Debates of March 12th, 1998

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour and pleasure today to introduce amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which are intended to enhance the protection of our environment and all Canadians' health and will involve all Canadians in doing so.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Statutory Program Evaluation Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-373, an act to provide for evaluations of statutory programs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce my bill regarding an act to provide for evaluations of statutory programs which deals with good governance within the program delivery of the civil service to ensure that programs are delivered well, effectively and are well managed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-374, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (prohibited toys).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in this House to table a bill intended to restrict the sale of toys which incite children to violence.

Tabling this bill marks an important milestone in an undertaking begun more than two years ago by a lady in my riding, Mrs. Martine Ayotte.

This mother of five was spurred to action when she purchased a doll which came with the suggestion that certain unsavoury treatments be visited upon it, the details of which I shall spare this House. She then took steps to ensure that the toys available to children would be less violent and more respectful of the values we are trying to transmit to them.

Mrs. Ayotte enlisted the support of a large coalition of organizations and individuals. Her petition against violent toys has collected 260,000 signatures. Moreover, it is in jigsaw form and has been certified by the Guinness Book of Records as the biggest such puzzle in the world.

The bill I am introducing today constitutes an important step toward improving the quality of toys available to children. I hope this House will have an opportunity to debate this and I trust that I can count on the support of all the hon. members in this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Balanced Budget Act

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce this balanced budget bill, or anti-deficit legislation.

The effect of the bill, if passed, would be to prevent the government from incurring deficits, except under extraordinary circumstances. The Minister of Finance would be accountable to Parliament for his management. Another new element is the fact that this bill contains provisions to monitor changes in the immense federal debt.

I therefore introduce this bill in the House in the hope that all my colleagues will pass it quickly.

(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians including from my riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and that when one of them loses their life in the line their duty their employment benefits do not often provide sufficient compensation for their families. The public also mourns that loss of public safety officers killed in the line of duty and wishes to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition with just under 12,000 signatures from my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminister as well as other Canadians, asking the federal government and the justice system to put more emphasis on victims rights other than criminal rights.

They pray that the government will re-examine consecutive sentencing and mandatory minimum sentencing in assault convictions.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 72 and 74. .[Text]

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

With respect to the settlement of the federal employees' pay equity issue: ( a ) at what stage are the negotiations; ( b ) when will they be finished; and ( c ) when will the affected persons receive their cheques?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasure Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Negotiations were undertaken in April 1997 to resolve the longstanding pay equity complaints filed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada PSAC. The negotiations were based on job evaluation data being considered by the Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal is currently deliberating on the issue of a methodology to measure and correct pay inequities between predominantly male and female occupational groups. The tribunal is expected to render a decision sometime after March 31, 1998. While the tribunal is deliberating, there remains an opportunity for the employer and PSAC to resolve the complaints through negotiations. However, after several meetings PSAC tabled a counter proposal valued at approximately $5.3 billion. PSAC was informed that this counter proposal could not serve as a basis for further discussions and that a more reasonable conter proposal was required. No further meetings have been held since December 8, 1997.

If no further progress can be achieved through negotiations, the parties will await the ruling by the Human Rights Tribunal. At this time no further meetings are scheduled between the parties.

The issuance of cheques will be automated to the extent possible. Departments are also doing some preparatory work to accelerate the issuance and delivery of cheques. Once the final amount of the pay equity adjustments has been established, cheques to current employees should be issued within weeks. Cheques to former employees will follow.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

With respect to the House of Commons Intercity Telephone System, which is accessed by members via local telephone numbers in some cities and via a 1-800 number elsewhere in Canada and the USA: ( a ) are any parts of the system automated so that members can use touch tone input to enter their access code and connect to the chosen telephone number, and if so, which areas of the country have automated systems; ( b ) what timetable does the government have to fully automate the system across Canada, and what are the projected annual cost savings for carrying out such automation; ( c ) where is the operator centre for the system located, how many people are employed as operators, and what is the annual cost for those staff; ( d ) what is the total annual cost of maintaning the system and what is the cost comparison with contracting for provision of the services using private sector suppliers; and ( e ) what is the total number of minutes carried by the system each year within Canada and to the USA, and what is the average cost per minute carried to each of these countries?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Presently the only part of the system that is automated is within the metropolitan free calling area of Montreal.

The government is planning to issue a RFP, request for proposal for this service in the first quarter of fiscal year 1998-99. Projected annual cost savings cannot be determined until all bids are received and analysed.

The operator centre for this system is located in Ottawa. The contract for the operator services/centre was tendered and awarded to Bradson Personnel who employs 40 full and part time people. The value of the contract for the staff is $650,000 annually and provides government directory assistance in addition to operator services for the Government of Canada.

The total annual cost for maintaing the system is $4 million which is 37% cheaper than other commercially available services. We expect further reductions and or savings once the service is tendered next year.

The traffic for this service is carried on the Government Intercity Network. The cost of the calls on the network in Canada is 7.25 cents per minute, and calls to the United States are 12.5 cents per minute. Last year the total number of minutes carried was 13.4 million in Canada, and 586,000 in the United States.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

moved:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

Mr. Speaker, today we are putting a very important issue before the House.

It is important, because we feel we must decry the disease affecting the federal Liberals, which I would call chronic dominating federalism. It is an infectious disease they caught from the Conservatives and is characterized by the search for better ways to intrude in provincial jurisdiction, despite the Constitution's precluding it.

The disease recently led the Liberal government to establish the millennium scholarship fund. An integral part of the financial assistance for students section of the Canadian opportunities strategy, the Canadian millennium scholarships foundation will have an initial budget of $2.5 billion in order to support access to knowledge and skills for all Canadians.

This is $2.5 billion worth of pretences because if it were really committed to access and to reducing the debt load of Quebec students, this government would not deny the Quebec government the right to opt out with full compensation.

This government, which praises the knowledge-based economy, will have cut approximately $3 billion in education in Quebec alone between 1993 and 2003.

This same government championed in this House, in December 1995, a motion recognizing the distinct character of Quebec and explicitly reassuring Quebeckers that every federal government department, institution and agency would take this into account in making decisions.

This same Liberal government claimed in the 1996 Speech from the Throne that it would stop using its spending power to develop programs in provincial jurisdictions.

This government, which stated left and right that all it is trying to do is to work in co-operation and partnership with the provinces, disregards provincial jurisdictions and priorities.

This action translates into a net loss for the Quebec education system. This money could have been used to improve the grants and loans system in Quebec, thereby helping to considerably reduce the student debt load, as pointed out by the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec when it testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development last November.

It is clear to the Bloc Quebecois that, by establishing the millennium scholarship fund, the federal government intrudes in an area under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

The evil separatists are not alone; other stakeholders in Quebec have commented on this federal intrusion. On February 18, Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse : “The federal system is based on a system of checks and balances, like the division of powers, which must not be upset. This is especially true in education, where Quebec's distinctiveness is most visible. In fact, one wonders why, after establishing its scholarship fund, the federal government would not let the provinces manage the fund should they wish to do so.—Clearly, while it would rather go it alone on this issue, the federal government must reconsider and agree to let the Quebec government manage the millennium scholarships awarded in Quebec”.

Similarly, on February 25, in speaking about these scholarships, the leader of the opposition said he would have preferred to see the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces respected fully.

The member for Sherbrooke is in the paradoxical situation, on the one hand, of supporting a Canadian fund for excellence in education, which is just as much an interference in Quebec's jurisdiction as the millennium fund and, on the other, thinking of running as a candidate in a party that has always opposed the federal government's systematic intrusions in provincial jurisdictions, particularly education.

If I understand correctly, he could become leader of a party that is part of a broad coalition calling for the respect of provincial jurisdictions, while the policy has shortcomings that only Liberals and Conservatives understand well enough to explain.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Témiscamingue.

Let us leave aside the disagreements of the Liberals and Conservatives and look more closely at this government's reasons for creating the millennium scholarship fund. The government recently said that it was the provinces that requested it, and that it was necessary to meet the expectations of students in difficult economic straits.

I will not go back over this government's failure to respect provincial jurisdictions, but will instead focus on what students in Quebec and in the rest of Canada want. It says in the finance minister's latest budget that these scholarships will be awarded to individuals who need help in financing their studies and demonstrate merit. Is this what students really want?

Why did the Liberals create this millennium scholarship fund? I personally asked the Prime Minister what he had had in mind. On February 26, the member for Shawinigan said in the House: “We think every Quebecker should know that the taxes they pay to the federal government give them something in return”. They are going to know it in this case, you can be sure. The cat is out of the bag, or rather the maple leaf is out of the envelope.

As the Prime Minister said, his goal was to use this program as a promotional tool to increase the federal government's visibility, waving maple leaves everywhere in Canada and, of course, in Quebec.

The government wants to gain visibility at the expense of debt-burdened students. Did Quebeckers see through this scheme? On March 7, Sondagem published the results of an opinion poll about this millennium scholarship fund. Conducted from February 27 to March 3, this survey is probably a good reflection of public opinion in Quebec. The results reveal that 42 per cent of the 1000 respondents think that the federal government wanted to score political points among the student population, while 20 per cent think that this project is aimed at promoting federalism in Quebec. Only 22 per cent believe that the only purpose of Ottawa's initiative is to help students.

As we can see, Quebeckers are not fooled by the federal government's manoeuvres. The president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec stated in the Journal de Montréal that the millennium fund was only a “visibility exercise” on the part of the federal government, and even an ”ego trip”.

In spite of strong pressure, the budget does not provide any right to opt out so that provinces like Quebec can control their share of the $2.5 billion the federal government wants to spend on higher education.

However, the plan introduced yesterday is still vague and undefined and nothing in it justifies the control of the fund by Ottawa, except perhaps the desire to see a maple leaf on the cheques distributed to students. Maple leaves were good in Nagano. Visibility does not make the provincial education systems better or more efficient; it only creates duplication and overlap.

Jennifer Story, of the Canadian Federation of Students, said, and I quote:

<“questioned why it's necessary to create a new funding mechanism to deal with it. Why not put the money towards the existing Canadian Student Loan Program? Why create something entirely new?”

Quebec is not the only one to say what we are saying today. There is a large consensus among students and universities, but the government turns a deaf ear to them.

I also have a message for those who held a protest yesterday in front of the Quebec National Assembly. These protesters, who are members of the various student associations, were asking for an end to cuts in the education sector. I support this generation which, in fact, is my generation. However, these young Quebeckers should look across the Ottawa River, they should look at this Parliament to find those responsible for these cuts. The dumping of responsibilities starts here, with the federal government.

I often wonder, because we hear all this talk here about building a forward-looking society, a society based on skills. But the federal government imposed cuts of over $3 billion on Quebec, and it is now coming up with another program which essentially seeks to give more visibility to this government. As a society, we have to ask ourselves some tough questions.

Let us not forget that, during the course of this century, life expectancy increased by some 20 years. Since we are now living longer, it is vital to invest in education. Instead, the government is making cuts, thus making the system ineffective or less effective. We have to ask ourselves some tough questions.

Let me tell you how I see things. These are the facts confronting my generation. There is an increasingly wider gap between the people and their elected officials. As I said earlier, the public supports social values and goals, while this government seeks visibility. When are we really going to try to close this gap between elected officials and the public? It is urgent that we answer this question.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Did he consider the possibility of applying to this issue the principle of subsidiarity advocated by the European Union, and applying the principle of joint management or association between the two levels of government, as regards scholarships?

Also, did the hon. member consider the possibility of a bilateral agreement on education between Quebec and Ottawa, patterned on the 1978 Cullen-Couture agreement?

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing seems rather obvious. I tend to be more forward-looking than fixated on the past. And when I look at the future, what I look for is value for money and equal opportunities for all, meaning that those who want a complete education should be able to get it.

I do hope that everyone here supports this principle and agrees that we must seek the best and most efficient means to reach this goal. At one point in history it was decided that the province was the most efficient level of government to manage education.

I am willing to believe that it is possible for Quebec and Ottawa to reach agreements; the Constitution, which says that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction, is supposed to be such an agreement.

Given this premise, I wonder what the federal government is trying to do with its millennium scholarships. Is it an agreement or an intrusion to gain visibility? It is making no bones about what this is all about. I heard the Prime Minister—not a backbencher, but the Prime Minister himself—say that what he was seeking was visibility. Therefore I have serious misgivings regarding the return on investment we will get out of this fund.

We are not against helping students, indeed we believe student assistance to be a basic principle. But what is at issue here is cost-effectiveness. Canadians and Quebeckers are taxed to the hilt and deserve the maximum return on their tax dollars.

Education is an investment. As I said before, with life expectancy constantly increasing, it is not uncommon for students to stay in university well into their mid- or late 20s. But today, people can no longer afford this.

That is my answer. I could go on for another hour, but I will try to restrain myself for the rest of the day.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member who has just spoken said it was not just to help students. If we examine that phrase, he has acknowledged that it will help students. That is the fundamental essence of the Canadian millennium fund. He is only involved and more concerned about the process of delivery which can be and will be discussed.

With respect to using the maple leaf flag and the visibility of the Canadian government, what is wrong with that? We ought to be proud of our Canadian flag and we ought to be proud of our Canadian federal government. If what we can achieve with values is visibility of values, why not do that?

Would the hon. member subserve parochial interest to the greater national interest?

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear. If the government opposite promises to give Quebec the right to withdraw, I do not mind if a maple leaf appears on every cheque it sends out.

There are maple leaves everywhere in Quebec. I have nothing against the maple leaf.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

In our province maple leaves grow on trees.

[An hon. member]

They die in the fall.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, they die in the fall.

My objective is efficiency. When I talk about visibility, it is not because I do not want to see a maple leaf. That does not bother me. What I want is a good return on the money to be invested in education. The incredible, costly duplications in the program that the government is implementing adversely affect the cost-effectiveness of this investment.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my turn to talk today about Ottawa's old fantasy of meddling in education. We have the feeling that for the federal government it is a way of correcting somewhat a mistake made at the time the constitution was drawn, that is giving provinces jurisdiction over education.

This is not something new or particular to this government. This was also in the platform of other political parties during the last election campaign. Several even wanted to go further and institute national testing. That is precisely why our motion refers to national testing. We know that this is occasionally mentioned in the corridors of power in Ottawa.

In its Speech from the Throne the government also mentioned studies to evaluate the readiness to learn of Canadian children. Why would the federal government want to gauge the readiness of our children to enter the school system if it is not to intervene in some way at some time in the future? And we are not talking about giving provinces money to do the job. The federal government wanted to do this evaluation on its own and, to my knowledge, it is still committed to it.

Why are people in Quebec and elsewhere—I will come back to that—opposed to this interference in education?

I do not want to speak for other provinces, but Quebec people are of a different culture, have a different background—a view not necessarily shared by the present Liberal government, I admit. Priorities are also different and education is a key element of a people's social and economic development. It only makes sense that the Government of Quebec, being closer to its citizens, would want to set its priorities in the field of education. It only makes sense that it be in charge.

That is precisely why the Constitution of Canada gave the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over education, although Ottawa has tried ever since to intervene in that field. Paradoxically, the very government asking the Supreme Court for an opinion on the constitutional acceptability of Quebec's separation also included in its budget new education initiatives that violate the Constitution.

Now it takes sovereignist members of Parliament from Quebec to come and ask the federal government to respect its own Constitution. It is somewhat surprising to see these great champions of the Canadian Constitution refusing to respect it.

These are the same people who, following the referendum in Quebec, adopted a resolution here in the House of Commons—a trivial motion without any authority, as we have seen in that case—recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness. We may be called “unique” in other constitutional camouflage processes, but for them, we are unique and distinct only as long as we are like the others. This is yet another blatant federalist contradiction.

No member of this government will argue today that, according to this motion, Quebec should effectively be allowed to deal with its own priorities in the area of education. One after the other, they will support the millennium scholarships program and speak highly of this nice action by the federal government.

In fact, what will be the impact of the federal government's intrusion in the area of education? It starts with millennium scholarships, but how do we know it will stop there? We do not know. But even with regard to the management of this program, Ottawa does not have any infrastructure. It will therefore have to put in place a new bureaucracy. It will try hard to cover it and to pretend the program will somewhat be managed by the private sector, by some people who will be designated by the Liberals, friends of the people in power, but the federal government will still need a network to assess student requests, to receive the forms, to develop them and to change them in order to justify their jobs. Therefore, these people will be there and the federal government will have a structure, a bureaucracy, while the provinces already have their own infrastructure, particularly in the case of Quebec, which has its own loans and scholarships program. That is the first impact.

The other impact, without going further into the debate, because this is what provincial parliaments should be doing, but is it in fact the real priority in education to give scholarships based on performance to students who are already at the post-secondary level? Does the education system not have more urgent needs and needs other than this one? Many people have talked about this in Quebec. Major reforms are being made in the areas of health and education.

Perhaps some elements should be consolidated. Perhaps there are other priorities. The drop-out rate is high at the secondary level. It is not by giving millennium scholarships to students who are doing well in university that this problem will be solved. The federal government is doing this under the guise of so-called access to equal opportunities, but that has no relation to real facts. Access to equal opportunities should mean striving to give everybody access to post-secondary education, but the federal government does not dare to go that far. It is proceeding gradually, starting with post-secondary education, an area it has already stepped in through its spending power.

The federal spending power, this constitutional plague, allows Ottawa to intrude in any area and in any way it sees fit. It has used its spending power to set up joint health and education programs, but the feeling now is it is not getting enough visibility from transfer payments to provinces. It would be better off if it sent 100,000 individual $3,000 cheques instead. The maple leaf and the federal government would be visible all over the place. After a while, it reviews its contribution, transfer payments are cut and it gives back a symbolic amount in order to achieve greater visibility. This is obviously nothing but a political game.

I would like to come back briefly to the spending power. Over the years, this spending power has become the power to get into debt. The federal government stepped in when it did not have the money to do so. It has invaded provincial jurisdictions on borrowed money. Now that we have a balanced budget, I bet things will only get worse. The federal government is raking in much more revenues that it needs for its own priorities and jurisdictions.

Provincial governments are responsible for health care, education, welfare, municipalities, and their tax capacity, in the case of Quebec anyway, is hardly higher than the federal government's. But the federal government has no qualms about taking in tax revenues in order to look after foreign affairs, national defence, things it deems less visible. So, it intrudes in provincial jurisdictions and keeps taxes at an outrageous level. Even their great mentor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, expressed that point of view in Cité libre before becoming the leader of the Liberal Party. I will have the opportunity to come back to this later today. I do not mind quoting him to his followers among the members opposite.

Are we, in the Bloc Quebecois, the only ones to think so? Are we seen like a handful of space creatures for taking up this position? No. A lot of people in Quebec agree with us, from the most federalist among them to the most sovereignist of all. Let me start by quoting someone who certainly cannot be considered a true sovereignist. I am talking about Alain Dubuc, editorial writer of La Presse . What does he think about this? The day after the budget was tabled, in his review, there was a small paragraph on the millennium fund, where he said: “Nothing in the somewhat fuzzy and still undefined project announced yesterday justifies the decision made by Ottawa to manage this fund themselves, unless it is to become more visible and to have the maple leaf on every cheque handed out to the students”. This is what a Quebec federalist who usually supports the central government said.

Now, let us see what the people in the education area had to say. Mr. Roch Denis, president of the Fédération québécoise des professeurs d'université, said: “The federal government is sprinkling grants here and there, just to make its meddling in the education area a little more legitimate”.

Mr. Pierre Tessier, vice-chairman of the Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities, said the exact same thing.

And I could go on and on and quote the president of the Centrale des enseignants du Québec, Mrs. Lorraine Pagé, Mr. Gérald Larose and many more. The harshest criticism came from Mrs. Lysiane Gagnon, who describes the whole situation quite well. She is not known as a sovereignist, at least, you cannot tell from her writings. She said: “Ottawa can praise its famous zero deficit as much as they want, the real question is how they managed to get rid of the deficit. Answer: It was easy, they did it on the backs of others. They only had to dump it onto the people below them”.

She compares the millennium scholarship fund to candy the federal government is handing out to gain maximum visibility. A direct gift to citizens brings in more in terms of votes than sending a comprehensive envelope to provinces”. For all those who would submit that the federal government has a role to play in that area, she writes “Contrary to the federal theory, it really is interference, as indirect as it might be, in the content of education”.

Here is what she says in her last paragraph “If Mr. Chrétien was in the least sincere in his desire to stimulate education, he would have helped schools through the governments that have jurisdiction over them. But of course we understand that in terms of votes it is more profitable to hand out cheques with a maple leaf on it to students, all the more so because they, unlike the children in elementary schools, have the right to vote”.

That sums up the political ploy very well. We see here a government more concerned with visibility than efficiency.

I will conclude by moving an amendment to the motion put forward by my colleague for Lac—Saint-Jean. I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “censure” the following:

“vehemently”

For this interference in the area of education has to be censured vigorously.