Debates of June 5th, 2023

Decorum

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. If individuals want to have conversations, they need to take them outside. Individuals can approach me and try to have a conversation quietly here, but they cannot have one across to each other while I am trying to listen to a point of order before the House.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is our contention and belief, as more and more Canadians are realizing, that the position of the rapporteur is fake and the idea that there is independence around it is also fake. The government may believe something different, but it is certainly our right as opposition members of Parliament to make that assertion.

On Thursday, my question was interrupted by the Speaker because of that word, and that really puzzled me, because I have sat in that chair before and I know the exercise that one must go through in listening to interventions and assessing whether they are orderly or disorderly. It is truly a context-driven exercise.

When I used the expression “phony rapporteur” last week, I certainly was not imputing motives on the part of any hon. member or suggesting that any member was deliberately misleading the House. In my view, the use of the word “phony” was acceptable and parliamentary in the circumstances. Citation 490 of Beauchesne's identifies a list of examples of expressions that, between 1958 and the mid-1980s, were held to be parliamentary. They are actually in Beauchesne's, in a list of words that have been ruled parliamentary. Not only is it not on the list of unparliamentary words, but it is on the list of parliamentary words. I refer you to page 147 of Beauchesne's sixth edition.

“Phony” appears on that list with four separate rulings in support of it being a parliamentary expression: Mr. Speaker Michener, on July 7, 1959, at page 5624 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on July 11, 1959, at page 5849 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on May 19, 1960, at page 4051 of the Debates; and Chair of Committees of the Whole Herman Batten, on April 21, 1967, at page 15206 of the Debates.

Perhaps more importantly, the expression has been in common use in the House since that time. Punching the term “phony” into the House's website search engine for parliamentary publications reveals hundreds of occasions when the term appears in Hansard. I know that I heard it often when I served as the chair occupant between 2006 and 2015.

Here is one example by then leader Bob Rae, at page 6077 of the Debates, from March 12, 2012, which has a lot of resonance in this debate. It states:

...if the hon. member is so certain about his phony allegations, perhaps he would agree with me that the time has now come for a royal commission into what happened in the last election and what happened in previous elections to ensure that it never happens again.

On February 14, 2013, the member for Charlottetown, at page 14160 of the Debates, referred to a minister's “phony performance”. On April 1, 2015—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think I have heard quite a bit on this. The hon. opposition House leader has been in the Speaker position before, so I know he is well aware of the following:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day. The codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn.

Given the fact that the hon. Speaker has already ruled on this, it is not a matter that I am prepared to continue to entertain.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I take the point. I anticipated that you were going to mention that ruling, so I have something that I would like you to consider. We do have question period later on today—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up in one minute.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I will do my best, Madam Speaker.

You are absolutely right that there is context and that it is the Speaker's job to judge many factors when considering whether or not a term or a word is unparliamentary. However, I put it to you that it is a tactic of the government to take offence at words or phrases that have been used before, and they caused the disorder—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is becoming a point of debate, so I am going to shut it down. The Speaker has already ruled on this. I will certainly take the additional information the member has provided under advisement, and we will come back to the House if need be.

[Mark Gerretsen]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have just closed down this particular point of order by the House leader of the official opposition. I have already stated that. If the hon. parliamentary secretary has a different point of order, I will come back to him, because somebody else has one.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, you said that you would take it under advisement. If you do, I would like to add something to it, which is that, if you need other examples of comparison for this, you might want to refer to Wayne Easter's Canadian heritage moment when he referred to the then leader of the opposition as a “pigeon”, and the Speaker responded to that at the time. I would be happy to share the video of that if you would like to see it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have heard enough on this particular issue. As I said, the Speaker has already ruled on this. I do not see us coming back to the House, but we will certainly look at the information provided and will come back if need be.

If individuals want to have conversations, I would ask them to take them outside.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to your attention to proceed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. official opposition House leader may want to take his conversation outside.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a procedural matter related to Question No. 1013, which I submitted on November 23, 2022. My question was:

With regard to the government’s spectrum licensing, broken down by designated tier: (a) how many spectrum licenses are currently unused; (b) how many license holders have (i) failed to meet the deployment requirement, (ii) deployed less than 50 percent of their spectrum license; (iii) deployed less than 75 percent of their spectrum license, (iv) deployed less than 100 percent of their spectrum license; (c) what is the breakdown of each response in (a) and (b), by spectrum license—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member that I really do not need to know what the question was and that he should just tell me what the issue is.

Again, if the member is not satisfied with the answer from the government, that is not something the Chair would rule on. I would ask that he explain exactly what he is raising in the point of order, without going into all of those details.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is a very detailed question, and it goes on through all the different spectrums, which is a very complicated subject. What we attempted to do was try to peel the onion back and understand what will actually be going on with the government with spectrum management in the coming days. However, the bottom line is that the government did not answer anyone, did not refer to any cause, did not even refer to megahertz or gigahertz, and did not use a technical term at all for a very technical question.

I am asking you, Madam Speaker, to refer to Standing Order 39(5)(b), which states:

If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of 45 days, the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond.

As I noted, or was trying to note, my questions were not answered. Failing to answer these questions prevents me from fulfilling my duties as a member of Parliament. Failing to answer this question on this particular subject matter raised in an Order Paper question is preventing me from fulfilling my duties as shadow minister for rural economic development activity.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule that when the government significantly ignores the substance of an Order Paper question, this should be considered a failure to answer, for the purposes of Standing Order 39(5)(b). That way, the government's refusal to answer a written question can be referred to a committee for review.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member very much. However, I want to remind members that, while members should have access to relevant and accurate information to ensure that they can fulfill their parliamentary functions, it is not for the Chair to evaluate the content of responses to written questions. Again, this is a response from the Speaker. As with Oral Questions, it is acceptable for the government, in responding to a question, to indicate to the House that it cannot supply an answer.

Again, I will take the additional information that the hon. member has provided and come back to the House if need be.

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte has a point of order as well.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a pattern developing here. I also would like to bring forward my issue with a non-answer, actually a failure to answer my question that was put, which is Question No. 1002. This is a very short question. It is not that I did not like the answer; I did not get an answer. In its answer, the government is saying it did not answer. I will put this into the record to show you another quick instance. My short question was:

With regard to meetings and other communications between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety or their exempt staff, and the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, since January 1, 2020: what are the details of all such meetings or other communications, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of communication (text message, group chat, in-person meeting, etc.), (iii) participants, (iv) subject matter, (v) agenda items or summary of discussion, (vi) decisions made, if any?

This is where I would really like to get into the details—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I do not need the details of questions. I have an idea of the question that has been put forward. I would just encourage greater co-operation between members and ministers in their exchange of information and correspondence. This is all part of what has been discussed.

I am going to go to orders of the day.

I have a question of privilege. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Alleged Breach of Government Obligation to Appoint Officer of Parliament

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that, having stood to be recognized on a question of privilege, my standing should have come prior to that piece of business being moved, so I would seek a ruling from the Chair on that item and ask for you to come back to the House.

I gave notice to the Speaker's office about the question of privilege that I am raising. It concerns the government's not appointing a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I would like to draw attention to pages 80 and 81 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers. As the authors of Odgers’ Senate Practice (Australia) state: “The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions.” In that sense, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege.”

At page 82, there is a list of those offences. They include “interfering with or obstructing a person who is carrying out a lawful order of the House or a committee”. In this case, the government is refusing to fill the position of an officer of Parliament who is charged with carrying out the lawful orders of the House. On the same page, it also lists as an offence. “failing to fulfill any requirement of the House, as declared in a code of conduct or otherwise, relating to the possession, declaration, or registration of financial interests or participation in debate or other proceedings.”

Without an Ethics Commissioner in place, there is no one on duty to ensure that members fulfill the requirements of the House, as described by the House in law and in its rules. There are serious questions that remain unanswered, like that of Michael Sabia, the former deputy minister of finance, who is now with Hydro-Québec. Mr. Sabia and the finance department were repeatedly lobbied by Hydro-Québec throughout his tenure as the deputy minister. Hydro-Québec approached Mr. Sabia about a job there, but Mr. Sabia declined to pursue it until the budget was released. He knew what the job was, and, lo and behold, the budget contained direct benefits for Hydro-Québec. There are many questions arising from this case that can be answered only by the Ethics Commissioner, and there is not one. Did Mr. Sabia report that job offer? Hydro-Québec lobbied finance, and both the company and the former deputy minister stood to benefit from the decisions he just made in government. It is actions like these that damage the public trust in institutions.

The Liberal government, this one in particular, its Prime Minister and its ministers, has a record of repeated ethical breaches that further reinforce the question of privilege I am raising now about the need for an Ethics Commissioner to be appointed.

There are several references in reports that have been tabled in the House, which I would like considered. They include the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report”. Both of these outline the first time in the government's history that a prime minister has been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We also have the now intergovernmental affairs minister who was found guilty of breaking the Ethics Act, and the then president of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, who had given a contract worth $24 million to a family member. The same is true with the former finance minister. We have seen repeated reports of breaches of this code.

Madam Speaker, I want to refer you to Joseph Maingot's 2nd edition of Parliamentary Privilege, page 227. It says, “In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply: Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.” This citation is in reference to a ruling from March 21, 1978, at page 3975 of Debates, where the Speaker cites the report of the U.K. select committee on parliamentary privileges, and from a ruling of October 10, 1989, at pages 4457 to 4461 of Debates.

In a ruling of October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of Debates, the Speaker said:

In considering this matter, I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...and considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.

Finally, on March 27, 1969, at page 853 of the Debates, the Speaker ruled:

[The member] has, perhaps, a grievance against the government in that capacity rather than in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. On the other hand, honourable Members know that the House has always exercised great care in attempting to protect the rights and privileges of all its Members. Since there is some doubt about the interpretation of the precedents in this situation, I would be inclined to resolve the doubt in favour of the honourable Member.

We have an unprecedented situation, in which the government has an obligation, based on laws passed by members duly elected to the House, to appoint one of those guardians, one of those whose position allows them to safeguard the confidence of Canadians in this democratic institution. AS in the question I raised with respect to the former deputy minister, Mr. Sabia, testimony at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which now appears in Hansard, was heard from spokespeople from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner who said they are unable to fulfill their obligations because of the vacancy in this role.

Members have the right to be able to file with the Commissioner, and the Commissioner then has an obligation to investigate these complaints and whether or not a breach of the act has occurred. In this case, it is incredibly serious. It deals with a deputy minister of the Crown then taking a position, a lucrative one, with a company like Hydro-Québec, which benefited substantially from the budget Mr. Sabia presided over as the deputy minister. Once that cash hit the table, he was out the door and into a job at Hydro-Québec.

It is only reasonable that members of the House, on behalf of Canadians, in order to ensure their confidence in the processes we have in place, would be able to raise that with an independent officer of Parliament so there could be an investigation. If that officer of Parliament were to find there was in fact a breach, there are ramifications for that; if not, then the matter is disposed of.

This is only one example, because we are not going to hear from all members of the official opposition today on other issues they have observed and that they would like investigated or raised with the Ethics Commissioner, because no one is in that position. In fact, when a standing committee of the House did send for a representative from that office, the office had no one to send except a communications director. I have checked, and if the Speaker consults the act, they are not going to find that members of the House are to raise concerns with the GR director, the PR director or the comms director for the offices of independent officers of this place.

They do not have powers that are given to them by statute or by law. The government has that obligation. It also has the power to appoint someone on an interim basis, but it is refusing to exercise that power. What this demonstrates is that the government is availing itself of the ability to mind the store without anyone counting the register at the end of the day.

All members of this House were duly elected by their constituents. The official opposition is composed of members who have exercised the right to raise issues to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That independent office has, in the past, found breaches by ministers of the Crown and by other designated public office holders.

Madam Chair, I am asking for you to consider this question, come back to the House and make a ruling on whether my privilege, as a member of this House, has been violated by the government's actions and inactions in this case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. Certainly, we will get back to the hon. member on that.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are 904 motions and amendments standing on the notice for the report stage of Bill C-47. I will get to the points of order after I am finished.

Motions Nos. 690 and 750 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. Motions Nos. 456 to 683 will not be selected by the Chair because they are repetitive and could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749, and 751 to 904 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749 and 751 to 904 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 78.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 79.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 212.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 213.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 214.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 218.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 238

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 242.1.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 241

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 244

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 248.1.

Motion No. 247

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 249.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 250.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 251.

Motion No. 250

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 252.

Motion No. 251

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 252

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 254.

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 255.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 256

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 257

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 258

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 259

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 260

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 261

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 262

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 263

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 264

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

Motion No. 265

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 266

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 267

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 268

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 269

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 270

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 271

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 272

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 273

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 274

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 275

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No. 276

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 277

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

Motion No. 278

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 280.

Motion No. 279

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 281.

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 282.