Debates of June 13th, 2011

Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member back to the House. I look forward to working with him as well over the next four years.

This government believes in equality and that is one of the big issues. We believe that the western farmer deserves the same freedoms and advantages that other farmers in this country have and enjoy. That is one thing we stand up for very strongly.

There are many other things in this budget that are going toward the agriculture industry. There is $100 million over five years for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to improve food inspection. That is very important in this day and age, particularly when we hear of the food incidents that are happening. There are many things in here that are going to help the agriculture industry, the hog industry, and the commercialization of agricultural innovation.

We do believe in equality and we will try to help the agriculture industry right across the country.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the other Speakers who have been appointed to be the pilots in the House of Commons to ensure that everyone gets fair and equitable time on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

As this is my first speech in the 41st Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity to thank a few people who worked so hard for me in the last election. First of all, I want to thank my family, especially my husband and my children, who supported me in a major way to get re-elected.

I want to thank John Feldsted, who was my campaign manager, and Kaz Malkiewicz, who was my official agent and worked so hard to ensure that the campaign was run very well.

I want to especially thank the Kildonan--St. Paul Electoral District Association. These people are dedicated and they worked very hard.

My thanks also go to the number of volunteers who came in every day to go door-to-door and who worked hard to ensure I was elected. I am pleased to say that it was a resounding victory.

Last but not least, I want to say a special thanks to the constituents of Kildonan--St. Paul, who have asked me to return to Ottawa to represent their concerns and their values.

Kildonan--St. Paul is an amazing riding. It has diverse ethnic groups. I am just so pleased to stand here in the House of Commons to speak to this budget today representing those constituents.

As the member of Parliament for Kildonan--St. Paul, there is no more important responsibility placed on me than accounting for the finances of our federal government. I have to give a special congratulations to our Prime Minister. History will tell that we have the best prime minister that this country has ever had.

I also want to congratulate our finance minister, who has done yeoman's work. He listened to Canadians and associations, and groups all across this country to produce a balanced approach in the budget, an approach that will stabilize Canada's economy, an approach that will keep people working and families in their homes. The budget addresses many of the issues that families are concerned with on a daily basis.

I have to congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for ensuring that commerce and trade, business, and public safety are well balanced. Our country is well ahead of many other countries. We have very strong leadership. The last election proved that to be true. Canadians have a stable Conservative majority government that will continue to serve the public in the next four years. This was a real vote of confidence from the people of Canada and a special thanks to the people of Canada for giving us this opportunity.

Today we live in an age of global fiscal uncertainty. However, our Conservative government has taken significant measures to ensure Canadians can prosper, provide for their families, and strengthen our economy.

On June 6, 2011, the Minister of Finance presented the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, a low tax plan for jobs and growth. The budget focuses on four key priorities: first, supporting job creation; second, supporting families and communities; third, investing in innovation, education and training; and fourth, preserving Canada's fiscal advantage. This is very important to the economy and growth of our country.

During the last election, many of my constituents took the time to share with me their concerns and priorities. Among the issues raised, there was a clear and consistent theme: my constituents wanted our government to provide for Canada's seniors, who have invested their lives to build our great nation.

They wanted support and tax relief provided for their families. They wanted our streets to be kept safe from violent criminals. In particular, they wanted to support small businesses because, like infrastructure, they are the engines that support our economy all across this nation. As well, what continually came forward was providing support for our brave volunteer firefighters.

Having listened carefully to the presentation of the budget last week, clearly I am delighted that our Minister of Finance has carefully and thoughtfully constructed a budget that addresses the needs of my constituents in Kildonan—St. Paul and indeed addresses the needs of Canadians all across our nation.

Since 2006, our government has provided significant assistance to seniors. It has provided over $2.3 billion in annual tax relief for seniors and pensioners, and removed over 85,000 seniors from the tax rolls. However, there is more to be done in my riding and across our nation.

By enhancing the GIS, eligible low income seniors will receive an additional annual top up benefit of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples. During the last election, as I was having coffee parties and speaking to seniors groups, they were absolutely delighted with that. It was a long time coming. They were very happy that this would happen under a stable Conservative government. This represents an investment of more than $300 million per year. This measure will further improve the fiscal security and well-being of more than 680,000 seniors across our nation.

An additional $10 million was put into the budget for the very important new horizons for seniors program to promote volunteerism, mentorship, the social participation of seniors, and to expand awareness of elder abuse. This enhanced support will further the program's objectives by funding a greater number of projects. In my riding, this new horizons for seniors program has done much good. Seniors get together, they socialize, they learn, and they grow. It has been a catalyst for promoting many wonderful things for our seniors.

Also, an additional $50 million will be used to extend the targeted initiative for older workers.

Support and tax relief for families has been well-established through this budget. That is why the 15% non-refundable new children's arts tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and development activities is something that is very beneficial to families.

Many families are in what we call the sandwich generation whereby they are taking care of elders. The 15% non-refundable new family caregiver tax credit on an amount of $2,000 for caregivers of all types is very important, especially for relatives that they are taking care of.

There are many other things such as the enhanced medical expense tax credit; the eco-energy retrofit program, that the member from Sarnia has just talked about; and the benefits to help students. These have enhanced families to such an extent that they can balance their budgets, look forward to educating their children, and look forward to having a balanced, stable budget from the government.

We have cut taxes over 120 times since forming government. We have cut the personal income tax rate to its lowest level of 15%. We have removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family. We have done many more things. We have introduced the universal child care benefit, offering families more choice in child care.

We have done many other things to build families, enhance their ability to grow their families, and to prosper in this country.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in its budget, the government talks about helping businesses and entrepreneurs, but who will truly benefit from this help? Some people are worried, and that is understandable. We need only look at the billions of dollars that have been given to the most profitable companies.

In my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard, there are many small family businesses. They are very common in my riding. I would like to know what this government plans to do for these businesses in my riding.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new member to the House of Commons. It is so great to see younger and very enthusiastic MPs, as we all are.

Job creation is one of the most important things that our government has supported. The next phase of Canada's economic action plan is investing $1 million over two years to ensure that more employers and unions benefit from Labour Canada's preventive mediation program.

Ultimately all Canadians, including those in my province of Manitoba, will benefit from fewer work stoppages and greater economic stability. That speaks to some of the concerns the member has expressed this afternoon. This has been a big issue in our country.

Our finance minister and the Prime Minister have addressed that, and it is just one of the many issues they have addressed.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is a very specific one.

On several occasions the member mentioned the word “non-refundable”. She talks about tax credits for artistic programs for young people. She talks about a home caregiver tax credit, again non-refundable. She talks about a tax credit for volunteer firemen, again non-refundable.

Does she appreciate the fact that people on low income will not be able to take advantage of these because they do not have taxable income? What does the member have to say about that disparity?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member back to the House of Commons. It is always great to see new faces and faces that have been here before and will once again have dialogue.

The fact is Canadians have said, in a very strong, resounding way, that they like what is happening in our country. There has been support for low income housing. There has been support for people out of work. There has been support for our most vulnerable populations.

This balance is so important in our country. I know I do not have time to go over every one specifically, but I am sure if the member took a little time to look them up and to support our next budget, I think he would be very pleased that his riding would also be served well with this budget.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member back to the House. The residents of Kildonan—St. Paul made a wise decision because she is a very hard-working MP.

I had the opportunity just after the election to go to a meeting with some of the seniors in my riding. Several hundred people were there. They were asking if we were going to be tabling the exact budget again. I indicated that it would be pretty much the same budget tabled again.

One of the programs that the seniors benefit a lot from is the new horizons for seniors program, not only the capital assistance but also the programs to get seniors engaged in the communities.

Could the member expand a little on what that has meant to the seniors, to get them engaged in the communities?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague him back as well.

Very specifically, seniors are very appreciative of the new horizons program because they learn how to use computers and do all sorts of things, like their own tax returns. Seniors can apply for this very important initiative and work together in groups to grow their organization. It is very important.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very honoured that my constituents of Kitchener Centre have chosen me for the second time to be their voice in Ottawa. I thank them and I assure them that I will devote every ounce of my strength and every skill that I possess to represent Kitchener faithfully in the House. I also very much appreciate the support of my wife and family, my great campaign team and all the friends and neighbours who put my signs on their lawns.

I rise today in support of the budget tabled by the hon. finance minister. In all of human endeavour, there is no more complex undertaking than the preparation of a budget for the proper governance of a modern nation. It is the place where lofty ambitions collide with cold realities, the place where some compelling priorities win out over other equally compelling priorities, the place where a serious misstep can ruin, or at least injure, the legitimate financial interests of millions of citizens. Crafting a budget is a complex and challenging task.

In a parliamentary democracy it is even more difficult. We were elected as government, based upon commitments made to the Canadian people. The damage to confidence in democratic institutions is incalculable when governments renege on their commitments for anything short of catastrophic circumstances. We must be true to our word.

Yet other parties were elected because those who supported them had other priorities. Can we give due consideration to the priorities of the opposition? Can we just compromise for the sake of compromise, reneging on our commitments to Canadians? To ask that question is to answer it.

What are the unshakable commitments our government made to Canadians?

First and foremost, we promised to protect the jobs on which Canadians across this country depend. As I went door to door, my constituents made plain to me, that was their chief preoccupation. Some were just getting back to work after the recession. Some were still searching for work. Young Canadians, older Canadians, all were cautious in their optimism about the economy. Canadians have a right to be cautious.

Canada led the world in job creation, and we did that with one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios. However, elsewhere around the world, circumstances are much less favoured: nuclear disaster in Japan; debt crisis across the European Union; uprisings in the Middle East; and unbelievable debt and deficits in the United States. Canada is an island of stability in an ocean of uncertainty.

As a trading nation, we are not immune from global currents. Canadians have a right to temper their optimism with caution and governments have a duty to address those concerns.

Our budget offers a small business hiring credit to encourage job creation. We are also extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for machinery for two additional years to assist manufacturers in Kitchener Centre and across this country. We are reviewing the best 14 weeks and working while on EI pilot projects for one year to give relief to Canadian families. The budget also includes $20 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation support of young entrepreneurs.

Further, this budget's job creation measures support a cleaner energy economy. This includes renewed investments totalling almost $100 million over two years in clean energy and energy efficiency research. I am especially pleased that this budget also delivers $400 million more for the eco-energy for home retrofit program. I pressed hard for this program, which combines job creating retrofits with greenhouse gas reducing energy efficiencies.

However, our long-term economic health depends on more than just immediate job creation. It also depends on expanding our corporate revenues by lowering our corporate tax rate.

A simplistic view might consider that the idea of reducing the tax rate contradicts the idea of expanding the corporate tax base. In the real world, it is no contradiction. Studies have shown that lower taxes will induce corporations to book their profits in Canada, creating more revenue than we lose through lower rates.

Our long-term economic health also depends on jobs for the long term. Our investment in the multi-nation allied procurement of F-35 jets will do exactly that. Not only will companies like Héroux-Devtek in my riding get to bid on jobs building Canadian jets, but also on jobs building jets for Norway, France, Great Britain and half a dozen other allies.

This budget also plans for the future by investing in a myriad of other innovation, education and training opportunities.

Finally, our long-term economic health depends upon eliminating the deficit.

Has it ever occurred to those members who embrace socialist policies that deficit financing, borrowing to finance government programs, results in a kind of reverse Robin Hood, a Robin Hood who takes from middle-income Canadians, in taxes, to pay to those wealthy enough to lend to the government, in interest? This is not the economic justice that a government owes its citizens and it limits our future capacity to provide health and education and other necessary services.

Our budget sets out a low tax plan to return to balanced budgets. We will deliver on the 2010 round of strategic reviews. We will take action to close tax loopholes. We will launch a comprehensive strategic and operating review to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

The budget also includes other priorities. We will lift the poorest seniors out of poverty with enhanced GIS. We will introduce new tax relief for family caregivers of infirm dependents. We will end the anti-democratic per vote state subsidy of some, but not all political parties. We will encourage children to participate in the arts. We will leverage more research into brain diseases like Alzheimer's and MS.

In short, we will match lofty ambitions against cold realities. We will pursue some compelling priorities over other priorities. We will protect the legitimate financial interests of millions of Canadians against serious government missteps.

Does that mean that dialogue and collaboration have no place in the future of 41st Parliament? Once we live up to our commitments, I hope there will be room for compromise. Providing we all respect the fundamental needs of ordinary Canadians, we can all work together in this Parliament.

Our government has proved it is willing to listen. When the current opposition leader proposed NDP priorities for the budget crafted in March, we listened. Eco-energy, GIS enhancement, incentives for rural medical recruitment, we found we could agree with those proposals and we put them in the budget.

Will the opposition pay us mutual respect? Will it compromise its demands? Will it support this sensible budget? I urge the opposition to demonstrate its desire to collaborate by supporting this budget, accepting that our government was elected based on the commitments made in the budget.

In this spirit, I want to close by quoting from the words of a great Canadian. His words express the spirit of this budget. His words speak especially to the fresh idealism of our new members of Parliament. He said:

As for you who stand today on the threshold of life, with a long horizon open before you for a long career of usefulness to your native land...I shall remind you that already many problems rise before you: problems of race division...of creed differences...of economic conflict...of national duty and national aspiration.... Let your aim and purpose, in good report or ill, in victory or defeat, be so to live, so to strive, so to serve as to do your part to raise even higher the standard of life and living...

These are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our seventh prime minister. Let us heed him and join together to pass this budget, doing our part to raise even higher the standard of life and living of all Canadians.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his inspiring speech on the budget. There is no doubt that he was inspired by it, anyhow, I am sure.

However, my question for him is about low taxes. I look at this budget and at the projections for personal income tax over the period of the next six years and I see that personal income tax collection in Canada will go from $100 billion to $151 billion over that period of time. That will be about a 50% increase in the amount of personal income tax that will come out of the average Canadian's pocket.

There will be inflation and an increase in the workforce, but those will not add up to that much of an increase in taxation.

I would like my colleague to explain to me how he can consider this a low tax budget for Canadians when we see such a marvellous increase in the tax take.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his kind and generous comments. I have noticed him to be a gentleman in this House throughout and I am happy to thank him and encourage him in that, as I would all members.

I think my hon. colleague across the way knows very well, as all Canadians do, that if there is one thing they can count on this government to do, it is to keep personal income taxes low. That is why members will not find any increase in tax rates if they examine the budget. They will not find any reduction in personal exemptions. In fact, they will just find that we are doing more of the same with tax credits, for example, for children in the arts and for family caregivers of infirm dependants.

I would remind my friend that since 2006 our government has cut taxes 120 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in over 50 years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. The comment starts with the Conservative convention this past weekend and the many measures asked of the government to simplify the tax code and simplify tax measures. Yet in every budget that comes by, we see tax credit after tax credit. I have a large shoebox filled with receipts that I have to keep, which makes things even more complicated. That is even besides the refundable versus non-refundable measures.

My question is on the strategic review. This is a code word for cuts. We all know that and we all know that cuts are coming. However, what is exactly is coming has to make its way through the system and by the time we see it, it will be a lot more dangerous than we first realized.

At the beginning of question period, the Prime Minister said there would be no cuts to essential services, yet one service that is very important to the east coast of this country, the search and rescue sub-centre in St. John's, is being cut.

Last night, it responded to an emergency call. What will happen with the next call?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way might be aware that in my community of the Waterloo region, we lead the world in high-tech innovation. So I want to assure him that all that that is going to happen with the change he referred to is that calls will go electronically from one place to another. All of the search and rescue equipment that exists regionally will remain and will be capable of being directed.

Believe me, in the 21st century, as I am sure my friend knows, electronic communications make the problem he is referring to virtually negligible, particularly given the BlackBerry from the Waterloo region and the many other digital innovations out of my community of Kitchener where, by the way, Google Canada now has its head office.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House to deliver my first complete speech following the recent election.

Like other members with their ridings, I would like to take one moment to thank the voters of Lac-Saint-Louis for showing their confidence in me once again by re-electing me to represent them in the House of Commons for the fourth time since 2004. It is a privilege and responsibility that all members of the House understand deeply, having been through this common experience of being chosen by one's fellow citizens, friends, neighbours and constituents to represent them in the House.

To get back to the topic at hand, the 2011 budget redux, I would point out that June 6 was an important date in tax history in Canada, tax freedom day. Every year tax freedom day occurs at a later date because of bracket creep. As incomes go up, people move into higher brackets and are paying more and more tax.

This brings me to a related point, which is the fact that individual taxpayers are carrying more and more of the tax burden in this country and corporations are carrying less and less. I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in Le Devoir back in March.

The article was by Hélène Buzzetti and the headline said: “Corporate tax cuts meant that more than 50% of federal government revenues in 2010 came from individuals.”

The article goes on to say that individuals are paying 50% of government revenues. Some would say that is because corporations are paying a smaller percentage as a result of the recession, which has reduced corporate profits and therefore corporate taxes. Yet if one looks at the projections for 2012-13, when the government sees a return to better economic times, even then individual taxpayers will collectively be paying 49% of the tax revenues of this country. In some ways one could say that by allowing the federal corporate tax rate to continue to drop, the federal government is really giving us a budget that increases the tax burden.

What I find interesting in the government's argument is that it likes to have it both ways. It likes to tell us that when things do not go well, it is the fault of the international economy and fact that demand south of the border is not as strong as it should be and that we therefore suffer the consequences in terms of lower employment and corporate profits. Then, on the other hand, it wants to take credit for everything good that happens. It says that if we cut corporate taxes, we will have greater employment. However, there is a contradiction there.

The fact that employment is not growing as fast as it could is because of the recession south of the border and that we are an exporting nation. Cutting the corporate tax rate will not spur companies to invest. Anyone who has taken economics 101 knows that investment responds to heightened confidence and heightened confidence is a result of heightened demand.

Therefore, as long as markets in the Untied States remain soft, there will not be an incentive for the corporate sector in Canada to invest. In fact, we have seen evidence of that because corporations collectively have been sitting on about $400 billion of cash. That means they have all the money they need to invest, but they are not investing because the economic climate in the United States is not encouraging them to invest. It is not a question of there not being enough money to invest; and even if a company did not have large cash reserves, it could borrow at historically low interest rates. The reason companies are not doing that as much as they should is the situation with demand in the United States.

Another point I would like to raise in regard to corporate tax cuts is something that has not really been discussed because it is a bit technical. When the corporate tax rate is reduced in Canada, so is the dividend tax credit that individual taxpayers apply on their taxes for the dividend income they receive. That is because of the relationship between the corporate tax rate and the dividend tax credit. Therefore, if corporate tax rates are reduced, the dividend tax credit is reduced. In fact, taxes will increase for Canadians.

The other issue that is quite important to keep in mind is that when a multinational corporation pays tax in Canada, it gets a credit on its U.S. corporate income tax. If it pays less corporate tax in Canada, that credit will not be as great. So the company's lower corporate income tax paid in Canada will be offset by higher corporate income tax paid to the U.S. Treasury. That dampens any positive effect that reducing corporate income taxes could have.

An interesting point from an article in the The Economist in May is that when taxes on a company's profits go down, most of them are paid out in the form of dividends to shareholders. For example, there was a study done by Kristin Forbes, a former member of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, which found that for every extra dollar of foreign profits American firms brought home because of lower taxes abroad, or for whatever reason, American firms tended not to invest but to pay out from 60¢ to 92¢ more to shareholders.

To say that if we reduce corporate taxes all of a sudden there will be an investment boom is really not a proper conclusion to draw.

The other issue, for example, is that our corporate tax rates are much lower than those of our competitors, so there is no reason to drop them more at this time. It will not have any impact on corporate behaviour. One can look at Dell Computers, which moved out of a low corporate tax rate country to a higher corporate tax rate country. It went from Ireland to Poland where the corporate taxes were higher. That negates the argument that the government makes about attracting investment. Why did it go to Poland? It went to Poland because it was searching for a lower wage rate. What really attracts companies is not so much lower tax rates, but lower wage rates.

I think members would agree that the mission we have given ourselves as a country is not to become the lowest wage country in the hemisphere. That is not where we are headed. We are trying to produce the most innovative products and services that we can using our brain power. In other words, we want to encourage economic growth through innovation.

How do we do that? We invest in education. We make sure that all of the best minds in Canada who want to go to university can have a chance to go to university. That is what we were trying to do in our Liberal platform in the last election with our philosophy that if a student gets the grades, he or she gets to go. That is why we were offering students $1,000 a year for every year of CEGEP and university that they complete. That would have been very valuable for students and for their families, the middle-class families that the party opposite claims to have a monopoly on representing. Those families are facing higher tuition fees. In Quebec, tuition fees will be going up $400 to $500 a year for the next few years. Families need some relief. We were ready to give them relief through that $1,000 a year that we were going to give their sons and daughters to help pay for their tuition. That is what we need to do. We need to innovate. We need to encourage innovation. We encourage innovation by opening our universities to the broadest pool of minds possible.

There is another way to encourage innovation and that is to invest directly in research and development facilities. We have not encouraged basic research to the extent that we should if we want to be a leading nation in the international economy of the 21st century.

Do members know that the last Nobel Prize for Medicine Canada received was in 1923 and it went to Banting and Macleod for the discovery of insulin. That means there is something wrong. We are not innovating the way we should.

I would like to propose that we invest in something called the Canadian molecular biology laboratory, which is a concept that is being advocated by a McGill scholar and friend of mine Dr. John Bergeron, who has seen the model work in Europe. Europe has a molecular biology laboratory and it attracts the best minds from across the world to work on molecular biology science, which produces dividends in terms of drug discovery later on. That is particularly important to my constituency which houses a number of brand name pharmaceutical companies which could benefit from some spinoffs in the area of basic research and molecular biology.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Monday, June 6, 2011, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the amendment and the main motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #2

The Budget

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.