The House met at 11 a.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill has a very
simple concept. Crown corporations are split; some crown
corporations are subject to access to information and others are
not. That is basically the crux of the bill.
The Access to Information Act was passed in 1983 and gives
Canadians broad legal rights to get information from crown
corporations and federal government institutions. The
institutions then have 30 days to respond to those requests.
However, many crown corporations are exempt from the Access to
Information Act. I will list a number of them. The Canadian
Development Investment Corporation and Canada Lands Company are
both exempt. Canada Lands Company is the federal arm that sells
federal real estate. Why should it be exempt from access to
information? This does not make any sense. It is selling
Canadian assets.
Canada Post Corporation is also exempt. Why should it be
exempt? I had a letter from André Ouellet, the head of Canada
Post, objecting to my bill, saying that Canada Post is open and
accessible in front of committees. I happened to be the Reform
member on the public works committee in the last Parliament and
we had members of Canada Post Corporation in front of us. They
were anything but open. We were trying to get the subsidy on the
45 cent stamp whether it was going over to Purolator. We just
wanted the straight facts on how much of the 45 cent stamp goes
to Purolator. Canada Post simply refused to answer. However,
the letter I received from the head stated it was very open.
I have introduced this bill because it would open up Canada Post
to the Access to Information Act.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is another one. Why
should CBC not be subject to access to information? It should
have its books opened up. The Canadian National Railway is also
exempt. The Canadian Wheat Board is an interesting one because
there is legislation before the House now that would take the
wheat board out of the exemption status and put it into the area
where Canadians can get information.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation, Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation, Halifax Port Corporation and Montreal Port
Corporation are also exempt.
This is interesting. Why would Montreal and Halifax be exempt,
and yet there are a number of other ports where there is access?
This whole area is a dog's breakfast because some are open and
some are not.
All my bill would do is make all crown corporations subject to
access to information. There are a number of other members in
this House who have different access to information private
members' bills in, two on the government side and two on the
opposition side that I am aware of.
This shows Canadians' interest in having the government
accountable, government corporations, the federal departments
open so that Canadians can access them, can find out what is
going on inside.
This is not a closed club. This is just Canadians' money,
Canadians wanting to know what is going on. My bill is votable.
I am looking forward to the day when we can all stand up in this
House and vote for it because I think it is a bill that has broad
acceptance right across the floor, right around this House.
The reason this bill is put forward is to enhance public
confidence in our government. Confidence in government
institutions is dwindling.
In the last session of Parliament the auditor general published
a scathing report on the operation of crown corporations on
October 5, 1995. The auditor general is saying that crown
corporations need to clean up their act.
Their problems were either in corporate and strategic planning
or performance in measurement and reporting. Crown corporations
need to be brought up. They need to be enhanced so they are
accountable to the public.
I mentioned Canada Post. The government refused to put Canada
Post forward for access to information in the last Parliament.
Yet the Radwanski report, the report that did a detailed study of
Canada Post, recommended that in fact Canada Post be open to
access. The government failed to take that advice.
It is taxpayer money in these corporations that we are talking
about. It is not some business or whatever. There would also
have to be, in my mind, some cushions. For example, if there is
a crown corporation that is in the open market, there would have
to be some cushion that would allow that corporation to not
divulge all its information if it is competing with a private
enterprise because it has to be a level playing field.
It could not be allowed to open everything up so that the other
corporation is private but then get into its market. There are
some stumbling blocks. They are not stumbling blocks but little
bumps on the road that need to be ironed out.
I would like to go over some of the corporations that I was
talking about before. These corporations are already open. The
Bank of Canada is open to access. CMHC and Canada Ports are
open.
As I was saying earlier, Canada Ports is free for access, yet
the Halifax port is not. It is just all over the place so that
if we go through the list it makes absolutely no sense why one
corporation, a port particularly, is not available and yet
another one is.
My bill simply makes all crown corporations open to access. I
think it is a good bill. I think it is a bill that will be
supported broadly across this House. I hope, particularly, that
the government side sees this as the way to go.
First of all, I would like to thank the members of my riding of
Bruce—Grey for returning me to Parliament. I came to this
country in 1966 with my family, my wife Verona, my daughter
Sonja, who was six months old at the time, and my son Andrew. I
knew it was one of the best countries in the world.
It has certainly proven itself to be so.
I was a high school teacher and in 1968 I moved to Owen Sound
and entered public life. I did so because I wanted to make a
difference, to make the community better. I became a Liberal
member because of the the programs of the Liberal Party of caring
for the aged, the young, health care and education.
There is no question that sometimes when I am sitting in the
House I am reminded of my old classroom days. I taught auto
mechanics to a young man named John Garvey who is now one of the
best mechanics we have in our city. I had many conversations
with him about his future and his career. I had conversations
with many young men in the locker room after a basketball game,
such as Kevin Belbeck who is now a veterinarian and has a good
life.
On June 2, I was reminded by the arrival of my grand-daughter,
Haley Jackson Bruin, a member of the next generation of the
Jackson family of this great country of ours. I know her future
will be sustained because we in the House, the highest court in
the land, do a good job with our human and material resources.
Bill C-216 tabled by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni is one
that I cannot support. The hon. member's bill will redefine the
current definition of government institution in section 3 of the
Access to Information Act to mean any department or ministry of
state of the Government of Canada listed on schedule I, any body
or office listed on schedule I, or any crown corporation as
defined in the Financial Administration Act.
In effect the bill would redefine government institution in the
Access to Information Act to include all crown corporations. A
weighty proposal, indeed, and one which warrants thorough
examination.
Passed in 1983, the act gave Canadians a broad legal right to
information recorded in any form under the control of most
federal institutions. Access rights are not absolute. They are
subject to specific and limited exemptions, balancing the freedom
of information against individual privacy, commercial
confidentiality and national security. The hon. member's bill
would alter that balance.
Some 27 crown corporations are already subject to the act. We
recognize in principle that crown corporations can be subject to
the act. For example, the Bank of Canada and Canada Post are
subject to the act, while Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not.
Bill C-216 would snare all crown corporations under the Access
to Information Act. It assumes no difference in purpose among
crown corporations. It does not consider the different
environments in which they operate and it makes no allowances for
the different demands placed upon crown corporations.
Canada's crown corporations operate at arm's length from the
government in providing services to Canadians. They do so within
the market in competition with private interests as the sole
actor in a given area. Therefore not all crown corporations
operate in the same environment or under the same conditions.
Those crown corporations that operate within the market do so in
a competitive setting. The market is useful in allocating
certain goods and services, but it is not perfect. A public
presences helps ensure the delivery of goods and services to
Canadians where delivery through private sector alone is found
wanting.
We must ask ourselves how Bill C-216 would affect crown
corporations operating in the market. By placing all crown
corporations without exception under the Access to Information
Act, the bill would put requirements on crown corporations that
are not placed on private sector competitors.
Bill C-216 will place crown corporations at a competitive
disadvantage. The Access to Information Act requires that
government institutions respond to access to information requests
within 30 days. Time, personnel and other resources will be
devoted in order to comply. This is understood. However the
free market operates within a slim market for its expenses. Bill
C-216 would force crown corporations to spend time, money and
energy answering questions that their competitors are not
required to answer.
Canadians want crown corporations to compete under fair and
equitable conditions. Under the bill a competitor could bind a
crown corporation in endless requests for information, putting a
drain on time, people and finances that no private competitor
would have to endure. Under Bill C-216 a competitor could obtain
vital business information about a crown corporation with no
obligation to reciprocate by disclosing similar material in
return.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is an example of a crown
corporation that operates in a highly competitive environment. It
competes on a commercial basis in the marketplace and should be
treated the same as its competitors. AECL is thus able to
protect its sensitive commercial information as well as
commercial information received from global customers and partner
companies. If AECL or Canada Post were unable to protect
confidential commercial information from competitors, its ability
to compete could be seriously affected.
The hon. member's Bill C-216 would jeopardize equal treatment in
the marketplace for AECL, Canada Post and other crown
corporations. Has the hon. member consulted crown corporations
on the bill? Does he not believe in fair and equal treatment in
the marketplace, or would he prefer that all crown corporations
simply withdraw altogether from the market?
Those who speak on behalf of Bill C-216 may use the language of
accountability and transparency, but by putting conditions on
crown corporations that are not placed on private companies they
show disdain for or at least misunderstanding of the idea of a
public presence in the marketplace.
This is a great House where we can debate and discuss ideas. The
hon. member must have felt some things could be changed when he
drafted the bill. These things could happen if the government
wanted to do so. However, as I have explained, his bill would
jeopardize a lot of the business the Government of Canada is
trying to do for people. We already have built-in mechanisms and
ministers report to the House on these matters.
I am pleased, therefore, to inform you that the Bloc Quebecois
is in favour of Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Access to
Information Act, presented by my colleague for Nanaimo—Alberni.
This bill is aimed at broadening application of the Access to
Information Act to include crown corporations as defined by the
Financial Administration Act, making them more accessible to the
people of Quebec and of Canada, and requiring them to be answerable
for their administration.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot do otherwise than to approve this
bill, in the name of democratic principles, the taxpayer's right to
know, and our desire to see greater transparency in the
administration of public affairs.
I will remind my colleagues in this House that the Access to
Information Act was passed in 1982 and implemented the following
year. This act obliged governmental institutions to give access to
their documents.
I will pass over the exceptions to access to information in
order to address our primary concern, which is the fact that a
number of crown corporations are not subject to this act. On
numerous occasions during the 35th Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois
has spoken out on having the Access to Information Act apply to all
publicly funded government institutions.
For those of you who were in this House during the previous
Parliament, I will remind you that the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques tabled a
motion, Motion No. 260 to be precise, which read as follows:
I would remind you, to guide us in our reflection on Bill C-216,
that all of the arguments around Motion No. 260 focused on
broadening the scope of the Privacy Act and the Access to
Information Act.
Each of us can take the statement of principle adopted by the
House as an invitation to move to another stage in amending the
Access to Information Act. The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one
to argue for broadening of the Access to Information Act.
We can go back as far as 1987, when the Standing Committee on
Justice and the Solicitor General recommended that crown
corporations be more accountable.
The committee recommended that the Access to Information Act
and the Privacy Act be extended to include crown corporations and
wholly owned subsidiaries that appear in the Treasury Board's
annual report to Parliament on crown corporations and joint
ventures.
In principle, the committee wanted the Access to Information
Act to be applied to crown corporations in which the government had
controlling interest and which provided the public with goods and
services on a commercial or semi-commercial basis.
The committee's recommendations are unequivocal.
The commercial nature of certain corporations is no reason to
exclude them from the provisions of the bill before us. In fact,
the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General felt
that the legitimate secrets of these corporations would be properly
protected by the various exceptions provided by the Access to
Information Act.
In this regard, sections 18 and 20, which concern
issues relating to Canada's economic interests and disclosure of
trade secrets, provide for such exceptions. I do not agree with
the viewpoint we will no doubt hear expressed on this sort of
argument, which I consider without merit.
We will recall that John Grace, the commissioner of
information in 1993-94, recommended extending the Access to
Information Act to cover all federal institutions, including crown
corporations.
What is more, the crown corporations are covered by the
Official Languages Act since its enactment in 1969. In addition,
subsidiaries established under federal law, which are the exclusive
property of crown corporations, come under the Financial
Administration Act since its amendment in 1984. So, there are
precedents for Bill C-216.
A number of questions have been raised regarding the Canada
Post Corporation's operations and its funding. There is a flagrant
lack of transparency.
Many Canadians and Quebeckers think that the government should be more
actively involved in supervising Canada Post in the public interest.
1130
Extending the Access to Information Act to Canada Post would allow
us, parliamentarians, to make the corporation accountable for its
overall administration, about which we hardly know anything. And this is
but one instance where parliamentarians have very little information to
work from in answering the numerous inquiries from their constituents.
All in all, 15 years after its coming into effect, it is high time
for the government to broaden the scope of the Access to Information Act
as provided for in Bill C-216.
Many taxpayers wonder about the enormous salaries paid to crown
corporation executives, as social programs are being slashed. No wonder
they are sceptical.
Too many Quebeckers and Canadians are disillusioned by federal
institutions, public administration and politicians. The time has come
to change tack and show our commitment to the democratic values of our
society. A relationship of trust must be restored between governments
and the public, and I sincerely believe that passing the bill before us
would be a positive step in this direction.
I therefore ask my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons to
carefully consider the merits of the proposed amendments and support
this bill aimed at broadening the Access to Information Act to include
crown corporations.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to get this debate on track immediately.
I obviously support Bill C-216. I think it is an excellent bill
in every way, and very important right now. However, this
morning when I arrived at my office, the effect of Bill C-216 was
clearly felt because on my desk were representations by letter
from the CBC and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited complaining that
this bill, if passed into law, would be a serious threat to their
competitive position and other things.
Let's just get it straight for everyone. Section 18 of the
existing Access to Information Act fully protects the competitive
position of any government institution. I will read a section
from that. Section 18 states: “The head of a government
institution”, which could be CBC or AECL “can refuse to
disclose any record requested under the act that contains trade
secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical
information that belongs to a government institution and has
substantial value”.
Furthermore, in subsection (b) of section 18 it states that the
“government institution can refuse to disclose information that
can be reasonably expected to prejudice the competitive position
of a government institution”.
I have the greatest respect for the Parliamentary Secretary to
the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for
Bruce—Grey, but the reality is that the current Access to
Information Act fully protects an institution's competitive
position.
If you go further through section 18 you will find other
provisions. In fact, it is too broad because it does not put a
monetary value on the commercial information that belongs to the
government institution. It should, and I think an amendment is
in order there. Let's get it straight from the outset that there
is no problem with respect to the competitive position of Canada
Post or anyone else. That is a red herring. It is a red herring
that has been around for years and it is time we were done with
it.
Second, I received a letter from the CBC and it raised an
additional concern, that we should hesitate with regard to
applying the Access to Information Act to an organization like
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It brought up the
question of journalistic integrity.
I have been a journalist for a long time, both as a reporter and
as an editor, and I cannot say that I can remember a single
instance in which I received or sent a note that I was not
willing to let the public see. Journalists are like politicians.
1135
The reality is that neither journalists nor politicians want to
do anything that is improper. When we talk about journalistic
integrity, we mean not only what is open and public but also what
is not open and public. There should be nothing in journalism
that should not be available to the public to read. There may be
some things that would cause embarrassment, but that is another
case entirely.
I cannot see the problem of opening up the CBC to the Access to
Information Act. There may be an argument that the journalists
receive all kinds of information in confidence from the people
they talk to. Indeed, editors and reporters do discuss with
individuals in confidence when they are preparing stories.
Section 19 of the current Access to Information Act covers that
as well. It says that a government institution may refuse to
disclose any information which is considered personal information
under section 3 of the Privacy Act.
I happen to have that section 3 of the Privacy Act. I will not
read all of the types of personal information protected by the
Privacy Act and consequently would be protected under the Access
to Information Act, but section (b) says it would be information
relating to the medical, criminal or employment history of an
individual. Another section says correspondence sent to a
government institution by the individual is implicitly
confidential and the views and opinions of another individual
about the individual.
When we examine that section of the Privacy Act which is covered
by the Access to Information Act, we realize that a journalist
and an MP for that matter in dealing in a confidential manner
with the public, those confidential dealings would be excluded
under the Access to Information Act.
The CBC has no case for exclusions under the act because the act
already provides for the type of concerns the CBC might raise. On
the other hand, what would we get if the Access to Information
Act did apply to the CBC or AECL? What would we get access to?
We might get access to records that deal with mismanagement. We
might get access to records that deal with nepotism. I
understand from some of my sources that nepotism is a little bit
of a problem in the CBC. We might get access to records that
deal with laziness or political correctness. I bet the CBC has a
problem with political correctness.
Would we not as parliamentarians and the public love to see
documents pertaining to political correctness. What it boils
down to is this. We cannot regulate institutions whether they
are for profit government institutions or whatever unless we have
transparency. We cannot have accountability without
transparency. We must have a certain level of confidentiality.
In the Access to Information Act there is plenty of provision
for that and maybe too much. The important thing is for open
government. An institution that proclaims itself to be an
institution of integrity should be willing to have much of its
documents open to the public so that we the taxpayer, the MPs who
are actually paying the salary of the CBC, can see whether its is
running as efficiently as it should.
I support Bill C-216. I think every member of this House should
get onside.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on private
members Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act
with respect to crown corporations.
My party has always favoured more openness and transparency in
government. It is important for taxpayers to know how their
government is spending their money. It is important for
Canadians to understand what are the priorities of their
parliament and how the bureaucracy is implementing the
government's agenda.
This bill raises a new issue. Should the Access to Information
Act be extended to include crown corporations as defined under
the Financial Administration Act? Some crown corporations are
already subject to the Access to Information Act such as Canada
Mortgage and House Corporation. Others such as Canada Post and
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. are not. The argument made most
often by these companies is that because they are subject to
competitive pressures of the marketplace, they should be exempt
from the access act.
Their legitimate fear is their competitors will use the act to
obtain sensitive competitive information which could be used to
undermine the corporation's competitive advantage.
1140
I phoned the information commissioner's office not long ago to
try to resolve these competing interests. What I learned is that
under section 18 of the Access to Information Act government
institutions can exempt competitively sensitive information. Here
is what the act says: “The head of a government institution may
refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that
contains (a) trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific
or technical information that belongs to the Government of Canada
or a government institution and has substantial value or is
reasonably likely to have substantial value; (b) information the
disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the
competitive position of a government institution”.
It goes on to also exclude “information the disclosure of which
could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the
financial interests of the Government of Canada”.
Section 18 then may offer exemptions significant enough under
the act that crown corporations would be able to comply with the
act without having to disclose sensitive competitive information.
These are issues which must be resolved before a change to the
Access to Information Act can be contemplated. In principle we
support this bill subject to some changes which I foresee as
necessary to protect the integrity of the crown corporations.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill before us in the House seeks to make all crown
corporations subject to the Access to Information Act.
When the hon. member introduced his bill he mentioned that crown
corporations such as Canada Post, among others, should be subject
to the Access to Information Act in order to make them
accountable. He also mentioned that crown corporations are exempt
from the act even though they are subsidized by the taxpayers of
Canada.
I found his comments very interesting because I have a special
interest in Canada Post as the Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services who happens to
hold the responsibility for Canada Post.
I would therefore like to concentrate my remarks on the impact
the proposed amendments would have on Canada Post Corporation.
First, let me put to rest a fundamental misconception. I am
happy to inform the hon. member that since 1988 Canada Post
Corporation has not received a single cent of taxpayers' support.
How did it accomplish this impressive feat? It did it because
of the direction provided by the Liberal government that created
Canada Post Corporation back in 1981. I mentioned before in 1981
Canada Post was incorporated for the purpose of operating on a
self-sustaining financial basis. As one of the few crown
corporations under the Financial Administration Act, it is
recognized that Canada Post operates in a competitive
environment. It also is recognized by members on this side of
the House that it is not dependent on the appropriations of the
Canadian government.
The hon. member said that Canada Post Corporation needs to be
open and accountable and I have to say that it is entirely that
position this government supports. However, if one looks at the
facts, one sees that it is already the case at Canada Post. One
only has to read Canada Post's annual statement this year to see
that the crown corporation is committed to these principles in
both its operation and financial reporting.
Actually the front page of the report says “A Look Inside Our
Business”. If the hon. member had taken time to read the report
he would have noticed that Canada Post Corporation has its
results on a segmented basis and includes an opinion from an
independent auditor confirming Canada Post does not
cross-subsidize competitive services with revenues from basic
letter service.
1145
The report also provides a detailed discussion of the financial
results to the highest standard, that required of publicly listed
companies. Canada Post is in fact far more open to public
scrutiny than its competitors and that is because of this
government's commitment to openness.
Since October 1, 1997 Canadians can count on an additional level
of accountability at Canada Post with the appointment of a Canada
Post ombudsman who will provide an independent avenue for
customers whose issues or problems cannot be resolved through
normal channels.
As I mentioned earlier, Canada Post has a commercial mandate.
This mandate was reconfirmed recently when Canada Post underwent
a review of its mandate. In its final response to the Canada
Post mandate review, the government confirmed that the
corporation requires a commercial mandate in order to ensure that
Canadians enjoy a universal postal service.
The private sector competes with many of the services offered by
Canada Post. Having financial objectives comparable to that of
the private sector, Canada Post cannot successfully continue to
meet its mandate if it cannot compete on a level playing field
with its competitors.
A Federal Express spokesman appearing before a Canada Post
mandate review committee in 1996 highlighted the concern that all
companies operating in competitive markets have in regard to
access to proprietary information. He said, “I would obviously
love to see Canada Post's detailed financial information but I do
not think it is fair because, should I see it, then our
competitors ought to see mine”. I am in favour of fairness, but
what the hon. member is proposing is obviously not fair. Even the
Federal Express employee recognized this.
The government must have regard to public interest. In many of
the markets in which Canada Post participates, it faces vigorous
competition including that posed by large, well financed
multinationals such as United Parcel Service and FedEx.
The requirement that Canada Post disclose costs, revenue,
operational and consumer information would certainly create a
very uneven playing field. Although I do not dispute the merits
of accountability and openness in the sectors of the federal
government, one must consider the impact of applying across the
board disclosure rules to commercial crown corporations.
In this case Canada Post would be placed at a very obvious
disadvantage with its competitors unable to collect information
themselves but their competitors know all the competitive
strategies enlisted by Canada Post. Under the disclosure
environment being proposed, these competitors would be under no
obligation to release their operational figures to Canada Post.
The reduced competitiveness of Canada Post resulting from
compliance with the Access to Information Act would impact on
Canada Post's ability to require self-sufficiency. This may in
turn reduce the level of postal service to Canadians at a much
higher cost to postal services.
Canadians deserve an affordable universal postal service.
Despite the challenges posed by this country's size, low
population density and extreme weather conditions, Canada Post
has been able to provide a postal rate that continues to be among
the lowest in the world. That is very good for Canadians and
something we all should be proud of.
In conclusion, this government is committed to openness. The
government is committed to accountability. However, the
legislation before us would cause more harm to Canadians than
good. It is not in the public interest and that is why I cannot
support it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
I came into the House today I did not intend to speak on this
particular matter. However it is an important bill and I feel
compelled to stand and rebut some of the things my colleagues
across the way are saying.
I would first point out to my hon. friend that Canada Post is a
monopoly. That is its biggest competitive advantage. I do not
think any of the competitors of Canada Post are going to be able
to succeed in somehow imperilling the ability of Canada Post to
get by when it is a monopoly. In fact the hon. member said it
would reduce service. Well I point out that we have no service
today. We have a postal strike and that is because there is a
monopoly in Canada Post. I thought it was important to point
that out.
I want to speak to Bill C-216 from the perspective of a
westerner.
I note that one of the things Bill C-216 would do would be to
open up the Canadian Wheat Board to an access to information
request. I cannot say how important that is to western producers
today.
1150
As members and many Canadians across the country know, right now
in western Canada there is great dissatisfaction with the
Canadian Wheat Board on a number of fronts. One of the ones that
is most important is that producers in the west do not know for
sure that they are getting the best possible price for their
grain. Yesterday when I was in my hometown I saw a bumper sticker
on a truck which read “We want the Canadian Wheat Board to be
subject to access to information requests”. That is very
reasonable.
What we need to point out here is that farmers who grow their
own wheat do not have the ability ultimately to find out how much
the wheat board is selling that grain for, whether or not it is
getting the best possible price. It is impossible for them to
determine that. I would argue that when we are talking about
hundreds of millions of dollars, when we are talking about the
livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, they should as a
basic right know what is going on with their grain and what is
happening in terms of the price they are getting for it.
I strongly support this legislation, Bill C-216. I urge all
members to consider supporting it. It does after all bring
accountability to crown corporations at a time when, I would
argue, unfortunately politicians are held in fairly low regard
partially because it seems as if we try to protect our own
interests.
One way to ensure that we do not do that is to open all the
crown corporations up to access to information legislation so
that Canadians can scrutinize these things. The auditor general
can scrutinize them. Right now he does not have the ability to
do that in some cases. Then we could ensure that money that is
being spent on behalf of Canadians is being spent wisely and in
their interests.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-216 which seeks to have the Access
to Information Act apply to crown corporations.
I want to say at the outset that I have a great deal of respect
for the private members' bill process. It is one of the few ways
in which members have an opportunity to come forward with various
legislative initiatives, hopefully to make sure that our
government and its operations are working well and that the best
interests of our constituents are well represented in this place.
It is very relevant for me to speak on this bill because the
Candu division of AECL is in my riding, in fact within a couple
of hundred yards of my home. I have had communications from
them. I wanted to rise because they are constituents. I want to
speak on behalf of the Candu group of AECL.
It is very important that whenever we have legislation and
although there may be some emotional reasons and there may be
some specific very good reasons why certain bills should be in
place, from time to time we have to be very vigilant that there
would not be unintended consequences. It is extremely important.
We have to be very, very careful of there not being unintended
consequences.
When one of the previous speakers addressed the bill, he tried
to articulate what reasons one may have for having the Access to
Information Act extended to crown corporations. In general,
accountability and transparency are very important. The member
articulated four specific reasons and I would like to repeat them
because they characterize what the possible intent and perhaps
misguided position may be with regard to this bill.
The first reason was to identify mismanagement in a crown
corporation. The auditor general is responsible for the audits
of crown corporations.
He has available to him all of the necessary expertise to deal
with that. In fact the auditor general does report.
1155
I cannot for a moment believe that some individual—not
necessarily a member of Parliament as we must keep in mind that
we are talking about the public at large—would obtain
information through the Access to Information Act which would
somehow expose mismanagement. This is suggesting that somehow
uninformed communications or broad questions may impale some
crown corporation.
These kinds of things are the responsibility of the auditor
general and are done very well by the auditor general. I do not
believe for a moment that mismanagement is a valid reason to
expose crown corporations which may or may not be involved in
commercial activity. I do not believe that would be a compelling
reason to have this bill pass and have crown corporation
information subject to the Access to Information Act.
There were three other reasons given and I want to group them.
As a group they substantiate the fact that there is a more
frivolous intent here. There were four reasons given. The first
was mismanagement. The other three were to expose laziness,
nepotism and political incorrectness.
Those were the four reasons given by someone who has been a
champion of getting underneath charitable institutions and crown
corporations. However to start having witch hunts on laziness,
nepotism and political incorrectness seems to be a very
unsubstantial line of thinking as to why we might need this kind
of legislation.
It is important to get back to the real issue. The real issue
is whether or not there are unintended consequences as a result
of changes, such as making crown corporations subject to the
Access to Information Act.
I want to deal specifically with the case of AECL. I want
members to know that the main commercial business of AECL, which
is the export of Candu reactors, is not supported in any way by
taxpayers' dollars. I want to repeat that. AECL's main
commercial business, the export of Candu reactors, is not
supported in any way by tax dollars. There is no public subsidy
on the export of Candu reactors.
Canada has never lost a cent on the Candu export deals. Money
loaned by Canada stays in Canada to pay for sophisticated
equipment manufactured in Canadian factories and technical
project services.
Since AECL competes against some of the world's largest
multinationals, it has to operate like a business and protect its
commercial information.
There is also the flip side. AECL in its commercial activity
deals with literally hundreds of suppliers and service vendors.
Information concerning those other companies which employ tens of
thousands of people is also in the records of AECL. To the
extent that AECL would be subject to the Access to Information
Act, not only would we be talking about the commercial activities
of AECL, we would also be talking about the activities of all of
those companies which deal with AECL.
I want to raise this point as it is an important one. No matter
where legislation comes from, whether it be government bills or
private members' bills, we have to be vigilant about the risk of
unintended consequences. I believe that the AECL example is a
good one. Its commercial activity is not subsidized by the
government which may present a problem or a risk to AECL as well
as to hundreds of other businesses which deal with AECL and which
employ hundreds of Canadians.
1200
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, since time is a priceless
commodity I will say that I am very pleased to be able to speak
to the bill. As has been mentioned—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Dauphin—Swan River would forgive me, we have to interrupt
because Private Members' Business has concluded. Perhaps he
could start from the beginning when the bill comes to the House
again.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
BILL C-2—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)
moved:
That in relation to Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension
Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day
shall be allotted to consideration of the report stage of the
bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading
stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of
the time ordinarily provided for government business on the day
allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required
for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question
necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under
consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the
members.
1245
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Ramsay
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 91
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Graham
| Grose
| Guay
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think if you would seek it you
would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That for this day only the end of Government Orders will be
deemed to be 5.30 p.m. instead of 6.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to)
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of Bill C-2, an
act to establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to
amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 11, 13 to 19 and
22.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I believe what I heard was resuming debate on Group No. 7. I
believe we are still on Group No. 6.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is
quite correct. We are resuming debate on Group No. 6.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bill before
us proposes major amendments to the Canada pension plan and the
establishment of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
The bill, which was tabled in the House on September 25, is an
updated version of a previous bill that died on the Order Paper when the
federal election was called, in April.
I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-2, particularly
since this new legislation is an indirect tribute to the initiative
taken by the Quebec government in the mid-sixties, when Jean Lesage's
team decided to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.
To better understand the fundamentals of the proposed reform, I
will try to answer a few questions regarding Bill C-2. What is the
objective of the bill? Who, in Quebec, will be affected by the new
legislation? What are the main changes sought and what are our
objections to the amendments proposed by the various parties in this
House?
What is the purpose of this legislation? The bill has three main
objectives.
First, to preserve the Canada pension plan and strengthen its financial
foundation by accelerating the increase in contribution rates.
Second, to improve the investment practices of the Canada pension
plan by establishing the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
1250
Third, to reduce costs through a more rigorous administration
of certain benefits, in particular disability benefits.
For the benefit of those listening, it is important to mention
that any change such as this must be approved by two-thirds of the
provinces representing two-thirds of the population of Canada.
This requirement was met and the proposed changes were approved.
Only the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan opposed
this proposal.
Who will this bill affect? For those Quebeckers listening, it
should be mentioned that the CPP reform is of greater concern to
Canadians than to Quebeckers. Less than half of 1% of Quebec
residents receive CPP benefits. Last August, there were 12,882
such people. Those affected must fall into one of three
categories. The first category is Quebec residents who have worked
all their lives in another province, and who have therefore paid
CPP premiums only. For example, a resident of Hull who has worked
all his life in Ottawa could be eligible.
The amendment also applies to members of the Canadian Armed
Forces and the RCMP who reside in Quebec and must pay CPP premiums.
Having paid only CPP premiums, they receive CPP benefits, even
though they are residents of Quebec.
The amendment also affects those receiving CPP benefits who
move to Quebec.
In all other cases, the QPP will apply. It should be noted,
however, that the Government of Quebec is also in the process of
reforming the Quebec plan, although that plan is in better
financial shape.
Quebeckers are indirectly affected by the present reform
because the two levels of government have always harmonized the
main features of the two plans, through a common desire to
accommodate those who have paid into both plans.
What are the main changes intended with this bill? I will deal here
briefly with the two main changes being considered: the establishment of
the Canada pension plan investment board and the rate of contribution.
I would like to state immediately that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with
these two initiatives.
The design of the Canada pension plan investment board being
established by the government with this bill is closely modelled on the
Quebec Caisse de dépôt et placement. However, unlike the Caisse de dépôt
et placement, the federal investment board has no economic mandate; it
only has the mandate to achieve the best possible rate of return.
It should be remembered that, at present, the money in the Canada
pension plan is not invested in financial markets, as is the case in
Quebec.
By placing the management of this money in the hands of an independent
organization, it will be possible to increase the performance of the
Canada pension plan and also to protect taxpayers against dramatic
contribution increases.
This is a proactive measure Quebec implemented a long time ago; it
has produced convincing results. We should therefore point out the
vision and the determination of the work carried out in this area by
Jean Lesage and Jacques Parizeau, among others, who gave Quebec a tool
not only to maximize the pensions of its citizens, but also to provide
an instrument for economic development. We feel that, in this bill, this
second component has not been given enough emphasis, with the result
that the investment board's mandate is too weak.
The rate of contribution is certainly an area of the bill that has
raised major concerns.
It should be remembered that it had become necessary to review this rate
because the plan was rapidly approaching unsustainability. The way
things were going, the fund would have been empty by 2015, and the rate
of contribution would have had to increase then from 6 to 14% in the
case of the Canada pension plan, and from 6 to 13% in the case of the
Quebec pension plan.
1255
So the bill calls for a gradual increase up to a permanent ceiling
of 9.9%, to be reached in 2003.
Sustainability and affordability are the main issues in this
debate. We cannot put our heads in the sand and try to avoid this
reality. As we know, the population of Canada is aging rapidly. Here are
some numbers. There are now 3.7 million elderly people, in 2030, it is
estimated there will be 8.8 million of them.
When the Canada pension
plan was established in 1965, there were, for each elderly person in
Canada, eight persons of working age. In 1997, the ratio is five to one,
and it is estimated that it will be three to one in 2030.
As well, with all the progress in medicine, experts feel that
the average length of time people will receive Canada pension plan
pensions will be 20 years, as opposed to 15 when the plan was
implemented.
All of this is very informative, and is the reason we are
examining this bill. These are the reasons why the increase in
contribution rates earlier than expected, which will result in
improved funding, will reduce generational disparities by making
the baby-boomers, who generally have about twenty years left to
work, pay a greater portion of contributions, which is more
representative of the benefits they will be receiving.
I would like to address the question of the amendments
proposed by the different parties in this House.
Without reviewing all of the proposed amendments, I will if I
may touch upon two of them.
With Motions Nos. 20 and 25, the NDP is calling for deletion
of the clause setting penalties for fraud or false declarations.
No one can be against virtue. We understand the NDP's
preference for incentives over coercive measures. We cannot,
however, subscribe to such a proposal, since it is very difficult
not to be severe in cases of fraud or false declarations.
As for the Reform Party, its Motion No. 10 calls for deletion
of the clause permitting the retroactive increase of 1997
contributions.
This again is an amendment to which the Bloc cannot subscribe.
Let us not forget that deferring any increase in contributions will
only increase the contribution rate in the long term.
The problem is with us now, so deferring action that ought to have
been taken long ago is irresponsible.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat that we agree with the
objectives of the reform, which are to make the system more viable,
affordable and equitable.
We are duty-bound to ensure the viability of the plan for the
generations to come. The proposed reform ensures intergenerational
equity among contributors by establishing a constant and long term
contribution rate, and by doing so promptly.
I see my time is up, so I shall stop here.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to group 6 and the motions that
have been put forward regarding Bill C-2.
I think it is important to point out from the very beginning
that it is no small surprise that we see so many motions that
have been put forward to try and make something out of Bill C-2.
In fact, the House will find that the number of motions is far
above the average that we would normally see for a bill. The
reason is that members opposite have seen so many flaws in Bill
C-2 that we have had no option but to put forward a number of
motions to try to make C-2, although it may be a sour pill to
swallow, at least something that we do not choke on.
Group 6 has a number of motions to it. I will first deal with
Motion No. 11.
1300
This one being put forward by the fourth party basically wants
to stop the government from having a golden lever that it can
pull every time it needs more cash. We congratulate the fourth
party on having the foresight, although we brought it up in
committee. The fourth party made it into a motion.
I think it is very important that we do not let the government
get away with having the option to raise contributions any time
it simply wanted to. Therefore this motion would prevent that.
We support Motion No. 11 put forward by the fourth party.
We also support Motion No. 13, which would basically take away
the freezing of the year's basic exemption because, as members
know, the Liberals snuck this one in and it could be used in fact
as a form of taxation.
Without the ability to increase the YBE, as the cost of living
went up, as inflation went up, the exemption on taxes that a
Canadian would be able to have could not go up. Therefore they
would find their disposable income shrinking even more than it
has.
Let me point out that since these Liberals came to power in
1993, the average household disposable income has decreased by
some $3,000 in this country. Who needs yet another mechanism
to wrench disposable income dollars out of Canadians'
pockets? The Liberals felt that they did but we certainly do not
feel they should have that.
Motion No. 14 we oppose. This is confusing. The fourth party
put forward Motion No. 13, which we support, preventing the
freezing of the YBE. Yet its members only wanted to prevent it
until the year 2006.
Life does go on in this country. It is bad enough that this
bill has been put forward in the first place, where it is going
to raise Canada pension premiums by an astounding, obscene 73%
over the next few years. Members will find nowhere in this bill
that that is all they are ever going to go up.
By supporting Motion No. 14 that would mean that the ability to
not freeze the YBE would only continue to the year 2006. We
cannot support that because the world is going to go on a lot
longer than the year 2006. We will oppose that one.
One of the things that we have to touch on in this debate, and
it deals with these motions, is that this band-aid approach to
fixing the Canada pension plan, this quick fix that the Liberals
put through, has no more merit than the manner in which the
Liberals and the Tories before them have managed the Canada
pension plan since the mid-1960s when it was introduced.
It has been badly managed. It does not even do justice to the
lousy job that the Liberals and the Tories have done with the
Canada pension plan. It is $600 billion in the hole in unfunded
liability. To fix it, and this is not rocket science, they
simply raise the premiums. That will fix everything.
By the way, they are going to build this fund and they are going
to have some Liberal hacks running it unaccountable because there
are clauses in here which, if they do not get changed, will make
sure that the investment board of the Canada pension plan is not
accountable to Parliament.
We are talking about over $100 billion in CPP funds. It is
scary to think that the Liberals could have any type of influence
over that kind of money. It is really scary to think that.
The way they are going to fix it really has no more merit than
the way they have managed it for the last 30-some years.
1305
Let us not let the Tories off the hook. They stand up in this
House so indignant about this bill. They slam the Liberals about
how they have not presented. They had nine years to do something
under the disaster of the Mulroney government from 1984 to 1993.
Back when the unfunded liability was down around $400 billion or
$375 billion the Tories could have done something. They could
have taken the bull by the horns. They knew at that time that
the CPP was broke or was headed for it.
At the very time the Canada pension plan was introduced in the
mid-sixties, the Liberal government of the day knew it would not
work because its own financial advisers told the government that.
But that did not deter the Liberals at that time from pushing
ahead with this plan that was doomed for failure. They pushed
ahead, and now here we are 30-some years later, $560 billion in
the hole in the CPP fund, and the Liberal answer to fixing it is
to raise the premiums by 73% over the next few years. Let's get
into the pockets of young Canadians who will be starting out in
life to make their careers and raise their families. Let's just
double their premiums and give them less when they want to
retire.
I believe retirees now get about $12 for every dollar they put
into the Canada pension plan. The Liberal government must hate
that. Under its plan if someone in their twenties starts paying
into this plan, by the time they retire the Liberals want to give
them an astounding 57 cents for every dollar they contributed.
The Liberals really hate a good deal. They must hate a good
deal. They would be thrown in jail if they were to handle an
investment like that in the private sector.
Now the Liberals see retired Canadians getting $12 for every $1
they put in, and that just is not Liberal philosophy. Canadians
should not be getting fair treatment, so the Liberals will change
the plan so Canadians get only 57 cents. Young people will be
paying into that plan for 40 years.
I hope some of these motions get put into Bill C-2. If some of
these motions were to pass the government would be brought to
accountability kicking and screaming and we would be there
pulling it. We will support some of the motions. We have some
of our own that we hope some other members will support, members
from the third, fourth and fifth parties.
I stand as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this
House of Commons, this House of Parliament in the country of
Canada, and I say let us not let the Liberal government get away
with this odious piece of legislation. Let us fix it, as the
Liberals and the Tories had a chance to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Shefford.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to express our support for one of the amendments proposed by our
colleague from Qu'Appelle last week.
This amendment proposes a sliding scale for contributions by
self-employed workers.
Under this amendment, a self-employed individual earning
$25,000 would contribute less than another such individual earning
$60,000. The amendment would therefore resolve one of the most
serious problems in Bill C-2 for the self-employed.
As my colleagues for Madawaska—Restigouche and Saint John
pointed out last week, these workers, who represent 18% of the
workforce, must bear the brunt of combined contributions. With a
contribution rate of 9.9%, self-employed workers do not have myriad
calculations to make. They know that they have to contribute $9.90
for every $100 they earn.
1310
When you realize that 45% of these workers, and there were 2.5
million of them in 1997, earn less than $20,000, you understand the
importance of the amendment immediately. We are talking about over
1.1 million Canadian workers. Given the fact that the growth in
self-employment is far greater among women, there is even more
reason to support this amendment.
As currently worded, Bill C-2 has a significant negative
effect on women. But this we should have expected from a
government that has no concern about the effect of its policies on
women.
In fact, in the initial discussions on the proposed changes to the
pension plan in 1996, nothing was said about the impact of these
proposals on the income of women who would be retiring.
However, almost all the proposed changes affect women more
than men. Let us look, for example, at the freeze on the annual
basic exemption. It affects mostly those with low incomes, and
this category of worker is made up primarily of women.
Women, therefore, generally make less than their male
counterparts. For example, women working part time earn only a
portion of what full time workers make, that is, between 69% and
72%. Furthermore, 28% of women, compared with 10% of men, work
part time. They also tend to retire earlier, with up to 25% of
women taking their retirement at an average age of 52.
They also live longer. The life expectance of women is 80.9 years, as
compared to 74.6 for men. This means that they will have to make do
longer with lower benefits than men.
In 1995, senior women received on average $274 per month in
benefits, while men received $477 per month. Add to this the fact that
there is a much higher risk of becoming a widow than there is of
becoming a widower. Also, there are nine times more senior men than
senior women who remarry.
One last point. Women are not covered as well as their male
counterparts by employer sponsored pension plans. And many of these
plans do not provide any survivor benefits, the survivors being mostly
women as I said.
The cumulative effect of all these factors precludes women from
setting funds aside for the many years of life they have remaining.
The government should not have the power to make changes to such a
fundamental and important program as the Canada pension plan without
first explaining their full impact to the people of Canada. Also, there
is nothing in here to ensure that they will be treated fairly and
equitably.
We, in the Progressive-Conservative Party, believe in equity for
all. Since equity is also a major concern in the public at large, it is
essential that an equitable contribution scale be provided for in Bill
C-2.
This way we will be fair, at least to some extent, to those who
account for more than 52% of the Canadian population: women.
This is also a way to recognize the work and important contribution of
the men and women who now make up 18% of the Canadian labour force, that
is to say self-employed workers.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the group 6 amendments and to the changes
to the Canada pension plan and the creation of the investment
board.
As a new member of the House, like many other new members of the
House, it is sometimes a daunting process to go through a bill
such as this and to try to make sense of what the bill is really
trying to accomplish and what the impact of the changes will
really be on Canadians.
Having gone through the bill and listened to debate in the House
and having spoken to the member for Qu'Appelle, who is our expert
on this matter, we find ourselves at report stage today with an
overriding concern that Bill C-2 will endanger the security of
retirement for many Canadians.
The problem with this bill is that it will create winners and
losers. We have to ask ourselves who will be the winners in
terms of changing the Canada pension plan.
1315
When we look at the bill we see that the winner will definitely
be the private sector. It will have a huge financial windfall as
a result of increasing privatization. Even the business section
of the Globe and Mail took note that the changes to the
Canada pension plan were a huge financial windfall for the
private sector. The privatization of the administration of the
plan will create approximately $500 million in commissions for
the private sector. It is unconscionable and should not be
allowed to happen.
The section question is who will be the losers as a result of
the changes to the Canada pension plan. It has been very well
evidenced in debate by witnesses before committee and in motions
and amendments put forward that the losers under the bill will be
women, people with disabilities, widows, widowers and retirees
generally. We have to be very clear and frank about the bill. It
is about reducing benefits for people with disabilities, survivor
benefits to widows and widowers and the ongoing privatization of
the Canada pension plan.
For example, even the 16th actuarial report projects that CPP
spending reduction on disability benefits by the year 2005 will
be over $1 billion. There is no getting away from that. The
changes being put forward by the government in the bill are a
clear attempt to reduce benefits to those with disabilities who
collect Canada pension.
The reality is that those retirees will be hit
disproportionately higher than any other component as a result of
the Canada pension plan changes. This raises a serious question
about the social equity of the plan and the fact that there will
be more losers. It will also create greater hardship or
inaccessibility for Canadians with disabilities.
The survivors benefit will also be reduced. The amendments of
the member for Qu'Appelle address the issues and mitigate the
damage that will be created if the bill goes ahead. Widows and
widowers who are disabled will also have reduced combined
benefits. This is a shocking state of affairs that needs to be
brought to the attention of the public.
The second major concern of the New Democratic Party that our
amendments speak to is that the changes in the bill will force
Canadians to rely more and more on private arrangements, on
privatized pension plans. We need to address the reality of
working people who cannot afford to buy into private pension
plans such as RRSPs. This is another giveaway to the private
sector by privatizing the plan and forcing more and more people
into a private arrangement.
There is a very serious concern that the bill undermines and
erodes the universality and the accessibility of our public
pension plan. If we talk to Canadians in our local
constituencies, at community meetings or associations that
represent seniors, they all tell us that one thing they have been
proud of in this country is the fact that we have stood behind
and strengthened our universal accessible pension plan over the
years.
We now stand at a moment in history where that universality and
that proud history of Canada are about to be changed forever if
the bill goes ahead without the critical amendments that have
been put forward.
The bottom line is that this crisis has been deliberately staged
to undermine the credibility of the Canada pension plan, as we
move toward more and more privatization, and to create a huge
windfall for the private sector.
The amendments of the New Democratic Party balance the scales
and ensure that Canadians who pay into the Canada pension plan
and rely on it for the future will not be losers.
1320
The motions before the House today deserve our serious
consideration if we truly and genuinely believe we want to
protect, strengthen and enhance our public pension system. If
that is what the bill is about these motions must be approved,
but we have a great fear that what is at work here is the
government's agenda to create winners and losers, to further
provide privatization of the Canada pension plan, and to erode
the universality of the plan.
I speak in favour of the amendments proposed by the New
Democratic Party. It is an important set of amendments that will
seek to mitigate the damage being created by Bill C-2.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to address the concerns we have in government about
some of the motions we think will be detrimental to the
preservation and securing of the CPP as a pension plan for all of
us, for future Canadians who will be retiring.
Contrary to what the previous speaker has mentioned, it is very
important to understand we arrived at the changes through rather
dramatic and extensive consultations across Canada. They are the
result of federal-provincial statutory review which included
extensive cross-Canada consultations.
Unequivocally we heard from Canadians. They asked that their
governments preserve the plan by strengthening its financing,
improving investment practices and moderating the growth of the
benefits.
It is not rocket science to understand it is important to
improve investment procedures. I would share some examples. In
years gone by in various provincial legislatures and indeed in
this place pension plans have been used by governments as a cheap
source of financing.
For example, the government of Ontario in the 1970s consistently
went to the well to borrow funds at as low as 3% interest rates
at a time when marketplace interest rates were in the
neighbourhood of 10% or higher. It used that money to build
roads, bridges and other facilities; but in turn what happened is
that the pension fund was suffering because it was not allowed to
grow.
We cannot allow this to happen with the CPP. As a result of all
the consultations and what Canadians have said, we must ensure if
the money is borrowed and it is used as a fund that fair market
value is paid. It is simply not acceptable to rob Peter to pay
Paul by using pension fund money for cheap investments with a
view that somehow taxpayers will save money. At the end of the
day the particular pension fund will have to be shored up. In
their entirety the motions run counter to a strong fiscal policy
that we believe is needed to secure the CPP.
I also share an example with which some may be familiar. Money
was used from the teachers' pension fund without a proper view
toward investment practices. In 1989 or so one of the teachers'
pension funds in Ontario, the superannuation fund, was running at
a deficit and the other one was running at a surplus. The reason
for the deficit was the bad borrowing practices of previous
governments. We cannot allow that to happen regardless of who
is in government. The CPP funds should not be used and abused in
that way. That is one very important issue.
Motion No. 11 specifically wants to delete the new contribution
rate schedule. The old unsustainable rate schedule would remain
in effect.
1325
The member is sticking his head in the sand, I say with all due
respect. If the motion were to be accepted by the government it
would put financial sustainability of the CPP at risk. That is
the very issue the changes address. In parliamentary terms it
probably should not be allowed on the floor as it is totally
contrary to the intent of the bill.
Instead of rates raising by 9.9% in the year 2003 and then
levelling off, if the motion were adopted contribution rates
would rise to 10.1% in year 2016. That happens to be a year when
many in the baby boomer generation will be looking to drawing on
their CPP fund. Therefore it makes it even more important to
ensure the sustainability of the CPP. Then it would go to 14.2%
in the year 2030. This would be a 140% increase over current
contribution levels. I cannot imagine justifying contribution
levels rising by that amount. It makes no sense and frankly the
motion would be destructive.
Another problem, and we have done the financial analysis, is
that the plan would be bankrupt by the year 2015. It would
impose a totally unfair burden on our children and our
grandchildren. They would loose the ability to collect the CPP.
When talking about the CPP bill, the amendment and all the
motions, we must recognize that our main goal should be to
sustain and secure the system now. We consider it to be a top
priority in government. We have heard other members and other
people talk in terms of it being a tax. The reality is that it
makes us distinct as Canadians because we have a public pension
plan that leaves no Canadian behind.
I have heard the example used about people being in a race. At
the Special Olympics there was a wonderful example that my good
friend, Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the provincial Liberal
Party in Ontario, talks about. In a race in the Special Olympics
one of the runners fell. Another runner who was competing to win
that race, which presumably we all do from time time, stopped and
picked up the person and helped him finish the race. It meant
the person who stopped would not be victorious. It meant that he
would not win the race. What a message it sends about Canadians
and about Canada.
Yes, we will stop and help when one falls. We are all in this
together. The CPP is one landmark that shows us that we as
Canadians care about one another. We could ignore the problem.
Some paint it as a tax grab. That is nonsense.
This plan has to be secured for future generations. The bill
will do that but the motions of the hon. member will not. A key
priority is to secure retirement income for all Canadians. That
is why we are proposing a comprehensive plan to make the system
sustainable, affordable and fair. Affordable is key.
If we want to drive rates through the roof like some of the
motions are suggesting with increases in the neighbourhood of
140%, that is what we should adopt. However that will not be
affordable.
I have often found a lack of realism on the part of my
colleagues opposite. They think that by putting a motion forward
some workers will benefit. In reality it will be unaffordable
for employers. If we do not have employers we do not have jobs.
If we do not have jobs we do not have CPP contributions and the
plan will fail.
This is all inextricably tied to the economic growth and the
future of this growth.
1330
With great respect for my colleague opposite, we will be
opposing these motions on the grounds that they are detrimental
to the security of the future of the CPP.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as has just
been pointed out, I too think that the group 6 motions drive the
cost way beyond what Canadians can bear.
I want to go back a little bit into the history of this whole
thing and also use a few quotes from some of my constituents that
might give a better focus on where grassroot Canadians really
stand.
In 1966 government made a contract with Canadians basically
stating that it would provide a pension when a person reached age
65. We believed that, went along with it and everybody dutifully
paid their 3% or whatever it was and thought that government
would take care of them. Obviously mismanagement and a poorly
designed plan caused the situation that the government finally
realized it was in last year. It found out that it had an
underfunded liability and had a real problem. Obviously some of
the amendments we are speaking about here would make that problem
even that much worse.
I think Canadians realized this problem much sooner. They knew
this plan was not working and could not work. They were not
dreamers but, as often happens, the people are so much ahead of
government that we are only now catching up. The only solution
that the government has put forward is a 73% increase in the
premium tax which is going to be collected.
There are a lot of other ways to solve this problem and I will
try to touch on some of those briefly. Basically, when you talk
to the people on the street, they will tell you that this is an
extremely important bill. They know what is happening. They know
about it and can talk very intelligently about the changes to the
Canada pension. They will tell you that it is a $10 billion tax
grab. They will tell you that they are already taxed at the
highest rate in the G-7 and just cannot afford any more taxation.
They will tell you that the self-employed person is just going
to buckle under this sort of an increase. They will tell you
that this is going to cost jobs and probably more jobs than even
some of the critics of this would point out.
They are also extremely concerned about the setting up of an
investment board with 12 political friends being appointed to
this and the potential abuse that this could create. Remember,
people do not have all that much respect for political choices in
our past history.
For the young people who are looking at this plan, the message
is pretty well standard. They do not believe they are really
going to get any Canada pension plan. They do not really believe
it is going to be there for them. In fact, if the government is
going to collect an extra $700 from them and their employer and
only give them $8,800 some 30 years from now, that is just not
realistic. It will not sell and is not acceptable to the
Canadian public.
They look at the other options of what they can do with that
same amount of money if they were to invest it privately. I
believe that this change in CPP can be equivalent to what the GST
was to the PC Party. I believe this is its Achilles heel and the
public will react when they find out what the politicians have
done to them.
Let me give a summary of some 4,000 letters received in my
riding. First, “My husband and I are very concerned about the
proposed CPP hike. We are a young couple expecting our first
child and we feel that it will be very difficult for us and many
people of our age to pay the proposed tax increases. We also
feel that it is unfair that we be forced to pay this seeing as we
have no hope of ever receiving the Canada pension plan
ourselves”.
I believe that summarizes what young people are saying.
1335
The amendments that we are talking about here that say we are
going to increase those premiums even more are even that much
less acceptable for the Canadian public.
Middle aged people are saying “What about our children? Our
children are having a tough enough time as it is”. They are
concerned about the killing of jobs. They are concerned about
what this means. They still feel they have time under an
optional plan to that being proposed by the Liberals.
The seniors are saying “We also are concerned about our
children and our grandchildren and what it might mean for them”.
I believe that we have across the range of ages genuine concern
about Canada pension and what the future of this is going to be.
The sad part is that the government will not even look at the
options. It has made no attempt to look at other countries to
see what they have done.
The list is quite long but if we take a look at countries that
have adopted a different kind of a pension plan, in that list we
would include Chile, Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, El
Salvador, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Uruguay, Great
Britain. All of these countries have gone to a different form of
Canada pension.
Surely this government owes it to Canadians to look at the other
options. It should take a look, see how they work, find out what
happens. When it was suggested in the committee that the
committee bring the designer of the plan in Chile, who 16 years
ago put their plan together, the committee was refused to have
this person come and testify before it.
This is letting down Canadians. Canadians have the right to
find out what all the options are and to have open discussion. Of
course, the use of closure on this sort of debate also is not
accepted very well by the Canadian people. Again, I remind the
members on the other side that this is not going to be looked on
any more kindly than was the GST.
We have a lot of misrepresentation. We have a finance minister
who says “Feel good, be happy, everything is fine now”. We all
know that is not the case. We know that we have a $600 billion
debt. We know that we are paying $50 billion in interest payments
in a year. Just think what we could do with that $50 billion in
terms of pensions, in terms of our social services. All of those
are there but they are not accessible to us because of
mismanagement of the previous two governments.
In conclusion, the Liberals are taxing the soul out of
Canadians. They are going too far. This Canada pension is going
to be for some the final straw. It is going to drive the economy
underground. It is going to cause small businesses to close. The
government is going to use this as another tax increase to opt
out of the system.
The Liberals are taxing our food, they are taxing our homes,
they are taxing our savings, they are clawing back from senior
citizens and people are losing patience with them. That is the
message we have to get out.
These amendments simply go one step further in that tax and
spend philosophy that seems to be so common or possibly the
disease which people get when they come into this place.
It is time to say no. Canadians need to speak out and let the
government know what they think about Canada pension.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-2, which seeks to put some
order in the Canada pension plan and to modernize its structure.
I want to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague, the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who
does a wonderful job in leading the Bloc regarding this issue and in
expressing Quebec's representations on the amendments to the Canada
pension plan.
1340
The Canada pension plan must undergo a thorough review. If the
government does not act or is slow to act, within ten years, the fund
will be empty. I am among those who have always believed that, when a
government or a municipality buys or builds things, the payments should
be spread out over the duration of the investment.
It would not be wise for a government to borrow each week to pay
its public servants, just as it would not be wise for the hon. member
for Québec to borrow every month to pay her rent.
The government has now reached a deadline where it must make decisions,
otherwise our children or grandchildren will have to pay so we can get
our old age pension.
Last year's contribution rate of 5.6% was clearly too low. In 15
years or so, the baby-boomers—and I am one of them—will reach
retirement age in very large numbers, at which point the fund would be
insufficient.
So, the government, whose role is to anticipate such things, must
make proposals to adjust the contribution rate, so as to meet future
financial needs. The proposed rate schedule seems fair and reasonable.
The rate current of 5.85% for 1997 would be increased to 6%.
Premiums will go up slowly but surely over the next five years to
a maximum of $9.90, or 9.9% if you prefer, in 2003.
This 9.9% would be frozen. According to actuaries we have
consulted, who corroborate the government's figures, it could be
frozen until 2100, in other words, for over a century. If our
forecasts are accurate, and I believe they are, this should provide
us with a safety valve for those who will begin to draw a pension
at age 65.
To govern means to anticipate. Certain parties in the House
are going to oppose an adjustment. They apparently do not
anticipate the impact of baby boomers. Those now 50 and under are
going to be reaching the eligible age in very high numbers.
When we begin drawing benefits, we will be contributing much less,
perhaps nothing at all if we have no insurable earnings. So the
fund will be rapidly depleted.
It is my sincere and honest belief that recipients must pay
the cost of this pension plan. For this reason, our party will be
supporting Bill C-2 generally speaking.
But we cannot vote in
favour of the motions in Group No. 6 because they go directly
against the premise that the plan must be self-funding.
Bill C-2 has three basic objectives. In order for the plan to
be self-funding, there must be increased capitalization, and this
I think will be achieved through the new premium rates over the
next five years.
1345
It is also necessary to increase the rate of return—and this is
important—through the establishment of a Canada pension plan investment
board. The role of this board is not to stash the money in a sock like
my grandfather used to do; that was not only unsafe, it was also
unprofitable. Inflation was not very high at that time, so he did not
lose anything, but he did not gain anything either.
At present, we could say that the government has not succeeded in
using wisely this large amount of money that was placed in its care. It
has not been a cautious administrator of these investments, unlike what
Quebec did for the Régie des rentes when it established the Caisse de
dépôt et placement.
I would like to take the opportunity here to pay tribute to a great
team led by Jean Lesage at the beginning of the sixties. That team
included none other than Jacques Parizeau, and, of course, René
Lévesque. So they set up the Caisse de dépôt et placement, which, often,
produces a return of up to 20% a year. That is a very interesting annual
rate of return; it is the equivalent of one fifth of the total capital
that the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is responsible for.
Unfortunately, the central government failed to act and was unable to
ensure a proper yield for the money in the Canada pension plan; this is
rather disturbing and shameful.
Fortunately, with Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan investment
board is being established, and if it is well managed, it should be
able, hopefully, to equal the return obtained in Quebec.
There are now only two provinces that continue to oppose Bill C-2.
But with the agreements that are now in place, as soon as there are
eight provinces representing a sufficient percentage, we will be able to
override the two provinces that refuse to go along with the plan.
The third objective of Bill C-2 is to tighten up the requirements
for certain benefits, including disability benefits.
We must be careful not to give disability benefits to everyone who
claims them. Everyone knows that, in certain regions, and especially in
certain provinces I will not name here, when people lose their job, they
go to see the doctor or any other person who can be of assistance to
provide a disability certificate. But doing this costs a lot of money
for all the other people who are honest
and who have to pay for the ones that are exploiting the system.
To conclude, the Canada pension plan investment board, again, if it
is properly managed, could provide dividends, and this would be
profitable for all Canadians. The member for Malpeque, in Prince Edward
Island, who is listening to me closely, must know that when a potato is
planted, it is subdivided into eight parts, and this can yield almost
three quarters of a bag of potatoes. So he knows that in the case of
potatoes, it is possible to ensure that these plants will provide a
yield.
Therefore, in the case of the federal government, if they do the
same thing as the member for Malpeque, they will be able to make sure
that this money yields a profit.
And, finally, I am glad to see that with this bill, it will be
possible to invest up to 20% outside the country, and, of course, a
minimum of 80% will have to stay in the country, in Quebec or elsewhere,
but it will have to stay in Canada.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support the amendments put forward by the NDP.
1350
The object of the changes to the pension plan was to address the
most needy of our country, our seniors and our elders, but these
changes do not address that need. I will give examples of some
members of my community, seniors and elders who live solely by
means of their pensions. There are two of them who support a
family and their eldest son is on a disability pension. He is
disabled from the neck down. They must use their old age
security and their GIS to support a disabled son.
The fact that the pensions are inadequate for those most needy
is very clear and the changes were meant to address this need.
Unfortunately $10 a month or $120 a year will not address the
question of need. We must ask why these changes are being made.
I agree with my colleagues that there are definitely winners and
losers in this scene.
There will be $2 billion taken out of our pension plan. I feel
we are trying to convince Canadians that by taking out $2 billion
we will somehow be able to help them more. This just is not the
case especially in our present society and circumstances where
social housing is no longer available and those who need it most,
seniors, will not be able to get it.
We have faced cuts to transfer payments, cuts to medicare with
the federal government being the last payer at this time. We
have faced a huge increase in the cost of prescriptions. These
are all services our seniors desperately need. They are not
working and they do not have the income to make up the
difference.
We are facing the basic problem that we do not have the level of
employment to support our pensions. This is a problem the
present government refuses to address. If we had strong
employment we would not have to be worried at the other end about
the ability of our elders and seniors to get their pensions.
I attended a finance committee meeting in which the witnesses
talked about how they would see our new pension fund being used.
Their major point was that it should not have such a low foreign
investment ceiling, that 20% just was not enough and that if you
were sophisticated enough you could get around it. They believed
people would be cheating. I was quite shocked at that attitude.
They claimed that investing 80% of that pension fund in Canada
somehow was not a good deal for Canadians when in fact it is a
good deal.
Provinces should be able to access Canadians' money for
infrastructure programs, for roads, for hospitals, for schools,
for jobs, because that is good for all Canadians. The more jobs
we create the more we will be able to support our seniors and our
elders.
The changes being proposed are unfairly targeted at women and
those who are expecting a disability pension. I do take
exception to my colleague from the Bloc who alluded that people
with a disability pension received it fraudulently. I do not
know of anyone who has done that and I do not believe they would
like to be considered as Canadians who are criminals by behaving
that way. They should never be labelled as criminals because
they have applied for a disability pension. It does no service
to our citizens and to those who are more desperate because they
cannot work and their only sustenance is from their pension, and
one that is drastically inadequate at that.
It would be a good idea if the money from the pension fund that
we are proposing would actually go to pensioners, but it is not.
Half a billion dollars a year will go from public money into
private hands. None of that money will be going to those who are
poorest. None will be going to those who are getting an extra
$10 a month. They will not be benefiting from those investments
although I believe that is where the money should go.
The investment board should not be able to set its own
standards. It should not be able to hire and fire its own
auditor, set its own guidelines for ethical or unethical conduct.
That should be done independent of that body. If we are going
to have a board, it should be for the benefit of those in our
society who are most needy.
1355
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there have been many amendments brought before the House over the
past two days and many more to come that wish to improve this
plan the government has developed to change the Canada pension
plan.
Many of the amendments that are before the House in Group No. 6
would jeopardize the Canada pension plan because they refuse to
admit that there is a problem with the CPP. They refuse to see
that it is in a crisis situation. The sad fact is that if we do
not fix the CPP, it will not be there for our children and our
grandchildren. If we spend blindly now, we will be playing with
the money of future generations. This is simply not acceptable.
Young people today are already facing huge student debts and
fewer job prospects. Let us not saddle them with the
responsibility of paying for our retirement. I know that this is
not the legacy I want to leave to my children.
Canada's population is aging rapidly. This will put great stress
on seniors programs in the years ahead. Today for every person
of retirement age there are five persons of working age. In 20
years there will be one person of retirement age for every four
persons of working age. When today's youth retire in 40 years,
the ratio will be just one to three.
The strain on the CPP results from an aging population, a lower
birth rate, increased life expectancy and a sharp rise in
disability claims.
The CPP was set up as a pay as you go plan in 1966. Premiums
were set at a rate that provided the fund with investments equal
to at least two years of benefits. There is $40 billion in the
fund. However, the cost of its promised future benefits totals
$600 billion. Under the present Canada pension plan the premiums
are expected to rise to 14.2% in the year 2030.
For Progressive Conservatives the CPP is a fundamental part of
the Canadian social safety net, an obligation that government
must honour. Let us make it clear, the CPP is worth saving. We
believe that there is an urgent need to restore public confidence
in the Canada pension plan so that Canadians will continue to
participate in saving for their future retirement. Many of the
amendments we are debating now will not restore the public
confidence in the CPP. Far from it.
The CPP contribution rates will have to rise to levels adequate
to ensure the long term viability of the plan, but these
increased contributions must be more than offset by substantial
reductions in our taxes.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The member will have another seven
minutes after Oral Question Period.
Since it is nearly 2 o'clock, we shall now proceed with
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE JOHN SOPINKA
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay honour to the life of Mr. Justice John Sopinka.
I was a great admirer of his judicial reasoning. In particular
Judge Sopinka resisted activist tendencies on the part of some
jurists to make decisions which are properly within the purview
of Parliament. He gave real meaning to the doctrine of deference
to the will of Parliament in both Egan and Rodriguez decisions.
In other words, he challenged Parliament to do its job and to
create law in areas of moral controversy because he realized
unlike many others that judge-made law in those areas was really
a reflection of parliamentary failure.
He leaves a legacy of sound judicial reasoning and practical
guidance to litigants and legislators alike. He will be greatly
missed.
* * *
AIDS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today is
World AIDS Day. As the official opposition foreign affairs critic
I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention
of the House the serious ongoing destruction this disease has on
human beings worldwide.
A United Nations report released last week states that 30
million people worldwide are infected with HIV or have AIDS
itself.
An alarming statistic is that 90% of these people infected live
in developing countries. By the year 2000 this report predicts
that 40 million people will be infected with this horrible
disease.
1400
The continent of Africa is home to more than half of the known
HIV cases. This, however, is quickly changing as the disease is
spreading rampant in the countries of Asia, especially in India
where as many as 5 million HIV infected persons live.
The Reform Party and I urge all countries to work together so
that we will be able to find a cure for this terrible disease.
* * *
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
drinking and driving is a national tragedy; 4.5 innocent
Canadians killed by impaired drivers every 24 hours, every
day of the week. Just think of it. Incredible.
Over 300 people a day are injured in Canada as a result of an
alcohol related crash. Just think of it. Incredible.
Impaired drivers caused over half of Canada's 3,300 road
fatalities in 1995. Just think of it. Truly incredible.
Too many Canadians have been cut down in the prime of their
lives. Too many families, friends and communities have grieved
unnecessarily over the loss of a loved one at the hands of an
impaired driver. This carnage must stop and the time is now.
Laws to combat the problem have not changed in over 10 years. I
urge this House and our justice minister to consider necessary
changes to the Criminal Code. Our laws must reflect the stark
realities of the epidemic of impaired driving and the seriousness
of this crime.
* * *
[Translation]
NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
composition of Canada's Olympic team is revealing. Canadian
international hockey has just entered a new era on the eve of the
Nagano Olympic games.
They do not start for another two months, but I think we can
all be proud of Canada's Olympic team, whose members come from
across the country, reflecting the diversity of all of Canada's
regions.
We are going to have some exciting moments with the Canadian
team.
Our athletes' performance will provide fantastic inspiration for
all of us and for Canada's young people.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN HAITI
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United
Nations mission in Haiti ended yesterday. The soldiers and police
officers from Quebec and Canada taking part in this mission have
begun to return home and will all be back by Christmas.
As we know, their mission was to maintain security and
stability in Haiti and to support the Haitian police in its
activities. They also provided humanitarian assistance by building
schools and orphanages and by distributing medical and educational
material.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to thank the soldiers and police
for their efforts in democratizing Haiti. I would particularly
like to draw attention to and express our gratitude for the work
done in Haiti by the police officers from Laval.
While much remains to be done in this country ravaged by
poverty, it is on the road to democracy. The international
community must continue to provide help and support for Haiti's
reconstruction efforts.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
father of Canadian broadcasting, Graham Spry, once said that only
the state or the United States could provide Canadians with radio
and television programming. Today, however, this is no longer
true.
The advent of the 500 channel universe means that Canadians have
a wide range of options open to them, but this has not lessened
the need for the CBC. Only the CBC provides programming from a
uniquely Canadian perspective. In recent years the CBC has had
to adapt to audience fragmentation and changing fiscal realities.
It pleases me to note that despite this, the CBC has become more
efficient and more Canadian in character. Since Canadianizing
its prime time schedule, for example, CBC English television has
gained more viewers than it had only a few years ago.
I would like to commend the corporation for its efforts to
reflect Canada to Canadians. It is my belief that only the CBC
can be to Canada in the 21st century what the CPR was in the
19th, a link that joins the country.
* * *
WAR
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week over 120 nations will come to Ottawa to sign
the anti-personnel land mine ban. The success demonstrates
what Canadian foreign policy can do on the international stage.
Soon, though, we will have life after land mines and Canada is
uniquely poised to take up the challenge of addressing the
biggest challenge of all, how to prevent war.
From Bosnia to Rwanda, the world has failed to prevent these
vicious internecine conflicts even when the writing was on the
wall for generations.
Once blood has been shed and economies destroyed the seeds for
future conflicts are sown for generations to come.
1405
We must move our foreign policy from a reactive one to a
proactive one. We must move from conflict management to conflict
prevention.
Canada is uniquely poised to do this and I hope that our 21st
century can be a safer one than the 20th century.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD AIDS DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, “Children
in a world marked by AIDS” is the theme for World AIDS Day. All
the children of Canada and throughout the entire world will spend
their entire lives dealing with the risk of infection by the virus
that causes AIDS.
In Quebec, the latest figures indicate that AIDS hits children
under the age of 15 hard, particularly marginalized youth. Some
3.8 million children under that age have been infected with HIV
since the start of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, and 2.7
million of those have probably died by now, according to the latest
UN AIDS report.
[English]
AIDS is emerging as a leading problem for youth in Canada. The
medium age of new infections dropped from age 32 in 1982 to age
23 in 1986-90.
Today's announcement by the Minister of Health to commit $42.2
million a year over the next five years will ensure that our
efforts to educate our youth to the dangers of AIDS and to
provide treatment, care and support to those suffering will be
maintained during this crucial time.
In a world with AIDS children are everyone's responsibility. We
owe this to the next generation. We owe this to our children's
future.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take advantage of World AIDS Day to honour all of the
men and women engaged in the search for a cure for this dreadful
disease.
I would also like us all to remember its far too numerous
victims. Since 1978, 14,836 cases have been reported in Canada. To
date, 10,837 people with AIDS have died. Far too many, alas.
According to the Department of Health, the AIDS epidemic could
cost the Canadian economy up to $22 billion over the next five
years, if nothing is done to check it.
Terry Albert and Gregory Williams, the authors of the report,
conclude that “over the past seven years, Canada has lost ground in
its battle against the AIDS epidemic”.
Canada must regain lost ground and develop an AIDS prevention
strategy that is beyond reproach, not only for economic reasons but
also, and above all, for humanitarian ones.
* * *
TERRORISM
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday afternoon, in my riding of
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the vice-president of the Lachine
Committee for Canadian Unity, Hélène Tobin, and her family were the
victims of attempted murder and arson. Someone had planted a home-made
bomb in front of the door of the house. Fortunately, the bomb did not
explode.
Mrs. Tobin is the latest target of the undemocratic persons who
promote terrorism to advance political causes. These terrorists
represent neither my Quebec nor my Canada, and I strongly condemn them.
I therefore urge all persons who call themselves democrats and who
believe that our Canadian democracy and our basic rights are precious
and should be preserved to distance themselves clearly from this
undemocratic and pro-violence movement.
* * *
[English]
AVALANCHE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay respect to the families of Aimee Beddoe, David
Ferrel, Mike Patry and Alexander Velev.
These Calgary youths tragically died in an avalanche while skiing
in the Kananaskis over the weekend. The four teens were students
at Western Canada High School in Calgary and were deeply loved by
their friends and families.
Aimee, David, Mike and Alexander demonstrated a great love of life
and were all active in sports and outdoor activities.
As many of us in this House are parents, I know our hearts go
out to their families in this time of loss. Their children's
lives were a great gift and blessing to many. They can take
comfort from the joy their children gave to them.
These families can be assured that our thoughts and prayers are
with them in hope that the families of Aimee, David, Mike and
Alexander might find peace in this difficult time.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to express my indignation over the recent comments
by Jacques Parizeau. He pointed to minorities in Quebec as the
cause of his failure. The real cause of his failure is his narrow
vision of Quebec.
Mr. Parizeau and his colleagues are promoting prejudice and the
rejection of Canada. It is time that the separatists realize the
future of Quebec and indeed all of Canada is founded on
diversity.
The way of progress and harmony for Quebec and Canada is through
diversity, not through separation.
* * *
1410
WESTRAY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the sun
did not rise in Nova Scotia today for Myles Gillis or Johnny
Halloran. It never will. Dawn will never come for any of the 26
miners killed in the Westray mine.
Today is day 2,160 of their long night that never ends. Nothing
we can do will ever change that. Nothing we do here on the
surface in the sunlight will ever again let them feel dawn, a
child's hug, the warmth of their wife asleep in their arms.
No report, no heartfelt apologies can ever make what happened to
them all right. Killing workers can never be all right, but we
can remember. We must keep their memory burning bright in our
hearts and we must not squander their lives.
Regardless of party or politics, we must do all we can to make
sure their fate never becomes the fate of any other woman or man
who goes off to work every day. It is the least we can do for
those 26 men and those who loved them. It is something to look
forward to, like the dawn.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak once again about the statements made by
the former Premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, who said that the
referendum defeat was attributable to ethnic groups.
Such a statement is unworthy of a former premier who claimed to
work for every Quebecker. Therefore, I would hope, along with many of my
colleagues, that every sovereignist will state loud and clear that he
does not agree with such a statement, in the same way that, during the
weekend, they condemned actions like those of Raymond Villeneuve, that
are starting to become an embarrassment for the sovereignist cause.
I thought that the Parti Quebecois convention held last weekend
would have provided them the opportunity to distance themselves from
this statement. That was not the case, however, because they discussed
instead the plan by militants to reinstate the sovereignty council to
promote the independence of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
PORNOGRAPHY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
bring to the attention of this House the deep concerns of many
of my constituents regarding pornography.
The Saint John local chapter of the Catholic Women's League has
sent me several little ribbons in recognition of White Ribbons
Against Pornography or WRAP week. The CWL took part in the WRAP
activities from October 19 to 26 this year.
The members of the CWL and their parishioners wore the ribbons
and then they wrote their names on the back and sent them to me
to show their opposition to pornography in any form. We need
stronger laws to protect us from this destructive menace in our
society.
Today, with the Internet, pornography is within easy reach of
our children.
I commend my constituents for their efforts and I wholeheartedly
agree with them. I urge this government to protect Canadians and
their children and pass stronger anti-pornography laws.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, early in November it was apparent that negotiations at
the post office were going nowhere. The Reform Party then called
for a legislated solution, but of course the government said no.
Then negotiations broke down and the ensuing strike has cost
Canadians $3 billion. Guess what? Now the government is going
to legislate a solution, what it should have done in the first
place. This has cost $3 billion to the Canadian business
community and consumers.
To whom should business people send this $3 billion bill, to
Canada Post, to the unions or to the prime minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what this government did was let the collective
bargaining system have a fair chance.
Over 94.5% of the disputes under the federal jurisdiction are
settled without loss of work. Now we have to move to
legislation. I urge my colleagues to make sure this
legislation moves as quick as possible.
1415
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is a living contradiction of his own
statements. His faith in bargaining has been misplaced and now
the government is going to legislate.
Even with the legislative solution, it is going to be days
before the mail moves again. Some of the old style union leaders
are trying to get their members to further punish the public by
blocking highways, stopping traffic on bridges and even shutting
down airports.
What will the government do with these threats of illegal
activity? Will the government continue to dither like it did
when the mail stopped moving?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we are dealing with here is simply a strike. The
time has come when we must move legislation. I ask my hon.
colleague to support that legislation and make sure it moves
through the House as quickly as possible to get the post office
back to work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business is calling for a permanent end to the
problems at Canada Post, and we agree. Either end Canada Post's
monopoly on first class mail and open it up to competition or, if
it is to remain a public monopoly, replace strikes and lockouts
with binding arbitration.
What precisely is the government going to do to make sure that
Canadians are never faced with this type of situation again?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that part I of the
Canada Labour Code is coming to the House again. The Sims report
reviewed part I of the legislation and there was no suggestion to
take away the right to strike. I ask the hon. member to make
sure that when the legislation comes to the House that he
supports it.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during the last month the government has had three separate
positions to take to Kyoto. First, it was 1990 levels by 2010
agreed to by the provinces and the federal government. Nine days
after that the Prime Minister said “Oh, no, it is not 2010, it
is 2007”. Today we have a new position saying “Oh, it is going
to be 3% less in 2010”. Three different positions in as many
weeks.
If this is the latest government position, will the
environmental minister tell Canadians how much this Kyoto deal is
going to cost?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform colleague is not correct.
Until today, this government has not said what our targets and
timelines are. Today we have set our targets in place. This
government is committed to negotiating a target which states we
will reduce by 3% below 1990 levels for the year 2010, we will
reduce another 5% below that for the year 2015.
When will the Reform Party stop saying no to this issue and
realize that it is serious and all Canadians need to participate?
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
well, golly, I think the minister just identified the problem:
they did not have it until today. That is what the people wanted
to know. Good Lord.
The question is, how is the government going to do it? Premier
Klein is not all on side. What about the unemployment and what
about the costs? Again I ask, how many jobs is this going to
cost and how many dollars for the Kyoto deal?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side are convinced that we
have to address this issue because the cost of not addressing it
will be higher than addressing it. We believe that Canadians,
with their ingenuity, and our entrepreneurs will assure us that
in fact we are going to create jobs in this country. We are
going to experience energy efficiency. Our health costs are
going to be reduced. Canada will be the big winner in this.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is
about to table today a bill forcing postal workers back to work.
In light of the fact that, last week, the government seemed to
favour free collective bargaining, is today's action not motivated first
and foremost by the desire to collect $200 million in dividends from the
Canada Post Corporation, which would explain today's attempt to deny
these workers the right to bargain freely?
1420
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is going to put a piece of legislation in
place in order to put CUPW back to work and get the post office
in operation.
The Canadian people need the post office. We have given the
collective bargaining system a fair period of time. Now it is
time to move.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
government explain that, in spite of all the rhetoric from the Prime
Minister and his labour minister, the major stages of this postal
dispute, that is to say almost no negotiations, followed by a 10-day
strike, the introduction of special legislation and resumption of postal
operations, are precisely the ones announced on August 6 by the minister
responsible for postal services to the Canadian Direct Marketing
Association?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, bargaining started three months before the end of the
contract. We appointed a conciliation officer, a conciliation
commissioner. We have given them every opportunity to come to an
agreement.
Then the time comes when the government must move. That time
has come. It is now.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, postal workers
are finding themselves in a difficult situation today, with the
government planning to take away their right to strike before they can
gain any real leverage.
How can the Prime Minister justify the remarks he made last week in
support of collective bargaining when the government already had a plan
and the Canada Post Corporation knew it could count on the imminent
introduction of special back-to-work legislation?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): As I
indicated previously, Mr. Speaker, there is a process to follow.
This government followed the process. Three months before the
end of the contract both parties negotiated. I appointed a
conciliation officer, a conciliation commissioner and even put a
mediator in for a few days.
A time comes when the government must move. The time has come.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, incidentally, as
early as August 6, it was clear that the dice were loaded. Will the
government admit that postal workers did not have any hope of a
negotiated agreement?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think anybody in this House could indicate that
I did not support the collective bargaining process. I think I
gave them every opportunity to come to a collective agreement.
They had all the opportunity.
Now, today, we must move.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. For 13
years the government has used stall tactics to deny justice to
tens of thousands of its employees seeking pay equity.
We have a former Liberal senator basking in the Mexican sun.
Since 1990 he has been paid $500,000 and $80,000 in tax free
expenses and only sat in the Senate 12 times.
If this is the government's idea of equal pay for work of equal
value, these employees deserve more than they are owed.
Is this the government's idea of pay equity?
1425
The Speaker: I am going to allow the question because it
was sort of tied in, but the preamble was a bit far-ranging.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will of course not comment on the question relating to the
Senate.
With respect to the question relating to pay equity, I am glad
to have the occasion to reaffirm once more that this longstanding
dispute with employees is one which we would like to settle
through negotiations.
We offered $842 million in April. We have increased that number
to $1.3 billion. That is equivalent to between $15,000 and
$20,000 per employee.
The government has done the correct thing. It is offering pay
equity. Now it is a question of the union being—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government is getting a much deserved reputation for changing the
rules and lowering its standards.
Will the President of the Treasury Board settle this dispute
fairly, once and for all, or is he going to signal to the public
that pay equity is dead?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how much more do they want? We proclaimed pay equity in 1978. We
have paid about $1 billion in the last few years to attain it.
There is clearly at present equal pay for equal work.
The problem is one of methodology on which clearly the union
does not want to negotiate. We are ready to offer a settlement
which makes sense, but it takes two to tango.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
Canadians are finding out that they really do not have a
government. They have a process, whether it is the postal
strike, whether it is pay equity or whether it is Kyoto.
I would like to ask a question of fact of the process
government. It is a straightforward, simple question. Could the
Liberal government tell us today which provincial or territorial
governments in this country officially support the position which
it announced today with respect to Kyoto?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has spent a lot of
time talking with its provincial counterparts, territorial
counterparts and with all sectors of Canadian society. They
understand that Canada, as a trading nation, must be part of an
international consensus and they understand that the government
has to have some leeway.
Several provincial representatives and ministers will be
officially accompanying our delegation to Kyoto.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
not surprised. The minister said they spent a lot of time. We
knew that much. They spent a lot of time.
At this rate, however, I hope for everyone's sake that they will
not put the whole delegation on the same plane to Kyoto because
at this rate they will probably come off the plane with a
different position than the one announced today.
While they are at it, could they explain to Canadians how they
expect to implement in Canada any position that is taken in Kyoto
without the active engagement and support of provincial or
territorial governments?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague's comments
that he supports the federal government in what it is trying to
do.
We have made it very clear that implementation will depend on
our plans and negotiations with all of our partners in Canada,
after Kyoto, when we know exactly what the international legally
binding targets are.
We will be there with the provinces, the territories, industry
and business.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians from coast to coast are demanding that the government
get off its shop-until-you-drop spending fixation in favour of
debt reduction.
In fact, the hon. member for Hillsborough found out that 79% of
his constituents favour lower debt, lower taxes, and only 21%
favour an increase in spending, and that is in hard-pressed
Prince Edward Island.
Will the government listen to the hon. member for Hillsborough
and all Canadians and start to move forcibly in the direction of
reducing debt? That is what Canadians want.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have already
paid down $16 billion of debt this year. Our government is going
to take a very balanced approach. We will continue to pay down
the debt, we will reduce taxes and we will strengthen our social
and economic framework.
1430
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): That is hardly a
balanced approach, Mr. Speaker. They offered 29 new spending
initiatives in the throne speech.
As usual Canadian people are a way ahead of the government. They
understand how vulnerable we are with this $600 billion debt.
They understand that rising interest costs will eat the heart out
of social programs and remove our ability to start to reduce
taxes.
Will the government make a firm commitment today to devote at
least half of all surpluses to debt reduction?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said
to the hon. member, we are committed to debt reduction. We have
already demonstrated our commitment by deeds and actions.
We are committed to making sure we have the strongest social and
economic framework for Canadians for the future and to ensure
opportunities for all Canadians from coast to coast. We are also
committed to reducing taxes which we know in many cases are high.
* * *
[Translation]
KYOTO SUMMIT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after waiting until
the last minute, the government is finally informing us of the position
it will take at the Kyoto summit. As we know, following the Rio summit,
in 1992, only Quebec and British Columbia ratified the agreement.
Now that the Minister of the Environment has finally managed to
achieve a consensus on greenhouse gases among cabinet members, what will
she do to ensure that the potential Kyoto agreement is accepted and
ratified by the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have indicated to all the provinces, business,
industry and environmental organizations, in fact all
stakeholders, that they are invited and welcome to participate
with us in the development and finalization of the implementation
plan.
From day one we have adopted an inclusive, collaborative
approach. Most of the stakeholders have responded positively. We
expect that by the end of the day we will have all Canadians
inside the tent working constructively on solutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister
of the Environment pledge today, in this House, to set up an independent
committee to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in the
potential Kyoto agreement?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a variety of means by which parliament and
Canadians generally will be able to monitor progress toward the
implementation of any agreement flowing out of Kyoto.
The hon. gentleman has made a suggestion that we should look at.
I can also tell him that the Energy Council of Canada, the
National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, and a whole
variety of other groups and organizations are very anxious to
participate in building the solutions and in monitoring the
process.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state talked about the deeds and
actions of his government's fiscal policy. Let us look at a
couple of them.
There have been 37 tax increases in different areas since 1993,
$25 billion in increased taxes since 1993, and now it wants to
increase the CPP payroll tax by 73%. Those are the deeds and
actions of the Liberal government.
Since the secretary of state astutely put it that he recognized
the high taxes in the country, has he been able to demonstrate
his perceptiveness to the finance minister?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he has done this
totally without my assistance. The finance minister has cut EI
premiums by an accumulative amount of $7.1 billion since we took
office. The finance minister has cut taxes for the families of
the working poor, for the disabled, for charities and voluntary
organizations, for students and their parents. This is what the
finance minister has done.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the average Canadian family has had
$3,000 less disposable income every year since the Liberal Party
took power in 1993. That is how the finance minister has been
achieving some of these targets.
If the secretary of state recognizes the incredible burden high
taxes are putting on Canadian families and businesses, how will
he be able to convince the finance minister to see his point of
view?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon.
member would recognize that Canada has the lowest payroll taxes
of the G-7.
It would be totally irresponsible for us to announce massive
across the board tax decreases when we still have a deficit.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
MARINE INDUSTRY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
The federal government provides strong support to the aerospace
industry and boasts about its success. However, it refuses to do the
same for the shipbuilding industry, which develops sophisticated
products and employs a highly skilled workforce.
Given the success of the aerospace industry, should the government
not provide similar support to shipbuilders in Quebec and Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
not an accurate statement, since we already have a national policy in
place. Depreciation rates for ships are very high. There are also
programs in place to support ship sales and operations. Therefore, it is
not true that there is no policy to support shipbuilding companies.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister admit that he should support the shipbuilding industry in
Quebec and Canada by taking the same kind of measures the U.S.
government has in place for its industry, so that our builders can at
least compete on a level playing field with the Americans?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it depends on what the hon. member exactly means.
If she means that we should have an equivalent to the U.S. style
of protectionism in the Jones Act, I do not think she would find
very general support for that. If she thinks we should have
export sales support as does the U.S., my answer to her is that
we do. If she asks me whether I think we should turn over
subsidies to an industry to enable it to sell into international
markets, I suggest to her that I do not agree with that.
* * *
SENATE REFORM
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
prime minister said in 1990 “if elected Liberal leader I pledge
to work for a Senate that is elected and that has legislative
powers of its own”. Yet for the past seven years Senator Andrew
Thompson has had his toes in the sand and Pacific breezes on his
face. The Canadian people have shelled out over a half million
dollars to keep him there.
Canadian taxpayers want Senate reform. The opposition wants
Senate reform. Only the prime minister does not want Senate
reform. Is there any Liberal who will stand up now for the
Canadian people and demand Senate reform? Is there one?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the applause by Reform Party members does not indicate
the rumour is true that they are seeking to have me replace the
current leader of the Reform Party.
We are interested in Senate reform but the Reformers have proven
there is no point in pursuing it because of the way they opposed
it when they opposed the Charlottetown accord.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, people
in Canada want real Senate reform. Since 1990 Senator Thompson
has collected a half million taxpayer dollars while he suns
himself in Mexico.
What did the Prime Minister do? He gave Thompson even more
beach time by relieving him of his caucus duties.
How many more Senate haciendas will Canadians have to buy? How
many more six month Margaritaville holidays will taxpayers pick
up the tab for before the PM keeps his word and reforms the
Senate?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not condone the conduct of the senator in
question. However this is not due to any government decision or
anything within the direct power of the government. It is a
matter for the internal economy committee of the Senate. I
understand it is dealing with the matter.
In the meantime let us have members of the Reform Party make
clear that they are dropping their opposition to Senate reform
which they voted against in the course of the Charlottetown
accord. Let Reformers get up and say what they really stand for
when it comes to true reform of the Senate, not just electing one
way but unelecting if a—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères.
* * *
[Translation]
INARI
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Department of Foreign Affairs have been aware, for at
least five years, of the dubious activities of INARI, despite its
UN accreditation.
How is that, despite criticism of this agency, the government
has still, five years later, not asked the UN to withdraw INARI's
accreditation?
1440
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I would welcome any
representation he would like to make on the exact kinds of
changes he believes should be made.
We are looking very carefully at the matter. We would be very
happy to hear what the opposition has to say.
* * *
HIV-AIDS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is World AIDS Day. The Minister of Health announced this
morning that there would be funding for AIDS and HIV programs.
Given the significant importance of this health issue, how does
Canada compare with other countries in its attack against AIDS?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that in
the course of the last mandate the amount of funds contributed to
strategies to combat AIDS ranks second worldwide.
The $200 million plus that were designated for dealing with this
epidemic have again been renewed for an additional five year
term. It comes out to about $42.2 million per annum to address
the epidemic, the therapies, the vaccines and perhaps a cure,
hopefully a cure. Canada is leading and is in the forefront of
addressing the AIDS epidemic.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
ten long weeks ago, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
he was going to consult Quebeckers about the Calgary declaration.
Ten weeks later, he has done nothing. Separatists, however,
have not been sitting idle. Lucien Bouchard is already talking
about a snap election or referendum.
What is the government doing to ensure that the separatists no
longer overtake it?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I may reassure the member, the forces of Canadian unity
are now overtaking Quebec's separatist forces.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish the hon. minister would act on his words.
The separatists alarm clock is ringing but the government is
hitting the snooze button. It is sleepwalking its way toward
another referendum.
Why are Quebeckers the only Canadians not being consulted on the
Calgary declaration? Why is Lucien Bouchard the only politician
talking to Quebeckers on unity?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will accept that what he
said is wrong. It is nonsense.
He knows that we are working very hard. All the parties believe
in unity for Canada. The results are promising. We must keep
going. A good way to do it would be for he and his party to be
strongly behind supporting the Calgary declaration.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to direct my question to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
On the Kyoto announcement, is the government intent on
supporting the Reform fearmongering on this issue instead of
acknowledging that efforts to cut emissions can be a powerful job
creator?
Could the Minister of Natural Resources explain what targets
have been set for job creation through greenhouse gas emission
efforts like public transportation, building retrofits, clean
environmental technologies and transitional funding for displaced
workers and industries?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all elements mentioned by the hon. gentleman may well be
part of an implementation package.
We will work on that package immediately after Kyoto in
consultation with provinces and otherwise. He should know that
my department is already investing $70 million a year in efforts
directed toward the climate change issue.
In the 1997 budget that was increased by a further $20 million a
year. We are hopeful that innovations like the Ballard fuel
cell, the separation of carbon dioxide, the deal between
Petro-Canada and IOGEN, and all these new technology innovations
will create jobs.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal announcement for Kyoto is finally here but it is no
where near the previous red book promises or international
commitments. Canadians know that Liberals often miss or forget
their promises.
Will the Minister of the Environment assure Canadians that job
creation will be a major instrument used to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions?
1445
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government believes that dealing
with this issue, bringing in all of our partners to focus on
measures in fact will be a win-win situation. The environment
will be improved. We will have jobs created. There will be many
benefits not only for Canada but also for the international
community through our efforts.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to raise an issue today in the House of Commons that I
can only assume has never been raised in the Liberal caucus in
the last four years. That is the issue of unemployed Canadians.
I would like to know whether the government would want to
acknowledge today that the increase in CPP premiums the Liberals
are now planning for will have the net effect of taking away a
week's wages for a worker who works and earns less than $35,000 a
year. If they do know that, why are they doing it, or is it
someone else's fault?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, Canada still has the lowest payroll taxes of any country
in the G-7.
Under the Conservatives, not one responsible action was taken to
deal with the growing crisis in the CPP, a deficit that was going
to be unfunded by the year 2030 of $6 billion. But we acted. We
acted with the provinces. We acted on behalf of workers and
present and future pensioners and we are proud of it.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, might I
suggest to the minister and the government that they should act
their age; they really should assume their responsibilities.
If they are doing so, why is the government now syphoning
billions of dollars annually out of the pockets of workers and
small businesses in order to create a unnecessary surplus in the EI
fund?
Why are they going along with that? Instead of feeding the
poor and unemployed statistics, why does the government not return
a bit of these people's own money, so as to create jobs in our
economy?
[English]
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
payroll taxes, that is the government that started out with EI
premiums at $1.95 heading to $3.30. We have cut them four times:
to $3, to $2.95, to $2.90 and now to $2.70. We do not have
anything to learn about payroll taxes from that side of the
House.
* * *
[Translation]
UNITED NATIONS MISSION TO HAITI
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, the Canadian civilian police mission to Haiti came
home. The impact of our contingent on the Haitian people was,
without a shadow of a doubt, extremely beneficial. In response to
President Préval, the security council unanimously decided to
create a new civilian police mission.
What is this new UN mission to Haiti and will Canada be
participating?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very proud of the 600 members of the Canadian Armed
Forces and the civilian police. I think it is a great contribution
that will improve the future of Haiti.
As for the new mission, Canada will be sending 24 officers to
help the Haitian government train its new national police force.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week
a group of young offenders beat an innocent girl to death. What
comfort did the Minister of Justice offer? This is what she
said: “I hope there is nobody out there who believes that if we
just made the law tough enough that youth crime would
disappear.” That is what she said when talking about cruelty to
innocent girls, while indicating she is going to increase the
penalty for cruelty to animals by more than four years.
Why is it that people who are cruel to animals are going to
serve more jail time than the young offenders who were involved
in the beating death of Reena Virk?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be
under a misapprehension. What I indicated in relation to my
comments regarding cruelty to animals is that we and the
provinces are in the process of reviewing the existing laws.
There may or may not be changes made.
I have made it clear over and over again in this House that we
are reviewing the Young Offenders Act. We plan to make changes to
the Young Offenders Act to make sure that we condemn the kind of
conduct that led to the tragedy in Victoria last week.
* * *
[Translation]
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on the eve of the St. Lawrence Seaway's closure for the
winter, relations between the 525 workers and the administration
are strained.
1450
The slowdown by employees could affect traffic severely as
ship crews hurry to leave the Seaway before it closes.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the
minister assure us that he will encourage the St. Lawrence Seaway
authority to negotiate in good faith and to sign a new collective
agreement to replace the one that expired a year ago?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate for a minister to
give instructions to a crown agency such as the St. Lawrence
Seaway in terms of dealing with its employees. I am sure, knowing
the management of that body, that it will be dealing with its
employees in a fair and just manner, taking into account the
financial situation of the seaway and the general economic
climate at the time.
* * *
AIDS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Five years ago the Prime Minister promised $55 million per year
for a national AIDS strategy. Today the health minister
basically announced the status quo, coming in at $42 million per
year despite a 50% increase in the rate of HIV infection over the
past five years.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the HIV-AIDS
crisis is even more serious today than when the government
promised $55 million? Will he commit to a plan that makes a real
difference in stopping this deadly disease?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commitment that was made has
already been lived up to. As I indicated earlier, Canada is
essentially a world leader in financing research to combat the
AIDS epidemic and in providing funds for palliative care, for
therapeutic care and for drug research.
That record is being replicated and improved upon with today's
announcement of $211 million spread out over five years. That is
in addition to all the funds that are being disbursed by other
agencies like the Medical Research Council for that purpose.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, section
110 of the U.S. Immigration Reform Act was before Congress for 13
months, passing in September 1996.
When I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to table a list of
official representations made by our ambassador in Washington, I
was told it would be a very long list. In committee a department
official confirmed that there was only one representation made
and it was a letter sent in December 1996, three months after the
bill passed.
Why did the minister indicate that greater representation had
been made than had actually been made? Why did our ambassador
drop the ball in representing Canadian interests in Washington?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I basically stand by my previous answer. A wide
variety of people made a wide variety of representations to a
wide variety of congressmen and senators, including the
administration. We have the result that the United States
Congress is moving to eliminate that part of Bill 110.
* * *
TAXATION
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
Canada made some structural changes a decade ago to our income
tax system and we have taken some steps in our previous budgets.
Can the secretary of state tell us whether income tax reform is
on the government's agenda?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we look
forward to the report of the finance committee as well as to the
report of the Mintz committee.
As well, we have already undertaken some important reforms. We
are the party for example that has abolished the $100,000
lifetime capital gains exemption. We have restricted the use of
tax shelters. We have eliminated the advantages for family
trusts. We have also dealt with the issue of taxpayer migration.
It is important to recognize that Canada has the most
progressive income tax system in the G-7. Two per cent of tax
filers have an income over $100,000. They pay 21% of taxes. We
will continue to look forward to methods of improving—
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Corporal Matthew Schovanek's hopes and dreams were robbed from
him while on peacekeeping duty in Croatia. He was left
paralyzed, blind and in need of full time care for the rest of
his life.
His skull was crushed because our military sent him into service
without a helmet. Helmets were not issued because of significant
accounting difficulties, whatever that means.
1455
The government must accept responsibility for what has happened
to Matthew. Will the government assure Matthew and his family
that he will be properly compensated for this horrendous
preventable accident?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this House and I am sure the
government and the opposition share the tragedy of the event when
any member of the Canadian forces has a casualty, whether on duty
or not.
I have to say and I think the hon. member knows that this matter
is before the courts. It would be most inappropriate for me to
comment any further.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the asbestos issue, the Government of Quebec has
sent four letters since February to the federal government asking
it to lodge a complaint against France before the World Trade
Organization. Only the Minister for International Trade seems not
to be aware of these letters.
When will the government make up its mind to complain to the
WTO about France's banning of asbestos?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member
forgot to mention that when the premier of Quebec visited France,
he specifically requested the federal government to back off and
back away from any WTO challenge. Now that he is safely back, the
member asks where have you been? In case he has gone missing in
action, my deputy minister chaired a meeting in Quebec last week
with government officials from Quebec and with the industry.
There is strong consensus on moving forward together.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week in speaking to students at Carleton University, the
premier of B.C. spoke out boldly and called on Ottawa and the
provinces to work together to freeze tuition fees and reduce
growing student debt. B.C. has already led the way in freezing
tuition fees.
Will the minister support the B.C. initiative and admit that
government must put the brakes on tuition fees and restore
government funding now?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have the great pleasure
and privilege to live in a federation. As you know, tuition fees
are the responsibility of provincial governments. I am going to
respect what the provincial governments do as far as they are
concerned.
What I can tell the member is that we as a government have been
working very hard to help the students. We are going to make
changes to the Canada student loans program because there needs
to be a number of changes as far as that is concerned. We have
met with the student associations, with the provinces, with the
banks and we are moving along pretty well.
* * *
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, over the last
four years the Liberal government has been cutting
indiscriminately, all this without considering the impact of cuts
and the future competitiveness of young Canadians. Now that there
is some evidence of a surplus, it appears that the government is
ready to spend indiscriminately. There is a feeding frenzy going
on. The ministers are fighting for their share of the surplus
pot. The government is planning to spend carelessly and quickly.
Will the Minister of Finance inform the House of the criteria
that new initiatives will undergo?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, we have
to recognize that we still have a deficit. We still have a debt
which is over 73% of our gross domestic product.
Yes, the hon. member has recognized that we have had to cut
program spending from $120 billion to $105 billion. A lot of
programs have suffered because of that. The member also has to
recognize that there are tax cuts which we would hope to be able
to bring in when they are sustainable.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
In 1994 the federal government and the provinces signed an
agreement on internal trade as a beginning toward the elimination
of all interior trade barriers in Canada.
Can the minister inform the House on the implementation of this
accord and what plans are there to eliminate all remaining
internal trade barriers?
1500
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the agreement on internal trade signed in 1994 was an
important first step in eliminating and reducing the trade
barriers. However, I have to say that the progress that we had
hoped to see in chapters such as government procurement in the
MASH sector, energy, agriculture and so on has been very slow
in coming.
I would also like to point out that many of the changes we
would like to see adopted in the internal trade agreement,
changes that would, for example, cause all the rules to apply
to all trade except where exceptions are taken, are ones we
think should be implemented as soon as possible.
I hope provincial governments will share our enthusiasm.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Erik Derycke,
Minister of Foreign Affairs for Belgium.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the second report of the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance entitled “Keeping
the Balance: Security and Opportunity for Canadians”. This
report reflects the input of literally thousands of Canadians
from coast to coast and outlines the committee's recommendations
for the 1998 budget.
Canadians approached this consultation with an understanding
that economic growth and fiscal success are not ends in
themselves but rather a means to improving the quality of life
for all Canadians.
Our conversation with Canadians has allowed us to answer the
question of what our approach should be for the challenges of
this new era. To put it simply, Canadians want balance; not just
a balanced budget but balance in government policies, in its
goals and results.
Canadians want balance between the security offered by debt
reduction and the benefits of investing in people, technology and
research and development. Canadians firmly believe that health
and education are not just items on a balance sheet but rather an
expression of our core values.
1505
Canadians have demanded accountability from the government, as
well as responsibility from themselves. In “Keeping the
Balance” we have tried to respond with the substance our fellow
citizens demand as well as a budget plan they deserve.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to respond to the government report. The Reform Party
minority report is appended to the government report on the
prebudget hearings. In that report we point out that Canadians
across the country, from coast to coast, universally do not
accept the government's 50:50 spending promise. They do not
accept that we need to spend ever more money. In fact, there is
a tremendous emphasis on paying down debt and reducing taxes.
I believe that reflects what the Reform Party has heard in
consultations across the country and that is reflected in its
minority report which is appended to the government report.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous
consent for all parties to respond to the tabling of the
committee report in the same manner as the Reform Party just did.
The Speaker: We have a report from the committee. We
have a response. We now have a request from the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona to speak to the tabling of the committee
report. We are going to try to do this legally.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Does the House agree that all the parties
should have a chance to respond to the report with equal time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Perhaps I missed it, but I would
like to ask you whether there was a time limitation put on this.
I would also like the House to be well aware that this is in no
way a case precedent and not necessarily going to be given to
parties—
The Speaker: The usual tradition of the House is that
whatever time it takes for the report to be tabled, other parties
get equal time.
I would presume if the House has agreed to have responses that
all the responders to this committee report would have
approximately the same amount of time as the presenter of the
report.
With that I will hear the hon. member for Halifax.
1510
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this report,
specifically to draw attention to the dissenting opinion filed by
the NDP finance critic who quite correctly is concerned about the
priorities reflected in the report.
I think the point of view he has presented on behalf of our
caucus is summed up by the words “the federal books may be in
balance, but the economy is out of kilter”.
For that reason, the New Democratic Party has put forward a
dissenting view in which we have outlined the priorities that we
think more accurately reflect the concerns, the voices and the
values of the broad majority of Canadians that simply do not find
expression in the government's majority report.
We have had an opportunity to set forward what we think the
priorities ought to be, starting with making jobs the number one
priority, first and foremost, which is still not reflected in the
prebudget report.
Finally, the overall priority in addition to finally setting
timetables and targets with respect to job creation is to be
given to investments which raise our long term social and
economic well-being, investments in education, in health, in
tackling poverty and in the sustainability of our natural
environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, in reading the report presented by the chair of the Standing
Committee on Finance, we can recognize the style of the Liberal
government, a government focused on maple leaf-flavoured
propaganda.
Reading this report, which was leaked by the Toronto media, we
can see that the Liberals are attempting to pass it off as an
objective summary of what the numerous organizations and
individuals consulted since mid-October from coast to coast had to
say. This is false.
In reality, this report is nothing but the red program of the
Liberals from the last electoral campaign.
Once again, the Liberals have thumbed their noses at the rules of
democracy, by squeezing the opposition parties into a tight
timeframe and thus trying to prevent us in the Parti Quebecois from
voicing our opposition.
I have, moreover, strongly urged the chair of the Standing
Committee on Finance to hold an in-depth review of the process
surrounding publication of the finance report and to conduct his
own investigation in order to identify the person or persons
responsible for the leak to the media.
At any rate, this report shows that there are two economic
visions, one belonging to Canada and the other to Quebec, which are
diametrically opposed. Quebec condemns federal intrusion into
areas of provincial jurisdiction, while the other provinces are
calling for a stepped-up federal presence. The solution is
extremely simple.
All Quebeckers are aware that what will solve all of Quebec's
socio-economic problems is Quebec sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege concerning several matters which arise from
the report which was just forwarded from the Standing Committee
on Finance.
By an order of this House I am a member of the standing
committee. The committee, in obedience with Standing Order
83(10), undertook consideration of proposals regarding the
budgetary policy of government. The staff from the Library of
Parliament assisting the whole committee prepared a draft
document which was to be considered in the formulation of our
report.
It is well known that there have been media accounts of the
contents of this committee report. I want to express my regret
that our report was not first given to all members of the House.
That part of the draft report started to find its way into the
media before the opposition members of the committee had access
to the draft material. We were not given access to the draft
material until 10 a.m. last Friday and we were required to
prepare a report for today. We had less than three hours to
consider that material. Obviously some other members had earlier
access.
The premature disclosure of a report or the disclosure of
confidential committee documents is a long established ground for
contempt proceedings by the House.
I was unsuccessful in having this matter reported to the House by
the committee so that actions could be taken by the House. I am
aware that you are therefore restricted in the actions you can
take.
1515
However, I was further obstructed in the discharge of my
obligations to this House. On several occasions I requested
access to the document which was to form the basis of our draft
report. I made my request known to the chairman of the committee
and was repeatedly told that I could not have access to these
papers which were prepared for the entire committee by staff.
This included descriptions of the hearings, summaries of the
testimony of witnesses, history of past government policies and
so forth.
I was then informed that my opinion about our hearings or the
government's budgetary policies could be included in a section of
dissenting opinions. In other words, no matter what I may have
wanted to propose, I would not be given a chance to have my
opinions considered by my colleagues on the committee for
inclusion in the report proper.
Opposition views would not find their way into the committee
report. I would not have a chance to see a draft report within a
reasonable timeframe nor to debate its accuracy and merits and
any views which I might have. Whether or not I agreed with the
draft report would be relegated to the status of dissent
opinions.
Mr. Speaker, this contempt for the maintenance of a legitimate
process is troubling to me. These hearings cost Canadian
taxpayers over $400,000. Are they to be nothing but a public
relations show for the Minister of Finance? Did they go through
this exercise just to save the minister the time of having to
meet with the groups that addressed the committee while he met
with the select groups of his choosing?
Certainly there will be a division of opinion about which
budgetary policy the government should follow. However, the
one-sided nature of this process is a mockery of this House. The
Liberal attitude was that there was no need for debate, no need
to defend their position, no need to do anything other than to
tell the Minister of Finance what he wanted to hear.
The only people on the committee who could offer opinions for
inclusion in the main body of the report were the Liberal members
of this committee. All other members were denied access to the
draft material and their views were held to be not worthy of
debate. They were told their opinions would be slapped into the
report as dissenting views. Dissenting from what? We committee
members were never to know. Nor were the Liberals to consider
our views and debate them in committee. We on this side of the
House, we are not to be participants. By virtue of where we sit,
we are labelled as dissidents from the revealed truth of the
Liberals.
The old Liberal arrogance is back. Stop opposition members from
participating in discussions, deny them access to draft reports.
“They couldn't possibly agree with us so don't waste time
letting them in the door”. The finance committee of the House
of Commons is nothing more than an organ of the Minister of
Finance and the Liberal caucus. Certainly this was the view of
several witnesses after their experiences before the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider whether or not the denial of
my access to committee draft papers available to other members of
the committee constitutes an obstruction of a member and
therefore constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the question of privilege is
very serious. I saw two members rising in their places. Is it
on this question of privilege?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, it is.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
the same question of privilege, I want to confirm that what I saw
of how the finance committee conducted itself with respect to
sharing information with members of the opposition exactly
reflects what the member said.
When I confirmed to the chairman of the finance committee that
we would probably be bringing in a minority report, we were told
that we would have to have that minority report in by last
Wednesday without seeing the majority report. We never had a
chance to even see the report but had to put in a minority
report.
1520
To add insult to injury, the next day we read about the
government's report in the newspapers. It could only have been
leaked from one place, the government. I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, it has really jaundiced my opinion of how the government
operates its committees. I do believe that this is a breach of
the hon. member's privileges and those of all opposition members
who sit on the finance committee.
I hope that the Speaker will very seriously consider what the
hon. member is saying. I really do confirm his concerns. I hope
that the government takes what it has done extraordinarily
seriously because I believe it has caused quite a rift between
government and opposition members.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively
to the points raised by the hon. two members across.
On one hand we heard a number of remarks on the government. Even
the government's motive is being questioned by the hon. member
from the Conservative Party. While I totally reject the premises
and indeed the allegations behind the government's sincerity,
what the government is seeking to do and what it asked the
committee to do and what I believe the committee did in all
sincerity is provide valuable input which I am sure this report
will be. I have not read it yet. I suspect neither have most
people.
There are two points in particular which I would like to
address. One is that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has just
said that it wanted to provide a minority report before seeing
the report of the majority. He then went on to say that it was
wrong for the majority to pretend that it would not agree with
the minority report. At the same time he said that he wanted to
file a minority report without having seen what he believes was
the report of the majority. Mr. Speaker, one cannot have it both
ways. That is not logical in the thought process.
On a more fundamental point and where I do agree with hon.
members, and hopefully we will all agree, is the following. That
a leak from a report from the committee is not appropriate before
the House is seized with the report. I believe that the first
group of people who should see a report prepared by any committee
are hon. members of this House. That is why we have been sent
here. This is our mandate. It is our sacred duty. I believe,
Mr. Speaker, that you are the custodian of our rights as members
of Parliament. To that extent I agree that no one should ever
make a report accessible to someone who is not a member of
Parliament prior to members of Parliament—
An hon. member: What are you going to do about it?
An hon. member: So why did you do it?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, one member has just
gratuitously accused me personally of leaking the government
document. I hope that he would choose to withdraw an allegation
like that. For him to even say that is not knowing me very well.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong for anyone to
leak a report from the committee. Members of the House, I, you
and everyone else have a right to see it at the same time,
possibly before anyone else.
In regard to the government's motives behind this, Mr. Speaker,
I can give you my impression as a member of this government. What
we want to know through this process is what the general public
thinks should be in the budget. That is why the process is there
and that is why we have already scheduled a two day debate later
in this session but before Christmas so that Canadians through
their members of Parliament can have a debate in the House of
Commons and listen to the valuable contributions which all
members of Parliament will make in that process.
I summarize by saying that I do not believe that anyone on the
government side did anything wrong in terms of the content of the
report. I do agree that if anyone leaked this report to the media
then that in itself is obviously wrong.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege just put
forward by the hon. member for Markham.
Keeping in mind the comments made by the hon. House leader for
the government, I am not going to burden the House with a
recitation of precedents on the issue of advanced disclosure of
committee reports. The hon. member has put forward the principle
that he certainly agrees that all members of this House should be
given the opportunity to view this prior to it being made public.
Unfortunately, that is no the case here.
1525
Unfortunately, the Globe and Mail, the Star and
another publication—I believe the Financial Post—had this
information in advance of opposition members. This is a very
serious breach of privilege, I would submit.
It is not only an insult to the House, but it is an insult to
all members and an insult in particular, I would suggest, to
staff members on this committee because as a result of this
occurrence, it casts a shadow over their involvement in the
process. Those persons are now under suspicion, I would suggest,
as a result of this leak occurring.
The point brought forward by the member for Markham is very
serious. This is a situation that the government is going to
have to look into in more detail, not only to ensure that it does
not happen again, but to ensure accountability and to ensure that
the good name and reputation of those staff persons involved in
this particular committee are not going to be besmirched by this
incident.
It is problematic in and of the fact that some members of the
committee had it and others did not, but I would suggest equal
importance and equal emphasis have to be placed on the fact that
these staff persons are now castigated by this particular
occurrence.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of a distinct report
on the matter from the standing committee, there is an overriding
duty on you to permit this House to probe the situation which
compromises the staff of this House. They should not have to
tolerate this situation in silence, and I say emphatically that I
do not believe for one moment that any staff person involved here
is the source of the leak—that is not the allegation—but
because of the leak, they have been placed in a non-acceptable
position and it is up to this House, I would suggest, to remove
that cloud.
If the House does not address this premature disclosure issue
and the standards it expects regarding disclosure and
non-disclosure, the bad situation will be made worse. Some
members of this House favour more transparency at the committee
deliberations. That, I would suggest, is a good thing. Certainly
the Finance committee is not of a mind that leaking a report is
going to do anything to help improve the reputation of this
House.
They voted down a motion by the hon. member for Markham to bring
this matter to the House and now I would suggest a double
standard exists. The rules require confidentiality, the
committee has voted not to bring the matter of the leak to the
attention of the House and others may see merit in keeping it
confidential.
However, I would suggest that having a report introduced through
the media rather than the proper channels that we know exist in
this House is completely inappropriate.
Whatever the views of this House, I would suggest that there
should be some debate and an agreement on the standards that we
expect with respect to the introduction of these reports.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider the position of the
employees involved in this particular matter when this game is
played and leaks are put out to the media and I would ask that
should you find that a prima facie case exists meriting priority
consideration by this House, I would be pleased to move the
motion in this regard.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I want to hear opinions, of
course, on a point of privilege. I do not want us to get into
debate. If we go back and forth, it turns into a debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say briefly that we
support the comments by the Conservative members about the
Liberals. In the present circumstances, it is very obvious that
what has been done is very harmful to the government's pre-budgetary
consultations.
I would like to speak about my personal situation. I
conducted a pre-budgetary consultation in my riding and
constituents kept asking me if it was serious, if it would be taken
into consideration, if they would be able to see the results of the
suggestions they were making. I said that when I was elected to
Parliament, this pre-budgetary consultation process did not really
exist.
It can be considered one of this government's good moves.
But today, with the news of the leak, everything that has been
said—and that is what I told my constituents as their member of
Parliament—has been thrown into question by the fact that there
is now no point in participating, that this is more political
opportunism to give one party a leg up over the others.
I therefore find the comment by the Conservative member to be
very relevant. The government can try to make the best of it by
allowing two days of debate. I think that that would perhaps be
interesting.
1530
My feeling as a parliamentarian, however, was that I and the
constituents in my riding who took part in the consultations had
been taken for a ride.
[English]
The Speaker: I am going to listen a second time out, if
you have new information to give us, the hon. member for Medicine
Hat, and then I will go to the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point
out very quickly that oftentimes opposition parties do issue
minority reports. I was being very frank with the chairman of
the finance committee when I made that statement. I did not
suggest for a second that opposition members should not be
allowed to see the majority report. Even if we do issue a
minority report, Mr. Speaker, certainly it would be nice to be
able to see the majority report so that if we wish to amend what
we are proposing we can do that but that was not allowed.
The second point I wish to make very briefly is that I trust,
Mr. Speaker, you will look into the very serious matter of who
leaked this document and that it will be made very public so that
we can get to the bottom of this. I do believe that it
besmirches the whole reputation of the committee system when that
sort of thing happens in Parliament.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to bring to the Chair's attention that a point of
privilege on this very same matter came before the House last
Friday.
I would also like to advise the Chair that at the finance
committee meeting last Friday when this matter first came to
light as a result of the article in the Globe and Mail that
morning, the committee did spend extensive time discussing it. I
think the record will show this. I urge the Chair to look at the
transcript of the committee, if it is available as it was an in
camera session. The members on the finance committee unanimously
agreed that the situation that had occurred was unacceptable and
passed a resolution requiring the chair to undertake a full
investigation of what happened on behalf of all the members so
that we could all know.
I just wanted the Chair to know that since last Friday this
issue is being dealt with by the chair of the finance committee.
I just raise that for your attention, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: We are still on this point of privilege.
Unless there are more pertinent facts to be brought to the
Chair's attention, I trust we will not go over information that
was given previously. The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in support of the question of privilege by the hon.
member for Markham, I want to tell you that I have firsthand
knowledge of the proceedings and how he got to his question of
privilege.
I want to add to the argument. It is very clear from comments
made that the Liberal members of the committee in fact did have
prior knowledge of the committee report before it was presented
to the committee. That was absolutely clear from statements that
were made.
Also, there were members of the committee who did acknowledge
that they had discussed certain issues that the committee dealt
with with the media over the last few days. To what extent that
went is up for debate but members had recognized that.
I also believe that the opposition members' privileges were
breached due to the fact that the Liberal members of the
committee took part in the formation of the committee report at
the exclusion of the opposition members of that committee.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I do not want to enter into the details of this dispute because I
am not a member of the finance committee and was not previously
consulted about this point of privilege.
I do however want to register a concern that we have with any
evidence or suggestion that committee reports are being leaked to
the media before other members, particularly opposition members,
have seen them or for that matter that committee reports are
being leaked anywhere.
We remember still with great offence that the committee report on
the review of the drug patent legislation was leaked to the
minister before it was finally reported.
1535
We want to register our continuing opposition to any way in
which reports are released prematurely or vetted prematurely in
ways that are detrimental to the rights and privileges of
opposition members.
The Speaker: I will hear one final intervention.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know whether this is a corollary to the same point of order
but I think you would agree that we are getting into a little
dangerous ground when the member from Mississauga talks about
votes taken in camera and the result of those votes and so on. It
starts to get into a bit of what does an in camera meeting really
mean if the vote is then reported back to the House.
The Speaker: Colleagues, that is what it is when we
get into these points where we get opinions from each side. It
is a little difficult just to cut off members at a certain point.
The allegations that are made here I take to be very serious for
the House. I have had the opinions now of six or seven members
which I want to take into consideration. I also want to get other
information for myself with regard to what went on in committee.
I think I will probably be able to get that so that will come
into my decision.
I will take all of this information into account and I will
return to the House because it is very important for all of us.
* * *
POSTAL SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT, 1997
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an act to provide for the
resumption and continuation of postal services.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
POSTAL SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT, 1997
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56(1), I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of
this House, the bill in the name of the Minister of Labour
entitled an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of
postal services shall be disposed of as follows:
l. Commencing when this order is adopted and concluding when the
said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn
except pursuant to a motion by a minister of the crown and no
Private Members' Business shall be taken up;
2. The said bill may be read twice or thrice in the same
sitting;
3. After being read a second time, the said bill shall be
referred to a committee of the whole; and
4. During the consideration of the said bill no division may be
deferred.
1540
Mr. Speaker, if this motion is adopted, it would be my intention
to call it tomorrow.
The Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion
please rise in their places.
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: Fewer than 25 members having risen, the
motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a
petition on behalf of a good number of constituents of mine.
The petitioners call on this government to take serious my
constituents' concerns about changes to the Canada pension plan
and to propose changes to the seniors benefit.
Many of these constituents are senior citizens who know the
benefits of a comprehensive pension system.
1545
They are concerned about the future of their children and their
grandchildren. They call on the government to rescind Bill C-2,
which they believe imposes massive CPP premium hikes while it
reduces benefits. They call for changes in the financial
arrangements to provide for a more effective mechanisms of
investment than that proposed in Bill C-2. They call on the
House for a national review of the retirement income system in
Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today
and tomorrow.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition
from a number of Canadians, including some from my riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to society.
The petitioners would also like to raise an issue included in
the report of the National Forum on Health, that the Income Tax
Act does not take into account the cost of raising children for
families that make the choice to provide care in the home.
Therefore the petitioners pray and call upon parliament to
pursue initiatives to assist families that decide to provide care
in the home for preschool children.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
today on behalf of my constituents of Erie—Lincoln.
The petitioners are concerned that the moral structure of
society is being threatened and that community standards are
being eroded.
They request that the Criminal Code of Canada be reviewed and
amended to correct and clarify the sections pertaining to public
nudity to abolish exposure of female breasts in public.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that
all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act to establish
the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension
Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts, as reported with amendments from the committee; and of
the motions in Group No. 6.
The Speaker: I believe that the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac
still had seven minutes. He has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
as I was saying, CPP contribution rates will have to rise to
adequate levels to ensure the long term viability of the plan.
These increased contributions must be more than offset by
substantial reductions in other taxes like EI. This means more
money going into the plan without asking Canadians to pick up the
tab and without creating more threats to job creation. As a
result, the CPP will get the funding it needs without increasing
personal tax burdens.
Canadians need to know that never again will their pension funds
be mismanaged the way they have been in the past. They also
deserve a greater return on their investment. For this reason
there must be a complete restructuring of the financing of the
CPP to secure it for the future.
Many young people today are already sure they will not have the
CPP when they need it. In my riding I see young people who have
a lot of trouble finding jobs that would allow them to earn a
decent living and plan for the future. The NDP amendments would
let them foot the bill for us. The NDP wants all sorts of
benefits and all sorts of goodies. That is just not right. I
cannot support that. I cannot support putting my children's
future on the line.
As the only effective opposition in the House of Commons it is
our role to explain to Canadians that there are alternatives to
the government's position. The government is trying to steamroll
these changes through parliament and the official opposition
party has been too inept to stop it. Canadians deserve real
policy alternatives, not just opposition while the cameras are
rolling.
1550
It is with some dismay that we have seen the government suggest
reckless changes to the CPP which would affect Canadians long
after the government has been forgotten.
In good faith we presented a series of amendments to the
legislation during the committee hearings. The government
rejected all our amendments and then proceeded to introduce
watered down versions of what we proposed. Its amendments are
too little too late but show how effective opposition and
effective policy alternatives can influence change to misguided
government legislation.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, there
is a lot of hypocrisy on the benches across the way. While
Canadians will have to pay 9.9% for a Canada pension plan, a plan
which the Liberals across the way first created and ran into the
hole to the tune of $600 billion, the government has another
plan. Its members have their gold plated pension plan. While
Canadians are contributing to the tune of 9.9%, having their
premiums hiked up 70% or better from 5.85%, government members
have their gold plated MP pension.
There is no greater hypocrisy than to have politicians set their
own pension separate, above and beyond that of the people they
serve. That is exactly what the Liberal government has done.
The Liberals do not seem to see a problem, but I do and I think
a lot of taxpayers do when they see members of Parliament
collecting million dollar pensions. Indeed one of their former
colleagues, Brian Tobin, who is now the premier of Newfoundland,
is collecting a pension which, if he lives to the age of 75, will
result in him collecting $3.4 million. It is outrageous that
they are collecting this amount of money. A number of members
opposite will be collecting millions.
The Minister of Finance is a millionaire. He is talking about
the changes to the CPP as though he personally cares about them.
He has a lot of his money offshore in foreign trusts and is not
paying tax on it. However Canadians will have to pay nearly 10%
of their income into the Canada pension plan to a government that
bankrupted the pension plan. The finance minister's own father
said that it would never amount to more than a few hundred
dollars and would never rise to more than 5%. Shame on the
government.
It gets even worse. In the last term from 1993 to the last
election there were 36 tax increases. The bill represents either
the 37th or the 38th tax increase depending on which passes
first, Bill C-2 or Bill C-10. With Bill C-10 once again the
government is hitting upon those least able to pay. The
government is taxing back and redefining as income social
security benefits which a number of our seniors receive from the
United States. It will affect 50,000 people to the tune of about
$2,000 each. It is a tax grab of $100 million. The government
is hitting seniors. Bill C-2 and Bill C-10 represent two new tax
increases which will impact the pensions and retirement incomes
of Canadians. Shame on the government.
Now I would like to speak about our youth. It is a subject
which is near and dear to my heart. The young people of Canada
are being forced to pay into a pension plan out of which they
will see less than a 2% rate of return. Anyone could get that
rate of return. They are being forced to contribute to the plan
in the same way as I have been forced as a new member of
Parliament to contribute to the gold plated pension plan of which
I do not want to be a part. Many of my colleagues had the
opportunity to opt out of that pension plan in the 35th
parliament.
1555
We are seeing here a draconian measure of the greatest degree.
The Liberals are plucking from taxpayers what they make by the
sweat of their brows and the fruits of their labour. They are
telling them that they have to contribute to the government
pension plan. It has been poorly mismanaged in the past.
The Reform Party has been proposing the idea of a mandatory or
super RRSP. What could be better than that? People who would
contribute to that plan would own it. There would be a real
sense of ownership. They would be able to track the super RRSP.
They would be able to know where their money is. It would not go
into some account. It would not go in through one door and
travel out through another. The fund would actually be theirs.
They would own it. These people would have far more
responsibility and far more accountability for it.
How do we trust a government across the way that talks about a
Canada pension plan investment board when it has such a heinous
record in terms of patronage appointments? This year alone,
excluding the Senate, there were 50 patronage appointments made
by the government. Those were just the ones we could find. It
can be guaranteed that for every patronage appointment we could
find there are probably two or three more. The government has
that type of track record with patronage appointments.
The government broke its word. A member across the way helped
to write a critique of patronage positions and what was being
done with the previous Tory administration. The Liberals in
opposition said that these matters should be brought before a
parliamentary committee and that these jobs should be given based
on merit. Yet when the Liberals got into government what did
they do? In 1997 alone there were 50 patronage appointments.
They made more patronage appointments to the Senate than even
Brian Mulroney made when he was prime minister.
The Liberals have an atrocious record on the whole issue of
patronage appointments. Yet once again the finance minister
screams that we should trust him when it comes to the Canada
pension plan investment board.
The record speaks for itself. How can we trust somebody who has
given his word but goes ahead and breaks it time and time again?
How can we trust a man who has little or no understanding or
empathy for what the average taxpayer does or for what lower
incomes Canadians have to pay into this and what a struggle it is
for them? With his shipping companies and his tens of millions
of dollars offshore, how can he relate to the amount of money
these people have to take from their incomes to put into his
Canada pension plan scheme?
The Liberals have a poor track record yet this finance minister
has the gall to stand before us and say that this is the save
all, the same way his own father said that the Canada pension
plan was a save all when it first came out. It was a pay as you
go plan with no accountability and no ownership on behalf of the
individual Canadians contributing to it. Shame on them.
I will go through the reasons for it being wrong. Who will pay
for it? Taxpayers, in the same way they paid for the $600
billion unfunded liability that was the CPP before reform. Who
wants it? Do people want to have a 10% CPP contribution rate?
No. They wish the money had been invested properly in the first
place. They wish they had a sense of ownership with respect to
the plan instead of having it badly mismanaged by the Liberal
government.
Who slips through the cracks? Let us look at all the people who
will be paying outrageously greater amounts of money than what
they reasonably should. For example, people under 35 years of
age will be paying into the plan many more times than what they
will receive from it if the plan even survives under the
government mismanagement.
Let us also look at the hypocrisy of MP pensions, the idea that
Liberals have pensions above and beyond what any taxpayer could
ever get. For every dollar they put in, the taxpayer puts in
close to four dollars. Yet with the pension plan the public gets
a pittance.
We can also look at the idea of the Liberals going after the
seniors in terms of social security benefits from the United
States. Once again they are going after the young and everybody
else with the Canada pension plan tax hike. We can look at it
from the point of view that it is the 37th or the 38th tax
increase the government has brought in since 1993. We can look
at it from the point of view of a finance minister who has little
or no appreciation and does not care, a finance minister who does
not pay his own fair share of taxes because he hides money out of
the country.
For all these reasons, shame on them.
1600
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I was listening
to my Reform colleague talking about the previous government. He was
saying that the present government is not any better than the previous
government. I got the impression, listening to the Reform members, that
they think they know the answer to everything.
I wish to emphasize that we have nothing to be ashamed of regarding
the work of the previous government in the area of tax reform.
Unfortunately, the present government did not follow up on that reform.
We should also remember the free trade agreement, which allowed us to
increase our exports by 140%. Talk is cheap, but the facts of history
should not be ignored.
To come back to Bill C-2, I believe that one of the basic errors
the present government is making is to want to go too far too quickly.
I think it should be criticized for acting this way. This is cause for
concern because this government does not presently have a very heavy
legislative agenda. The government would have time to consult the
population further, to better inform Canadians of the importance of this
reform.
The reform of the Canada pension plan is the key issue during this
mandate. I believe the government should be willing to spend more time
on this. Unfortunately, it is addressing this issue with considerable
indifference.
They seem to want to copy very quickly, especially in the case of
the investment board.
They seem to think that this investment board will prevent all mistakes,
protect us from any patronage, and so on. Quebec offers an interesting
example, with the Caisse de dépôt et placement managing all Quebec
funds, but perhaps we should take a closer look at this example.
I am convinced that further consultations on the subject would show
that Canadians feel it is a little risky to give exclusive access to
this kind of money—tens of billions of dollars—to an exclusive
fund, which, as we will see in a moment, may not be protected against
political interference.
Unfortunately, the government is moving ahead quickly, establishing
an investment board that will enable it to manage all funds contributed
by Canadians. I think this is a very dangerous and risky proposition.
In time, it will justify thinking that there should have been two or
three boards, in totally different areas, instead of just one. This
would at least have had the advantage of giving us a higher degree of
security in every regard, including patronage appointments and
investment choices.
We all agree, of course, that it is important to amend this act. It
is a fundamental component of our social safety net. However, we must
try to be as fair and equitable as possible in making these amendments.
With this bill, we will be dipping into the pockets of all Canadian
taxpayers in a totally unacceptable fashion. Tens of thousands of jobs
will be lost as a result.
Change is clearly required, but the main reason for that change is
obviously our aging population.
It is an inescapable reality. There is also the dwindling birth rate.
This means even greater pressure on the fund.
Life expectancy is, of course, another factor that is not
negligible. There is also the rising number of people on disability.
There is the great concern generated by the general thrust that the
government wants to give the fund. Then there are the reduced benefits
that will be paid, even though the government will be dipping deep in
the pockets of all Canadian taxpayers.
We are not talking about one or two billion dollars: we are talking
about an annual average of $11 billion. This measure will result in the
loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
As a political party, we want to ensure the program's long term
viability. Obviously, everyone agrees with this goal. We also want to
ensure sound management of the fund.
Sound management simply means there should be a variety of investment
options, given the huge amounts that will be collected.
1605
What we want in particular is for the investment board to be
protected from political interference. I will forego giving any
examples of this; all the hon. members of this House are aware that
it is possible for a government to intervene with the investment
board and to steer it more toward ends that could be partisan or
even political.
Our political party agrees with an equitable contribution
unrelated to income level. We are also particularly in agreement
with the fact that all of our fellow citizens need to be encouraged
not to rely solely on government retirement funds.
I think that, when positive measures are taken, people are in a
position to understand, and particularly to make their own
investments, if they are given worthwhile means to encourage this.
What we want above all is for the $11 billion in increased
contributions taken from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers to be
offset by lower taxes and, for goodness' sake, by lower employment
insurance premiums as well. It is inconceivable that the
government has created a $15 billion fund at a time when all
Canadians need that money. Not $1 billion or $2 billion, but $15
billion have been salted away in order to reduce the federal
deficit.
We know very well that the record of the present government as
far as its battle with the deficit is concerned is due, among other
things, to—and you will forgive me for bringing up measures of the
former government—the way free trade has performed.
The present government voted against free trade. Our exports to
the U.S. market have risen from $90 billion to $215 billion. This
is one of the measures which now enable the government to fight the
deficit without having to dig into the taxpayers' pockets.
We are, therefore, in agreement with a variation in the
contribution rate, but we are particularly in agreement with people
not having to pay more in order to ensure the long term survival of
the federal pension fund. This means lowering employment insurance
contributions at a time when there are $10 to $15 billion dormant
in the fund. Book transfers are made, and then they say we can
eliminate the deficit. It is being eliminated now, thanks to other
measures adopted by the previous government.
It is obvious that we would be in favour of increasing the
foreign content limit of RRSPs from 20% to 50%. This is a
progressive measure and one with which we are in agreement. We are
also in agreement with staggering the increase over a longer
period. We will not go to the wall over a staggered increase, but
we do want to see this increase balanced out by a corresponding
decrease in EI premiums and a reduction in taxation sectors.
It seems to me that the government would now be able to start
the process of giving money back to Canadians. That is the only
way to create jobs. Let us not forget that a 1% increase
represents 25,000 to 35,000 lost jobs. This is the completely
unavoidable reality of the situation.
Back then, the Liberals criticized payroll taxes. They no
longer feel bound by the wonderful promises they made. The
increase in CPP premiums must be offset by a decrease in other
taxation sectors.
The Liberals opposed a ceiling on increases in CPP premiums. These
increases could go well beyond 9.9% without Parliament having to
give its approval. This is an enormous door cabinet is opening.
We must be very cautious. Above all, we must not be too quick to
pass this measure. The aftermath could be terrible. A 1%
increase—believe it or not—will result in 25,000 to 30,000 lost
jobs. Entire municipalities will be threatened by this bill.
My last point is that politics must not be allowed to play any
role whatsoever in the Canada pension plan investment board.
I repeat that it is extremely dangerous to have just one investment
board to manage a fund of $100 to $200 billion dollars. There have
been cases in some countries where exclusive public funds were
completely misappropriated.
1610
I therefore ask all my opposition colleagues and even
government members to think long and hard before turning over a
large fund to one board. I am not sure that the Caisse de dépôt et
placement alone is the ideal tool for managing the entire Quebec
fund.
I have questions about this, as do many people, and our party will
make this argument over the coming hours in an attempt to change
this aspect.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to join in this debate on Bill C-2, the
Canada pension plan.
The Canada pension plan is a very important part of our society.
This universal plan, I believe, is under attack by the Liberal
government. This plan, which guarantees benefits for people when
they reach their senior years, is facing a great amount of
difficulty by the proposals in Bill C-2.
I want to talk particularly today about the disability
provisions. I stand in support of the motions that were made by
our party, the NDP, concerning this aspect of the Canada pension
plan. These motions we made are designed to offset the
provisions in the bill which alter the rules for calculating
disability benefits and which make it harder to be eligible for
benefits.
We know that the people applying for these pensions have enough
difficulty now when they try to obtain what they are entitled to
obtain; some of the bureaucratic delays that they have to go
through, some of the difficulties while they are experiencing
pain and disability. It is very degrading for many people.
Now we have a bill which proposes to make it even more difficult
for people to obtain their benefits.
The proposed bill is very hard on those who are self-employed,
on seniors and on women. By deindexing the year's basic
exemption by freezing it at $3,500 beginning in 1998, this
downloads the burden of pension hikes on the low income earners.
We know that low income people are experiencing enough difficulty
now without having to pay more in order to obtain benefits.
Another concern is that the effect of adding the definition of
maximum pensionable earnings average alters the benefit formula
for calculation with a net effect again of reducing benefits.
Reducing benefits is all we need to hear about today. Pensions
themselves are so low right now that when we talk about reducing
them even further we realize that we are creating extreme
difficulty for people.
Just this past weekend I was at a function where a constituent
was telling me that he receives a $560 disability pension. Out
of that he has to pay a mortgage of $400. That leaves him with
$160 to pay his lights, heat, telephone and buy groceries to feed
himself and his family. Imagine $160 a month. Now we are
talking about looking at the Canada pension plan so that we end
up reducing people's benefits.
The changes proposed regarding the minimum contributory
requirements for a disability pension result in a reduction to
disability benefits and further hardship, requiring recipients to
work and contribute in four of the last six years instead of two
of the last three or five of the last ten. We want clause 69
which provides for that to be deleted altogether. Let us not
make things more difficult for people.
Another concern is that Canada pension plan premiums are
collected from only the first $35,800 of income. The effect of
this is that those who make over the maximum pensionable earnings
pay a lesser percentage than those who make less. We need to
make sure that as one earns more, one contributes accordingly
rather than having the low income workers always bearing the
brunt.
An hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois mentioned earlier that the
NDP wanted to remove elements of the legislation relating to
fraud.
I believe some reference was being made to our motions where we
want to amend Bill C-2 by deleting clauses 87 and 107. These are
the clauses which spell out massive new powers for the minister
responsible to conduct investigations into the viability of
claimants.
1615
These clauses go so far as to talk about being able to enter
people's dwellings with a warrant to enforce penalties, to gather
information, to request information from third parties. What
third parties, I ask. Your neighbours, your friends? These
clauses also talk about investigating Canada pension plan claims
and imposing penalties for infractions. Who is imposing penalties
for the infractions that the government administration causes
with respect to the administration of this plan right now?
I draw the House's attention to a case where someone applied for
benefits, was refused, appealed to the review board tribunal, a
favourable decision was rendered and then the minister through
the department appealed that favourable decision. Here is
someone who is unable to work, is suffering, is going through all
kinds of mental anguish, wins at the tribunal level and then it
is appealed by the department.
Under the appeal process when that appeal is made, I believe to
the vice-chair of the Canada pension board, that official is
supposed to forthwith under the act let the parties know whether
that leave to appeal has been granted. What is happening is the
applications for appeal are piling up on that official's desk and
a year later the person has not even got around to responding as
to whether or not that appeal will be allowed, let alone setting
up the process to carry through with that appeal.
This kind of bureaucratic delay and infraction of the current
plan is of deep concern to me. And now under Bill C-2 we are
going to introduce even more powerful mechanisms that will slow
down the process and cause indignity to those who need to apply
for these pensions. We have to think very carefully about this.
When we talk about safety and we talk about safeguards against
fraud, I maintain that that safeguard is already there now. The
safeguard is there in the integrity of our seniors, the people
who are going to receive these benefits, the people in our
society who are going to benefit from the Canada pension plan.
By introducing the kinds of changes that are addressed in this
bill, we are automatically implying that our senior citizens and
others are not—
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think you will find that the member is now discussing Group No. 7
and if you check, you will find that we are still on Group No. 6.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes. May I remind
the hon. member that we are still discussing Group No. 6.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will
return to Group No. 6.
I brought that forward because when my hon. colleague was
speaking earlier, he made reference to the fraud element.
Moving back to Group No. 6, we are very concerned about the fact
that the definitions outlined in Bill C-2 will end up reducing
benefits. With the amendments we have put forward in Group No. 6
we want to counter that effect.
We do not believe that in today's society it benefits anybody to
reduce the amount of benefit that someone receives. Rather, by
doing that we end up paying in the long run because those people
then have to seek other means to try to compensate their income.
Therefore it is very important that the level and the integrity
of the plan be maintained.
In conclusion, I support the motions we have put forward under
Group No. 6. We feel that those motions should be adopted in
order to keep the plan effective.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Dairy Industry; the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington, The Economy; the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Department of Citizenship and Immigration; the hon.
member for Sarnia—Lambton, Privacy.
1620
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as I listen to the debate on the report stage
amendments, I do understand that the devil is in the details.
I want to discuss a little more generally some of the
fundamentals as we consider these amendments, particularly those
in Group No. 6 before us now. I want to talk about the
fundamentals of retirement security. I am thinking primarily of
RRSPs, the old age pension, the Canada pension plan and tax
relief.
First of all to talk about RRSPs, company pension plans and
RRSPs are the largest portion of retirement savings plans for
most Canadians. Consequently the Liberals hit RRSPs hard with
tax grabs over the last four years, undermining the fundamentals
of retirement security.
For example, in 1995 the RRSP contribution limit was reduced
from $14,500 to $13,500 for 1996-97. That is $1,000 less for
people to invest for their retirement and $1,000 more for the
government to tax and grab from Canadians.
As well in 1996 the government reduced the age limit for
contributions to a RRSP from 71 years to 69 years. As well as
giving two years less to contribute to a person's own retirement
security, reducing the age limit allows retirement income to be a
tax target two years sooner. It is one big tax grab after
another, aimed directly at seniors.
Even worse, the government plans to erode the RRSP retirement
pillar even further. During the last session of Parliament, the
government members reluctantly admitted that they were looking at
more ways to tax RRSPs. This is shameful. It is a shameful
action of the Liberals to do this. No sooner do people try and
salt some money away for their retirement than the government is
right there with its hand in their pockets trying to get every
last red cent. If the Liberals continue the steady calculated
hacking away at RRSPs, people will lose their incentive to save
for self-sufficient retirement.
The old age pension is the second pillar of retirement that the
Liberals are slowly destroying. In the year 2001, the old age
pension, the guaranteed income supplement, the pension income tax
credit and the age tax credit will be replaced by the so-called
seniors benefit. Unfortunately when the seniors benefit is
implemented, the government plans to claw it right back again.
For example, pension experts estimate the seniors benefit will
raise the average tax bill of a retiree from $3,000 to $7,000 a
year. The government in its effort to grab every tax dollar it
can, will base the amount of the clawback on family income, not
individual income. This means seniors will end up paying more of
their retirement income to the government. Some seniors are even
considering divorcing to avoid this unfair tax grab.
Why does this government shamelessly hammer away at the family
institution at every level from youth to seniors? Why do the
Liberals consistently kill individual self-sufficiency,
instituting more and more costly controls on citizens with its we
know what is best for you attitude?
It is clear that the government invented the seniors benefit
strictly for the purpose of grabbing more tax dollars from the
elderly knowing this will impoverish many. By the year 2030, the
seniors benefit is projected to produce $8.2 billion in
additional tax back benefits. The only beneficiary in this case
is the government, not the seniors.
The third pillar of Canadian retirement security is the Canada
pension plan. When the Liberals established the CPP 30 years ago
it was structured in a fashion similar to a pyramid scheme.
Early contributors reaped attractive benefits paid for by younger
entrants to the plan.
The problem in the 1990s however is that there are fewer and
fewer contributors paying for more and more beneficiaries. It
would take $600 billion to pay all the benefits promised so far,
but the CPP fund can only meet present commitments. That is the
catastrophe the plan is facing.
1625
To rectify this problem the government plans to hike the CPP
payroll tax. For example, CPP premiums will be hiked from 5.85%
of wages up to a maximum salary of $35,800 to 9.9% by the year
2003. Workers now paying $944 a year will see their annual
contributions rise to $1,635 by the year 2003, which is an
increase of 73%, the largest tax hike in Canadian history. And
for all this the retired person will receive less than $8,800 per
year after retirement.
This means that Canadians, especially young Canadians, will have
to pay much higher premiums for much smaller benefits. For
example, the Library of Parliament says a person who retired in
1976 will get $12 for every dollar contributed, but a person
retiring in the year 2041 will actually get a negative return.
This means that after all the years of contributing, instead of
being paid interest on the money contributed, Canadians will
actually be eligible to receive less than the amount they paid
into the CPP fund.
Nearly doubling CPP premiums will also kill thousands of jobs,
reducing the number of Canadians who can contribute to the fund.
Even the finance minister admitted this fact on May 3, 1994 when
he said “payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation”. Further,
Department of Finance economist F. Weldon wrote in 1993 that a
one percentage point increase in payroll taxes means a decline of
nearly 1% in employment. That works out to 140,000 jobs lost. The
Liberals want to hike premiums by four percentage points. That is
560,000 jobs sacrificed for this latest Liberal scheme. Bill C-2
will kill more than half a million jobs.
So far I have explained the three pillars of retirement
security: RRSPs, old age pension and the CPP. Now if I may, I
would like to read a letter that I received from one of my
constituents expressing her concern about the amendment to the
CPP. She writes:
I am writing in regard to the increase in CPP. I am a housewife
with two small children. My husband works 12 hour days, six or
seven days a week. Even with all the hours my husband works, we
are only making ends meet.
We cannot afford an increase in CPP. This increase only means my
husband has to work even harder which means we will see even less
of him. How is this good for my two children? How is this good
for our marriage?
The government borrows, or should I say steals, from the CPP
fund and then increases it because they can't pay it back. Why
do we have to pay for a dishonest government? They preach about
how they want to save our children. They preach about broken
marriages. Then they turn around and screw us again. Couples
stress over money and it does affect the children. It does affect
the marriage.
How can I afford to put my children in swimming lessons or
baseball when any extra money we have the government takes? My
oldest son is five and he said to me, “Why can't I, mommy? We
can't afford it, right?” This is from a 5 year old. All his
friends at school get hot lunches on Fridays but he doesn't. How
are we supposed to dish out another $100 a month?
Will CPP be there when my husband retires? I doubt it. I have
a friend who at 28 is having to declare bankruptcy. She has
three children. I know that it could be us. Kids are in trouble
today more than ever because parents aren't there. They have to
work harder and longer so the kids are on their own. The future
looks bleaker. Something has to be done about this CPP. Canada is
on its way to ruin the way I see it.
1630
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-2. I also
rise to speak to the motions in Group 6.
One of the motions put forward by a party opposite indicates
that the proposed amendment would remove new investigative powers
and administrative penalty provisions designed to prevent fraud
and to allow for remedial action outside of court processes.
We oppose this motion for the simple reason that client rights
are protected by the availability of full appeal rights
pertaining to all matters within this bill and arising from the
imposition of an administrative penalty.
These new investigative powers align the Canada pension plan
with old age security and with current provisions of the EI act.
The previous speaker spoke rather scurrilously about Bill C-2. I
was reminded of something which Mark Twain once said. He said
that there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are
statistics. The hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin played fast
and loose with the statistics.
He was making disparaging remarks about the CPP and endorsing
RRSPs. RRSPs are not guaranteed. People can invest their money
in RRSPs and lose it, but if they invest their money in the
Canada pension plan it is guaranteed by the federal government.
It is a pension plan.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: It is a guaranteed loss.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Madam Speaker, the member opposite has
a beautiful wife. She is a very good friend of my wife. I
really do not know what she sees in the hon. gentleman, but I
guess he does have some redeeming qualities.
The hon. member opposite indicated that it was a payroll tax.
All hon. members opposite know full well that it is not a payroll
tax. It is a pension plan.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Madam Speaker, tell them to watch my
lips. It is a pension plan. We will look after people when they
decide to ride off into the sunset with their pension.
The actuaries of the Reform Party have already told them that it
would be more costly initially to get into an RRSP plan than it
would be to get into the CPP. They know full well that is the
truth.
Another motion that was put forward, I believe it is No. 11,
suggested that the new contribution rate schedule be deleted and
the old unsustainable schedule remain in effect. That would be
absolutely devastating. This motion would put the financial
sustainability of the CPP at risk, which is the very thing our
bill addresses. We want this plan to be sustainable. That is
why Bill C-2 is before the House.
This motion most certainly should not be considered, as far as
we are concerned. It would bankrupt the plan by the year 2015. I
realize that some members opposite are bankrupt of ideas with
respect to the CPP, but the plan would actually have no money in
it by the year 2015 if we went along with this motion.
We are talking about money. The Greek philosopher, Sophocles,
once said that there is nothing so demoralizing in the world as
money or the lack thereof. I say to members opposite that if we
went along with some of these motions there would certainly be a
lack of money in the pension plan. Therefore we cannot endorse
them.
Motion No. 22 would delete the requirement for increased
contribution rates to cover the costs of new or increased
benefits.
1635
That is an important statement of principle, but the federal and
provincial governments agreed that any future benefit enrichments
must be paid for and that we should never ever again put the
security of the CPP at risk by enriching benefits without being
able to pay for them. We must have the money to pay for these
benefits. We will ensure that because we want to ensure that our
young people most certainly of all are not saddled with this
unbearable burden.
This leads to leadership. As you well know, Madam Speaker and
members opposite, leadership is not necessarily a leadership act.
On many occasions it is a moral act. It is not merely the
assertion of power, but the assertion of vision. It is having
the moral integrity and the intellectual courage to make this
vision compelling.
I know the Leader of the Opposition and I believe the leaders of
some of the other parties when referring to the throne speech
brought forth and quoted fairly liberally from a great Canadian.
I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition most certainly did. It
was Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Sir Wilfrid Laurier over a hundred
years ago had this to say, and I will paraphrase it, about
liberalism. Before some of the members opposite start indulging
in idle rhetoric and yelling at me, it is small “l” liberalism.
He said: “Liberalism is inherent in the very essence of our
nature. It is that desire of happiness with which we are all
born into the world. We constantly gravitate toward an ideal
which we never attain. We dream of good but never realize the
best and thus it will be as long as people are what they are. As
long as their immortal soul inhabits a mortal body, their desires
will always be vaster than their means”.
The means by which we are going to set a plan that is viable and
is sustainable for the youth of this country is this Canada
pension plan because we and I believe all members in this chamber
care. We as federal members of Parliament must lead the way. We
must get Canadians to look beyond the Teflon and the show biz of
perhaps question period and perhaps of some of the things we do
and say in this House. We must get them to look at the reality
of life.
This will not be done by each and every member in this House
standing up and reading a speech that has perhaps been penned by
hired guns, a speech that perhaps sounds good. We need speeches
that are good and sound. We do not need speeches that bring
people to their feet. We need speeches that bring people to
their senses.
To do this each and every one of us as parliamentarians must
make sacrifices. We must give up a little bit of our
self-interest. On occasion we cannot get exactly what we want.
The truth of the matter is that this truth must ring loud and
clear. It must not be muffled by crass manipulation.
The truth of the matter is that in order to proceed as
parliamentarians, in order to proceed with this bill, our people
must be more intelligent, more highly organized, our social
standards more just and each and every person in this chamber, in
the House of Commons, must be more united in our cause. We must
not fail in our duty at this time.
As parliamentarians we must believe in a country as blessed as
ours, and blessed we are with the riches of our natural
resources, be they gas, oil, water or timber. The richness we
really have is our human resources. All members in this House,
irrespective of their race, creed, colour, religion or political
affiliation, must come together and do what is best for our
country Canada.
We must believe that we will be able to reach out to those
people, reach out to the hungry, the homeless, the sick and the
destitute. How do we do that? By bringing forth a bill such as
Bill C-2, a Canada pension bill that is good for all. It is time
that we stood up and shaped our own Canadian identity, that we
stood up and did what we have to do.
1640
What we have to do is endorse Bill C-2 because it is a
tremendous bill. By following this bill, we can and will lead
the entire country into a brighter, more prosperous, more
beautiful future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was a
minister in Quebec briefly in 1985, and I remember at the time the
government of René Lévesque brought down an orange paper. The
colour stuck in my mind. What was it about? It was on the need to
better finance the Quebec pension plan. That was in 1985. The
Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan serve the same
purpose, which is to ensure that people who have worked receive
universal benefits so they can enjoy a comfortable retirement.
What I find surprising is that a number of members in this
House are just discovering the problem.
What I also find surprising is the fact that this government, in
power since 1993, has not looked at this urgent matter before now.
What I find even more surprising is that we are not hearing the
Conservatives repent openly, saying “We should have looked at the
viability of the Canada pension plan when we were in office”.
In Quebec, some 0.5% of people receive a pension from the
Canada pension plan, while the others receive theirs from the
Quebec pension plan.
The motions in Group No. 6 concern viability. I understand
those colleagues who would like people not to have to pay for this
collective insurance and would like them to receive more.
Unfortunately, over the years, we have learned that when we pay out
benefits we must ensure there is money to cover them, otherwise the
plan is threatened, and with the passage of time young people are
increasingly facing the prospect of no benefits.
This House must quickly go through the democratic process to
approve the increased contributions proposed, even if they hurt.
This is the only way to ensure that future generations can benefit
from this program, which is rightly considered the jewel of the
social safety net.
No other system can do the job. Some people, of course, can
invest in RRSPs, but everyone agrees that it takes a certain salary
level and a secure income.
Only people with no problems in life, who do not have to stop
working because of illness or pregnancy, for example, can afford to
invest in RRSPs.
So, as a supplement, yes. But there must be a universal plan
that is viable and not only for one generation, but for all
generations to come. This is why this bill, which increases
contributions, must be approved quickly.
The government must also further reduce unemployment insurance
premiums. I think I was the first to say in this House that
unemployment insurance premiums had to be cut. When we were
elected, I was the human resources development critic. It was true
then, but today it is outrageous.
I say it as I see it. It is crazy for the government year after
year to plan surpluses of $6 billion a year from the premiums paid
by workers who earn up to $39,000 and then stop paying premiums.
I am speaking primarily of small and medium size businesses,
because capital intensive businesses pay much higher salaries and
so pay proportionately less.
It is the people who work, the small and medium size businesses that pay
these premiums, which are not even a disguised tax but an obvious tax
imposed to reduce the deficit.
1645
We in the Bloc have been saying for some time that premiums must be
reduced and that the plan must be improved. With a surplus of at least
$13 billion already in the fund, we will never be in a situation—given
the current plan's structure—where it could become empty.
Let us not forget that the former unemployment insurance plan
incurred an annual deficit of $2 billion during the 1990-92 crisis, but
it was a more generous plan and the unemployment rate was also extremely
high.
It is absurd and outrageous to have such a high payroll tax. The
government is in a position to lower contributions while promoting the
growth of the Régime des rentes du Québec and the Canada pension plan.
To ensure the viability of the plan, the bill provides that it will
be managed by a board. In my speech at second reading, I mentioned that,
in Quebec, a board was set up in 1965 to not only manage the fund, but
also to promote economic development. I do realize however that in
Canada a board with such powers will necessarily have centralizing
effects. I must say that if I thought I had to live with that board for
a long time, I would be concerned about its centralizing effects.
Members from other parties should look into this, because there is a lot
of money involved.
We know that the Caisse de dépôt et placement now has assets—and
I am quoting from memory—of at least $62 billion. It has investments
in all large corporations and also in small and medium size businesses.
It plays an important economic role, and Quebec is a mixed economy,
partly thanks to the Caisse de dépôt et placement. We are very proud
that, in 1965, the government of the day, whose motto was “masters in
our own house”, decided to co-ordinate management of the premiums paid
by workers and employers.
The bill is not perfect, and nor is the Régie des rentes du Québec.
Personally, I would like to see some conditions changed but, generally
speaking, if we are serious in our commitment to younger people, we must
quickly ensure adequate financing of the Régie des rentes du Québec and
the Canada pension plan. The RRQ must continue to serve as economic
leverage.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it intrigues me that we can have such different views of Canada
and such different views of what Canadians are saying to us.
I will take some time to speak against Bill C-2 and somewhat to
the group of amendments before us.
Before I begin that it is necessary for me to begin my remarks by
touching on something that was recently written by Michael
Jenkinson of the Edmonton Sun. Like many other Canadians,
he is realizing that the proposed changes to the CPP are
tantamount to the biggest tax rip-off in Canadian history. Mr.
Jenkinson writes:
I apologize if I misled people into thinking that the CPP
premium increase would be a massive tax hike instead of a
freaking monstrous tax grab.
I am now satisfied that the Liberals are not ignorant, money
grubbing, peons who believe the answer to every problem is to
hike taxes. Instead people should correctly understand that the
Liberals are actually treacherous demon spawn who would rather
sell out today's younger generation for the sake of a quick
political fix.
1650
Now those are not my words. I would be a little more delicate
in what I would say about people. However, it is an expression
of some of the outrage we in the Reform Party are hearing about
the proposed changes to the CPP.
The notion that this Liberal government is selling out future
generations of Canadians is at the heart of this matter. We take
the opposite viewpoint from our hon. colleagues across the way
who see it as the great salvation for our young people.
Aside from the cruel intergenerational transfer of wealth that
this bill proposes, this legislation will give Canadians in the
upcoming generation a pathetic return once they retire.
My colleagues, for just a second I plead with you to think of
what this legislation will do in conjunction with a $600 billion
or more national debt. Not only has this Liberal government
effectively relegated repayment of the national debt to future
generations of Canadians, it has now saddled them with the $590
billion unfunded liability present within the Canada pension
plan.
I wonder if Liberal members across the way have children. Do
they not have grandchildren? What can they possibly say that
would justify placing this heavy debt around the necks of our
young? What will these future generations of working Canadians
have to look forward to after decades of debt repayment? What
will be their reward for the thousands they will pay into CPP
contributions? A pathetic pension which will give them a
negative return on their investment once they retire. I think
that is downright criminal and sad.
Beyond that, when I listen to the flippancy coming from the
government benches during question period and when I listen to
the finance minister twist his responses on the matter of the CPP
it is disgusting.
I have eight children. Some of them are old enough to vote and
some are not. In either case, the proposed changes to the Canada
pension plan are and will be nothing short of a national tragedy.
What say do my children have right now in this matter? Actually
their say will mirror that of their future pensions, nothing at
all.
Right now contributions are 5.8% of every working Canadian's
gross salary whether employed or self-employed. Participation is
mandatory. Contributions will increase over a six year period
until the year 2003 when they will reach a steady state of 9.9%.
According to the Library of Parliament, those who retire in the
year 2026 will only get back 64% of what they put into the Canada
pension plan. That same study also shows that people who retired
in 1976 will receive nearly 12 times what they put into the
scheme. Is that fair to our young people?
That is exactly what this is. It is a scheme. More precisely,
it is a pyramid scheme, one which greatly benefits those who are
in first and gives the shaft to those who will follow.
There is, however, a major difference between Bill C-2 and the
illegal investment scams conducted in places like Albania. Yes,
just like the pyramid schemes that plagued but were accepted by
the Albanian government, the CPP is also sanctioned and condoned
by our government in Canada, except the people of Albania at
least had a choice in whether or not they wanted to participate.
1655
Through Bill C-2 this Liberal government is not giving Canadians
any choice whatsoever in the matter. In short, this state
sanctioned mugging is mandatory.
By the year 2003 every worker making at least $35,800 will pay
$1,635 per year and his or her employer will have to match it. Of
course, self-employed people will have to pay both contributions,
as much as $3,270 per year.
The maximum benefit payable under CPP is 25% of an average
salary of $35,800. This works out to a top yearly payment of
$8,725. If that is not obscene, what is?
The tax grab hits everyone. The only real difference is the
proportional way in which it does so. In terms of low income
workers and part time workers, they will feel the pinch
disproportionately. The first $3,500 of income is exempt from
CPP deductions. It is called the yearly basic exemption.
However, Bill C-2 will freeze this deduction. So as the price
index rises with inflation over the years the real level of the
YBE, the yearly basic exemption, will decline. This will
effectively shift the burden of contributions more heavily on to
low income earners. This is a regressive feature that widens the
contributory base by stealth.
Aside from the negative consequences that Bill C-2 will have on
future generations of workers, this legislation also represents a
huge obstacle to anyone who will be looking for a job. Why?
Because the proposed premium increases are the biggest payroll
taxes ever put to Canadians since the inception of the Canada
pension plan, 73% over the next six years.
Madam Speaker, colleagues, Canadians, payroll taxes kill jobs.
Do not take my word for it. In the House of Commons on May 3,
1994 Paul Martin said in an answer to a question by
the leader of the Reform Party “payroll taxes are a cancer on
job creation”. In his own presentation to the Standing
Committee on Finance on October 17, 1994 finance minister
Paul Martin said it even more clearly—
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
on a point of order, with due respect, the rules of this place do
not allow members to refer to members by their name but only by
their riding.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is correct.
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, the finance minister said
it clearly: “We believe there is nothing more ludicrous than a
tax on hiring, but that is what payroll taxes are. They have
grown dramatically over time. They affect lower wage earners much
more than those at the high end. We took steps early in our
mandate to reverse this trend in the case of UI premiums. We
would hope to take further steps in the future”.
There we have it. Even the finance minister admits that payroll
taxes kill jobs. Yet we now have the most hypocritical of
positions before us in Bill C-2. The Liberals are not listening
to themselves and they are certainly not listening to average
Canadians.
Joe Italiano of the Department of Finance did a study in April
1995 on the employment implications for growth in CPP
contributions. The CPP premium rate grew just seven-tenths of a
percentage point between 1986 and 1993 but Italiano said it cost
Canada 26,000 jobs.
The Liberals intend to increase the rate almost six times the
rate increase Italiano used. Using Italiano's assumptions and
projecting into the future we calculate that the phased-in
increase of the higher CPP premiums will cost the Canadian
economy 100,000 jobs.
In closing, I serve notion of my intention—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must apologize but
the time really has run over. Resuming debate, the hon. member
for Brandon—Souris.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
it is not necessarily with great pleasure that I rise to speak to
this piece of legislation, but I certainly do have the
opportunity to speak, albeit somewhat limited because of the
closure that has been suggested by the Liberal government.
1700
I find that in itself terribly damaging to this piece of
legislation.
Normally when legislation is put forward by the government in
power, it is done with the best interests of Canadians at heart
when the legislation is proposed.
The government suggested that this legislation cannot be debated
in the House and did not give the opportunity to consult
Canadians about this piece of legislation which will impact them
quite dramatically over the next numbers of years, not only from
a premium perspective but also from the perspective of a return
on those dollars that are going to be invested in the CPP
program.
I take exception to the fact that Canadians were not consulted,
that the people who will be paying the majority of the premium
price have not had an opportunity to tell us one way or another
what their views are. This government has decided in its own
wisdom to stop the debate, “Let's not give anybody an
opportunity to talk about the pros and cons”.
There are a number of citizens who would love to have the
opportunity to speak to this. The first are obviously the
seniors. We have a high proportion of seniors.
They have been talking to me. They have been calling me and
asking what is going to happen to them. As well, they have a
need and a desire to make sure that their children and their
children's children are taken care of in the years to come.
Those seniors would like to be consulted. They are currently
reaping some of the benefits of a Canadian pension plan that was
put in place 30 years ago. It also behoves the government to
consult with the baby boomers—I put myself in that category and
you too, Madam Speaker—who are going to be affected quite
dramatically by the fact that we will be faced with substantial
increases in premiums and may not be able to get any return on
investment.
The Canada pension plan, I believe, should be based on a very
simple premise. That premise is a pension plan is a pension
plan. It is not a tax. It is not an opportunity to raise money
to pay for others who have gone before us.
A pension plan is a pension plan. When money is put into a
pension plan, you expect to have a rate of return and certainly a
return on that investment at some later date.
That is not the case here. Until the government admits that
this is a tax grab, believe me, we will be debating this bill as
long and as hard as we possibly can for the benefit of all
Canadians.
Let us look at the legislation. I will talk to the motions
before us. By the way, they are good motions in some cases and
in some other cases perhaps not quite as valid.
This is just one attack on what is happening with our pension
structure in Canada. Other effects are going to be on the OAS,
the old age security, and on RRSP contributions as was mentioned
earlier by a speaker from another party.
Make no mistake about it. The Progressive Conservative Party
wishes to have a sustainable, stable Canada pension plan, but a
pension plan, not a tax. We believe in sustainability. In fact,
we believe that premiums have to be increased in order to make
the plan sustainable.
We have said all along that in order to do that, we would like
to offset these regressive payroll taxes that are being proposed
now with the huge, intolerable increases, excessive increases in
the CPP premium.
That can be offset quite simply by taking the EI premiums that
are currently in place and generating substantial revenues that
are going to offset the deficit. This government in a
self-congratulatory fashion is saying that those dollars are
going to the deficit.
There are other methods to reduce the deficit. The huge
resources that are being generated from EI premiums should go
into the CPP. Those are payroll taxes.
Payroll taxes destroy jobs. I am sure that everybody recognizes
that the change in premiums to $1,635 in the year 2003 is a
premium matched by the employer.
1705
An employer will have few options to fund the premium increase;
reduce the salaries of their employees which would give them less
disposable income; do not give increases in the following years
because of the excessive changes to the CPP premium level or lay
people off. In fact, at that time nobody would be contributing,
not to society and tax revenues but also to the CPP. The final
and worst option is to lose money in the business and not have a
business in the future. That does not help anybody. That is what
happens when there are regressive payroll taxes.
Our plan is simple. Have a sustainable fund and make sure that
the offset of the CPP premiums come from EI. The Reform plan,
unfortunately, is very simplistic. It does not have a plan. We
should simply throw up our arms and say every man, woman and
child for themselves. Let us simply say that a $600 billion
unfunded liability does not exist. It does not work and it never
has worked. However, these are very simple solutions for complex
issues.
I would also like to say that it is not only seniors and the
baby-boomers that I am concerned about, but the people who come
after. I too have children, ages 22 and 18. They are going to
join the job market as soon as I have paid for their university
education. They will be in the job market and be contributing
members of this society. In fact, they will be contributing a
substantial amount of money to a plan that may well, for all
intents and purposes, not be available to them when they are
depending on it.
Remember the simple premise? A pension is a pension. CPP is a
pension. When we contribute to it, we should get a return back on
the investment. If we are not going to do that, then call it
what it really is, a tax.
I hate looking at the term benefit. There are benefits that are
paid. No, there is a return on the investment that is being
paid. The return on that investment is proposed to be decreased
on an annual basis. However, in fact, the premiums are being
increased on annual basis.
We have heard the numbers and they are not refutable.
Contributors will be getting no return on their investment when
they want to collect CPP in the not too distant future.
Motion No. 11 from the NDP, unfortunately we cannot support it.
It is a proposal to eliminate the premium table. We have always
said that we believe in the CPP. There has to be funding in order
to have a sustainable fund. There has to be a premium table.
Premiums have to be paid and certainly premiums have to be
increased, but with a decrease in the EI premium as well. That is
sustainability. That is not regressive payroll taxes.
An hon. member: We have reduced it four times.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Not enough. The comment was made that
EI premiums have been reduced four times. It is our very valid
opinion that they can be reduced dramatically to offset this CPP
contribution.
Motion No. 14 is to freeze the yearly basic exemption for ten
years. We believe that there should be a freeze on the YBE, but
it should be for a ten year period, not in perpetuity for the
simple reason that there are changes in our inflationary factors
in Canada. Let us put it in place for the first ten years and
review it after a ten year period.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very, very
important piece of legislation. I hope that the government will
look at the ramifications that this legislation will have on the
Canadian public, the Canadian employees and employers of this
country. This legislation will have serious, negative
ramifications.
1710
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to express why I am so supportive of the
government's Bill C-2.
It is a demonstration that we are willing to restore Canada's
faith in its pension plan. We are dealing with this pension plan
in a businesslike manner. It is one of the things that we hear
more and more lately: The community is asking the government to
operate as a business.
There were extensive hearings in partnership with the provinces
from April 1996 to June. It was a David Walker committee. The
reforms that this government is suggesting reflect the wishes of
those people who were consulted.
I have heard hon. members opposite talk about a contribution to
the Canada pension plan as a job-killing payroll tax. When I
consult with the small business people in my area, they say that
contributions to the Canada pension plan are merely the costs of
doing business and that if your bottom line indicates you can
hire more people, you will.
The Canada pension plan has aspects of it that I think
demonstrate the kind of country Canada is. We have insurance
benefits. We have disability pension and survivor benefits. They,
too, reflect the kind of character that we heard Canada wanted in
its pension plan.
The Canada pension plan is not a wealth redistribution plan. It
is a plan that will be there for all Canadians. That is why I
feel that it will restore the Canadian belief that a pension plan
will be there for our children and our grandchildren.
I would like to speak to Group 6. Motion No. 11 speaks about
deleting the new contribution schedule rate. One of the things
that the reform to the Canada pension is doing is establishing a
sustainable rate that Canadians can rely on. The suggestion that
we do not deal with the increases both on the part of the
employer and the employee would put the sustainability of the
Canada pension plan at risk. That is the very issue that this
bill addresses.
The suggestion by the hon. member opposite that we not raise the
contribution rates would mean that the plan would be bankrupt by
the year 2015. The Canada pension plan has an unfunded liability
that these reforms will deal with, again in a businesslike
manner.
Motion No. 13 by the member opposite talks about removing the
year's basic exemption and freezing it. The year's basic
exemption is the portion of earnings on which contributors do not
pay premiums but receive benefits. Under the proposed changes,
the year's basic exemption will continue at its current level of
$3,500 rather than growing on the line with average wages. By
freezing the year's basic exemption at $3,500, more and more very
low earning workers will be eligible to contribute to CPP and
receive benefits from the plan.
Earlier the member opposite talked about a very compelling
letter by a constituent whose husband works six days a week. I
believe there was real angst in that letter. Those kinds of
people do not have the kind of money that they can contribute to
the super RRSP plans that have been suggested by the Reform. That
is why it is fundamental that the Canada pension plan be there
for all Canadians in their retirement.
Motion No. 22 speaks about deleting the requirement for
increased contribution rates to cover the cost for new or
increased benefits. When we had hearings with the provinces and
Canadians in the communities we visited across Canada, one thing
we heard about was the fact that they did not want current
recipients to be impacted and they wanted it to be there, to be
sustainable.
Of the 9.9% that we will go to and stay with, 4.3% goes to
pension contribution, 1.7% would go to the insurance component.
Again I would underline that that is something Canadians said
that they wanted to see in their Canada pension plan. .1% goes
to administration, which is a very low percentage when you look
at private pension plans and how they are administered, and 3.8%
would go to the unfunded liability, which is the very point this
government needs to wrestle with in order that this plan be
sustainable.
This is the first step of many. We are going to look at track 2
in dealing with other issues that we heard Canadians were
concerned with. Bill C-2 is a step forward and something that
all Canadians need for their future.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order made Wednesday, November 26, all motions
in Group No. 6 are deemed to have been put to the House and the
recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House will now proceed
to consideration of the motions in Group No. 7.
Pursuant to the same order, all motions in Group No. 7 are
deemed to have been put to the House and the recorded divisions are
deemed to have been requested and deferred.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the
bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
1735
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-2.
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
1745
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Ramsay
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 108
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 135
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
believe you will find consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to Motion No. 3.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 34]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 243
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the Motion No. 5 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to take
note that we add to the government roster the Minister of Health
from this vote forward.
I also believe you would find consent to apply the results of
the vote just taken, with the addition of the Minister of Health,
to Motion No. 21.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 244
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
1750
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative
Party will be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Charest
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Power
| Ramsay
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 73
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 171
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 23 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No.
10.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 37]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 24.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will
vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative
Party are voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Canuel
| Casey
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne – 65
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 179
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative
Party are voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Charest
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Ramsay
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 59
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 185
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
1755
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for
members who voted on the preceding motion to be recorded as having voted
on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members will vote yea on
this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote yea
on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casey
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Ramsay
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 94
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose you seek unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members will vote against
this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this one.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote nay
on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| McDonough
| Nystrom
| Robinson
|
Solomon
| Wasylycia - Leis – 14
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 230
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report
stage Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 20 and 25.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 41]
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 12.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for
members who voted on the preceding motion to be recorded as having voted
on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, on this specific motion, members of
my party will vote yea.
1800
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brison
|
Casey
| Charest
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Harvey
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Muise
| Power
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Wayne – 16
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 228
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 11.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote
yes on this motion, and we are proud of it.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting
against this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 57
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report
stage Motion No. 13.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, when this vote to which
the government House leader has referred is applied to this
motion, I would like the member for Winnipeg Centre to be
included. He just arrived in the House. This would apply to
this vote and subsequent votes thereto.
The Speaker: So ordered.
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 58
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 14.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the preceding motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party vote in favour
of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Charest
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Ramsay
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 59
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 186
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 15.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: NDP members present this evening vote
yes on this one.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party are voting in
favour of this motion.
1805
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brison
| Casey
| Charest
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
|
Harvey
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Power
| Robinson
| Solomon
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
– 31
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 214
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the preceding motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present,
including the member for Kamloops who just arrived, will vote no
on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party
are voting against this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 171
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Charest
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Power
| Ramsay
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 75
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Duceppe
|
Eggleton
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Hubbard
| Karetak - Lindell
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mitchell
| Perron
| Richardson
|
Sauvageau
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed from November 28, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-10, an act to implement a convention between Canada
and Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Ireland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdom of
Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend
the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986, and the
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of
Bill C-10.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no unless instructed otherwise by their
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
are voting in favour of this bill.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP who are
now all present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party
are voting against this motion.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 47]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, pursuant to the order made earlier this day, this House do
now adjourn.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: The House will now adjourn until tomorrow at
10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.09 p.m.)