Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2021

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled on this as the Chair who is presiding over this chamber right now. If the member is not going to accept your ruling, it is your duty to remove her from the chamber.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I accept that the member has retracted it. Let us just continue on so we can get to question period.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sadly the throne speech was about further bloating the size of government, which means Canadians would now be required to spend more of their hard-earned money on tax hikes and inflation. Let us just explore that for one moment.

In the speech, it was said the Prime Minister wants to make life more affordable for all Canadians. In fact, he is doing the exact opposite, but members do not actually need me to tell them that. No one does, because if they have shopped at a local grocery store, eaten at a restaurant, paid a home heating bill or filled their gas tank with fuel, they already know that life is getting more expensive. Why is that? The name of the bad news is inflation, and it is driven by terrible government policy.

Those who are hurt the most by the government's decision to spend money that it does not have are seniors on a fixed income, those who live with a disability and are on a small stipend, and those who live paycheque to paycheque and struggle to make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker, I am very distracted by the conversation that is taking place across the way. Perhaps that could be taken care of.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Just make sure that we keep calm in the chamber and maybe try to keep it quiet.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

In short, the government's policies are an attack on the most vulnerable. Food banks are finding it difficult to keep up with the level of need they are seeing, and one of the biggest changes over the last year has been the rise in the number of people who are employed full-time having to use food banks because they simply cannot pay their bills.

The Prime Minister says he does not think that much about monetary policy. That is obvious. He handed himself a blank cheque in the spring of 2020, and he has been printing and spending money ever since. The government has handed out exorbitant amounts of money in the name of emergency income, but the books show that the personal disposable income of Canadians has actually increased during the pandemic. Earned income has dropped significantly, but the enormous government handouts have more than covered the loss. As a result, tons of extra money are flooding the economy, but there is the same number of goods, if not less.

The outcome is higher prices, because an endless supply of printed money combined with limited goods actually drives up prices. The sad thing is that it is the wealthy who benefit when those prices rise, because it adds to their profits. Meanwhile, low wage earners must make their dollars stretch further to cover their necessities. All the while, the government is bloating in size not only by spending all this extra money, but by raking it back through taxation.

One dollar used to be worth one dollar. Today, one dollar is only worth 95 cents. If the government were to increase taxes by 5%, there would probably be massive outrage, but that is just it. That is exactly what the government did. It is called inflation tax. It simply comes with this name.

As the member for Carleton has pointed out, “countries that are not printing money to pay their bills have maintained a low cost of living and an affordable life for their citizens.” Meanwhile, “Those countries that are flooding their economies with cheap cash are driving up the cost of living,” and making it less affordable.

There is an inconvenient truth that seems to have been willfully ignored. Reining in fiscal spending would necessitate limited government. This, of course, is a horrible restraint for any political party that only attains or maintains power when people are reliant on the government for its programs and handouts.

The Liberals are actually choosing to be fiscally irresponsible for the sake of political advantage, and it is putting our economic future in great jeopardy. What is the solution? It is simply to stop printing money, rein things in and be fiscally responsible. That is what this country deserves.

“We, the people” is a powerful phrase. Is it not? When the people feel the freedom to live up to their potential all of society benefits, but in order for this to happen the government has to get out of the way.

Serving as a member of Parliament has afforded me the extraordinary opportunity to speak with many Canadians about the type of Canada they desire. I have heard countless stories from visionaries who want to build businesses, invent new technologies, help those who are suffering and improve our society in areas where we have fallen short. All of these conversations and general observations have given me a tremendous amount of hope for this nation's future. Unleashing the potential of the Canadian people is the key to our success.

Members can imagine what it would look like if the bridles of red tape and regulation were thrown off and entrepreneurs were given the freedom to take risks, to make investments, to prosper and to help others prosper. This is the type of Canada that we can create, not through government handouts and increased control, but by creating opportunity for each and every Canadian to invest their gifts, talents and abilities to prosper.

It is Canadians who are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth creators, not the government. No matter the handouts it gives, we will not get ahead. A good leader puts people first. Sadly, that is not what the Prime Minister did in the throne speech. It is not what he has endeavoured to do on behalf of this great country, and for this reason, I cannot support the Speech from the Throne.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague once again demonstrated that she is a moderate parliamentarian, just as she did when she spoke about Quebec artists, but that is another matter.

We often hear the same mantra from the Conservatives: “We have a plan. We need a plan.” We do not know what that plan is, but they are constantly telling us about it. I would like to see that plan.

The amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition talks about respecting provincial jurisdiction. The leader of the official opposition said that was important, and he was very hard on the government. The only time he said something positive was when he commended the government for creating a department of mental health. Does that respect provincial jurisdictions? I wonder.

I would like my colleague, in her great wisdom, to tell us whether health falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take any questions having to do with the matter we are speaking about, which is the Speech from the Throne. I was just asked a question that does not pertain that, so I am going to pass.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the government needing to get out of the way. When it comes to merchant fees, Canada's merchants pay some of the highest fees in the world. In the U.K. they pay 0.3%, in France 0.28% and in Australia 0.5%. In Canada, we have a rate of 1.4% on the interchange fees.

Liberals, in the last budget, said they were going to do something about that and cap merchant fees, yet we have not seen any action from the Liberal-Conservative coalition. They protect the big banks, protect the big credit card companies and the super wealthy.

Does my colleague agree there is a time for government intervention when it comes to small businesses being hosed by credit card companies and the big banks?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have hurt the feelings of the Liberals right there. He hurt their feelings and perhaps it requires an apology. I am not sure. I will let the Speaker rule on that.

At the end of the day, his question is whether the government should be more involved, and if the government should engage specifically with merchant fees, as he is highlighting.

Governments should have a very limited role in how we progress as a society and how we function as a nation. Its only role should be to make sure we are unified as a country, our borders are kept safe and secure, that we drive an environment of economic prosperity and that we further ourselves on the world stage. If it fits into one those four, let us do it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by talking about Canadians' abilities to dream and pursue and chase after future technologies and opportunities, yet the Conservatives are stuck in this era of extracting oil. It is all they care about. It is what they talk about over and over.

If this is the case, why is it so hard for this member and the Conservative Party to recognize there is a future beyond oil and that we should be chasing, pursuing and going after that?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member how he brushed his teeth this morning. At least I hope he did. I would ask the hon. member what his suit is made out of and whether that used petroleum at all. I would ask him if his tie has any petroleum, or his pin, his shirt, his shoes, his computer or perhaps his hair products. I would ask the member how he got here.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I walked.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You walked all the way from your constituency? Do not lie. You are held accountable in this place.

I would ask the hon. member to tell me if we should just ixnay oil and gas. Does he want to sit naked in a forest somewhere? The vast majority of Canadians surely do not want to.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in this place to deliver my maiden speech, like all members, I feel a great sense of responsibility, honour and commitment to the people of my community who have entrusted me with their voice.

Like all members, my ability to stand here is a result of a team effort of family, friends and volunteers who believe in all of us.

For me, it has been a long journey, starting with my service for eight years as a ministerial assistant in the Mulroney and Campbell governments. I learned so much from those whom I worked for, from MP Bill Attewell, to ministers of the Crown, the Hon. Barbara McDougall and the Hon. Peter McCreath. I must thank them for their mentorship and guidance.

I must also acknowledge my wife Wendy Waite whom I met when she was working for the Hon. Pat Carney and the Right Hon. Kim Campbell. Free trade brought us together, but I can tell members about that another time. She has supported my lifelong journey to this place like no other.

I acknowledge my parents Rosemarie Borgald Perkins and William Perkins, who instilled in me the belief of possibilities and the need for hard work to achieve those possibilities. My mother's family landed in Lunenburg 277 years ago, in 1753. I am the eighth generation in a row to live in my community.

Two other people I need to thank out of the hundreds of volunteers are my campaign anchors for seven years in South Shore—St. Margarets. Evelyn Snyder and Rick Muzyk have been with me on this journey since 2014. It started with my nomination campaign against Richard Clark. I could not stand in this place without their support and belief.

When I had the great privilege of joining members of all sides last Tuesday to march to the other place to listen to the Speech from the Throne, I had high expectations that issues that were of concern to my community would be addressed. While I stood behind our Speaker in the other place, I was sorely disappointed.

As I listened to the rehashed broken promises of the 2015 Liberal platform, it reminded me of one of the most famous quotes by the Right Hon. Kim Campbell when speaking of a political opponent. She said that style “without substance is a dangerous thing.” Style without substance appears to be the theme the PMO speech writers were thinking of when they wrote this document. I say this because the most important industry in my province and my riding is the fishery. There was no mention of the importance of the fishery in the throne speech. There was no mention of our forest products industry. There was no word said about tourism.

From Peggy's Cove to Chester, from Lunenburg to Liverpool, from New Ross to Mahone Bay, from Cape Sable Island to Shag Harbour, my community was looking for their concerns to be in the throne speech. My constituents were looking for a commitment from the government that we would all work toward more access to the commercial fishery for first nations, a commitment that this access be granted on the same rules and enforcement measures to which all commercial fisherman were subject. We have seasons for a reason.

My community was looking for a commitment that any public policy on the moderate livelihood fishery be developed in compliance with the legal framework of the Supreme Court's Marshall decisions, not outside of them as has been done so far.

When I was speaking with lobster fishermen Vincent Boutilier, Sandie Stoddard and Bobby Hynes, they expressed little surprise that the fishery was not mentioned. They said that over the last six years they had come to expect nothing but more bureaucracy from the Liberal government and more initiatives aimed at making it more difficult to earn a living from the sea. They recognized that the attacks by the the government on the fishery, whether through reduced quotas backed by questionable research, increased regulation and the threat of targeted marine protected areas aimed at shutting down the industry, were insidious ways the Liberals were using the smokescreen of conservation to reduce commercial fishing.

People who earn a living from the sea were looking for some recognition from the Liberals on the need for predation policy, a invasive species policy. There is an explosive growth of seals and sea lions, which is devastating our Atlantic and Pacific fish species. The government claims to care about the biodiversity of our oceans, but it has no policy and makes no effort to try to get our oceans back in balance.

The fishing communities were looking for some indication from the government that it acknowledged that it had made a huge mistake in the clawback from the fishermen who received the COVID-19 fish harvester benefit.

When launching this benefit during the COVID crisis, the government said, “Our fisheries operate under a unique structure and have faced distinct challenges throughout this pandemic.” The Liberals bragged about how hard they had worked to get it right, and now they have it wrong and are attacking the men and women at the back of the boat.

Let me explain. Almost all fishermen are paid a share of the profits from the catch, not a regular wage. Since the days of commercial whaling, this is how it has been. I know all members have likely read the book Moby Dick. In this classic, the narrator of the tale, Ishmael, explains the following. “I was already aware that in the whaling business they paid no wages; but all hands, including the captain, received certain shares—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. I understand that it is hard to quote from things without using props. I would ask the member to give me a little warning.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this tradition made it into the application process for the government's fish harvester benefit as a recognition that the traditional wage earner COVID benefits did not work for fishermen. The application the government put forward stated five situations which qualified for benefits. It recognized the centuries of pay structure for fishermen. DFO's application stated one of the types of fishermen's pay that was eligible, “sharepersons...who are crew members who earn a share of the revenue”, which is bang on. Therefore, why is the government taking it back from them? It is bait and switch, the Liberal approach to everything.

The federal government is demanding that 4,193 Canadian fishermen repay $25.8 million in COVID-relief assistance. More than half the fishermen issued overpayment letters are in Nova Scotia.

Travis Nickerson of Clark's Harbour in my riding received an overpayment letter. Travis said that the situation was a mess. He said, “They gave me something when I really needed it, and now they want it back.” Nickerson is paid a share of the catch. He saw his income drop in the first half of 2020 when COVID-19 crushed the demand for lobster worldwide.

The share-based earnings are evident, and there is record of employment, like all other fishermen. It is easy to see, yet the government seems to have its own departments fighting each other. It is time for the Minister of Fisheries to step up and do her job for all fishermen.

I will be relentless in speaking out for our fishermen, our forestry workers, our agriculture workers and our tourism businesses. All are being ignored and harmed by the government. When the chapter of the government is written in the history books, it will be a slim chapter of achievement. It will likely be titled with that great quote from Kim Campbell “Style without substance.”

As my friend Peter MacKay once said, it will take more than fancy socks and curly locks to run a government that cares about the hard-working Canadians in our resource industry.

This war on the resource industries has to stop. It is time for the government to recognize that the social programs we love, the jobs in Toronto office towers and the competitive advantage we have as a country are all as a result of our resources. Destroying them puts all of what we cherish at risk.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, depending on the Conservative member of Parliament who is standing, we often get a different approach on the CERB benefits. Sometimes Conservatives will be critical of the government because of the benefits. Then other Conservatives will talk about how important those CERB benefits were.

What is the policy of the Conservative caucus with respect to Bill C-2, which continues to support workers and businesses in different situations? Does the member support the principle of Bill C-2? On that matter, would he also provide his thoughts on whether Revenue Canada should be collecting where mistakes are made?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that a Liberal member would ask about consistency since the Liberals have promised child care six elections in a row and we have not seen one day care space.

With regard to the CERB and the fish harvester benefit, the member probably does not know and understand, since he is from a non-fishing riding in Winnipeg North, although I am not sure, that 99% of fisherman are paid by a percentage of the catch, and they have been for hundreds of years. That is why they did not qualify for CERB. CERB was for wage earners who were paid a regular wage. Fisherman are paid like a commissioned sales worker when they are at the back of the boat.

A special program, which we supported, was designed. It was a properly designed program with a proper application. The problem is that it was designed by DFO, but Revenue Canada does not understand how fishermen are paid. It just looks at a T4, notes that they are employees in the box and it wants their money back. The two departments will not talk to each other. All they have to do is look at the record of employment, see the week-by-week earnings and they will have the solution, but that is too complicated for the Liberal government.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his victory and welcome him to the House.

About a year ago, health experts around the world warned us that if we did not vaccinate the entire world, we risked the development of a mutated coronavirus that would then prove to be problematic and perhaps even vaccine resistant. Part of this was manifested in South Africa and India going to the WTO to request an exemption from intellectual property provisions to allow countries to produce the vaccine all over the world. I know the Liberal Party has opposed that measure at the WTO. I have not heard what the Conservative Party policy is on this.

Could my colleague tell us whether he supports the NDP in our call for the WTO waiver of the TRIPS regulations?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Speech from the Throne talked about intellectual property rights, another failing by the Liberal government to not address the concerns of many of our people. Absolutely, it was a fantastic thing that the whole world was able to get together, including businesses, to quickly develop a vaccine so we could control the spread of COVID. That is thanks to all the work of these global companies that produced a vaccine in record time, for which we should all be thankful.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his election and thank him for his speech.

Our Conservative colleagues seem to have a problem with oil's place in the throne speech. A few minutes ago, the Conservative member for Lethbridge made a comment that puzzled me a little and left me feeling concerned about my future. She said that a future without oil would entail living naked in the forest.

Does my colleague think that an oil-free future means living naked in the forest?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I found that issue concerning, but also enlightening. Nobody wants to see the member for Kingston and the Islands living naked in a forest, including himself.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park. I want to acknowledge that I am standing on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Since this is the first real opportunity I have had to speak, I feel it is important to begin with some acknowledgements.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank the voters of Halifax West for putting their trust in me. They know I will work every day to make their lives better and leave a better Canada for our next generation.

I want to give a special thanks to my family, especially my mother Houda; my children, my son Antonios, who managed my election campaign; my daughters Stephanie, Monica and Marena; all my volunteers and friends who did so much to bring me here today; as well as my father Stephen, who is watching from above with a great smile and a tear in his eye. I am going to make him proud.

It is hard to find the words to describe how very proud I am to rise today for the first time as the member for Halifax West.

Today I am profoundly humbled to stand and address my colleagues in this chamber as the first female member of Parliament to represent my community in the House of Commons. Most members are familiar with my predecessor, the Hon. Geoff Regan, a former speaker of this House, and I hope to continue his strong record of collaboration and advocacy.

All my colleagues know the feeling I am experiencing. It is one of pride, enthusiasm and passion for one’s community and country. We do not really know how to describe it, but we know this feeling is going to push us to do everything and anything we can to make a difference in the lives of the people who sent us here.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself to my new colleagues and talk about my riding.

My constituency of Halifax West is the most diverse and multicultural riding east of Montreal.

I would also like to share a few thoughts on the Speech from the Throne.

My name is Lena Metlege Diab. I am a proud Lebanese Nova Scotian, a mother of four children, a grandmother to four, a small business owner, a lawyer and a community volunteer. Though I am new to this chamber, I am not new to political life.

Prior to the election, I served two terms as a member of the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia, with you, Mr. Speaker, when you were in that chamber. I also served as the provincial cabinet minister responsible for justice, public safety, immigration and population growth, labour and advanced education, and Acadian affairs and francophonie. In 2013, I was appointed as the first female attorney general in Nova Scotia.

In my previous roles, I worked hard to push forward the cause of equity, address Nova Scotia’s economic and demographic challenges, and support businesses and workers. That is why I was so encouraged by the themes and priorities laid out in this year’s Speech from the Throne. What was clear to me was that the government gets the type of action this moment calls for. If ever there were a time when Canadians needed an active government, a government that takes the reins and charts the course, that time is now.

That is the vision I see in this year’s Speech from the Throne, one that is bold, forward-looking and intentional. It is an acknowledgement that our biggest problems will not simply right themselves, including the climate emergency, the housing shortage, the inequities experienced by many of our community members, and the challenges of building back our workforce and our industries from a once-in-a-lifetime economic shock. We have to act intentionally, collaboratively and urgently on them all, and we have to back that up with real investment and meaningful policy change.

I will now come back to the incredible diversity in my riding. As I knocked on doors in Halifax West, I met people from around the globe. Many are not yet Canadian citizens, but their stories are touching and inspiring to me. I myself experienced life as an immigrant when I came to Canada at the age of 11. What struck me the most about these people was their great hope and immense pride in being here and soon joining our Canadian family and community.

I remember my days as a young girl at St. Agnes Junior High in Halifax, feeling brand new to my city. At the time, I was still working to learn English, and I did not truly understand what the other children were saying about me. I knew they looked at the way I looked, the way I wore my hair, and I could sense they saw me as different from them.

However, after eight years serving as Nova Scotia's immigration minister, I know that today the hearts of Nova Scotians are more open than ever before. This is why I am so encouraged by the Speech from the Throne’s mentions of increasing immigration, reducing wait times for reunification and a continuing the commitment to resettle those displaced from their homes. My community is a daily reminder and living proof that our diversity is our strength.

I do not mean to imply that we have no challenges ahead, because that is far from the case.

There are many forms of hatred and discrimination in our communities, and truly addressing them requires continuous, vigilant action from all levels of government and collaboration from all members in the House. This is something I am committed to working on in my time here, and I see that too in the Speech from the Throne. We need active, renewed initiative when it comes to eliminating racism and bigotry from our communities. An essential part of my mission here is to do what I can to ensure my community and my country feel like home for every individual and family, no matter where they come from.

In Nova Scotia, we are now just counting the days before the mark of one million residents is passed. Having been on the front lines of that work, I could not be more proud. It is clear from the Speech from the Throne that this government understands how essential immigration is to strengthening our economy, our workforce, our communities and our public services in Nova Scotia and across the country.

At the same time, we must act purposefully to ensure that the economy we rebuild after this pandemic includes everyone. It is inconceivable to me that we would let the pandemic roll back the gains made by women and under-represented communities in the workforce.

I see the government's commitment in that in its establishing of an affordable national early child care system and its investing in the empowerment of Black, racialized and indigenous people.

I am encouraged by the priorities and the focus. I am encouraged because I came here to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, and I welcome the attention given to this pressing issues, which I heard about on the door steps.

I am ready for the work ahead, and I will do that work in my three languages. I feel it is important to bring my enduring love of the French language to the House every day I have the privilege of sitting here.

I also proudly address this House in the beautiful Arabic language, and I will do my very best to represent the many residents of Halifax West who speak it themselves.

[Member spoke in Arabic]

[English]

To conclude, let us all now get to work with renewed commitment to address the needs of Canadians and to make good on the promise of building back better.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House:

(a) following Oral Questions later this day, the House shall proceed to a recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-2, An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19;

(b) that the members to serve on the Standing Committee on Finance be appointed by the whip of each recognized party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party's members no later than 24 hours after the adoption of this order, and that the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of the committee no later than Monday, December 6, 2021;

(c) the Standing Committee on Finance shall be composed of six members of the Liberal Party, four members of the Conservative Party, one member of the Bloc Québécois and one member of the New Democratic Party;

(d) if Bill C-2 is read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance be invited to appear as a witness for the committee during the consideration of the bill, and that she answer questions for not less than two hours after her opening statement;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing and standing joint committees of this House, and that the committee be composed of Bardish Chagger, Ryan Turnbull, Mark Gerretsen, Sherry Romanado, Ruby Sahota, Greg Fergus, Michael Barrett, Blain Calkins, Eric Duncan, Brad Vis, Alain Therrien and Rachel Blaney;

(f) the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tomorrow at 12:30 p.m.;

(g) immediately upon the tabling of the report referred to in paragraph (e), it shall be concurred in;

(h) the Clerk of the House shall convene organizational meetings of all the Standing Committees no later than Friday, December 17, 2021;

(i) for the duration of the 44th Parliament:

(i) Standing Order 104(1) be amended by replacing the words “10 members”, with the words “12 members”,

(ii) Standing Order 104(2) be amended by replacing the words “10 members” with the following: “12 members, except for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which shall consist of 11 members”,

(iii) Standing Order 106(4) be amended by adding, after the words “any four members of the said committee”, the words “representing at least two different political parties”,

(iv) Standing Orders 104(5), 104(6)(b), 114(2)(e) and 114(2)(f) be suspended,

(v) Standing Order 108(1)(c) be amended by adding, after the word “subcommittees”, the words “, composed of members from all recognized parties,”; and

(j) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders, including to the marginal notes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. government House leader moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)