Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing now if this is going to become a standard answer. When the government members do not wish to answer a written question on the order paper, will their response be that they are not going to answer it because it involves a certain amount of money?

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, it was indeed in the reply of the minister, versus in the reply to the question. The reply to the question was in fact two and a half lines. That is all there was to it. That is why my colleague was asking for an explanation today as to why a question on the very serious matter of disaster management only warranted a two and a half line reply.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today my colleague from Etobicoke North asked a question concerning the fact that she had put a written question on the order paper. The Minister of Public Safety got up and made a reference to the fact that this cost $1,300, a figure used by him, to address a part of that question, and then went on to elaborate.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House that the Standing Committee on Finance meet during the week of November 12 to 16 for the purpose of hearing from witnesses in pursuance of its examination of Bill C-45, and that the following standing committees meet during the week of November 12 to 16 for the purpose of hearing from witnesses in pursuance of their consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-45: the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and, finally, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012  Mr. Speaker, I refer to a comment from my hon. colleague. He said that he could say emphatically that changing the age from 65 to 67 for old age security would definitely not have an effect on seniors. First of all, we know that the old age security program is sustainable without making changes to it at the moment, as the Auditor General told us.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012  Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with such a small document and my colleague is such an expert on financial issues, let me ask him this short question. On page 241 of the budget speech last March, Mr. Flaherty talked about the Employment Insurance Financing Board continuing to set the rate.

Census  Mr. Speaker, the government has recently started trying to make us believe that it believes in science, after taking the worst possible decision with respect to the long form census. Now Stats Can tells us that the data on mother tongue and home language that were recently published in the 2011 census are unreliable and cannot be compared to previous data.

Census  Mr. Speaker, scientists are concerned about the 2013 census data. This government is loudly proclaiming that it believes in science after making the worst possible decision about the census. Now, we have learned that the data on mother tongue and home language are not reliable.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. She spoke about old age security, which is a very important topic. She also mentioned the Auditor General's report. If I am not mistaken, this report compares the costs of maintaining the current system of retirement at the age of 65 to the costs of a system of retirement at the age of 67, as proposed by the government, which does not believe that the current system is sustainable.

Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act  Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague. Is it not a fact that it is already an indictable offence, under the Criminal Code, for somebody to riot whether they are covered or not? That is my first question. I believe, also, the member is claiming that it would allow police to pre-emptively arrest somebody who is wearing a mask.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That the House recognize that sections of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible and passed without further debate; that Bill C-45, the second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45A, an act to stop the delay on making MP pensions fair act, and Bill C-45B, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures; and That Bill C-45A be composed of clauses 475, 476 and 477 to 553 inclusively and subclause 545(1); that a clause adding the short title stop the delay on making MP pensions fair act be added to Bill C-45A; that Bill C-45A be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed; that Bill C-45B be composed of the remaining clauses of Bill C-45; that Bill C-45B retain the status on the order paper that Bill C-45 had before the adoption of this motion; that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and that Bill C-45A and C-45B be reprinted.

Government Appointments  No, no.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, I will say that we tested the system for sure back in the time of the Liberal government. Yes, we tested the system and went beyond it. However, I hope that we are not going to take the attitude today of, “Well you did it so we're going to do it”. That is not what we are here to do.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Malpeque for bringing up that very important point, which I did not underline in my presentation. He is quite right. If we look at Bill C-38 there were issues dealing with the environment, immigration and a host of other subjects where committees have not only the authority but the expertise to really treat these matters as a bill makes its way through the House.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has indeed touched on something that is even bigger than the discussion we are having today on omnibus legislature, the need for democratic reform. We need to go back to something we espoused many years ago, that MPs represent their constituents. All 308 of us here are duly elected and have a duty to speak on behalf of our constituents, as opposed to simply voting on matters as directed.