of extending jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. We know that is a hard sell. We know that. We are willing to look at other alternatives, whether it is coastal management or whatever it may be. We are willing to look at all the options. I will say clearly however that based on what we heard in Newfoundland and Labrador this issue absolutely must be dealt with.
Let me turn for a moment to some of the points brought forward by some of the speakers we heard from while we were in St. John's, although they said it better than I. Mr. Alastair O'Reilly, who is with the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, talked about how illegal fishing has increased recently compared to what it was. He stated:
And what we saw in 1995 was truly extraordinary for Canada to have taken the action it did against the Estai.
That is the Spanish vessel.
And this really brought, I think, a level of consciousness among the various member countries of NAFO to realize that we are just not going to take this kind of behaviour. And that held for the first two or three or four years. But it's begun to erode rapidly and there are not consequences, thus far.
That is until today. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in the House today. He has taken some action. I expect and hope the House demands that all departments, including the Prime Minister's Office, stand with the minister and take further action if it is necessary to do so.
Mr. O'Reilly talked about consequences. Let us look at what has happened over time.
Before 1995, prior to the Estai being seized and the strong action of then minister Tobin, on the Grand Banks outside the 200 mile limit there were 26,000 fishing days a year by 71 vessels. After 1995 when the issue was addressed concisely and aggressively by the nation, those fishing days dropped to 6,000. In 2001 illegal fishing was gradually creeping up again. It is up to 10,000 fishing days.
I say to all Canadians that that is what happens when the nation does not take a strong stand and stand by it as we did in 1995.
Foreign overfishing and illegal harvesting in 2001 included illegal harvests of 10,000 tonnes of species that were under moratorium and quota overruns of 3,100 tonnes of turbot. That cannot be allowed.
I want to point out another point that Mr. O'Reilly made. In response to a question he said:
Maybe you're right, it's much broader than fisheries. But, we feel that even within Foreign Affairs and International Trade, fisheries is an extremely low priority...It's galling how ineffective we are in moving some of those issues forward...Canada was able to be stopped by bureaucrats, not let alone member countries. It's appalling how ineffective we are on that front.
What that points out to me is that we have not worked in a co-ordinated approach up to now. I understand that lawyers in foreign affairs get into legalese, but this issue is more than legalese. It is about the sovereignty of a nation and sometimes we have to stretch that legalese to make our point. That is what has to be done internationally.
When Earl McCurdy, the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union in Newfoundland, was before us, he said that we had to challenge Canada's sovereignty as a coastal state. He was an adviser at NAFO. He said that the Canadian presentation documented a number of violations and he believed this fall's meeting would be critical. He talked about using Bill C-29 and said that we might be able to use that piece of legislation to shut off Canadian ports. He talked about well documented violations and the importance of the American Plaice to our fisheries. He said that we needed a strong national campaign to protect our straddling stocks.
I do want to correct the member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore on one remark he made earlier about Pat Chamut, assistant deputy minister, being before the committee. I am not one for giving compliments to the bureaucracy very often, but when he was before the committee he made a great presentation. He stood strong at the NAFO meetings and presented to us the outcomes of a balanced assessment of the NAFO meeting showing some positive results.
The positive outcomes of that meeting were an increase in the mesh size for the skate fishery, an adoption of a new compliance review process, improved reporting requirements for 3L shrimp, a working group of NAFO management of oceanic redfish and adherence to scientific advice for all stocks except Greenland halibut.
He went on to say, and he was very forceful in this, that the objectives not met were the rejection of Greenland halibut depth restriction and an adoption of a 10% increase on the Greenland halibut TAC. He admits that we failed to gain those points.
Mr. Chamut has very clearly said that NAFO, although it is an important organization, is not working as it should. We are saying, and I am saying on behalf of the fisheries committee and those who I represent, that it is will take strong action for NAFO to understand that it must come back to abiding by the rules that it established itself.
Let me close with this. In May 1994 the Canadian parliament adopted Bill C-29 and its implementing regulations that prohibited stateless vessels and those flying the flags of states listed in the regulations from fishing prescribed straddling stocks in contravention of NAFO. This continues to provide the legislative framework for Canada to arrest ships that are fishing contrary to the NAFO conservation framework.
Following the passage of that new legislation, those vessels stopped fishing for straddling stocks and left the area. That shows me, and I think shows the nation, that when this country stands together and takes the strong aggressive action, then we can force those international countries that are fishing illegally and basically stealing fish stocks from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are Canadians. It is time the nation stood behind them.
We must stand together to conserve that fishery for the future. It will take strong action by all departments, right up to the Prime Minister's office to get this job done.
Points of Order
November 1st, 2001 / 10:10 a.m.
John Williams St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the supplementary estimates, which were tabled in the House of Commons just a few minutes ago, and vote 10 of Environment Canada and vote 10 of Natural Resources Canada.
I am rising at this time because of a reference of Marleau and Montpetit, at page 734, which states:
--members raise questions about the procedural acceptability of Estimates as early as possible so that the Chair has time to give “intelligent” consideration to these questions.
There is no doubt that the issue I am about to raise is quite serious and deserves the appropriate consideration.
Speaker Jerome also said in a ruling on December 7, 1977, at page 184 of Debates :
--supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended, that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government...legislation and legislated changes in substances are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in a regular way...
Mr. Speaker, I also refer you to the remarks of Madam Speaker Sauvé on June 12, 1981 at page 10546 of Hansard when she said that it did not matter whether the amount spent was a large sum or simply one dollar.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I maintain an interest in the estimates and the financial procedures of the House and I continue to be concerned that parliament has lost control of the public purse. Parliament must remain supreme, and when the government undertakes actions that I will now explain, it causes me a great deal of concern.
I also want to refer you to a motion tabled in the other place on June 14, 2001 at page 1192 of the Debates of the Senate of which I am sure you are no doubt aware. It states:
The actions of the Government of Canada in creating a private sector corporation as a stand-in for the Foundation now proposed in Bill C-4, and the depositing of $100 million of taxpayer's money with that corporation, without the prior approval of Parliament, is an affront to the members of both Houses of Parliament.
The Committee requests that the Speaker of the Senate notify the Speaker of the House of Commons of the dismay and concern of the Senate with this circumvention of parliamentary process
The Auditor General of Canada has expressed serious concerns with the events surrounding a $100 million grant to the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology of which $50 million has actually been paid out. These concerns were contained in her observations on page 1.34 to 1.38 of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2000-01, which were tabled in the House on September 27.
In March 2001 a not for profit corporation named the Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology in Canada was established by four Canadian citizens under part 2 of the Canada Corporations Act. Later the same month a funding agreement was signed between the Government of Canada and this corporation.
On March 22, the treasury board approved a temporary transfer of $25 million to vote 10 of Environment Canada and $25 million to vote 10 of Natural Resources Canada. The funds were to come from the government contingency vote, which is vote 5 under the treasury board's vote 5.
On April 5 the treasury board advised Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada that they each had the authority to transfer $25 million to vote 10 from the treasury board's vote 5. On April 9, $25 million was paid to the corporation and charged to Natural Resources Canada vote 10. On April 11, $25 million was paid to the corporation and charged Environment Canada vote 10.
While the Appropriation Act No. 2, Bill C-29, received royal assent on June 14 providing Environment Canada for 2001-02 spending authority for vote 10 in the amount of $2.85 million for the grants listed in the estimates and Bill C-29 provided Natural Resources Canada with 2001-02 spending authority in the amount of $0.6 million for the grants listed in the estimates, these amounts did not include the two amounts of $25 million each since they were transferred from vote 5.
Today the President of the Treasury Board has tabled supplementary estimates which provide supplementary spending authority of $50 million to vote 10 for each of Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The full amount for the foundation, I believe, is listed separately in the grants section of these two departments. When the bill receives royal assent, I expect that treasury board vote 5 will be replenished for the $25 million advanced to the two departmental votes in April 2001. I also understand that $25 million is expected to be paid by each of Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada in January 2002 and charged to their respective vote 10.
Essentially, the government is appropriating money in one fiscal year, placing it into a separate account and spending it in future years. This is unacceptable. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit at page 741 which says:
The Chair has cautioned that an Appropriation Act gives authority only for a single year and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a longer period, or indefinitely.
That is what we have here. A foundation has been created with money appropriated by parliament which is meant to continue indefinitely.
The auditor general states in her observation at page 1.37 of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2000-01:
However, I question whether it was appropriate for the Government to use a general contingency vote to provide $50 million in temporary authority so the departments could make the grant payments to the Corporation, all before Bill C-4 received royal assent
Bill C-4 was given first reading in the House on February 2, 2001. The bill proposed the creation of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology and proposed that any corporation proposed under part II of the Canada Corporations Act continue as the foundation.
Bill C-4 did not receive royal assent as the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Act until June 14. Prior to the House voting on supply, with specific funds for the corporation, which subsequently became a foundation, the government and the corporation signed a funding agreement on March 26. The government then transferred $25 million to the corporation on April 9 and $25 million on April 11, yet the request for supply has just been tabled in the House today, November 1, which is almost nine months later.
Members of the House as far back as 1971 have repeatedly objected to the government's use of estimates and appropriation acts as vehicles to spend money on programs that have not received legislative authority. Your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have struck votes from the estimates several times: March 10, 1971; March 22, 1977; December 7, 1977; March 25, 1981; June 12, 1981; June 21, 1981; March 21, 1983; and March 21, 1984.
I refer you to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome on March 22, 1977 at page 4221 of the Debates which states:
--the government receives from parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by parliament of an appropriation act.
The auditor general continues in her observation to state on page 1.37 of the Public Accounts of Canada:
I also question Government statements that the Corporation had to be established and the funds transferred to it quickly or the spending...would lapse. Parliament had not granted any spending authority for 2000-2001; therefore, there was no spending authority to lapse.
This is a typical way in which this government appropriates and spends money without parliamentary approval. Let us not forget that parliament is supreme. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have no authority to spend the tax dollars of Canadians without prior approval of the House.
Standing Order 80(1) of the House is clear: It states:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons,...
That is the reason why the Magna Carta was signed away back in 1215, to remove the arbitrary power of the monarch and to replace it with the representatives of the people, who either approve or reject the government's spending proposal. As the saying goes, no taxation without representation.
The auditor general states in her opinion that it is likely parliament will approve the supplementary estimates, but that is no reason or excuse for the government to assume that the House will respond to its beck and call. If we are to be a rubber stamp where whatever the government proposes, it assumes we will approve, and whenever the government acts without our authority it assumes it will get it, then we might as well all go home.
I have stood in the House before and said that you have the title of Speaker because you speak for all of us. If this place matters to anyone, then in my opinion you must rule these votes out of order.
I concur with the auditor general who stated:
Finally, should Parliament not approve the Supplementary Estimates and thereby not give retroactive approval of the spending authority for the $50 million already paid to the Corporation, my reading of Vote 10 for both Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada leads me to conclude that these two $25 million payments could not be charged to that Vote. This is because the grants to the Corporation do not fit within any of the classes of grants currently described in the Estimates of those departments.
Again, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the auditor general's conclusion that there has been no authority granted by parliament for this expenditure, which already has taken place.
If the House does not approve the supplementary estimates, the government would be required to obtain the return of the $50 million from the corporation, since no money may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of parliament. Yet the government is bound by its funding agreement with the corporation, and any action to recover funds would put the government in breach of the agreement. Quite simply, parliament has lost control of the public purse and $50 million of taxpayer money. Fifty million dollars is now outside the scope of the Financial Administration Act. This is completely unacceptable.
The auditor general concludes with strong language. She says:
I certainly hope that in the rest of my tenure...I will not see another such series of events carried out to achieve a desired accounting result.
I would also point out that the auditor general who was appointed this spring has almost 10 years left in her mandate. I am glad to see that the auditor general, an officer of parliament, is standing up for due process and proper control of the public purse in the country.
It is clear that the government has used smoke and mirrors to achieve its goal. In anticipation that the House would approve Bill C-4, it set up a private corporation with four shareholders, thinking that it could subsequently legitimize the foundation by having Bill C-4 approved and that this corporation, under the Canada Corporations Act, would be swallowed up by the foundation created under Bill C-4.
The government could not wait for parliament to speak and approve the legislation. It could not wait for parliament to speak and vote supply. Its arrogant, presumptuous attitude says that it will take this place for granted and whatever it wants, the members will do.
I ask you today, Mr. Speaker, to speak on behalf of all parliamentarians and state clearly and unequivocally that this place matters and that before the Government of Canada spends the money, we approve the request in the House.
Therefore I am asking that you rule both vote 10 of Environment Canada and vote 10 of Natural Resources Canada out of order and demonstrate once and for all that parliament is the guardian of the public purse.
Message From The Senate
The Royal Assent
June 14th, 2001 / 5 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker
I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence—Chapter No. 7.
Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence—Chapter No. 8.
Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions—Chapter No. 9.
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act—Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act—Chapter No. 11.
Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act—Chapter No. 12.
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 13.
Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts in consequence—Chapter No. 14.
Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act—Chapter No. 15.
Bill C-26, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco—Chapter No. 16.
Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act related to the Excise Tax Act—Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act—Chapter No. 18.
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act—Chapter No. 19.
Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act—Chapter No. 20.
Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act—Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 22.
Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology—Chapter No. 23.
Bill C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002—Chapter No. 24.
Bill S-25, an act to amend the Act of Incorporation of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada.
Bill S-27, an act to authorize The Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada to apply to be continued as a company under the laws of the Province of Quebec.
Bill S-28, an act to authorize Certas Direct Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a company under the laws of the Province of Quebec.
Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June 13, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 5.26 p.m.)