Debates of Oct. 29th, 2007

Opposition Motion—Federal Spending Power

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member believe the Conservative Party still believes it solved what it once recognized as the so-called fiscal imbalance?

As well, does the hon. member believe the Prime Minister, as he put it, solved the problem along with ending “the annual pilgrimage of premiers and mayors to Ottawa for financing?” It seems to me, judging from today's debate, they are still very much knocking on our doors.

In 1999 nine out of ten provinces signed the social union framework agreement and passed it in their respective legislatures. Of course Quebec did not. What new limits does the government have planned for federal spending powers and will all 10 provinces have to agree before any new agreement is struck?

Finally, if the Prime Minister were genuinely interested in resolving these issues, he would hold a first ministers meeting and put them on the agenda. He has had 21 months. What is the holdup and why will he not call a first ministers meeting?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is nice to hear that, over the past 21 months, we have made progress on this issue, considering that, for 13 years, hardly anything was done with the provinces and municipalities.

For years, municipalities in Quebec, including the one I was representing, wanted the fiscal imbalance affecting the provinces and municipalities to be recognized. However, the previous government never moved forward on this issue. Even now, it is strange to hear the hon. member almost admit it implicitly, by putting his question to us.

We have worked for 21 months to improve relations with the provinces and their components, and we are going to continue to do that.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Mégantic—L'Érable and a Quebec federalist, I am honoured to take part in this debate today on the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like to talk about the concerns that have been raised in the past about the federal spending power and how our government proposes to address this issue.

This power must not be eliminated, as the Bloc is demanding. The Bloc will never form the government and therefore does not have to come up with realistic, achievable solutions. The Bloc has no responsibilities.

The Prime Minister's Conservative government is practising open federalism. We are acting responsibly, and that is why we are keeping our word and proposing to limit and not eliminate the federal spending power.

The Bloc cannot contradict itself at every turn and yet hope that the people of Quebec will support it in this effort. This Bloc motion quite simply means the end of any money transfers for health, social programs and even equalization.

This motion comes on the heels of the speech the leader of the Bloc Québécois gave in this House in response to the Speech from the Throne. I invite you to read Hansard. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said that one of the five conditions his party had set for supporting the throne speech was the elimination of the federal spending power.

As my colleague so aptly put it earlier, the Bloc cannot, on the one hand, call for the elimination of the federal spending power and, on the other, demand that the federal government invest in communities going through hard economic times. Quite frankly, no matter what the Bloc thinks, Quebeckers are much smarter than that. They showed just how smart they are when the byelection was held on September 17. They recognized that our party, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, is delivering the goods for Quebec. That is why they decided to support us.

The Bloc introduced this motion in a desperate bid for credibility. The motion is irresponsible and bad for Quebec and for the country. I know they are trying to connect with the people, but they should still act responsibly, even if they are not accountable.

What is frustrating the Bloc is that Quebec is growing stronger with the Conservative government. Quebeckers want a strong Quebec in a better Canada, and that is frustrating our separatist friends opposite.

The Bloc Québécois do not try to hide the fact that they want to tear Canada apart. They therefore oppose any positive initiative that would improve our country. It is unfortunate, but that is the sad truth.

During the last election campaign, we in the Conservative party promised to respect all areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and to ensure accountability by clarifying roles and responsibilities.

In just a little over a year, we have kept our word once again. We did what we promised. In 2006, when we came into power, we set out to change how things are done here in Ottawa, because, for 13 long years, the Liberals practised a centralist, paternalistic federalism.

Let us not forget that our government, a Conservative government, is the one that, in budget 2007, finally corrected the fiscal imbalance. We did so by ensuring that our financial relationships with the provinces and territories are based on principles that are predictable over the long term.

In the past, unexpected federal surpluses were used to spend enormous amounts of money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, often without much consultation. This spending led to unnecessary, unfortunate tension between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. It resulted in new financial pressures on provincial and territorial governments. All too often, it distorted the provinces' spending priorities, especially when they had to come up with matching funds. This spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction created uncertainty, when initiatives were launched without any stable, long-term federal funding in place.

Our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has proven that there is another way to practise federalism. This new federalism is one of openness. It only makes our country stronger and more united. Our government's policy, and this goes for Quebec and the rest of Canada, is to act in accordance with our Constitution. The Fathers of Confederation never imagined, when they drafted our Constitution, that it would provoke the confrontations we have seen over the past few decades.

Unfortunately, the Liberal governments of the past 30 years are to blame. These Liberal governments did everything they could to squabble with the provinces. They should be ashamed. The Liberal governments of Trudeau and Chrétien practised an ineffective and centralist federalism. Their goal was quite simple: divide and conquer.

Quebec suffered for it under the Trudeau government and under the Chrétien government, when the current leader of the official opposition was an influential member of cabinet.

The leader of the official opposition is here in this House carrying on the old Liberal tradition of proposing a centralist federalism to the detriment of the legitimate aspirations of the nation of Quebec. Our approach, however, could not be any clearer: we are practising open federalism. Contrary to the Bloc members and the Liberals, we are not trying to pick a fight; we are trying to find common ground. The nation of Quebec comes out a winner and I am very proud of that.

The way we practice federalism allows Canada and Quebec to strike a fair balance. We can pursue national objectives while taking into account various local and regional considerations and by constantly adapting to change. Quebeckers can now see that the word “federalism” does not necessarily mean “paternalism”, or at least not when a Conservative government is in power.

Liberals in power dictated social policy to the provinces through an unlimited power to tax and spend. This power has been the biggest irritant over the past 60 years and we are in the process of resolving the problem.

Our approach toward the federal spending power is respectful of Quebec and the other provinces. We are going to set new parameters in which the federal spending power can and must be used. Our goal is not to discredit the federal spending power that has been an important factor in the social development of our country. It allowed the allocation of funding for the establishment of programs in health, social services and education.

Our goal, as I was saying, is to define new rules for fairer use of the federal spending power. That is what we will do by introducing our bill to impose explicit restrictions on the federal spending power for new cost-shared programs in exclusively provincial jurisdictions.

This bill would also allow the provinces to opt out with fair compensation if they offer compatible programs. Completely eliminating the spending power, as put forward in the Bloc Québécois motion, is not in the best interest of Canadians or of Quebeckers. The Bloc has to understand that times have changed. Quebeckers and Canadians realize that times have changed. That is why they chose our Conservative government to change the way business gets done in Ottawa. That is why, during the September 17 byelection, they elected a new Conservative member in Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, a riding held by the Bloc for the past 14 years.

Quebeckers like our approach. They want to strengthen the Canadian federation by recognizing the strengths and contributions of Quebec and the other provinces.

Naturally, this approach, which promotes Canadian unity and the development of our Quebec nation, is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Our government has already done so much to reconcile Quebec's legitimate aspirations with our goal to strengthen the Canadian federation. Our government promised to invite Quebec to be a part of the Canadian delegation to UNESCO and to take its place at the table, a place that reflects Quebec's exceptional contribution to our shared heritage. Our government kept its promise.

Our party is the only one in this country's history to recognize the Quebec nation.

The Bloc Québécois has been in this House for 17 years. In that time, what has it done for Quebec? Nothing. How many promises has it made? Seven hundred and fifty. How many of those promises has it kept? Not a single one.

The House of Commons has 308 seats, and the Bloc Québécois will be fielding only 75 candidates during the next election. The Bloc will never be in government, nor will it ever have any responsibilities toward Quebeckers. It should tell Quebeckers that.

We, on the other hand, are providing Quebeckers with a government that takes action, that keeps its promises and that fulfills its mandate in accordance with its policy of open federalism. Quebeckers know that Liberal means a step back and that Bloc Québécois means running around in circles. They also know that with the Conservative Party, Quebec will make great strides forward.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened patiently to the slogans spouted by the member opposite. I have two questions for him.

First, when it comes to the spending power and the firm lines between federal and provincial jurisdictions, what approach would he suggest for the environment? This area was not addressed when the Canadian Constitution was adopted in 1867. How will he deal with the environment? Is it an area of provincial jurisdiction? Is the federal government allowed to spend?

Second, when it comes to the fiscal imbalance, he said a number of times, as did his colleagues—clearly, these must be lines sent out by e-mail here on the Hill—that the fiscal imbalance has been resolved. However, earlier, one of his colleagues quoted the Premier of Quebec, who said that a step had been made in the right direction. Furthermore, the fiscal imbalance was resolved a few weeks ago, but negotiations were then started with Nova Scotia, because it was obviously not resolved. When will the fiscal imbalance be resolved?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for his two questions.

First, in terms of the environment, an historic step forward has been taken since we came to power. We distributed $1.5 billion to Quebec through the Canada ecotrust. We gave $358 million to Quebec, although the Bloc was asking for less. Once again, we see that the Bloc is useless in the House.

This is an open federalism that works. You will also recall that, for the 2007 budget, our government held consultations with the provinces and territories to finalize its commitments made in good faith and with the intention of making our federation work. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, knowing that it is useless, only wants Quebec to separate from the rest of the country.

As for the second question raised by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, he might find it amusing to say that our comments on the fiscal imbalance are all part of lines we have received in e-mail, but at least they are part of our own lines, whereas they are not part of his leader's lines. The Leader of the Opposition denies the existence of the fiscal imbalance. Thus, I find it amusing to hear my opposition colleague ask how we will resolve the fiscal imbalance when it has been resolved and, furthermore, when his leader continues to deny it.

Over a fixed period, $39 billion has been committed to resolve the fiscal imbalance. That is action and that is what citizens want. We keep our promises and, unlike the Bloc, do more than just talk.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech for a number of reasons.

Since our Conservative colleagues from Quebec arrived, I find that things have been much better. For 17 years, the Bloc has represented many Quebeckers. In my opinion, almost nothing has been done in all that time.

What is the Bloc doing here in Ottawa for Quebeckers?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for that very pertinent question. It must be said that the Bloc is doing nothing here in Ottawa. It is making no headway. All it does is talk. It will never be in power. It is selling dreams. It talks about defending Quebec's interests, but we are offering to promote and further Quebec's interests.

For example, on farming, they talk about supply management and say that we are against it, even though we are taking unprecedented steps to help our farmers. This is in the throne speech. They are sacrificing our producers by voting against the throne speech and against supply management. Does that help Quebec? No, it is a useless gesture.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It is very difficult to hear the answers when there is so much noise in the House.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint John.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have one regret, this afternoon. I had a lot of work to do in the lobby and was focusing on what I was doing, but I should have entered the chamber earlier, because there is a real vaudeville act going on in the House. It is pretty unbelievable.

I want to tell my colleagues from Quebec that, as far as I am concerned, Quebeckers have always been shortchanged by Ottawa, all the way from 1867 to 1993, 1993 being the year that saw 54 Bloc Québécois members elected to this House with a fundamental mandate to stand up for Quebec exclusively. In caucus, when we discuss the direction Quebec should take, no one can be heard saying that Ontario will not like it. We do not care whether Ontario likes it or not. We are here to defend the interests of Quebec. In fact, we have advanced Quebec's interests since coming to this House.

I will remind the hon. members that French used to be spoken 8% of the time in the House of Commons. Two years after the Bloc Québécois was elected to this place, it had risen to 38%. Sitting in this House before the Bloc Québécois came to Ottawa was a fine bunch of colonized people.

Some do not respect democracy and wonder what the Bloc Québécois is doing here. To them I would say that I was elected, that 55% of people voted for me and that I won with a majority of 18,000 votes. What does that mean to my colleagues? We have no business being here? What does that mean? We do not have the democratic mandate of our constituents? It is quite the opposite.

If they do not want to hear the voice of criticism, the voice of disagreement, then they should start a dictatorship with a state run political party that does not tolerate anyone speaking out of turn. We do not have that type of government, or that type of parliamentary democracy. It is important for my colleagues to realize that.

The Conservative Party is wondering what the Bloc Québécois is doing in this House. Do they ever read a newspaper? Do they read the papers? Some 60% of Quebeckers say that the Bloc is necessary. Why do they say that? Because today, this afternoon in particular, people are standing up once again to defend Quebec and they are not afraid to confront people who do not share Quebec's interests and values. That is what we are hearing more and more.

Now I would like to give a little history lesson. In 1867, two nations got their start. This was an important time. Hand on heart, they decided to maintain the same number of representatives from Upper Canada and from Lower Canada. This was a solemn promise. Where are we today? There are 75 members from Quebec and 308 members in total.

There are proposals to further dilute Quebec's power. I am pleased to see my colleagues coming into the House. I hope they can ask me questions later. They will have only five minutes though.

I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois is standing up and denouncing all this. A federalist party would not. It would probably increase the number of members from English Canada, without changing the number of members from Quebec. That is how the Canadian confederation started and that is how it keeps going.

Something very significant happened in 1939. The federal government wanted to get into personal income tax. Get a load of this: in 1943, during the infamous war effort, 81% of the accounts and taxes were collected by the federal government. The provinces collected just 8% and the municipalities 11%.

Then, a bunch of Einsteins tried to encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. That was how it all started, and it is still going on today. With their budget surpluses, it is easy for them to encroach on provincial areas of jurisdiction. The provinces are being suffocated. They are responsible for offering the most important services, such as education and health, which are also the most expensive services.

What is the government saying? It is saying that it will help us, but that there are strings attached. That is how it is encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction. Quebec can no longer act according to its unique character or develop that character. If it wants to survive the federal stranglehold, it will have to comply with the government's conditions. That is what my colleague's motion is all about. Enough is enough.

If the government really wants to correct the fiscal imbalance, it will have to give tax points to the provinces so that they can be responsible for basic services for their citizens. No strings. The government cannot say that things are good this year, so it will transfer $800 million, but if things are not so good next year, it will transfer only $400 million. How are the provinces supposed to do any long-term planning that way? That is not what we need. The federal government has to get out of areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the provinces. It has to give money back via tax points, it has to tax less, and it has to give the provinces the power to tax more.

That is not what the Conservatives are doing. Why is that? As I keep on saying, this is a paternalistic and bullying government, one that loves to intrude. It wants to end up with the total assimilation of Quebec. It has wanted that for a long time. All this started back with Lord Durham. Such was Canada's tactic: surround and assimilate Quebec. The government is following suit, but more subtly. They are attacking our Bill 101. The Supreme Court is quietly demolishing it. They are getting into areas of jurisdiction and giving out money with strings attached. The conditions are Canada-wide, from one ocean to the other, even moving northward to our third ocean.

I predict that there will be one party that will stand up to this. I see us again as the only ones here to speak out and to act out, to put our words into actions by voting. Not just fancy words like the Prime Minister's, when he tells us that he recognizes Quebec, that it is a fine nation. He talks a good talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, he does the same thing that has been going on ever since Confederation in 1867. He tries to dominate, assimilate, integrate.

It is always the same thing here, but in 1993 change started to set in , and the Bloc Québécois will still continue to be a presence. It is not true that the Bloc Québécois will disappear, as they imagine in their wildest dreams. I have been hearing that for 14 years: the Bloc is going to disappear. We have had five mandates so far, and every time those were majority mandates from Quebec. After all, we are not from some other planet. People vote for us and they have reasons to do so. It is because we represent the interests and values of Quebeckers, unlike the other parties.

If our Conservative and Liberal colleagues want to use some common sense, let them defend the basic point: withdrawal from areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and compensate them accordingly. Let them quit imposing conditions on everything, let them make it possible for Quebec to choose its own direction and not impose one on us, as they want to do.

I will stop there, and will be pleased to answer questions from my colleagues who seem to have turned up in great numbers.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had some discussions among the parties; I do not know if they are conclusive, but I am seeking consent for the following motion: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, statements by ministers shall take place at 4:00 p.m.; the rule respecting time limits for this statement shall be relaxed; private members' business shall be cancelled; and the end of government orders shall be when one representative from each recognized party has had an opportunity to respond to the statement”.

This is, of course, just by way of explanation, to facilitate the economic and fiscal update being delivered in the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in respect to the fiscal statement that is expected tomorrow, could I ask the government House leader to enlighten the House, apart from the exact venue where the statement may be made, as to what arrangements have been made for the usual briefing of the parties in advance, whether it is in a lock-up form or whatever, if there are fiscal measures that require some special treatment. I wonder if he is in a position this afternoon to say anything further about that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, effective economic leadership week, and an important part of that is our economic and fiscal update. Our hope was to have it presented in this House and we might have contemplated having the usual lock-up for that. If it is being held elsewhere, we will have to find out the arrangements for the member. I know that in the past when economic and fiscal updates were done under the member's government there was no advance access of that nature provided, but I will get back to the member with the details.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have some questions for my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean.

At the beginning of his speech, he said he was surprised by the Conservatives' vaudeville act. He responded to all these frankly shameful smears by the Conservatives against the Bloc Québécois.

First of all, can my hon. colleague say if all these cheap and ridiculous criticisms we have heard from the Conservatives about the Bloc Québécois are not really an attempt to conceal the weakness of their arguments when it comes to the federal spending power?

Second, I would like to hear what my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean has to say about the speech given by the Prime Minister on December 19, 2005, in Quebec City, a speech that, I would say, is full of broken election promises.

The Prime Minister made many election promises that day. One was this:

We will monitor federal spending power, which has been so abused by the federal Liberals. This outrageous spending power gave rise to domineering and paternalistic federalism—

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that famous speech is what I call the poisoned honey speech. There is no difference between the tactics the Conservative government is using and the tactics the Liberals used previously.

I mentioned several times in my speech that I found the Conservative government paternalistic, domineering and bent on assimilation. That speech by the Prime Minister was nothing but fine words. That is also clear from the answers to the questions we have asked. My hon. colleague herself asked questions about the labour code. She asked why there are still federal employees in Quebec who speak English. Why is everyone not required to speak French in Quebec? That would be a way of recognizing that Quebec is a distinct society.

[An hon. member]

The Quebec nation.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The nation, yes. That is even stronger. That is the word to use. If the government were to do that, it would be more than just a word.

Our adversaries are still weak, so they are using low, vicious attacks rather than sound arguments.

We are convinced that our presence in this House is an example of democracy at work. Quebeckers will be proud of us and will show us in the next election.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague who just spoke, and I do understand that the context with which he said this was in response to the challenge from the government side with respect to the role of the Bloc Québécois. The comment that he made referenced Ontario and I could not believe what I heard. He said that his party does not care about Ontario.

As I said, I know the context, but I would like to give the member an opportunity to reply with respect to the close and common causes that Ontario and Quebec have in terms of the manufacturing sector, in terms of the environment, and in terms of the whole absence of research and development with respect to a wide spectrum of activity.

Could the member please point out whether, in his view, there is room for Ontario and Quebec, in fact all the provinces, to build a stronger Canada in a cooperative way?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which will give me a chance to explain what I meant. I am a sovereigntist and I agree completely: it will be impossible to move Quebec if it becomes sovereign one day. Quebec will need to have ties with all its neighbours.

Yes, we have things in common when it comes to basic data and economic issues. But these are often one-time things. The Bloc has led political operations where it had the approval of everyone in this House. But when the time comes to make a major decision and it is them against us, naturally the Bloc Québécois members will defend Quebec.

That is why I said that even though Ontario or British Columbia may not be happy, they are not part of the equation. We are here for Quebec, and we have never tried to hide that. I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to explain what I meant.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have remaining?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

You have about five minutes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a ten-minute speech, so I will have to skip over some of it.

However. I would like to speak about three dates. The first is December 19, 2005. I spoke about it earlier. That is when the Conservative Prime Minister, who had not yet been elected, made campaign promises. We were in the midst of the campaign. In his speech to the Chamber of Commerce, he said that he would monitor the federal spending power that had been so abused by the Liberal government. He added that this outrageous spending power had given rise to domineering and paternalistic federalism which is a serious threat to the future of our federation.

I think that he did not understand what he said. Today, we must conclude that he does not want to monitor the federal spending power. However, the Bloc Québécois is giving him that opportunity by presenting, on a silver platter, the excellent proposal by my colleague from Papineau of limiting federal spending powers in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. That is extremely important. Yet, he prefers the domineering and paternalistic federalism. That is the Conservatives' preference as they have so clearly demonstrated today.

The second date is November 27, 2006. What was that date nearly a year ago? We will soon be marking the first anniversary of the recognition of Quebec as a nation. That motion passed in this very House with 265 votes out of the 308 members. Two hundred and sixty-five democratically elected individuals rose in this Chamber and voted to say that the Quebeckers formed a nation.

Recognizing Quebec as a nation is not insignificant. Now that nation must have its basic rights recognized. What have we had from the Conservatives over this past year? Has there been any recognition of a right, prerogative or privilege for Quebec? They have done nothing, nothing at all. The Bloc Québécois were the ones who were forced to rise in this House day after day to remind them of that.

Incidentally, one of the accomplishments of the Bloc was to gain recognition and respect of the Civil Code, one of the fundamental elements of our nation. No other province in Canada has a civil code. We have one and we have been obliged to remind the Minister of Labour of that, day after day for close to six months in this House, in order to stop him from getting a clause in Bill C-62 passed which would have flouted our Civil Code and would have changed it.

And who was it who defended the clause on the insolvability of RRSPs within Bill C-62? The Bloc Québécois. Only the Bloc members in this House promoted our amendment to that bill. Where was the Quebec Conservatives' protection of the Civil Code? They were not there, they did nothing. The Liberals followed us, cautiously, when we at last managed to convince them, and the NDP was not proud of us but did not dare to show much public opposition.

Yet the Conservatives were publicly opposed to the Bloc's insistence that its Civil Code be respected by Bill C-62. The Conservatives were finally obliged to respect the Civil Code and Bill C-62 was at last passed by them on June 7. Again this afternoon we passed it again for referral to the Senate.

If I understand correctly, that is the end of my time. That is really too bad.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.