36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 118
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 9, 1998
1000
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Business of the House
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1005
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1010
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1015
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1020
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1040
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1055
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1100
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1150
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1155
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1200
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1215
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1220
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1250
(Division 191)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1255
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Main Estimates, 1998-99
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1300
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1320
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1325
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1330
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1350
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1355
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TEACHING EXCELLENCE AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1400
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTIMIST CLUB OF BRAMPTON
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCHIZOPHRENIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RICHARD IVEY FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUMMONDVILLE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VALUES
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC-JAPAN RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCUEIL BONNEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR PARENT EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DREDGING OF ST. LAWRENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Ahuntsic
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1505
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Main Estimates, 1998-99
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1510
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1525
1530
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1545
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1550
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Main Estimates, 1998-99
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1610
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1615
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1620
1625
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1640
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1645
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1650
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1710
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1715
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1735
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1740
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1745
1750
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1805
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1810
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1815
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1820
1825
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1840
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1855
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1900
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1915
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1920
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Main Estimates, 1998-99
|
1925
1930
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1935
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1940
1945
1950
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1955
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
2000
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
2005
2010
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
2015
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
2020
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
2025
2030
2035
2040
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
2045
2050
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
2055
2100
2105
2110
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
2115
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
2120
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
2125
2130
2135
2140
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
2145
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2150
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
2155
2200
2230
(Division 192)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
2240
(Division 193)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Human Resources Development
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
2250
(Division 194)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 agreed to.
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3
|
2305
(Division 195)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Solicitor General
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 15—Solicitor General
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5
|
2320
(Division 196)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 25—Solicitor General
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6
|
2330
(Division 197)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 35—Solicitor General
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7
|
2345
(Division 198)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 45—Solicitor General
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8
|
2355
(Division 199)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Human Resources Development
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 9
|
2405
(Division 200)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 9 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 10—Human Resources Development
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10
|
2415
(Division 201)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote No. 1—Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 11
|
2425
(Division 202)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 11 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 12
|
2435
(Division 203)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 12 agreed to.
|
2440
2445
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—National Defence
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 13
|
2450
(Division 204)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 13 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 14
|
2500
(Division 205)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 14 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 15
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 16
|
2505
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 17
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 18
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 19
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 15—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 20
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 30—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 21
|
2510
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 35—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 22
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 25—Human Resources Development
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 23
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 30—Human Resources Development
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 24
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 25
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 30—Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 26
|
2515
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 27
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 10—Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 28
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 15—Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 29
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 20—Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 30
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 25—Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 31
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 20—Foreign Affairs and International
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 32
|
2520
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote No. 25—Foreign Affairs and International
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 33
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 34
|
2525
(Division 206)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 34 agreed to
|
2530
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Foreign Affairs and International
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 35
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Foreign Affairs and International
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 36
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 10—Foreign Affairs and International
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 37
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 25—Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 38
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 60—Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 39
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 120—Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 40
|
2535
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Natural Resources
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 41
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in vote 35—Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 42
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Treasury Board
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 43
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in vote 2—Treasury Board
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 44
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Treasury Board
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 45
|
2545
(Division 207)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 45 agreed to.
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 95—Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 46
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 100—Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 47
|
2550
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 10—Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 48
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 20—Privy Council
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 49
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 10—Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 50
|
2600
(Division 208)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 50 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 51
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 52
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Parliament
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 53
|
2605
(Division 209)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 53 agreed to
|
2610
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 54
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in vote 25—Privy Council
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 55
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-45. First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Second Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
2615
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Supplementary Estimates (A)
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
2625
(Division 210)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6
|
2630
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-46. First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
2635
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Report stage
|
2640
(Division 211)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
2650
(Division 212)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Third reading
|
2700
(Division 213)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-30. Report stage
|
2710
(Division 214)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 215)
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 118
![](/web/20061116185358im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 9, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I seek unanimous consent to
move:
That the Order of the House of June 8, 1998, respecting motions
pursuant to Standing Order 57 and 78(3) be rescinded.
The Speaker: The government House leader
has asked for unanimous consent to put a motion. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: What is this about, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: My colleague asked a question. For his information,
the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has moved a
motion. It reads as follows:
[English]
That the Order of the House of June 8, 1998, respecting motions
pursuant to Standing Order 73 and 78(3) be rescinded.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1005
[English]
The Speaker: The reason I explained this to
the hon. member for Joliette was that he wanted to know what the
motion was. However, I had already asked for unanimous consent
to put this motion and I heard a “no” from my left. Therefore,
the motion cannot be put.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 20 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege to table the report of the parliamentary wing
of the United Nations called the Interparliamentary Unions where
delegates worked effectively to raise the urgency to commit to
the humanitarian clearing of land mines and the removal of same
and moved to adopt the needed Ottawa convention.
Therefore, it is my pleasure to table the report of the 99th
interparliamentary conference held in Windhoek, Namibia, on April
5 to 11.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure and honour to table today, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food on biotechnology.
Your committee reviewed the issue of biotechnology as it
pertains to agriculture and agri-food. As part of the process of
renewing the Canadian biotechnology strategy it came up with a
number of recommendations which are contained in this report.
The new Canadian biotechnology strategy involves three
departments: Industry, Health and Agriculture and Agri-Food.
With the explosion of genetically modified products, this
strategy will have to be an ever-changing one which members of
parliament will have to respond to.
The committee is also requesting a comprehensive answer to the
report from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the committee
members from all sides for their work. I also wish to thank the
committee staff, especially our research co-ordinator, Sonya
Dakers, who will be retiring at the end of the month. This
happens to be her last major piece of work after 12 years with
the agriculture committee. We all wish her well.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
56(1), and having raised the issue earlier today, I move:
That the Order of the House of June 8, 1998, respecting motions
pursuant to Standing Order 57 and 78(3) be rescinded.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I understand that the government House leader is trying to put
this motion to the floor this morning, but this is the time for
routine motions to be put and this is not a routine motion.
1010
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, to assist the Chair, if I may, I
know that the opposition House leader has raised the proposition
that this was not, in his view, a routine motion. I draw to your
attention Standing Order 67(1)(p) which states:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be
required for the observance of the properties of the House, the
maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its
officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its
proceedings, the correctness of its record, the fixing of its
sitting days or the time of its meetings or adjournment.
I think this very well covers the fact that indeed this motion
is receivable the way it was presented under Standing Order
56(1).
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very new to this place and I do not profess to
be an expert in this, but my understanding is that what happened
yesterday was that a substantive motion was passed on the floor
of the House and that cannot simply be overturned by a routine
motion from the government. There is a procedure that has to be
in place. There is notice that has to be given. My
understanding is that this cannot happen in the way that the
government House leader is trying to put it before the House.
1015
The Speaker: The House leader for the Conservative
Party makes a very interesting point, as does the opposition
House leader.
I point out to the House that it would be one thing to go with
the strict wording of this rule. However a motion was put on
February 19, 1998 which perhaps went beyond the scope of the
wording and it went through the House. On December 1, 1997 a
motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1) was put and it went
through the House.
My interpretation of both of those motions is that we cannot
pick and choose on the way through. Those two motions went
through before and they seemed to go somewhat beyond the scope of
the wording, and at that time no one raised a voice of objection.
I am loath to interfere at any time like this. I would rule that
because of these other two motions that went through as
precedents, I will allow this one to go through. I would
strongly urge the committee on procedure to perhaps take this up
again and to give direction more clearly to the House and the
Speaker. I am going to allow this Standing Order 56.1 to stand.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, what happened in this House
last night was in effect an order of the House. Now we are going
to get into a discussion of the principles of this House of
Commons. It is an order of the House. The government cannot just
come in here and change an order of the House, something which
was passed by this whole House. Otherwise all of the issues we
deal with here—
The Speaker: I made a ruling on this issue. Now the
House will have a chance to pronounce itself.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: Not on this issue. I have made a ruling.
The question is on the motion. Will those members who object to
the motion please rise in their places.
The hon. member on a point of order.
1020
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I point out to your attention Standing Order 67:
The Speaker: This motion is not debatable. I repeat,
will those members who object to the motion please rise in their
places.
And 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: Because there are 25 members standing in
their places, this motion is deemed withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), I move:
That, commencing June 10, 1998 and concluding June 23, 1998, the
hours of sitting be extended to 4 a.m.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased actually to debate this motion. Could you tell
me, Mr. Speaker, first of all how much time I have?
An hon. member: As long as you want.
Mr. Randy White: Until 4 a.m., right? I have until 4
a.m. Let us start it off.
The Speaker: The hon. opposition House leader wanted some
information regarding timing. The entire debate will take two
hours and the hon. member has unlimited time.
An hon. member: Take two hours, Randy.
Mr. Randy White: What does a fellow do for two hours in
the House of Commons any more?
The need for this motion is obvious to those on this side of the
House. We have said continuously in the 35th Parliament and the
36th Parliament that we are sick and tired of standing up in this
House expressing the viewpoints of those people we represent
across this country to seats that are empty.
Time and time again, we come into this House. We stand here. We
try to do what we can for people across this country. We try to
get our points across and we stand here and talk to maybe one
person who is reading a newspaper who does not have the least bit
of interest in what opposition parties say in this country. They
are told what to do time and time again by the Prime Minister and
the cabinet.
I guess it is time now that we are getting close to the end of
June that we have this debate and we extend it as long as we have
to.
1025
It is ironic. Here it is the 10th of June today.
An hon. member: The 9th.
Mr. Randy White: Who can tell? It will be the 10th at
four in the morning anyway.
Here we are on the 9th of June and the government says “We are
going to punish you people. We are going to make you work for a
change. We are going to make you come in here until four in the
morning”. Well I have news for the government. We do not mind
that in the least.
We have a lot of things to talk about in this country. Maybe for
a change we will get this government back on issues that are
bothering average everyday grassroots Canadians out there like
debt, like spending, like taxes, like problems at the immigration
department, like crime, like where is the national victims bill
of rights. For instance where is the bill on drunk driving that
was committed to by this government in May and which was reneged
by this government, that was changed apparently to November 30.
Now we understand it is not going to do that either when every
party here in opposition agreed with the government for a change.
Now the Liberals say “We have some things on the agenda”—not
too much on the agenda I might add—“and we cannot have our own
way, so you will have to stay until four in the morning”.
Mr. Speaker, could I have a clarification on the rotational
order on this two hour debate? After it goes from me, could you
clarify whether it goes to the Liberals or back into opposition?
The Deputy Speaker: That will be a matter to decide
depending on who rises to participate in the debate. It is a
difficult issue to predict, but I think the hon. member can
expect that there would be some movement back and forth. The
hon. member has two hours at his disposal if he chooses to use
it. That is the maximum length of time for this debate and the
question will be put at the end of the two hours.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I needed a little break to
confirm something else as well.
Here we are wanting to deal with the estimates today. We
understand that the House may possibly not sit next week. We do
not know.
I think the overriding issue here is something that the
government forgot once again. That is that we are sick and tired
of talking to the wall. We have brought this up numerous times.
All we ask for in this House in opposition from all parties is
just a tad, a little bit of respect. Listen to what we are
saying. It may not go through and the government may not buy
what we are saying, but at least people listening or people
watching CPAC can at least understand that there are two, three,
possibly four different positions on any subject in this House.
Without the government sitting on the other side, it is darn
difficult to get a decent debate and a decent hearing on any
issue. Why is that so hard to understand? With some 150 members
over there, why is it so hard for them to understand that all we
ask for is quorum in this House? Quorum in the House of Commons.
Twenty people, 20 bodies out of 301. Why is that so hard to get?
Quorum in any other organization is usually 50% plus one. Yet the
government cannot manage to sit enough people across the House
and even on some days as yesterday, there is nobody. Do the
Liberals understand how people in all the parties across here
feel when there is nobody sitting on the other side?
What do we get to do about it? We cannot say there are no
members there, that there is no one sitting there. The Speaker
does not allow it. Somehow we in opposition have to show the
frustration and that is all. One member over there is counting
the heads over here. Quite frankly, there are more opposition
members in this House right now than there are Liberals on the
other side. Every day is like that and that is fact.
1030
We have drawn the line. Henceforth that will not occur in this
House. Henceforth we will be drawing up unanimous consent
motions such as this one. Henceforth this government is going to
go through the mill on this issue. When it gets lazy again and
when it misses its shot at trying to watchdog what is going on
over here, it will find we are going to deal with it. I wonder
what the people watching this today think.
I heard someone say they have an idiot standing here talking.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe I heard the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine remark that the House leader of the
official opposition is an idiot. I think that is out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: It certainly would be a word the
Chair would find offensive. The Chair did not hear the word. If
the hon. member said it I am sure she would not want to leave
that on the record. I do not know whether the hon. member wishes
to clarify the position.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that
there are people in the House who know which riding I come from.
As to the point of order, Mr. Speaker you are right. I lost my
head for a moment, as Reform members often do. I did use a word
which was unparliamentary. I called the leader of the House for
the official opposition an idiot. My parents did not raise me to
call people idiots, so I withdraw the word.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, that is really good. There
are those who would say I have been called worse than that
before.
I guess in parliament it is a little different. They seem to get
excited when the opposition over here catches them sleeping. They
seem to get excited actually when we bring up an issue near and
dear to the heart of most Canadians like what exactly is a
democracy. Is a democracy sending parliamentarians to Ottawa to
represent their constituents and to stand up here in the House
and talk to no one on the other side? Is that what democracy has
come to?
I have heard from a number of people this morning already on
this issue, not parliamentarians but other people, who said it
has been like this for a while. It is going downhill in the
House of Commons. The opposition parties get plain frustrated
because there is no one on the other side.
I think because we are drawing a line here today it is most
appropriate and I think this government is going to hear from all
opposition parties very likely that we are just sick and darn
tired of this.
I am not going to take any further of my time on this. I know
there are other members that want to talk to this. But if I can
impress any one thing on this other side, do not take this issue
lightly. We did not come here to face the other side with all
the seats empty. We are going to make this a very large issue
and it is going to cost a lot of time in this House in debate
time. It is going to cost a lot of hours and it is all
unnecessary. All we ask is the respect of a majority government
to sit and listen and debate and consider what we have to say.
This government should understand this. It has very few seats
where I come from and we do represent the people where we come
from. If it does not have that representation, for instance in
the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, I am a part of it.
1035
There is an obligation to listen. There is an obligation to be
in this House. We may not like what they have to say across on the
other side but just as much as my colleagues from all parties
across this side have to sit in here and listen to the things
they say.
If this is truly to be a house of democracy then what is really
required is a government to pay attention to the people from all
regions of this country and listen to what they have to say. Do
not ever again empty the seats on the other side or the
government will find the next motions before it a lot tougher
than this one.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to participate in this debate. Following this rather
intense discussion, I immediately wrote a little something for
my colleagues from the Reform Party. It reads like this:
[English]
“Everybody loves somebody sometime. Everybody calls for Reform
members. Something in your moves just told me your sometime is
now”.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure all hon. members appreciate
the hon. member for Quebec East's vocal talents but perhaps they
would be better exercised in the lobby.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the House leader for the official opposition for being
brief and giving others a chance to speak to this motion because
I am sure he must have been tempted to take up the whole two
hours but he did not and this will give others an opportunity to
speak.
I will speak against the motion and preface my remarks by saying
I very much regret that the House has come to this place in its
proceedings. I regret the use of 56(1) whenever it is used and I
remember when this particular measure was brought in, I believe
in 1991, by the Conservative government at that time. I remember
with irony when the House leader of the Conservative Party
indicated that he thought this motion was inappropriate at the
time. I think this motion is inappropriate at any time.
This motion is what I called it then, sort of the parliamentary
ubermenchen clause. This is the clause that means that in the
end the government can do anything. I realize it did not succeed
in using 56(1) and has now moved to have a much longer process.
A lot of the rules the government has at its disposal are rules
it opposed when they were brought in and if we were serious about
parliamentary reform we would have a good look at these rules and
we would all imagine ourselves some day in opposition. Some of
us imagine ourselves in opposition all the time.
Opposition will come to the government as surely as I am
standing here, eventually in one form or another. We all have
the responsibility to try to imagine what is best for the
institution. What is not good for the institution are these
motions.
But what is also not good for the institution, and I think here
is where the Reform Party has done parliament a service by
bringing this to a head, is the perpetual absence of government
members in the course of debate.
1040
What was common practice in this House for many years is that at
least one cabinet minister was present during all debates and
perhaps there were two or three ministers and a cadre of
government backbenchers. They may not have always liked what
opposition members were saying. They may not have always
listened carefully and took notes of what opposition members were
saying. But they were there. Opposition members had both the
perception, some might say the illusion, and the reality of the
fact that somebody from time to time was listening.
What I have seen happening in this parliament, and I have raised
this with the government House leader on numerous occasions, is
that the government has sunk into a form of contempt for
parliament. I suppose it comes from a contempt for the
opposition, but that is beside the point. That is quite beside
the point. We are talking here about a contempt for parliament
that is ultimately destructive of this institution and of our
democratic values and our democratic way of life. It cannot go
on like this.
I know it is not the responsibility of the government House
leader technically speaking. It is the responsibility of the
whip or in this case the deputy whip because we know that the
whip is not able to be on the job these days for medical reasons.
But somebody is responsible over there. Overall the government
itself is collectively responsible for how it treats parliament.
It cannot go on like this.
I think this speaks to a larger problem. It is not just the
contempt the government is showing for parliament or for the
opposition or for both. It is also a matter of the declining
perception of the relevance of the House of Commons to the
decision making process in this country. That is something all
of us have to deal with and presumably we should try to deal with
it in a non-partisan way. To the extent that we deal with it in
a partisan way, and I know this is not avoidable at all times but
it is certainly more avoidable than is usually the case, to the
extent we deal with the powerlessness of parliament and the
growing irrelevance of parliament in a partisan way, we simply
contribute to its growing irrelevance and powerlessness because
we reinforce the stereotype that this is just a place where
people fight.
We are all tempted to do that. I think we are all guilty of
that each in our own way. So I urge members to try to think
their way through the kind of partisanship that sometimes
manifests itself on the floor with respect to parliament itself.
It is fine to be partisan about issues. There are choices that
people have to make between political parties with different
perceptions, different policies and different positions. It is
all in the course and the nature of democracy that people will be
partisan, will be polemical, will be political, will argue with
each other. I think that is all fine and dandy in a democratic
society but we ought not to be partisan about parliament itself.
I think this is what has happened. It is very regrettable. I
hope the Reform Party members see the irony of the fact that they
are now, in many respects by virtue of circumstances beyond their
control but somewhat within their control, playing exactly the
same kind of parliamentary silly games they made a career out of
criticizing before they came here. I am sure that must bother
them as it bothers me on occasion when I am forced to play these
kinds of games.
Sometimes we play them with joy and sometimes we play them with
sadness because the government gives us no option. I think the
government has created this situation. This morning it had 39
members on the other side—
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My hon. colleague has been saying a lot of things that are
exactly true and right.
1045
Most important, he said that we are talking about the Liberal
government never being here to hear the debate or to hear the
concerns. It operates in an autocratic fashion. My point is
that there is not one cabinet minister here to listen to him.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a valid point
of order.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker,
I think the point is well taken even if it is not technically a
point of order. It is not factually correct in the sense that
the government House leader was at the table. We have one
cabinet minister whose job it is to bird-dog this debate. He
better not leave in any case.
I say this with the greatest respect to the government House
leader. I believe he is as troubled by what is happening on the
other side of the House as anybody. He has been here for a
while. I have always regarded him as somebody who has a great
deal of respect for parliament. He has come up through the ranks
over the years. I am sure he is not happy with what happened
yesterday, not just for the trite political reasons that it is
embarrassing to the government and he now has to go through all
this hassle to get the motion that was passed unanimously
overtaken by subsequent procedures of the House. I am sure he is
unhappy with the fact that this situation could even have been
created.
As I started to say before the point of order this morning, when
the government needed members for its own purpose there were
upwards of 40 members on this side of the House. As soon as they
saw they were not needed any more, the place cleared out like it
was on fire or something.
Here again we see the government not being willing to even
maintain the same percentage of their caucuses that opposition
members maintain in the House. If we have 10% or 15% of our
caucus here and the government and all other caucuses were to do
the same we would have quorum all the time. That would not
require very many government members.
We all have committee responsibilities. People cannot hide
behind committee responsibilities. We all have to take our share
in committees. We all have the problem of having to be in more
than one place at one time. It is difficult. I do not think the
public appreciates the way the timetable works in the House.
Members are supposed to be in the House of Commons, be in
committee and be meeting with people. It is not always easy.
I see absolutely no reason the government could not maintain a
semblance of the appearance that it is listening. It should have
at least one cabinet minister in the House, if not two. I would
recommend at least two and its share of quorum, which means over
half.
Hopefully we would have more than quorum because in parliament
members are supposed to be talking to each other. Even if we do
not like what the other person is saying we can get up and argue.
I often do not like what the hon. member from Calgary is saying,
but I can get up to ask him a question. We can have some kind of
exchange.
However what is happening is that we are all seeping away from
this place. The collegiality that exists even in conflict in
debate is disappearing from this place. People just come in
here, do their thing and take off. This is not good for
parliament and it is not good for the country.
Mr. Denis Coderre: You are always here.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I hear somebody saying I am always
here. No, I am not always here. For heaven's sake can the
member not listen to these comments as being directed at all of
us, no matter what party we come from, as parliamentarians who
have a responsibility to this institution? Or, does everything
have to be cheapened by the kind of remark I just heard from the
hon. member?
I will finish with a word of constructive criticism. I hope it
will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered. What we also
see in declining relevance of parliament is the culmination or
the fruit of a decade of dumping on politicians. We see it not
only here, but we see it in legislatures across the country. For
a decade people have been told that politicians are bad, they are
the worst thing that could ever happen to a society, that the
real good things that happen in the country happen elsewhere and
that somehow we are all sort of parasites.
1050
Some of my colleagues in the House have arrived in parliament
and want to make a go of it. I admire them for that. However,
it is an irony that they are trying to make a go of it at a time
when the consequences of some of the things they have been a part
of are kicking in. I would ask them to think of that as well.
From here on I ask the government to let us see some members
over there. Let us have some respect for parliament. That is a
responsibility the government has and it has not been executing
it. Anything that comes out today from what the Reform Party did
last night that helps the government see more clearly and to get
its act together will be of benefit to all of us.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the member on his remarks. The House leader of the
fourth party is one of the most distinguished parliamentarians in
this place. I usually disagree with things he has said, but he
is a man dedicated to parliament as an institution and should be
recognized as such.
The hon. member has been in this place for some time, nearly two
decades or more. Does he think that the current attitude of the
government to the business of the House is consistent with the
history of this place? Or, is this an increasing problem over
time, this disregard of parliament as a place of debate?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have just started my
20th year. I think there have been times when we have had
complaints about the government's attitude toward parliament, but
I cannot remember a time when the government was not willing to
maintain quorum. This is a new development.
We have complained about governments that did not listen,
governments that were arrogant, governments that changed the
rules in a way that gave government too much power over the
opposition, et cetera. There is a long litany of things that
have happened over the last 20 years which all in themselves have
reduced the power of parliament.
I do not remember a time when the government benches were
consistently empty in the way they have been over the last while.
This is a new development and something that is greatly to be
regretted and greatly to be resisted. In the sense of what is
now happening I think it is a good thing.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from the western Reform Party I
commend the member who previously spoke. The House leader of the
NDP obviously has a great history in this place.
He spoke very eloquently to this issue. He spoke to the fact
that closure was first brought to the House of Commons by the
Conservative Party. Like the NDP, the Conservative Party has
been around a long time, a claim that the Reform Party cannot
make.
Does the hon. member feel there are times that closure might be
a useful tool for parliament, if exercised with discretion, if
used by the government, tempered at times, and if used on
occasion when the opposition may be misusing or taking up
parliamentary time?
I am not suggesting that is what happened in this instance, but
I am suggesting there are rules that have to be respected by all
members of the House and procedures that have to apply to
everybody. If used with fairness and equity those rules can be
adhered to and the rule of closure can be used on occasion and
used properly.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to suggest
that closure originated with the Conservative Party. Closure in
itself goes back in the history of parliament. Certainly I
remember that closure was moved during the pipeline debate of the
fifties.
1055
I was suggesting that the immediately previous Conservative
government brought in the various reforms in 1991, having to do
not just with closure but with other ways in which the government
could trump various things that the opposition might be able to
do. That is the point I was trying to make.
There is a role for time allocation and closure but it should be
a very rare thing. The problem is that it is not rare. In
previous parliaments it just grew like Topsy. People get used to
this kind of thing so it is not a big deal any more. When the
opposition tries to make a big deal out of what is appropriate to
make a big deal out of, the media are tired of it and the public
is tired of it.
What has happened over the course of many years is that the
opposition is eventually weakened in its ability to hold up
government legislation, not just procedurally but politically,
because people regard the whole debate about closure as a big
yawn when they should not but they do.
Sometimes it is appropriate to regard it that way because it is
a kind of pro forma battle between government and opposition.
People kind of twig on to that and they lose interest. What
happens is we throw out the baby with the bathwater on that.
Sometimes when it really is important people are not paying
attention or they cannot see just how important it is.
One of the things that has happened around this place is that
the function of delay has been devalued, again because we have a
cult of efficiency in our culture now. We think that everything
should happen like a corporate boardroom or some kind of
production planning and control mechanism for a factory floor.
That is not what parliament is. Parliament, by its very nature,
is a parliament, a place where people talk. To the extent that
the only kind of talk we now regard as valuable are things that
happen on talk shows rather than what happens in parliament there
is a very funny thing happening here.
At the same time as our whole culture is obsessed with talk on
the radio it has no time or appreciation of the talk that goes on
in this place between the people elected to talk about what kind
of country is wanted. That might be the subject of some kind of
thesis for some student. It is more than I can go into at the
moment. I think there is an interesting irony there.
What has happened is that the power of the opposition has been
systematically reduced so that we cannot put up the kind of
resistance we used to put up to a government measure and then
take the political consequences. If we are delaying something
and there is not a lot of support for delaying it, sooner or
later we will stop delaying it.
We need to stop regarding that as a waste of time. That gives
people time to mobilize. It gives the Canadian people time to
figure out what is going on. It gives the media time to decide
that they are going to cover it. If they only have 48 hours
between the time the issue comes up and the time it is resolved,
there is no time for any of that to happen. There is no time for
process. What we have done here is killed the opportunity for
that to happen in many respects.
Some issues drag on and there is time for that. I am not making
an absolute categorical statement here, but that is part of the
problem. It is not just closure in any of its formal forms. It
is the self-imposed closure we all do on ourselves by saying it
does not matter whether we have anything to say in here because
nobody is paying any attention anyway, particularly the
government. It is not even willing to go through the motions any
more. Over time everybody loses heart. When we lose heart we
lose the very thing that is absolutely essential for a democratic
culture.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have more of a comment to make than a question. I always enjoy
listening to the House leader of the NDP. I respect him for his
respect for the parliamentary institution we are a part of. I
will admit I have only been here for five years so I am still
learning. I am still wet behind the ears compared to the member
who has just spoken.
It is not only my read on history. There are rules by which we
govern ourselves in our standing orders and in Beauchesne's. They
state that reasonable delaying tactics are acceptable in the
House of Commons.
1100
In other words, the government is not right to expect and it
should not expect that we make it as efficient as possible over
here. It is not within the realm of reason for us to say
whatever you want to do at whatever timeframe you give us, we
will just have to do it.
I wish government backbenchers, not just cabinet which
understandably wants to run it like a business, would realize
that the role of all parliamentarians is decreased every time the
government brings in time allocation. This is about the 50th time
this government has brought in time allocation, although this is
not time allocation. The government has brought it in so
frequently that the public and even the government backbenchers
say I guess that is just the way we have to do it.
It is a shame when people come here with the best of intentions
only to find out those intentions cannot be followed through on
because no discussion, no debate and no delaying tactics are
allowed. The government just says it is its way or—
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired. I am afraid we have run out of minutes. I did my
best to hint to the hon. member that we were doing that but I am
afraid the time has expired. Given that this is a two hour
debating time, the Chair is going to be relatively strict on that
point.
Let me also advise the House that when the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford rose to speak, the Chair indicated he had
unlimited time. In review of the standing order, the Chair was
apparently incorrect in making that ruling and we wish to
apologize to the House. The ruling should have been that it was
a 20 minute speech because the motion is not a government order.
It is a motion under routine proceedings. Accordingly, the
speech should have been a 20 minute one, subject to questions and
comments, and it was not. The Chair wishes to apologize to the
House for that error. We did not want to have a bad precedent
set by that ruling.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that we find ourselves
debating this issue but it is obviously a very important one. I
am honoured to be following the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona who has a long and storied history in this
place. He spoke very eloquently about the changes he has seen
during his years in parliament.
I think of former parliamentarians who are watching what is
taking place in this place, members like Robert Howie from
Fredericton, New Brunswick who have served in this House and all
members across the country who look back and occasionally follow
the parliamentary channel. They must wonder what is taking
place. There is obviously a digression. There is something
afoot that seems to be undermining the relevance of parliament.
I strongly suggest that occurrence is a result of a change
in attitude, an attitude on behalf of a government that has now
been sitting in the government benches for five years and some
months. It has decided in its arrogance that it is going to do
what it wants to do. That was displayed in the House this
morning. After a motion was properly moved and tabled by the
opposition, the government decided in its wisdom to come forward
and to try to rescind it, simply rescind it without any debate or
consultation. It was simply going to run roughshod over the
opposition as it has done, as has been its wont in the past
months.
The opposition on this side of the House has shown a
non-partisan unison by banding together and saying no, we are not
going to let that happen. The time has come to draw a line in the
sand and say it is not proper that the government is going to do
this.
So here we are. Standing Order 56 has been debated. It has
been used on a number of occasions in this parliament. It was
used in the last parliament as well to stifle the opposition on
occasion. I was glad to hear the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona acknowledge that there is a time and a place
when closure can be used, much like the rules of procedure
themselves where there is a time for their application. But this
was not the time or place for the government to exercise that
discretion. It did so in such a way that it displayed an
attitude such that the opposition parties felt that was enough.
We are debating this issue when we could perhaps be debating
other more important issues.
1105
However, the issues that will arise in this debate are the
issues that do govern the House, set the rules of engagement and
set how the rules of procedure will be applied. Therefore it is
an important debate and I am hoping there will be some lessons
learned and some exchange of information and ideas that will
perhaps improve the way we choose to apply these rules for the
months and years ahead that will bind us in the House.
I think it is high time that the government realized that MPs in
the House, whether its own backbenchers or opposition members,
are not irrelevant and are not here to be taken for granted by
the government.
It was a bit of irony to see the reaction of the government
House leader when this occurred, a complete overreaction I would
suggest, an attitude of disbelief that the opposition would have
the audacity to stand up and oppose what was about to happen.
We have seen occasions where the government had no hesitation
whatsoever to applying the whip to its own members. It happened
in a very poignant way during the debate on hepatitis C. It was
not at all afraid to fill all of the benches on the government
side to ensure that every single member was present in the House
when it suited its purpose.
However, time and time again opposition parties bring forward
issues they feel are of relevance and importance to their
constituents, be it in the east, the west, Ontario or Quebec.
They want to debate relevant issues to put their voice and the
voices of their constituents on the record in parliament and to
be heard by the government. There are far too few members on
that side of the House. That does not lead to a healthy
discourse or to the exchange that should take place in
parliament.
As has been referenced by the previous speaker from the New
Democratic Party, parliament is supposed to be about speech and
about the exchange of ideas, thought and thought provoking
debate. The debates that occur in this place should be of
interest and importance. I hope Canadians around the country,
abroad and those serving overseas who hear about what is taking
place in their own Canada should have no more focus than on
parliament and on what we say and do in this place.
As well, what we have seen are a lot of shifting priorities on
the part of this government. One of the things I viewed with
great regret was the use of press conferences on the part of the
government as a means to announce shifts in policy and to
broadcast the direction in which the government had chosen to go
rather than making ministerial statements here in the House,
allowing members of parliament to be given the first opportunity
to review what the government had chosen to do and allowing
members of parliament to perhaps ask relevant questions and
discuss the decision the government had made to move in a certain
direction.
The Minister of Justice has done that on two occasions within
the last number of months. Rather than bring forward new
legislation on the Young Offenders Act and talk about the
priorities of her department, she chose to hold a press
conference and leaked that information to the press before
members of the House were given an opportunity to speak on it.
We had a very relevant and lively debate yesterday about the
status of parliament as it compares to the judiciary and how some
members of the opposition are feeling that perhaps parliament is
losing is relevance when it comes to the making of laws. Again
that is a sad reflection on this place when some members in the
House actually feel we are becoming that irrelevant, that we are
not the supreme court of the land when it comes to the making and
passing of legislation.
We must be a House of democracy and a place that is most
reflective of the fact that Canadians have entrusted us and have
put their faith in us as members of parliament to come to Ottawa,
leave behind our homes and the places I am sure each of us would
prefer to be, and bring forward their ideas and deal with the
problems that do exist out there. There are many problems out
there when one looks at the high rates of unemployment, the
declining quality of our health care and the problems within our
justice system, to name a few.
1110
If Canadians as well as parliamentarians, are feeling that this
place is losing its relevance, this is a sad day. One would only
hope that we can learn from this debate.
As a result of discussions today and as a result of
circumspection and looking back on what has occurred, perhaps the
government will not be quite so quick to react in the manner in
which it did to inform us that we are now going to be speaking
and called on to debate issues until 4 a.m.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, so be it. If that is the
way it has to go, we will be here. I know members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will be here as they always have
been.
We are prepared to be in this House if called on until 4 a.m.,
until the wee small hours of the morning. We will be here. I
give that assurance.
To send a message to the government, I am very pleased that the
official opposition has taken this initiative. I think we will
see there is a non-partisan tone to what has taken place here.
The purpose of this was to send a message that the opposition
matters. I am sure that many members in this House have been
questioned, those in opposition. What can one really do as a
member of parliament in opposition?
If for no other reason, the message that comes out of today's
debate is that there are occasions when we can hold the
government accountable. We can say no, that is not the way it
should go, it will not run roughshod over the entire opposition
with its motions.
That is not a bad message to come from this debate. We
certainly know this is a busy place and that people do work. I
do not think there is any suggestion that government members as
well as opposition members do not have a very busy schedule on
the Hill, the amount of work that goes on in committees, the
amount of work required in striking that delicate balance between
the obligations of serving one's constituents and the obligations
brought on either by a ministry or a critic's portfolio. Those
are very important roles and it takes a great deal of time and
effort to do the job we are charged with.
There also has to be a shift in attitude. There has to be a
conscious change in attitude on behalf of the government when it
comes to its arrogance toward the opposition. That has been
reflected time and time again in the manner in which the rules of
this House have been applied.
We cannot simply acquiesce. In opposition we cannot simply say
we are powerless, we accept that we are the opposition and the
government has the majority and it can do whatever it pleases.
That only goes so far and finally the opposition, as we come to
the end of this session, says enough is enough.
I hope the government in its wisdom will review this situation
and realize there was an overreaction here that did not have to
happen. The role of the opposition here is to hold this
government accountable. I am sure that all members on the
opposition side take that task very seriously.
If we can somehow improve the influence and perhaps improve the
relations we have with this government, again I that is going to
be a positive outcome from today's developments. We are also
charged with protecting the public interest.
There are some times that government initiates policy that is
not perhaps in the best interest of the Canadian people. We
certainly should have the opportunity to question it when that
occurs.
This has been a healthy debate. This has been an opportunity to
perhaps raise the level of intellect, the discourse that should
be taking place properly in the House of Commons. Perhaps now we
will see the government a little more anxious to call to arms its
own members when there is debate occurring in the House, not only
for its own purposes but for the purpose of improving generally
the way matters proceed in the House of Commons.
We certainly hope the trend spoken of by the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona and other members, the downward spiral of
disinterest and the perception of unimportance that might exist
out there, will change. We can put a stop to that by showing
more mutual respect between government and opposition.
1115
I would certainly hope that we are not going to see a continued
trend of righteous indignation on behalf of government members
when opposition members decide to stand and question what it is
they are doing here in this place.
If that message gets through and if we are not forced to use a
tool such as the tool which was used this morning to try to
block, outmanoeuvre and outflank the government, perhaps we will
not be forced to digress into this type of debate again. Perhaps
then and only then will we be able to get on with the discussion
of the important issues and the important tasks that we have been
given as parliamentarians.
It is a matter of respect and attitude. If we can learn from
this, if we can hopefully get past this interlude and move on to
the issues that matter most to Canadians and do away with this
contentious, non-important attitude that seems to exist on behalf
of the government toward opposition members, then I am sure we
will all be better off and the level of debate and the type of
importance and emphasis that is placed on this parliament will
improve.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments. I always enjoy
listening to his comments and as the House leader for the party I
know he has a lot of interest in the whole procedural part of
parliament.
It is unfortunate when the public looks on and says “I am not
sure what is going on. There are a lot of green seats and there
are some things flashing on the screen, but I do not know what it
is all about”.
However, I believe that it is critically important today to
discuss the issues of the role of parliament and the role of the
opposition parties, collectively, in a properly functioning
parliament.
I appreciated the comments that the member brought forward
regarding the need to respect this institution and the need for
people on all sides of the House, especially the government which
holds the big hammer, to understand that there is a role to play.
A proper functioning democracy needs an efficient opposition.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and I spoke to
the Cuban delegates together some time ago. We talked about two
things. I talked about the role of the opposition. I told them
that we think a good government can be made better by an
efficient opposition. The opposition is important in making a
government more efficient and accountable; not just efficient in
the sense of quickly passing legislation, but efficient in the
sense of doing the right thing and representing people better.
The opposition is required. I made it perfectly clear when I
talked to the Cuban representatives that the opposition was
important.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about the
importance of a free media and its role in a functioning
democracy. In other words, there are the people themselves, the
voters, the active participants that not only vote but make their
feelings known to their politicians, there is the role of the
media to actively report not only what is sensational but the
meat and potatoes of what goes on in this place, and there is
also the role of the opposition parties. All of that is key to a
properly functioning democracy.
What can be more key in that parcel that we are involved in,
which is partly media and partly debate, than to have the right
to speak to important issues? The public may say “This is just
a debate on restricting your ability. They are going to try to
wear you out by sitting until 4 o'clock in the morning”. The
public should know that it is the crux of a democracy to be able
to speak out in parliament when we do not agree with something.
It is the quintessential essence of parliament to debate, to
talk, to be able to get our points across.
This was before my time, but when the pipeline debate came to a
head and the government restricted debate, what happened at that
time?
1120
The pipeline was one issue. It was a big issue. It was an
important issue for the country, but what the subsequent election
turned on was the use of closure. Mr. Diefenbaker made proper
use of that. He said “It is not just the pipeline, it is the
fact that we were not allowed to talk about it”. The election
turned on that.
In my province of British Columbia, back in Dave Barrett's day,
the opposition of the day, which was led by Bill Bennett, made
the point that the government was not using the legislature. The
legislature was not sitting. The government was bypassing it by
using orders in council to pass everything, to spend millions and
millions of dollars.
Mr. Bennett went around the province and his rallying cry was
“Not a dime without debate”. He could not go to the
legislature and cry it because it was not sitting. He went out
and said to the people of that province “It is not right that
the government is bypassing the legislature, bypassing
parliament, and running the province by executive order. We need
to have public scrutiny. We need to have public debate. We need
to have the legislature sit”.
That was back in the early seventies. It was such a big issue
that he won the next election because the government refused to
do its job, which was to sit, to withstand the barrage of media
scrutiny, to withstand the scrutiny of the opposition parties who
put questions to it and to debate legislation. Because of that
the Barrett government fell. It was one of many reasons, but
that was the rallying cry leading up to it.
That happened about 25 years ago. In 25 years we have come so
far that this government has used closure and time allocation 50
times to restrict debate on routine issues of the day. It just
does not want to bother talking about them.
This is not a national pipeline debate. It is just “We don't
not like the cut of your jib, so we are going to cut off
debate”.
Changes are necessary. We had a debate on potential changes to
the standing orders. I put forward six or eight ideas that I
thought could improve this place to make it more accountable and
also to limit the extreme power of the government. I wonder if
the house leader of the Conservative Party could detail for us
some of his ideas on standing order changes which would make this
place function better.
I have dealt with things such as referral before second reading
and a lot of other things, but I would be interested to know if
there were some specifics that he thinks could improve this place
so that the government does not only holds all the cards but play
them underhandedly.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for that question. As always he brings a great deal of history
and a great deal of knowledge to the debate, even though he is a
relatively new member to this Chamber. He is not as new as I am,
but I always respect and enjoy hearing the hon. member speak.
He has a great depth of knowledge of the history of the
Conservative Party of Canada, which leads me to believe that
there may come a time when he will be back in the party. I am
very encouraged to hear the hon. member speak in such glowing
terms of some of the past glories of the Diefenbaker years and
the Conservative Party itself.
To turn to the question, he asks specifically about some of the
changes that I or the Progressive Conservative Party might like
to invoke or to see take place within the standing orders
themselves. I have not turned my mind to that, except at this
very moment.
One suggestion might be, in terms of the use of this card that
has been played, this heavy-handed card of closure or time
allocation, that the government within a certain term of
parliament would only be allowed to use that card a specified
number of times. It could be limited. Perhaps that would
address the problem that has been referred to by the hon. member,
that it would appear this government uses this measure, this
shotgun approach to a mosquito, basically with no discretion.
They simply, at a whim, decide that debate has become irrelevant,
or a nuisance or a bother and they shut it down.
1125
That might be one suggestion.
But I think, generally, the rules of procedure, obviously, like
the law itself, are like a living tree. They have changed over
time. They have evolved. The rules of procedure are not
necessarily the problem, just as it is with the law. It is their
application. It is the tool in the hand of the person that is
using it, the old expression being that a poor carpenter blames
his tools. The government has, in my opinion, displayed an
attitude of arrogance and irreverence toward the opposition. It
has misused the rules or the tools of this place.
If there was a change in attitude, a shift in the focus of the
government as to its role as juxtaposed to the opposition, and if
it had a little more respect for the opposition, I think that
would go a long way to improving the way in which this place
operates.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an
outcry today.
Last week, we were treated to a marriage between the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party, and today we have moved on to
adultery between the Conservative and Reform parties. Members
opposite are all so perfect. It is the Jimmy and Tammy Baker
Show.
Now they are telling us how to do our job. These are people who
ask questions in the House about India and Pakistan when there
is not even a Conservative Party representative on the foreign
affairs committee.
These people are so self-righteous, telling us there is nobody in
the House, when we know that parliamentarians are also required
to work in parliamentary committees.
There is nothing worse than a weak opposition. The opposition
is weak because the opposition is weak. Today, we see why. The
polls show the Reform Party with only 12% of popular support and
the Conservative Party with 15%. The reason we have 55% is
because we do our job. They are such a mighty opposition that,
when 25 members were asked to rise in the House, there were 13
Progressive Conservatives and only 12 Reformers.
At some point, the ridiculous comments have to stop. Enough of
this hypocrisy. I will tell members something about hypocrisy.
There are people in the Reform Party constantly saying that they
are looking after important matters. I am on the sports
subcommittee, and Reformers were never visible. The only time
they showed their faces was when the National League governors
were there, or when representatives from the Montreal Expos came
to testify, because then there were cameras present. When there
is a photo op., when there is a chance to show off, to play a
little game, then they are there. But when there is a
discussion of important issues, where are they then?
They got all holier than thou about Stornoway, saying it should be
turned into a bingo parlour, but now their leader is living
there because, as he said, “I have received mail on this, it is
shocking. I was forced to move to Stornoway”.
Now we see all the nonsense that is going on now with these
people—not just the leader of the opposition, but also members of
his party and the Conservative Party—trying to cover up. I heard
the NDP member commenting on “How dreadful it is, you are not
there”. He should go see how things are in the foreign affairs
and justice committees. To be honest, the only ones doing their
job properly aside from the Liberals are the Bloc Quebecois.
They take committee work seriously, the only ones who do.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: We do not agree on the basic premise, but we
will—
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am sure that the whole House heard the hon. member
accuse the Reform Party of a cover-up. I would like him to
either explain what he meant or withdraw that comment.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is getting
into a debate here. On questions and comments perhaps he will be
able to elucidate that issue. The hon. member for Bourassa.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker, but that is
perfectly normal. They are trying to pull a fast one. Allow me
to point out something. When there is a fight going on, one
tries to fight to the finish, to reach a conclusive outcome.
1130
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think the hon. member has reached a new low in his
reference to the foreign affairs committee.
Everyone knows that the member for Burnaby—Douglas fell off a
cliff and has been recuperating from his injuries for the last
several months.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is on a point of
debate, not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts and pressure is
building up on the other side. This once again shows the
weakness of the arguments from the other side of the House. The
opposition wants to sit until four in the morning? I have no
problem with that. I have been working hard for 10 years to be a
member. I can be here for hours and speak forever.
Opposition members want to raise points of order? Let them do
so. I do not see many members from the NDP in the House. I do
not see many Conservative members, nor members from the other
opposition parties.
If they want to start a war, they better be prepared to fight to
the finish.
If I am going to be the only person here to take a count in
parliamentary committees or in the House, I am prepared to do
so. They better be prepared, because if they want to take things
seriously, they will see that if they start a fight, they better
be able to win it.
There is nothing more belittling than to see members opposite
shooting themselves in the foot and continually telling us that
the government did not do anything and does not take the
public's interest seriously. It is this government that
eliminated the deficit. It is this government that took position—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Angela Vautour: On the back of the unemployed and the poor.
Mr. Denis Coderre: The other side is whining again. It is this
government that put the emphasis on the fight against child
poverty.
We allocated $850 million.
Another point of order, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
While it is true that the Liberals balanced the budget, they did
did it by implementing 37 tax increases.
The Deputy Speaker: It sounds to me we are getting into
debates here on phoney points of order. The hon. member for
Bourassa has the floor.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, it is not the debate that
is phoney. It is the members of the opposition who are phoney.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I think hon. members might allow the
member for Bourassa to complete his remarks. I know that what he
is saying is clearly provocative. On the other hand it is not a
matter of consent.
The hon. member may be provocative in his remarks but with
respect, when we have points of order raised that are not points
of order, that are phoney points of order and that disrupt a
member's speech, we know this on every side, that it causes more
difficulty for all members. I urge hon. members to allow the
member to complete his remarks.
There is a period for questions and comments at the end when
members are encouraged to make comments and ask questions, and
argue with the hon. member. I hope that members will take full
advantage of the 10 minutes that will be thus afforded.
Mr. Denis Coderre: He is going to cry again.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is a point of order here.
The member insists on using language which demeans other members
of parliament and that is against the standing orders.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member uses
unparliamentary language, I am sure the member for Elk Island
will draw it to the attention of the Chair, if the Chair does not
pick up on it himself. The Chair tries to ensure that the words
used in debate are within the rules. So far, the Chair has not
heard words that are in and of themselves unparliamentary from
the hon. member for Bourassa.
Mr. Denis Coderre: There is a short fuse, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
When the truth hurts, this is what happens. Last evening, they
tried to pull a fast one on us. This morning, we begin to see
the weakness of their arguments and realize that they just
wanted to be in the news again.
But Canadians will not be fooled. They realize what is going on
and they showed it again last week in the polls. The Liberal
Party of Canada has the support of 55% of Canadians, compared to
12% for the Reform Party and 15% for the Conservative Party.
Even without a leader, the Conservatives are more popular than
the Reformers. This may be why the Reform Party is trying to
conclude other sorts of alliances. They committed adultery and
gave birth to the NDP. Look at the results.
The people of Bourassa are proud of their Liberal member in this
House.
1135
They are proud to see that the Quebec caucus is working like
crazy for its people, while the members of the opposition are
not taking their role seriously, they whine, they clown around
and they put on sombreros in protest against the Senate. Some
people here are managing the country and working for the public.
They can make all the fuss they want. They can whine, try to
get themselves on camera all they like. People are not going to
be fooled. The opposition will never form the government simply
because it is again showing itself to be a band of clowns. That
is today's reality.
Perhaps they will make the evening news today or tomorrow,
perhaps they will say all sorts of stupid things—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, they are getting upset.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Surely, the calling of hon. members in this House a bunch of
clowns has to be unparliamentary language. I would ask the
member to withdraw that statement.
The Deputy Speaker: With great respect to the hon. member
for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, I do not believe there is a
precedent saying that the expression “a bunch of clowns” is
unparliamentary. It is somewhat unrestrained. As your Speaker,
at times when I have been in the House I have heard the
expression used in relation to different groups. I will not rule
it unparliamentary.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to understand
them. If the word “clown” is not unparliamentary, I will say it
again. I think they are going to create the order of clown, the
deform party circus. Mixing the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform
Party makes the deform party.
This band of clowns goes in for props. They really like props,
but when it comes to basics, to serious business, the reason is
clear why the Liberal Party was put in power. It is simply for
that. They can make all the fuss they like, trot out their
music, wander about in sombreros, make blunders and even try to
stick the system—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: —but people will not be fooled. We have a
government to be proud of.
They tried to put one over on us, but the people of Bourassa,
like the people in all the ridings that elected Liberal members
are proud and are saying “At least you do not go off with the
chairs and you do not say stupid things. You are working for
the public good”.
I am proud to describe all we have done, including create new
jobs and, as was mentioned yesterday, an agreement to clean up
the St. Lawrence. In terms of the environment, we have done
specific things. In terms of finance, we have shown our mettle,
our stature and our knowledge of handling public funds.
The most demeaning thing in politics is to act like a clown.
The most demeaning thing in politics is to watch the opposition
members fussing about and then to have them say to us “Look,
there is no Liberal member in the House”.
When they try to hurt us, they are hurting themselves, because
now we can talk about committees, such as the Standing Committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Standing
Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, and the Standing Committee on Health.
Members want numbers. I will give them numbers. There are five
members from the Liberal Party, two from the Reform Party, three
from the Bloc Quebecois, one from the New Democratic Party and
one from the Conservative Party. Where are the others?
On the Standing Committee on Finance, there are six members from
the Liberal Party, one from the Reform Party, none from the Bloc
Quebecois, one from the New Democratic Party and one from the
Conservative Party.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade has eight members from the Liberal Party, one from the
Reform Party, three from the Bloc Quebecois, none from the New
Democratic Party and none from the Conservative Party.
As for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—and
justice is important, although they are still pulling their
holier than thou routine here—it has eight members from the Liberal
Party, one from the Reform Party, one from the Bloc Quebecois,
none from the New Democratic Party and none from the
Conservative Party.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the hon. member is going to quote numbers, he should at least
quote them accurately. As a matter of fact the Reform Party has
three—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid disputes as to the
accuracy of the hon. member's remarks cannot constitute a point
of order. The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley may want
to ask a question or make a comment during the time provided and
dispute his figures, but that is a matter for debate.
1140
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: I continue, Mr. Speaker. We are in no rush.
Members of the official opposition want to speak at length.
There is no rush, we will take our time. While members opposite
are parading around in sombreros and playing the clown, we are
working.
The Standing Committee on Health has eight members from the
Liberal Party, one from the Reform Party, none from the Bloc
Quebecois, one from the NDP, and one from the Conservative
Party. Who is doing the work?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Who is doing their job? Who is actively
looking out for the public's interests? The figures are there.
They can all rise in the House and say that they want to debate,
that it is terrible, that they have been silenced. The fact is
that members must have something to say and when they say it, it
must be sensible.
But no, we have this little procedural tussle. When we have an
international, local, provincial and regional role to play, and
opposition members are not even present on parliamentary
committees, we have to wonder.
I am clearly proud to be a member of this party. I am proud to
be a member of this government, because we know where the
priorities lie. We know where the work needs to be done, and we
know that a member's role—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: They are whining again. Next we know, they
will be in tears.
The other day, I heard someone say that backbenchers were
unhappy in this place. That is nonsense. Sheer nonsense.
Not only are we happy to be members of this government, but
together with this government we participate in taking important
stands in the interest of the public, while these
anti-francophone people are not interested in anything besides
their own little power plays and ensuring that their leader can
keep going for another week.
We look after the public interest. We work for the public
interest. We, on this side, whether francophones or anglophones,
are working for all Canadians and treating everyone on an equal
basis.
What am I hearing from the Reform Party? When they are not
clowning around in sombreros, what do they do? They put
francophones down. They are anti-francophone. We, on the other
hand, are taking our responsibilities.
Instead of continually standing up in this House with their
petty rhetoric, their hogwash, their whining and their strings
of petty points of order, which are even more trivial, they
should really shut up, because the more they talk, the more they
damage their case.
As a member of the Liberal Party, that suits me just fine; the
more they talk, the better we fare in the polls. That is how we
had a member elected in British Columbia. There was a reason for
that. People are not stupid. While they were clowning around,
parading in sombreros, while they were giving us their hogwash,
we were working, and the people took notice.
What was the ultimate test?
While Reformers were clowning around in sombreros, we
demonstrated to the public that we were looking after the best
interest of the country and its people properly. Do members want
proof? The only time the Reform Party could have demonstrated
they were right, we got a Liberal candidate elected in British
Columbia. This just goes to show what the real, the ultimate
test is, where the public can show how satisfied or dissatisfied
it is.
The truth hurts. The facts speak for themselves. I am proud to
be a member of this government. People need not worry, we are
working. They have tried to lead people to believe that we are
not here to do our job. That is b.s., that is not true. We are
working.
We do committee work, we work in our ridings, we make
announcements left and right, we travel thousands of kilometres
to serve the public.
We are doing our work in this House. Just because some barnacle
comes along two minutes before the adjournment to try to play
procedural games, nobody is going to take away the value I
attach to this institution.
The more Reformers run down the institution, the more harm they
are doing to themselves. If they want to be effective, instead
of saying dumb things, instead of playing the clown, going
around in sombreros, they should act sensibly and talk sensibly.
It is not a matter of how much time there is for speaking, but
one of speaking when one has something to say. This can be done
in a restrained and precise manner. The day Reformers figure
this out, they will understand what the role of a real member
is. Respecting the institution requires self-respect.
Judging by what I have seen this morning, opposition members
ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is not a great day for
the institution, because once again, if the opposition is weak,
it is because the opposition is weak.
1145
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: As predicted, we have a lot of
interest in questions and comments. I suggest we will do this in
one minute segments and we will get five in.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
closing comments were said accurately and succinctly.
We have just witnessed what one speech coach gave to an aspiring
speaker. The speech had been developed and the points had been
developed reasonably well until very close to the middle of the
speech. Then there was a point that really did not relate to the
rest of the speech and was not developed very strongly. The coach
said to the young aspiring speaker to shout like crazy at that
point because the point is weak. That is what we just heard, a
shouting diatribe of intemperate railing filled with inaccurate
facts and unwarranted attacks on individual members.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, if the shoe fits, let him wear
it. They have been spouting nonsense since the sitting opened
this morning. Playing the clown, dancing about in sombreros,
none of this is very serious. Members must pay attention. Not
only am I speaking out loudly, but my words also have a bite to
them. Not only am I proud of my words, they are also inspired by
the nonsense and hypocrisy I have seen across the way.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, today in
the circus ring we heard the clown speak. He referred to
committees and to pride in his party. I would like to point out
that we in the Conservative Party number only 20, not 156.
Something happened here yesterday. There was not one member of
the government in the House for debate on a motion. That is
unbelievable, when there are 156 of them. I am not afraid to
bite, and I am not afraid of being bitten back.
The hon. member is proud of his government and of his
committees. When I was appointed to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development, I tabled a motion for examination
of the employment insurance reform, which also impacts upon the
hon. member's riding. The committee voted it down. Is he proud
of that? Just recently, the members of his party voted against
compensating some of the victims of hepatitis C. Is he proud of
his government for that?
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, not only am I proud, but I am
honoured to be part of this government. If there are only 20
Conservative members and 16 committees, it means one
Conservative per committee. If the member is present and does
his job, I have no comment.
Why is he whining? He is no clown and he is not wearing a
sombrero like the Reform members. But if the options frustrate
him, he should perhaps remember that we had the first Liberal
majority government in 1993 because we got rid of the
Conservatives.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a comment and to ask my colleague
from Bourassa a question.
I think the hon. member raises some very important points. This
is my first term as a member of parliament.
[English]
It is my first mandate as an elected official to the House of
Commons. One of the first things I learned here is that the work
of a parliamentarian takes place in the House and it also takes
place in the committees. The hon. member for Bourassa made an
excellent point when he gave out the numbers as to the permanent
committees of the House that were sitting this morning and who
was actually there. I think the point was very well taken.
1150
When the hon. member says:
[Translation]
“The deform party is fond of props”, I must say he—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry, but I indicated
there would be only a minute for each question and comment.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague.
I will simply say, as the public has seen and understood today,
that, when Reform members spit it lands on their noses. By
trying to demean the institution, the Reformers have once again
demeaned themselves. After the whole business of the clowns and
the sombreros, we were given another circus performance today.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just witnessed the member for Bourassa finish up with a very
loud speech, the complete antithesis of speak softly and carry a
big stick. Apparently the member for Bourassa believes that if
he has nothing to say, to at least say it loudly.
I would also like to point out to the member that if he does not
like the fact that the opposition agreed on something
unanimously, then the solution to that is very simple. Some
members on the government benches could deny the unanimous
consent to things they do not want.
The member railed on and on about all the bad things that we are
doing here. I would note again that there are no ministers in
the House at this point.
The Deputy Speaker: The latter part of the comment of
course the hon. member knows he should not make because it is
against the rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, respect for the institution
means respect for the rules. In fact, the last thing he said
about who was present and who was not contravened the rules.
[English]
He should be ashamed of himself.
[Translation]
If you sling enough mud, some of it will stick. One thing is
sure, I repeat, if they want to do battle, they will have to
make sure they can win. They are not going to win in the polls
with circuses, clown acts and sombreros.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks. Facts do
matter. There is one important thing that should be put on the
record which is that the Conservative Party has but one member on
each committee. When we have one member there, we have 100% of
our membership on that committee present. That is a very
important fact which should be on the record.
I guess a lot of the members on the government side have chosen
not to be in the House to hear the vitriolic, adrenalin driven
remarks of the hon. member. I am recalling a phrase my
grandfather used to use. To mix metaphors with a big stick here,
he used to say that occasionally one could find a good stick of
wood in a pile of manure.
One point that was made was that members should do their duty in
committee, but they should also do their duty in the House. On
balance, I would like to know from the hon. member for Bourassa
if he is saying that a member should be at committee when there
is important debate going on in the House. We have been in that
position a few times when ministers were in committee and
important debate was happening here.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to tell the
parliamentary leader of the Progressive Conservative Party that
he should talk to his whip, because there are currently no
Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, and on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade. They should do their job in that
respect.
Mao made this extraordinary statement: “Cow dung is more useful
than dogmas. At least it can be used to make fertilizer”. This
is the reply I could make to him.
Finally, I have always taken part in the debates on substantive
issues. You can check if you want. I always have. I do not want
to downplay the role of parliamentary committees, because it is
at that level that the work is done in the legislative process.
This is extremely important, because the legislative process is
based on the work done by parliamentary committees.
If the Progressive Conservative Party is not represented on the
standing committee on justice, then its members should not ask
us questions in the House when they cannot do their job.
In conclusion, I am prepared to take part in a debate, but only
when there is one.
1155
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: We will call it quits for questions
and comments on this speech at this time. Resuming debate.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is actually amusing to watch the Liberals' response
to the motion put forward by their House leader earlier. The
reason we are here today is that the Liberal government was
caught in a very visible way last night at a practice it has been
doing since the 1993 election when the Liberals were elected as
government. That practice has been to continually show utter
contempt and disdain for the opposition parties in this House.
That has been shown very clearly on an ongoing basis by their
lack of presence in the House.
In other words, what the Liberals were saying to the opposition
parties as we debated issues that were important to all the
people of Canada was that they simply did not care enough to be
here. They do not care enough about what we are saying to even
show up in the House. This is evidence today. We are debating
the Liberals' own motion and there are only three Liberal members
in the House.
I know where two of them are. The deputy whip is looking for a
safe place to hide today, no doubt. The House leader is out on a
massive pout trying to figure out how he can get even with those
dastardly Reformers who caught them in the act last night of
their utter contempt for this House of Commons and the opposition
party.
The hon. member for Bourassa spoke so loudly earlier about the
presence of one Reform member at many of the committee hearings.
The simple answer to that is that one Reform member can handle
six Liberals in debate any time of the week. Mr. Speaker, you
will like this. One member of the Reform Party appropriately
handled the entire Liberal government last night. One of us is
worth a thousand of them.
The House leader certainly put forward this motion because the
Liberals got caught last night. They got caught with no members
in the House. Mr. Speaker, as you well know and could probably
confirm, this is typical of what we see during debate most times.
We see a goodly amount of opposition members while across the
way we see no government members. We certainly see no ministers
when we are talking about issues. That shows they do not really
care about what the people of Canada who are represented by this
side of the House have to say.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Given that on this debate about the absence of government
members there is only one government member opposite, I think
quorum ought to be called. Could you see if there is a quorum
here.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I have to do a quorum count. There
has been a call for quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. We will continue
with the debate please.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members who
just ran in came to hear the rest of my speech. I thank them for
showing up today.
I will address some of the points made by the member for
Bourassa where he incorrectly accused the opposition parties for
not showing up for committee meetings. He will find out if he
looks because it is documented that many times in this session
the chairman of the Indian affairs committee could not get a
meeting together because not enough members from her own party
showed up to make quorum.
1200
Therefore the committee meetings had to be cancelled or delayed.
I think it is astonishing that the government itself cannot get
enough of its own members to a committee meeting.
This whole thing is about the government's having respect for
the opposition, for the points the opposition party has made and
I want to talk about two very good examples. There may be some
heads hung over there as I remind them of how they have shown
their contempt for decisions that were made in this House.
I start with a motion put forward concerning the victims bill of
rights. This was brought into the House in the last parliament.
It was debated and voted on and it was carried unanimously in
this House, that the government would take steps to enact a
victims bill of rights. Its own members voted for it. But to
this day, and it is well over a year, there has been absolutely
zero done by this government.
This was on a motion passed unanimously in this House two years
ago. The government has done nothing to bring it into some sort
of legislation. That is a slap in the face to the democracy that
is supposed to go on in this House and it is certainly a slap in
the face to the millions of Canadians who were supporting in
their own way a victims bill of rights, certainly to victims of
crime when a government will not deal with a bill that has been
passed in this House. Its refusal to deal with that bill was
another example of its contempt for the opposition parties and
the ideas that we bring forward in this House.
I want to deal with another matter dear to my heart, the Reform
supply day motion that called on the government to examine all
areas of the Criminal Code that dealt with the crime of impaired
driving in order to enhance deterrence and ensure that the
penalties for this very serious crime reflected the seriousness
of the crime. That motion was debated in the House. It was
passed unanimously. A minister of the government made amendments.
He made an amendment that would send it directly to the justice
committee and also another amendment that instructed the justice
committee to deal with this whole issue and report back to this
House with appropriate legislation as a result of its findings by
May 15, 1998. There was a mix-up when it was reported in
Journals. We approached the government and this was
cleared up on a Speaker's ruling.
The government has totally disregarded the will of this House.
It still has not dealt with that motion. The chairman of the
justice committee as I understand, and I wonder how much power
chairmen of committees have, has been telling the government that
she will not handle this motion. This was a motion that was
passed in this House and sent directly to the justice committee
with a timeline directive and the justice committee chairman has
told the government and this House and all the people in Canada
concerned about the serious crime of impaired driving that she
simply will not deal with it, notwithstanding what has happened.
That is astonishing.
This is another example of the disdain and contempt of this
Liberal government that allows her to get away with this. We
still do not know when the justice committee is going to deal
with the issue of impaired driving in this House. We go on
waiting for it to change the Criminal Code to try and stop the
epidemic of impaired driving.
1205
Every single day that has been wasted by this Liberal
government, statistically four and a half people have been killed
in this country by impaired drivers.
In the six or seven months since this motion was passed about
50,000 people have been injured by impaired drivers. The
government still refuses to deal with that issue. That is another
example of the disdain of this government and the contempt it
holds for the opposition parties. It does not understand
democracy.
The member opposite who just spoke said that the first thing she
learned in this House was the democratic fashion and the way it
operates. I suggest that the first thing she learned was to do
exactly what her whip told her to do.
Obviously some Liberal members are going to be taken to task for
not doing exactly what they were told to do last night, not to
mention the deputy whip. I will not dwell on that. She is the
one who is really in trouble today.
We in the Reform Party find a lack of attention given to issues
we represent. We are a federal party and represent Canadians not
only who voted for us in our ridings but across this country from
coast to coast. We bring those issues before this House to be
dealt with, we trust, by the government in a sensitive and
intelligent manner.
We do not come to this House to frivolously debate issues that
make no sense. We bring very serious issues to this House only
to speak to empty chairs opposite because this government has no
interest in showing up for debate unless it has to speak. There
might be one.
We can go on and talk about closure and time allocation. Closure
is simply put in by this government because it does not want to
hear any more. It never wanted to hear from the opposition in
the first place and it finally ran out of time on its agenda and
so it implements closure.
We are here today because the Liberal government got caught last
night doing what it does best, having no interest in the debate
in this House. Apparently now the House leader for the government
is lashing out at the opposition members and at the Reform Party
which caught him by coming to this House like a petulant child
and saying “we are going to get you, we are going to sit until 4
a.m.”.
That is fine with us because maybe now we will get some more
time to debate the issues that are important to Canadians. We
will be here until 4 a.m. and we welcome the Liberal members to
join us en masse to have a good discussion about a lot of the
issues that concern Canadians.
I know my time is just about up. Lots of members from the
Reform Party are anxious to continue debate on this. I wish the
deputy whip well today as she climbs out of her tight spot. I am
sure she will.
By the way, we probably will be supporting this motion to extend
hours because we think it gives us a lot of good parliamentary
time to bring forth the issues that concern Canadians.
1210
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure what the Reform Party thinks the purpose
of a whip is. Is it to be in the House at every single moment
to deal with its deleterious and destructive motions? I can
assure members that no whip spends every moment in the House of
Commons, nor should we.
Speaking of spending time in the House of Commons and who is
interested in the issues, the member has the gall today to talk
about drunk driving, a resolution of this House, and victims
rights and the justice committee and what it is doing about that.
While Mothers Against Drunk Driving were at committee this
morning talking about exactly both those issues, who was there
listening to them? Not the Reform Party which drags its
tragedies into the House of Commons and bleeds all over the floor
about them, but eight Liberals and one Reformer.
I think people should know there were nine committees meeting
this morning. That is nine Liberals on every committee. That is
81 Liberal members in committee listening to groups like Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, the International Centre for Human Rights.
No, they do not want to sit here in the House listening to these
people blathering on time after time and making the same speeches
over and over again. They want to be in the committees, doing
their work, caring about things like drunk driving, like victims
of crime, like human rights. That is where they have been this
morning.
There are many times I sit in this House and Liberals as well
are speaking to empty benches opposite. We accept that members of
parliament have many responsibilities. We do not frankly jump up
and criticize them every time they are not here sitting in the
House listening to us.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the
deputy whip of the Liberal Party got her information. At the
justice committee as we speak and as it has been for quite some
time now, there have been three Reform members present which 100%
of our membership in that committee. But apparently there are
only about three Liberals there and that is 33% of their
membership of that committee.
Let me tell the hon. deputy whip of the government what the
subject is this morning. The subject is victims rights. Surprise,
it has taken two years for the Liberals to start talking about
victims. This is one of the points I made in my speech. After
the motion passed in this House, two years later they decide just
maybe we should have a little committee talk about this victims
rights issue. With all due respect to the deputy whip, the MADD
organization is there to talk about victims rights. It would
love to come to the justice committee and talk about impaired
driving. But nothing is being done to allow that by this
government.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I quote from an article that appeared in the Ottawa Sun
today in which the government House leader admitted he and his
MPs had only themselves to blame: “Randy White is right. I
don't like it that he is right”—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows he cannot refer
to other hon. member's by name, even when he is reading. I know
that is awkward but I invite the hon. member to comply with the
rules in that regard.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting
the paper. I did not realize that.
Even the government House leader admits that it is their fault.
They made the mistake. Now what they are saying is “because the
Liberals screwed up, we are going to penalize the rest of the
House and make you guys sit until 4 a.m.”.
The truth is the major blunder made by the Liberals last night
is typical and indicative of the level of incompetence they
display time and time again not only in the House but in the
management of the affairs of operating the government.
I wonder if the member would like to comment on that.
1215
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, it would not take me long
to talk about the good management of the government because there
is precious little to talk about.
The member is quite right when he talks about the neglect of the
Liberal Party in being here to engage in substantive debate. Last
night was just another example.
The Liberals are gone now, but the fact is that we had 25
members here to prevent a procedural trick the Liberals tried to
pull this morning. That is why we were absent for a short time
from the committee meetings, but when the trickery of the Liberal
Party and the House leader was exposed and defeated our members
diligently went back to the committees where they are now. They
are keeping the Liberals accountable for everything they do.
We do not care if it is three to nine on a particular committee.
I say once again three Reformers can easily handle nine Liberals
on any committee. We could actually bring some back and handle
them on committee.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we must
all subject ourselves to a dose of reality. If anybody in the
House believes that one Canadian is interested in our procedural
wrangling he or she is totally mistaken, totally out of sorts
with what the Canadian people believe and feel.
This is why it is important that instead of procedural wrangling
we get back to debating substantive issues. The sooner we do it,
the sooner we will be responding to what Canadians elected us to
the House to achieve.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out
to the hon. member that it was in fact—
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. minister is quite right so I suggest we seek unanimous
consent of the House to have the Liberal motion we are currently
debating withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not know that the hon. member
can ask for consent to withdraw a motion that some other member
has put forward. It strikes me as a little irregular. However,
is there unanimous consent to withdraw the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no such consent.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon.
secretary of state's comments, but I would like to point out very
clearly to the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions who has a long title and does a good job, I am sure,
that it was his party that brought forward the motion we are
debating right now. He may not know that because I think he just
got here.
He accuses our party of procedural wrangling but it was his
party that brought the motion forward. His House leader brought
in the motion that we are to sit until 4 a.m.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is ironic that just before the two hours are up we
are talking about membership in the House and whether or not the
Liberals will be attentive and already we find that we do not
have quorum in this place. That is truly unfortunate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to count heads in this place once again
after all this debate.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
1220
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is very interesting.
This morning, the hon. member for Bourassa accused the Reformers
of not having substance, of not taking part in the debates, of
contradicting themselves and of being interested in technical
rather than substantive positions.
Of course, this upset them. The Reformers rose and started
protesting. They swore that this was not their intention.
Let me give you one example, just one. The Reformers talked
about human rights, about democracy.
Barely two weeks ago, we led a mission that went to Chiapas to
look at the situation of human rights, democracy and people
whose lives are threatened. No Reformers accompanied us, because
of a decision made by their own party. They are not interested
in protecting the interests of people or democracy. They are not
interested in fighting poverty. They are only interested in
debates of a technical nature.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, talking about human rights
in response to that nonsense, I only need to say that if the
Liberal government cared so much about human rights why was it so
anxious to jump in and sell a bunch of Candu reactors to the
country of China without first discussing human rights with that
country?
The Deputy Speaker: It being 12.21 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 27(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1250
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Venne – 29
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured today to stand in the House to present a number of
petitions signed by people mostly from the wonderful riding of
Elk Island. I represent them in the issue of the definition of
marriage. There is a petition circulating now by people who are
concerned about the redefinition of marriage. These petitioners
simply ask that we leave it the way it is, that it be defined as
a marriage to be entered into only by a single male and a single
female.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions on another subject.
These petitioners ask that the House of Commons preserve the
right of families to exercise caring, loving discipline to their
children and that right not be removed by the removal of section
43 of the Criminal Code.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners, mainly from Kamloops, Winnipeg, Kitchener and
Guelph point out the concern they have regarding the MAI. They
are aware that the government simply set it aside until later
this fall in an attempt once again to impose this agreement on
the people of Canada and eliminate much or our sovereignty.
They point out that they are simply against the MAI and urge the
government not to consider it any further.
1255
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in another
petition, the petitioners are concerned about the changes the
government is planning to the pension system of Canada. They say
that Canadians have worked hard over the years to build our
country. In no way should they have their pensions clawed back as
the present system does and particularly as the proposals have
it. They are simply against any of the suggestions so far
regarding changes and amendments to the Canada pension system.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in this
petition, the petitioners are concerned about the unfair tax
system that presently exists in Canada and are urging a complete
study of fair tax reform. They are suggesting that every
corporate tax exemption be considered on its merits. They assume
that none of them have any merit that would withstand a fair
evaluation. Therefore, they are anticipating that we will simply
do away with all corporate tax loopholes.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I too have a great many petitions to present concerning the
multilateral agreement on investment.
This is an agreement that was to be concluded in October but was
not. A great many Canadians are happy about that. However, they
want the government to go further than simply not arriving at an
agreement in October. They want parliament to reject the current
framework of the MAI negotiations. They want the government to
seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might
achieve a rules based global trading regime but one that protects
workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in
the public interest.
I have many such petitions rolling in from all across the
country. It shows that Canadians are urging the government to
take a more critical attitude toward the current globalization
model and seek a different way of forming a global community,
that is to say, forming a global community and not just a global
marketplace.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, similar to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona,
I also have a petition that touches on the subject of the MAI and
the manner in which the Canadian government has negotiated or
attempted to negotiate this agreement behind closed doors.
This petition calls upon the government to have more open
participatory discussions in the public forum that are
transparent. They urge the government to do so forthwith.
I am very honoured to table this petition on behalf of the
constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and do so
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise quickly and pose the question
that I have posed on numerous occasions here in the House with
respect to Question No. 21 that languishes further on the Order
Paper, eight months and counting. We are very anxious to have
this question answered.
It is a very straightforward question but we have been told time
and time again that it involves a great deal of investigatory
work on behalf of the government. There are 30 departments and
we want to know where ministers were at a certain set period of
time. Perhaps we could get an indication from the parliamentary
secretary when an answer will be coming.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary to the House leader is presently chairing a committee
meeting and I will bring this submission to his attention at the
first opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1998-99
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the President of the Treasury
Board) moved:
That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1999, laid upon the table on Thursday, May 28, 1998, be concurred
in.
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day
for the supply period ending June 23, 1998, the House will go
through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the
supply bills.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the
bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I just need some
clarification. We just passed a motion that the hours would be
extended to 4.00 a.m. as of June 10. As it will turn into June
10 at midnight tonight, I was just wondering if the House is
sitting tonight voting or whatever we may be doing at midnight,
does the order kick in at that time and we will be sitting until
4.00 a.m. Is that correct?
1300
The Deputy Speaker: It is reasonable to conclude that the
order brought by the government House leader, which was voted on
a few minutes ago, applies to the sitting days starting on June
10. Since the sitting will commence tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.,
I assume it is the one that will be extended until 4 a.m. and it
is not anything that might happen this evening.
When we conclude the business of supply and the other deferred
divisions this evening, I think the House will adjourn at
whatever time that might be and not sit until 4 a.m. That would
certainly be the Chair's interpretation of the situation.
I believe the standing orders provide that the extended sittings
start tomorrow night. Tonight is not an extended sitting except
by reason of the fact that we have a final supply day.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—JUSTICE
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the President of the Treasury
Board) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of
$193,805,000, under JUSTICE—Department—Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is an important
day. Today the House will consider the motion to concur in the
main estimates for the current fiscal year.
Members of the House will approve all spending of the government
and will debate the main estimates for 1998-99. We also have
before us 50 motions in opposition to specific items contained
within these estimates. Consequently the government has a similar
number of motions on the table to reinstate opposed items. We
will debate the first opposed motion presented by the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough under the justice department
for operating expenditures in the main estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1999.
We have licked the deficit monster. We have looked it in the
eye and we have met the challenge. We have put the programs in
place to fight the monster and we have slain the monster. Four
years ago few if any could have imagined the success we have
achieved. Since the tabling of our fifth budget the fiscal
achievements are still making news not only across this great
country of ours but also beyond our borders. For the first time
in 30 years the federal budget will be balanced this fiscal year.
That is a reduction of $42 billion in just four years.
Along with the U.S. we are the only G-7 nation to balance its
budget. Using the accounting standards of the United States we
registered a surplus last year and a surplus of $12 billion is
projected for this year, easily the best record in the G-7
nations. We will balance our budget next year and the year
after. This will mark the first time in nearly half a century
that Canada has three consecutive balanced budgets.
Put simply, we are at the start of a new fiscal era. As the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said repeatedly,
this success story is due to the will, the forbearance and the
patience of all Canadians.
In our efforts to restore the health of our nation's finances we
have pursued a balanced approach, reducing the deficit steadily
step by step while undertaking within our limited resources
strategic investments to build a strong economy and a secure
society. We will continue to follow the balanced approach of
sound economic and financial management. It is an approach that
works.
Looking back only four short years ago the financial markets
considered Canada to an economic disaster in the making. We were
lumped with every troubled economy in the world.
The Wall Street Journal called Canada an honorary member of
the third world. Canadians did not need The Wall Street
Journal to convince them. They knew we needed a fundamental
change.
1305
Canadians were prepared to take the harsh medicine necessary to
restore Canada's fiscal health. With this firm commitment we
reduced government spending and encouraged economic growth
without increasing personal income tax rates. We cut $14 billion
from federal program spending. In fact we were the only country
in the G-7 to actually reduce spending in absolute terms. I
emphasize that we have cut more in our own backyard than in
transfers to the provinces.
Between 1993-94 and 1999 to the year 2000 transfers to the
provinces will have dropped by 5.3% compared to a decline of 8.7%
in direct federal spending. The result is a leaner and more cost
effective federal government. In fact as a share of the economy
Government of Canada spending is headed back to where it was in
the post-war era of the 1940s. Program spending to GDP fell from
16.6% in 1993-94 to 12.4% in 1997-98, a decline of 4.2%. We will
never go back to overspending.
In 1999-2000 we project federal program spending will be down to
11.5% of the GDP, a drop of nearly 8% from a peak of over 19%
during the mid-1980s.
More Canadians are now working. More Canadians are now paying
taxes. More Canadians are now buying goods and services which in
turn means higher sales tax revenues and increased corporate tax
revenues reflecting higher profits. That is what a healthy
Canadian economic growth is all about: more jobs, more sales,
more production and a larger economic pie. All of that is good
news for Canadians.
Our economy has improved thanks to our sound fiscal policies and
our will to put our fiscal house in order. Thus now is not the
time to relax and rest on our laurels. We now have to reduce the
debt burden. The truth is that while we have won the battle of
deficit we have not yet won the war on the debt burden. That is
why we will stay on course.
We will take the same systematic determined approach to the debt
that we successfully took against the deficit. Step by step,
year by year, we will steadily reduce the debt and we will
continue to present fiscal plans based on prudent economic
planning and assumptions.
In the mid-1980s the government spent $1.20 on programs for
every dollar of revenues collected. This year, given our large
debt and cost of servicing, 72 cents of every revenue dollar
collected will be spent on programs.
Notwithstanding our high debt and the need to service it, the
government recognizes that the tax burden on Canadians is too
high. It must and will be reduced. In each of our previous
budgets we have introduced targeted tax relief measures for those
most in need and where the payoff is the greatest. Now that the
government will be balancing its books we have also begun to
provide general tax relief starting with low and middle income
Canadians.
The 1998 budget eliminated in its entirety 3% of general surtax
on those whose incomes were approximately $50,000 and reduced it
for those with incomes of up to $65,000. We have also added $500
to the amount that low income Canadians can earn tax free.
While these measures are necessarily modest for now they are
significant. In fact over the next three years the measures
announced in the 1998 budget will provide some $7 billion worth
of cumulative tax relief for Canadians.
Ninety per cent of all taxpayers will get some degree of personal
tax relief from the 1998 budget. Thirteen million filers will no
longer pay any federal surtax and another one million will pay
significantly less surtax. Four hundred thousand low income
Canadians will be taken off the income tax roles entirely.
1310
Furthermore, as the Minister of Finance clearly stated, when
financial resources permit we will broaden and deepen tax relief.
In addition, to build a stronger economy the government's
approaches entail investing in areas critical to our long term
economic performance and to the achievement of our social goals.
To do otherwise would be short-sighted and bad economics.
While the government recognizes that the private sector is the
engine of job creation, we also believe the government has an
important role to play in the economy. That is why we chose to
invest in access to education, in skills, in low income families
with children and in health care in the 1998 budget.
The centrepiece of this effort is the Canadian opportunities
strategy. The strategy is a co-ordinated set of measures to
provide greater and more affordable access to the knowledge and
skills needed to help Canadians succeed in the 21st century. We
want to ensure that we have the best educated and most skilled
labour force in the world.
To that end the strategy increases access to post-secondary
education through scholarship, grants and loan relief. It makes
it easier for adults to return to school and helps parents save
for their children's education. Our balanced approach to
investing the fiscal dividend for the long term benefit of
Canadians will ensure that we will build a stronger economy and a
more secure society at the same time.
The measures we introduced in the 1998 budget are carefully
targeted and matched to our ability to pay. They are a measure
of our fiscal success. Also fuelled by our fiscal success the
Canadian economy is showing significant strength. In 1997 the
economy grew by 3.8%, our best performance since 1994. It was
also the best performance of the G-7.
When the government came into office in 1993 Canada was caught
in a vicious circle. Today we have set in place a virtuous
circle that has made Canada an attractive place to do business,
to invest, to produce goods and services, and to conduct research
and development.
Job creation is up sharply. Over one million jobs have been
created since 1993, 372,000 jobs in 1997 alone. The unemployment
rate is now 8.4%, the lowest level since September 1990, down
from 11.2% in 1993. While the level is not satisfactory the
improving trend is clear. Long term interest rates are at their
lowest levels in about 30 years and our inflation rate is one of
the lowest in the world.
Our determination to keep it that way is illustrated by the fact
that the government and the Bank of Canada announced in the
budget that we were extending the current inflation control
targets of 1% to 3% until the year 2001.
Looking ahead, both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to lead
the G-7 in economic and employment growth this year. The good
news is that we have reached a major milestone in our path of
fiscal and economic health. The best news is that we have
natural resources, the economic resources and, most important,
the human resources to build an economy that has durable strength
and a society that has security second to none in the world.
Canada will enter the new millennium with a healthy economy and
Canadians can count on us to stay on track with sound fiscal
policies.
1315
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of
the hon. member.
He spoke of his government's accomplishments. He spoke of the
fact that the budget has now been balanced. He mentioned that
the unemployment rate is now coming down. These are all positive
things and Canadians should be pleased with them.
However, I wonder if the hon. member will acknowledge and
recognize that it was the previous Conservative government that
implemented many of the very important economic policies, like
the free trade agreement and the much hated and maligned GST, and
for those brave initiatives there was a great electoral price to
pay.
Will the hon. member not acknowledge that it was those policies,
which were adopted and expanded by his government, that really
share much of the credit for what he would have us believe is his
government's initiative?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Madam Speaker, most people in this
House would know me as one who does not get involved in idle
partisan debate and discussion.
There is no question that one administration leads into another.
There is no question that it does not matter which party is
elected to form the government, they all do some things right.
However, I must say that the political will was not there in the
last government. In fact, what Mr. Mulroney said and what he did
were two different things.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have listened very intently to my colleague's comments from
across the way. He talked about the budget being balanced, that
it was accomplished in four years' time and that the overall
growth of the GDP in Canada has been some 3.5%.
In the 1993 election I recall that the Reform Party came out
with a plan which we called our zero in three plan. We said that
under our administration we could balance the budget in three
years' time. We projected a growth of 3.5% in the economy. I
remember very distinctly a lot of literature coming from the
Liberal camp, and from my Liberal opponent, which said that it
was impossible to balance the budget in three years. It was not
even desirable to balance the budget. They also said that 2% of
GDP was an acceptable level of deficit for any country. It was,
after all, referred to as the United States' target of 2% of GDP
which would have Canada's deficit at something like $14 billion
or $20 billion per year.
I am quite amazed that in three or four years' time the Liberal
philosophy has changed so much. I would ask the hon. member if
he concurs that some of the change in the Liberal philosophy came
about as a direct result of the platform put forth by the Reform
Party in 1993.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Madam Speaker, I thank the member
for his question, but the answer is no.
What we have on this side of the House is a good management
team. We have reviewed all of the departments. We have the
ability and the will. Political will was lacking in the previous
government.
I am not sure of the Reform Party and its political platform. I
am sure its members had some projected statistics. But part of
what it was going to do was to cut our social programs. It was
going to privatize health care. It was going to reduce transfers
to all of the provinces.
We have used a balanced approach. People of Canada have judged
us. They have given us a second mandate. They recognize that we
are doing a good job. We are investing in people. We understand
the dynamics of a good economy, an educated and a healthy
population, and we will continue to work in that direction.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, my colleague from Bruce—Grey may not like to indulge in
partisan comments, but I do not have any such reticence.
I sat through the five years of the Mulroney government that the
Conservative House leader referred to. I sat through five
budgets where programs were cut and slashed, all in the name of
reducing the deficit. However, the deficit kept going up and up.
The amount of money that Canadians were paying on interest kept
escalating and escalating. They talked a good game, but they
really did not do a lot.
1320
I sat through five years of unemployment that rose to over 11%
and then heard the leader of the Conservative Party in the
election campaign of 1993 saying that it would be well over that
until after the end of the century. Now it is down to about 8%.
I saw all those years of high interest rates, high inflation and
all those things that dampened business and economic recovery. I
have seen a total change in those things since the Liberal
government was elected.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Madam Speaker, I thank the deputy
whip for her comments. The hon. member has been here a long time
and she witnessed a government that operated much differently
than ours does. We are glad to have her on our side.
I know the member personally. I know her useful experience,
which is on track with mine. People like her are very important
for our government, as is the job that she conducts in this
House.
Yes, I agree with my colleague when she says that the last
government really was not a good manager.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
I find it rather interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to
the President of the Treasury Board would suggest in his comments
a term called political will.
He talked about the wonderful economy that we have now.
There are three things that the Mulroney government put into
place. One was the GST. The second was the low interest rate
policy that we had in 1991, which was based on the low inflation
rate policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The third was
the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I ask the hon. member, did it not take political will to
implement all three of those particular policies? Why does this
government not have the political will that he speaks of to scrap
the GST, as was mentioned in the red book, to rip up the NAFTA
agreement and in fact to go back to a high interest rate policy
with higher inflation than we have right now?
Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell me where the
political will of this government is with respect to those
issues.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Madam Speaker, the government
looked at 17 different ways to find another accommodation and it
found that a progressive tax like the GST was still required. It
generated some $17 billion.
An hon. member: Why did you promise it?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Madam Speaker, as far as I know, we
said we would look for a way to change the GST. We did look.
There were 17 different things that we looked at and we came back
to the same accommodation that the Europeans are using as well as
everybody else.
We are running a good government. Last year, for instance, we
paid down the foreign debt by $14 billion. This is a government
that is very responsible, that walks the talk, that understands
how to govern with a balanced approach. Slowly and surely we are
refining government so that Canadians can prepare for the 21st
century.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I do not think we should let inaccuracies go unchallenged. I want
to suggest to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is no
place that he will find in the Reform Party platform or
philosophy where we are in favour of privatizing the medicare
system of this country.
In fact, it is not the Reform Party that has gutted the health
care system of this country, it is the hon. members across the
way who have not been able to prioritize their spending to make
sure that things like health and education are taken care of for
average Canadians in this country. It is this government that
has done that. It is this government that has gutted the health
care system in this country on the backs of the taxpayers. It is
not right for him to suggest that the Reform Party was going to
do something that it has not done.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Madam Speaker, in my estimation and
on this side of the House, health care is one of the most
important pillars of this country. There is no question. All we
have to do is look at the way Reform approaches problem solving
and we will find that the object is to privatize it, give it to
the people with money so they can make money out of it.
1325
However, I say that health care, the pocket book and the ability
to pay by cheque is not the way to go for Canadians.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take
part in this debate which focuses on the expenses and the
priorities of the government. Particularly in this portion of
the debate we are looking at the Department of Justice and the
priorities that have been set by the minister and this government
as they relate to justice.
Since the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights and did so only for a
couple of hours, it is important that we have an opportunity now
for a more open and transparent debate where we can exchange
ideas and perhaps explain or at least go to some lengths to let
the taxpayers know where their money is going as it relates to
this very important department and perhaps even give some useful
suggestions as to how we in opposition, and the Progressive
Conservative Party in particular, would suggest that some of this
money should be spent.
One of the very important initiatives that we have seen is the
presentation of a DNA databank. This is without a doubt perhaps
one of the most important crime fighting tools that we will ever
see in the life of this parliament, if not in the life of many
previous parliaments.
What it is aimed at specifically is using technology to combat
crime. What we are talking about here is very violent crime,
crimes of a sexual nature, crimes of violence that involve the
most heinous invasion of a person's well-being.
If we are truly to take advantage of this particular piece of
legislation, one would hope that the police would be given the
opportunity to optimize the use of DNA; that is, that they would
be able to take the DNA from a suspect at an appropriate time
when a certain criteria has been met, namely, that enough
evidence exists within the police officers' investigation to lay
a charge, and when that does happen, when that particular bar has
been crossed, the police will then be given the opportunity to
take a DNA sample and use it in an investigation, use it perhaps
to compare it to samples from crime scenes that had been taken
previously. If a match occurs, then a very important link has
been made to an accused individual and a crime. Due process, of
course, will allow for the presumption of innocence, if it
exists, to prevail.
This is an important piece of legislation that in its present
form has come before the House and is flawed. There was an
attempt made by members of the opposition on the justice
committee to remedy that. We moved what I considered to be
useful amendments. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of this
legislation, the government chose to vote those amendments down.
I would suggest that this can be changed. This could be fixed
quite simply by the initiative of the House.
There are other areas which are quite similar to this where the
government could invest money, such as improving the Canadian
police investigative computer system, the CPIC system, which
police officers routinely use to track or to update themselves on
the criminal involvement of suspects and those involved in
committing offences against Canadians.
The violent crime linkage analysis system is another very useful
system that, with the proper use of the police, could go to great
lengths to help fight crime.
The government, however, has chosen not to touch that. It has
chosen not to invest or to put the necessary resources and
funding into these areas. Again, I really question the wisdom of
that. The government, by doing so, is showing that it has no
interest in optimizing this cutting edge technology that would,
and I suggest could, prevent and, equally important, solve
existing crimes.
I only use this example to emphasize this point. There are over
600 unsolved murders in the province of British Columbia alone.
The statistics across the country would be even more disturbing
and more staggering.
This is one area where the government could emphasize the
necessity of putting resources into a specific area of technology
and helping the police with this important crime fighting tool.
Another general area that I would refer to the House is the fact
that the provinces themselves should receive greater funding,
greater assistance in the administration of our federal laws. The
Young Offenders Act is a prime example.
1330
The federal government traditionally has been called upon and is
legislated to supply or pay 50% of the cost of administering this
federal act called the Young Offenders Act. In truth what is
happening here is it is paying only on average 30% of the
administrative costs of the Young Offenders Act.
There has been downloading of the majority of the cost to the
provinces since 1994, and since 1994 we have seen a slashing of
over $6 billion from transfer payments. Those cuts have hurt not
only justice but certainly in a broad sweeping fashion health
care. The hon. member from the Reform Party spoke of the cuts to
education. It cut the absolute basic necessities of Canadians.
This downloading on to the provinces and subsequently on to the
municipalities can only serve to further undermine the justice
system, the health care system, the education system and take
away the provinces' ability to administer necessities to
Canadians.
Is the federal government prepared to put its money where its
mouth is? We have heard numerous announcements and those
announcements, most traditionally in the area of justice, come
outside of this Chamber. They are either leaked to the media or
the government chooses to have a press conference as opposed to a
ministerial statement of policy in the House. I certainly
question the wisdom of that.
Is the minister really prepared to pony up and pay the provinces
and ensure that the provinces have these resources to administer
changes that she has initiated, changes she spoke of in her youth
policy initiative? She has indicated she wishes to scrap the
Young Offenders Act entirely, to throw it out, the baby with the
bathwater approach. One questions the wisdom of that.
There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the Young
Offenders Act requires changes. It requires significant changes
such as lowering the age of accountability, bringing the parents
into the system so that they too will be accountable and will be
asked the hard questions as to what their role has been in
supervising their child when that individual might be out
committing an offence, or changing the Young Offenders Act where
the emphasis is placed on prevention.
I know the Minister of Justice has contemplated these changes.
She has spoken of them at length. She has given great master's
thesis presentations on what she would like to see happening
within the justice system, but what we see lacking throughout
these entire machinations and the process that we see when the
minister makes these announcements are any of the hard figures,
any of the concrete amounts, the dollar amounts that would be
required to bring about this change.
The Young Offenders Act is just one of many changes that the
government has spoken of, has taken the initiative to raise the
consciousness of Canadians about and yet we are waiting and the
clock is ticking. We see it time and time again where the
government says it is going to do something and then when pressed
on the issue or asked when we will see some legislation tabled in
the House, the response has become a patented response. It has
become the rallying cry of this government, in a timely fashion
it will happen. There is a process that we must go through.
I certainly can respect that there is a process but as with
health, as with education, when the time is rolling by, when the
necessary changes that could have a positive impact are delayed,
the result can be catastrophic. It is tantamount to not giving
treatment in health care. One only has to look at some of the
terrible examples of individuals suffering from afflictions like
hepatitis, like cancer, and if the treatment is not administered
the results can be death and injury.
That is equally true within our justice system. If there are
preventive steps that can be taken, if there are measures that
can be implemented that will improve the system, help prevent
crime and help solve crimes that continue to be outstanding on
the police record, if we can do something about it, why shouldn't
we? Put aside partisan politics and move as quickly as possible
to see that those legislative initiatives are taken.
On this side of the House, and I can only speak for the
Progressive Conservative Party, if we saw that happening, if we
saw positive changes like the DNA bill in its perfect form coming
through this House, we would jump to our feet to support that.
There would be no hesitation on our part to see those things
happening.
Although the minister's policies look good on paper and
certainly make for good press, we question their timeliness.
1335
Another suggestion we have with respect to the Young Offenders
Act would be to provide judges with more powers to provide or
impose mandatory treatment or therapy when a youth embarks on a
troubled career or the wrong path, and have that early
intervention.
Further, the concept of restorative justice has become very
prevalent in the discussions around young persons and actually
more broadly within the justice system itself. Once more there
has been a great deal of talk about what the government would
like to do in this area but we have not seen anything concrete
develop. We have not seen it materialize as yet. Restorative
justice is something that certainly would be a positive
initiative. It would be something I believe the government would
receive a great many accolades over if it were to actually invoke
that type of legislation.
I will mention one other area I spoke of previously, further
parental responsibility, involving the parents in the justice
system where they would more fully appreciate the consequences of
their children's actions. They, for lack of better words, would
be called to task as to why their children were permitted to be
out after a certain hour of the night, perhaps breaking into
somebody's house or behaving violently, perhaps because they are
emulating something they have seen in their own homes.
These are not new initiatives. I will not say this discussion
is redundant but it is certainly information that is available.
It has been discussed at justice committee. It has been
discussed by the government's own experts. Recommendations were
made for things like lowering the age of accountability and the
government has chosen to ignore that. We in the Conservative
Party question the wisdom of the minister in ignoring that
advice.
Where is the money being spent? Where do this government's
priorities lie? It is incredible, and it has become almost a
ruse in this country, the staggering amounts of money being put
into the ill conceived and not thought out long gun registry. The
howls from the government benches when anyone mentions this are
quite incredible. There are indignant cries of “you are against
gun control, against safe handling of guns”. That simply is not
true.
I think the record will show quite convincingly that it was a
Conservative justice minister who brought in Bill C-17 which was
the most comprehensive legislation aimed at safe handling of
firearms. The legislation spoke of safe storage. It spoke of
safety courses that were to be implemented. It talked of trigger
guards and keeping of ammunition separate from weapons.
The Conservative Party has always been consistent in its
approach that it does favour safe handling of weapons. Simply
putting a stamp with a serial number on a rifle and having that
databank, a computer system that records who owns certain guns,
is not in any significant way going to help combat the criminal
use of firearms. We are targeting innocent Canadians who take
part in sport shooting, recreational hunting, who go to firearms
ranges. Why on earth would the government choose to spend the
amount of money that this ill fated system will cost?
The cost has absolutely ballooned. The original figures said
$85 million. We know that with the start-up date of this
legislation fast approaching the cost has already gone far beyond
that original figure. We are talking about a figure that will be
tripled or perhaps quadrupled by the time this legislation comes
into place, half a billion dollars at the worst estimate.
The government has chosen again to put the money into an area
that will not have a significant effect when it could put money
into something such as the suggestion yesterday of having an
advocate or ombudsman for victims within our system.
It costs only $1 million to have an advocate, the commissioner
for correctional investigations. It would cost $1 million to
have an advocate for victims and the government chooses not to do
that. That is a conscious priority decision that the government
has made. One has to question why the government would decide to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this gun registry.
1340
I will refer to another very questionable decision and a
priority choice by the government, the now nefarious and
subversive investigation into the entire Airbus affair.
There is an investigation into a Canadian citizen and a former
prime minister. This brings the entire office of the prime
minister into disrepute when this type of scandalous
investigation is embarked on.
The truth is that the former prime minister under investigation
has been harassed and defamed by the current government's
administration. That again was a choice that the government
made.
It certainly is not just about cost when a person's reputation
is attacked and resources are put into it for perhaps some
politically motivated reason. We know there was an out of court
settlement of $2 million. The cost of having government lawyers
pursue that through the various court levels and appeals
certainly expanded or doubled that cost. All this at the end of
the day resulted in a very jaded apology and yet this
investigation continues. It has expanded in its scope. There
are more officers working on this file than before and to what
end? Canadians need to know this is a choice the government has
decided to make and pursue in the area of justice. It is
certainly anything but justice that this is allowed to occur. It
is a farce and Canadians should know that it is a farce.
What can we do about it? We can talk in the House endlessly and
talk until the cows come home. We can make suggestions but it is
the government ultimately that bears the responsibility and has
the ability to act on these initiatives.
Many improvements could be brought to the system without
spending a great deal of money by refocusing the choice as to
where the money was spent and by taking the money out of the gun
registry system. It is sad because the money is being spent and
has been spent to a great extent. We know it is going to cost
more. Police officers question whether it is going to improve
the current justice system. The officers and those who are
working directly on the front lines in our justice system are the
ones who are best charged with the knowledge of whether this is
going to work, and they say no.
Another example of a potential change in our justice system that
would not cost the government a great deal of money would be the
change to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving. It
would be easy for the government to take an initiative to make
changes to our Criminal Code as it pertains to impaired driving.
On a number of occasions I asked the minister when that was going
to happen. It has been before the standing committee. It has
come back before the House and yet regretfully we are not in a
position to bring about those changes.
I put these statistics on the record only to demonstrate how
important it is that we deal the Criminal Code changes soon. Once
again it demonstrates that as time goes by there is a very heavy
price to pay in the area of human lives. Impaired drivers kill
4.5 people in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week. In
1995, 1,519 people were killed in Canada by impaired driving.
Impaired drivers killed 17,630 and injured 1.1 million in Canada
from the years 1983 to 1991. Shocking statistics. The havoc
wreaked on the highways of this country as we speak in the House
should be cause for concern for all.
It is very clear that alcohol has significantly increased the
risk of motor vehicle accidents and yet we have not dealt with
that in a substantive way in the House. We have not rushed to
try to remedy the situation. That is another example of a change
that could be made.
Another example is section 745 in the Criminal Code, bringing
about truth in sentencing. Individuals who are serving life
sentences for committing the most heinous of crimes are still
given the opportunity in this section to apply for parole.
It truly is a shame.
1345
I make these suggestions in good faith and with the hope that
the government will react in a positive way. I will be very
interested to hear what the government has to say.
Before I sit down I want to amend the motion that is before the
House. I move:
That Motion No. 1 be amended by adding after “$1,930,805” the
following:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment is in
order.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I would like
to begin by congratulating my colleague, who can certainly not
be accused of being pathologically partisan. On the contrary,
thanks are due the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
for electing such a distinguished parliamentarian, who tackles
his work with such enthusiasm. He has already been very well
accepted by all members of the House.
As did our colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out this government's
complete lack of agenda, with examples from a few particular
sectors.
This government was re-elected with a distinctly smaller
majority than in 1993, after some completely incredible
flip-flops on free trade. The Liberals battled the former
government fiercely on this issue. However, this measure has
resulted in our exports increasing from $90 to $215 billion. It
was the same with the GST. We lost the election on the GST.
They also had a lot to say about the acid rain treaty and
defeated us because of national defence issues.
With such a track record of public contradictions, why was this
government re-elected, even with a smaller majority? Was it
maybe because the opposition parties are becoming more
regionalized and divided?
In light of what my colleague, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, said, I find it completely
incredible that a government that makes historic errors on
national agendas adopted by the previous government, that in
some cases contradicts itself while in office by passing
measures it voted against, particularly with respect to national
defence, and that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars after
making election promises not on the sly but right out in the
open, on television, is re-elected.
Why was this government re-elected? I think is has something to
do with an aspect of Canadian politics that has cost us very
dearly to date. Is it not because of the proliferation of
opposition parties, which have trouble reaching any kind of
consensus that could be constructive for our country?
1350
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I want to respond first
by thanking my colleague from Chicoutimi for his very kind
remarks. I take it as very high praise coming from a
parliamentarian such as himself who has continually distinguished
himself in this House, regionally and nationally. My father had
the honour of serving with him. I take it as a great honour that
the member would make those remarks in this place.
To answer his question, if an answer is possible, I suppose it
is a question that many in the opposition ask when we see the
performance of this government on certain issues. The member has
referred to historical decisions that they have made. One might
call them hysterical if they were not so far reaching. One might
call them hypocritical if one examined the record as to what was
said previous to this government taking office. It does lead one
to question as to why we have the electoral response that we have
and the regional breakdown that exists within this House.
We know there was a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed
against the Progressive Conservative Party in 1993. There was a
huge price paid for the necessary and brave initiatives that we
paid a price for and now this government rushes to take the
credit. That is something history will sort out. I suspect that
history will be very kind to the Conservative Party. We are
hoping that in the very near future the Conservative Party will
be restored to government and that is certainly the aim of our
party.
We continue to make positive suggestions and positive
constructive criticisms of this government in the hope that the
environment is going to improve for all Canadians. That
ultimately has to be the purpose of an opposition that wants to
be credible and wants to one day form a government which we in
the Progressive Conservative Party certainly do.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, all this back slapping and patting on the back is really
great. It is nice to hear. Everyone in here is of course a
great parliamentarian. I would like to keep things in perspective
however.
The member was speaking for some length about gun control. My
recollection of a lot of history of the gun control issue is that
Bill C-17 was simply the first step in a long progression that
led to the gun control we see today.
I recall that when the vote came down, the Conservative caucus,
in the Senate in particular that certain senators voted in favour
of the gun legislation bill. I would like the member to comment
on that because the veracity of the truth of his words has to be
seen in the context of the whole picture if we are to believe
that on this issue. We are also waiting for ex-parliamentarian
Jean Charest to make his first comments from Quebec on that
issue.
Has the member any comments on that?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the
question and the opportunity to answer it.
I know the hon. member himself a former police officer has been
very involved in the law enforcement community. I suspect he
would be very reticent to suggest that anyone in this House is
against gun control or the safe use of firearms.
Bill C-17 as I said in my remarks is the most substantive piece
of legislation aimed at the safe handling of firearms and the
safe storage of firearms. That is completely different,
completely outside the parameters of what Bill C-68 does.
I do want to correct an inaccuracy. The Conservative senators
did work in a very substantive way to see that Bill C-68 was not
passed. It has never been a derivation from our platform that we
did not feel that the registry of long guns was a complete waste
of money and it was something that was not necessary. In terms
of priorities in the area of justice, it certainly should not be
a high priority and it certainly should not be a legislative
initiative that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars
which is what is coming to light. Perhaps it could be a billion
dollars before this is over.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have been made the honorary chair of
the rifle association because of our stand on it.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I do not mean to sound alarmist but
this is the scope of this legislation. And the interim leader of
the Conservative Party is the honorary chair of the rifle
association. I know her personally to be a very straight shooter.
I appreciate the question and I look forward to further debate
on this issue.
1355
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I do not have a question but I feel obliged to break up this
Woodstock Tory love-in that is going on over there.
I am sure the member had a lot of experience with this in his
former capacity. I spent a couple of years working in Europe
where there is a zero tolerance for impaired driving to the point
where police are able to require blood tests when they pull
someone over. It is not .08, it is zero. The argument is that
one of the things that happens when you drink is that your
judgment is impaired so why do we not set the bar at zero? Does
the member or his party have an opinion on that?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for
that question. When it comes to impaired judgment, his government
has certainly led the way.
With respect to the specifics of his question, the blood alcohol
level has been lowered to point zero in a number of countries in
Europe. I believe Australia has gone to a zero tolerance with
respect to alcohol consumption. The Conservative Party is not
suggesting that, although it is certainly something that would
deserve a great deal of debate. We are suggesting and I have put
the initiative forward that we should consider lowering it to .05.
I know that Conservative governments in Manitoba and
Ontario are also considering making this change to their
provincial legislation.
It is something that is currently before the justice committee.
We will be getting into the area of impaired driving in the fall.
I hope it will be on the legislative agenda sometime shortly
after we get it at committee. I look forward to the hon. member's
participation in the debate.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on this last allotted say to talk about the
estimates. Unfortunately it is a sham we go through in the House
of Commons each and every year. We pretend to debate one of the
most important things that affects all Canadians, the amount of
taxes they have to pay and how that money is spent.
According to the estimates for this year, we are going to spend
$145,460,380,000. We would think one of the most paramount
responsibilities of this place is to talk about how we are going
to spend that monstrous amount of cash and to make sure it is for
the benefit of all Canadians. The first thing is that the rules
prevent us from speaking about most of the money. We can only
speak about $42,422,644,000 because the rest being over $103
billion is approved by statute, we are not able to speak on it.
The Speaker: My dear colleague you have just set the
stage with $42 billion. That will keep you going for a little
while. It is almost two o'clock so we will proceed to Statements
by Members. Of course the member will have the floor when we go
back to the debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TEACHING EXCELLENCE AWARDS
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate Stavros Naxakis and Penny McLeod, two
teachers from the riding of Thornhill who have been awarded the
Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence.
Dr. Stavros Naxakis is a chemistry and physics teacher at
Vaughan Secondary School. Under his guidance Vaughan students
consistently score in the top five percentage in an international
chemistry contest, the University of Waterloo's Chem 13 News
Contest.
Penny McLeod is a chemistry teacher at Thornhill Secondary
School. She has spent 25 years developing new ideas for teaching
her students. She recently has brought an integrated curriculum
and new technologies to her teaching. Ms. McLeod has helped her
gifted students excel and is also commended by her colleagues for
her determination in seeing weaker students succeed.
On behalf of the students, the parents and all my constituents
of Thornhill, I would like to congratulate these two outstanding
teachers and thank them for their commitment to excellence.
* * *
1400
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, RCMP agent John McKay was murdered earlier this year on
a road near his home in Erickson, Manitoba after he had reported
several death threats to the RCMP.
The solicitor general might be interested to know that Mr. McKay
was contracted for $250,000 to act as a paid RCMP agent. While
Mr. McKay signed an agreement in 1995 stipulating he would not be
relocated or receive protective measures, the RCMP and the
justice system had an obvious interest in protecting Mr. McKay.
I urge the solicitor general to investigate what appears to be
gross negligence and to determine why a paid agent would be given
the option of waiving protection in the first place, as well as
to determine why the RCMP did not provide protection.
It is of utmost importance that the solicitor general initiate
an immediate public judicial inquiry into this serious matter.
* * *
OPTIMIST CLUB OF BRAMPTON
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 6 Optimists from around the world
celebrated Optimists in action for a better day. Each club
planned an event unique to its own community. Whether it was
tree planting, bike rodeo, a simple get together or a gala event,
Optimists reflected on past and future goals.
For the Optimist Club of Brampton this was its fourth annual
event with the motto “Friend of Youth”. Optimists strive to
set a positive example for youth. This year their main goals are
to recognize the achievement of youth and the organizations that
support the development of youth in our community.
I hope members will join me in offering my best wishes for
continued success to the organizers and participants of Optimists
in action day.
* * *
SCHIZOPHRENIA
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, schizophrenia is a devastating illness which has severe
mental, physical and emotional consequences not only for those
who suffer but for their families, friends and for society in
general. Their suffering is made worse by the social stigma
which sadly still attaches to people with mental illness.
Approximately one out of one hundred Canadians will suffer from
this disease in their lifetime.
Because schizophrenia often causes a lifetime of mental and
physical health problems, the treatment costs to society are
exorbitant, and because schizophrenics tend to have poor
employment prospects, decades of productivity are lost for each
patient, which just adds to the very high costs borne by society.
Schizophrenia causes acute suffering, increased homelessness and
chronic unemployment. It is essential that more resources be
allocated to research so that a cure may be found for this
terrible disease.
* * *
RICHARD IVEY FAMILY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
greater Toronto chapter of the National Society of Fund Raising
Executives recently honoured the Richard Ivey family with the
outstanding philanthropist award.
The Richard Ivey family name is synonymous with service and
generosity. It is best known in London, Ontario for its generous
gifts in support of the arts, community services, major donations
to health care and research and its connections to the University
of Western Ontario.
Over the years the Richard Ivey family has donated over $40
million to the University of Western Ontario alone, including an
unprecedented $11 million to the business school in 1985.
Thanks to the generosity of the Ivey family the lives of many
Canadians have been enriched. I recognize the Richard Ivey
family not only for its contribution to the city of London and
its inhabitants but for its contribution to Canadian society.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at the chamber of sober second
thought. What is supposed to be an effective check and balance
to the House of Commons has decayed into an institution with
little credibility left in the eyes of the Canadian public.
Why is this? Could it be because of the embarrassment some
senators place on themselves, one living in Mexico, another
convicted of influence peddling?
The best solution to restoring the honour of the upper chamber
is to have senators elected. This would enable the good
hardworking senators to stay and get rid of those who are simply
there for the ride. It would invigorate the sleeping hollow
Senate and make it an active and vigorous place.
Support for an elected Senate is overwhelming; 84% of British
Columbians, 91% of Albertans, all want their senators elected.
It is time the Prime Minister stopped using the Senate as a
resting place, a landing pad for his friends. He must do the
right thing. Canadians want value for their tax dollars. They
want a democracy. They want an elected Senate.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the chairman of the National Capital Commission
unveiled his vision of a elegant capital for the new millennium.
His vision for Canada's capital region is a challenge to us for
the new millennium.
1405
[English]
Marcel Beaudry's vision would see the opening of the waterways
on both sides of the Ottawa River for all Canadians to enjoy.
A half century after visionary planner Jacques Gréber produced a
master plan for Canada's capital, we now would see a new vista
open up on to Parliament Hill. A world class boulevard would be
developed in the core of the capital, creating a spectacular view
of the Peace Tower.
[Translation]
I applaud this vision proposed to us by the NCC for a National
Capital Region we can be even more proud of.
* * *
DRUMMONDVILLE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, L'Actualité
magazine recently described the Drummond area as an economic
engine of Quebec, and once again the figures are proving it
right.
For the sixth consecutive year, more than 1,000 jobs have been
created in this region.
The last annual report of the Drummondville economic development
agency shows that the 13,000 manufacturing jobs target has been
exceeded, investments totaled nearly $400 million, 92 new
manufacturing industries and approximately 4,000 new jobs have
been created over the past three years.
Encouraged by these results and in order to meet the demand, on
June 11 and 12, the agency will be launching a job challenge to
fill more than 1,000 additional positions in the manufacturing
sector.
Speaking personally and on behalf of all residents of the riding
of Drummond, I congratulate our local business community on its
entrepreneurship and vitality.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member of Parliament for Rosemont has abused his parliamentary
privileges in a partisan and non-authorized manner in order to
promote and solicit support for the local separatist candidate in
the upcoming school board elections.
This member sends letters to his constituents on House of
Commons stationery asking them to support the MEMO separatist
candidate.
[Translation]
This is not the first time that a member of the Bloc Quebecois
abuses his parliamentary privileges. His colleague from
Laurier—Sainte-Marie did promotional work for his wife when she
ran in a school board election in 1994, again using House of
Commons stationery.
The former member for Rosemont had also sent a letter in support
of a separatist candidate in a CLSC election.
[English]
The abuse of parliamentary privilege has demonstrated once again
that the Bloc members in this House have little respect for
Canadians, for democracy or for institutions.
* * *
VALUES
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, recently
a group of college students said that if they were faced with the
choice between saving their pet and saving a human being, they
would choose their pet.
We jokingly call looters non-traditional shoppers. Killers are
described as morally challenged.
The time has come for us to recognize that while we must debate
controversial issues we must not forget that there are
non-controvertible ethical issues at the core and that were
settled a long time ago.
The great literature of the world including, the Koran,
Aristotle's Ethics, Shakespeare's King Lear, the
Bible and the Analects of Confucius reveal these basic moral
values: integrity, respect for human life, self-control, honesty,
courage and self-sacrifice. All the world's major religions
offer some form of the golden rule.
We need to relearn these basic values, teach them in our
schools, practice them in our businesses and reflect them in the
Parliament of Canada.
* * *
EDUCATION
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year at the request of the Quebec government and our federal
government, we made changes to section 93 of the Constitution,
moving from a religious base to a secular, democratic and
culturally inclusive English and French education system.
Last Sunday too many Montrealers found our democratic right to
this choice compromised, no, lost by an undemocratic system put
into place without enumeration, using a type of negative option
billing which is antithetical to Canadian governance.
I remain outraged. Despite my timely efforts to register my
vote and my right to exercise it, I was not listed.
The revision procedure employed by the Quebec government shows a
blatant lack of respect for a significant and deserving
linguistic minority that should be valued in a sensitive and
inclusive way, not excluded like was done during the referendum.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
spoken previously in the House about the Sayisi Dene of Tadoule
Lake who suffered unjustifiably because of forced relocation by
the government.
The Sayisi Dene are one of the Denesuline Nations of northern
Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have outstanding concerns
regarding their traditional use of land north of 60°, land that
is a part of Nunavut.
1410
Bill C-39, the Nunavut Act amendments, received the support of
parliament. My party supports the principle of
self-determination.
It is imperative that the government deal with the concerns of
the Denesuline before proclaiming the Nunavut legislation. We
must not taint the principle of self-determination.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Assembly of First
Nations fully support the objectives and initiatives of the
Manitoba Denesuline, including the legal challenge before the
Federal Court of Canada in defence of territory claims and treaty
rights.
Must every issue this government deals with end up in the
courts? These people have suffered long enough. The federal
government has an obligation to meet with the representatives of
the Denesuline—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval-Est.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC-JAPAN RELATIONS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week marks
the 100th anniversary of relations between Quebec and Japan.
Indeed, it was 100 years ago that the first Quebec missionaries
arrived in the land of the rising sun. Today, Quebec and Japan
are marking the event by organizing various activities under a
theme that emphasizes 100 years of rapprochement between Quebec
and Japan.
In co-operation with Japan's general consulate in Montreal and
other public and private sector partners, a number of major
events will be held in Montreal, including an exhibit of works
of arts, crafts and kimonos, cultural activities at Complexe
Desjardins and at the botanical garden, and a Quebec-Japan forum
for business people.
Quebec's general delegation to Tokyo will also celebrate these
100 years of rapprochement.
I take this opportunity to salute all my fellow Quebeckers of
Japanese descent and to welcome all the Japanese visiting
Quebec.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Japanese and provided the
following translation:]
You are all welcome to attend the events scheduled for Japan
Week.
* * *
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one wonders on
which planet Quebec's designated premier, Lucien Bouchard,
lives.
Yesterday evening, he expressed surprise at the comments of
Newfoundland's premier, Brian Tobin, who said that the Calgary
declaration was an interesting first step toward constitutional
talks. Of course, Mr. Bouchard was not pleased by these
comments. Grouchy as always, he tried to downplay the
significance of the Calgary declaration.
One wonders why Mr. Bouchard is wasting everyone's time with his
phoney commission, whose mandate is to torpedo the efforts of
those who dare work to improve Canada's future.
Whether you like it or not, Mr. Bouchard, a majority of people
believe that Quebec's future is within the Canadian
constitutional family.
Call an election and you will see. Let it be known that the
countdown has begun. The end of the Quebec separatist movement
is in sight.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence introduced a new ombudsman
today. I congratulate the new ombudsman and wish him well on his
new job.
Unfortunately the minister did not go far enough. Even with
the latest allegations of sexual abuse in the military, this
minister refuses to act to create an office of the inspector
general. He refuses to create an atmosphere that will lead to a
more vigilant parliament.
When asked, this new ombudsman said he has not been told what
his budget will be, how many staff he will have and has been
given virtually no guidelines. Not a very auspicious beginning.
The minister can be assured that we will watch closely to see if
he and his department will allow this new ombudsman to do his
job. The complaints are piling up and there is a lot of work to
be done.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCUEIL BONNEAU
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have just learned that there has been an explosion in Montreal,
probably caused by a gas leak, which has destroyed Accueil
Bonneau and left more than 30 people injured.
Accueil Bonneau is a volunteer-run centre providing assistance
and shelter to the homeless. The explosion happened at lunch
time. The Bloc Quebecois wishes the victims of this tragedy to
know that our thoughts are with them.
I also wish to express the confidence myself and my colleague
have in the ability of Accueil Bonneau to bounce back from this
misfortune and to continue its mission, which is so essential to
the Montreal community.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR PARENT EDUCATION
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 16 I had the pleasure of speaking in Tunis to the
International Federation for Parent Education.
This symposium was attended by representatives of about 40
different countries and the theme addressed was: Parents and
globalization: their contribution to protecting children from
its dangers.
In particular, I addressed issues relating to children's rights,
child labour, child soldiers and antipersonnel mines, which, as
we know, claim large numbers of young victims every year.
1415
I called attention to Canada's heavy involvement in these areas,
and stressed the fundamental role played by civilian society,
the NGOs in particular, in addressing this problem.
I would like to congratulate the International Federation for
Parent Education for taking the initiative to hold this
symposium. My best wishes to the federation and its executive.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a student asked the Prime Minister why he was
abandoning the victims of hepatitis C infected through tainted
blood before 1986. The Prime Minister answered by saying that
from the government's standpoint these innocent victims were
really no different than people who got cancer from cigarettes.
Would the Prime Minister mind explaining to the House exactly
how he thinks these are the same?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained that there was a period between 1986 and
1990 when the government was negligent and could have done
something which was not done. In terms of the victims of other
kinds of problems that arise in the health care system, we have
to look at the government's responsibility. I gave an example.
There are a lot of people among those who were infected with
hepatitis C.
The Reform Party has two types of compassion. It has compassion
for those who got hepatitis C through blood transfusions, but it
has no compassion for the people who got hepatitis C by other
means.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, people who smoke cigarettes know about the risks of
cancer. It is written on the label. These hepatitis C victims
were infected innocently. They trusted the government to make
sure the blood supply was secure and when they went into a
hospital for surgery they had no idea that they would come out
with a deadly disease.
How is it that the Prime Minister cannot see the difference when
everyone else can?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry, he is talking about people who got hepatitis
C through blood transfusions before 1986. I am asking him about
the people who got hepatitis C in other ways. If it is not a
matter of responsibility, then it becomes a matter of compassion.
Why does compassion exist for some and not for others in the head
of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder this issue is confusing. Day after
day the Prime Minister has claimed that the working group of
officials is trying to find a way to help compensate these
victims and he has pretended to be sincere. Now it comes out
that the Prime Minister thinks these victims are no more
deserving of government compensation than cigarette addicts or
junkies on illegal drugs.
If that is what the Prime Minister really thinks about these
victims, is it not obvious that this working group and this
supposed negotiation is a complete farce?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the previous question, what about those who
started smoking before there was any notice on cigarette packages
who have cancer today?
At this moment 10 provinces with the federal government have
arrived at a solution to the problem—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I think all of us not only want
to hear the questions, but also the answers. I intervened
because I could not hear the response of the Prime Minister. If
the Prime Minister wants to continue his answer I invite him to
do so.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say
that the same people who managed to make a deal together, the 10
provinces and the federal government, are still meeting to find a
solution.
We care about the victims. But that does not mean that
everybody who has hep C should necessarily receive compensation.
However, they should receive services from the government because
they are sick and they deserve services from the government.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the long hot
summer for the Liberals has started. A student in Regina just
asked the question “How can you justify not compensating
everyone?”
The Prime Minister cannot see the difference between a person
smoking voluntarily and someone going into the hospital
innocently with that dripping of tainted blood that his
regulators supplied.
The Prime Minister had better explain why he does not understand
the difference. There is a difference.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I
recognize that the previous government in 1986 made a mistake.
It was Krever who said that, not me.
When there is no knowledge by the government, the notion of
responsibility is extremely important. The money that the
government spends is not the money of the Prime Minister, it is
the money of the taxpayers—
The Speaker: Please, my colleagues, I appeal to you, in
fairness, to listen to the question and to listen to the answer.
The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about the difference between accidental and voluntary.
The Prime Minister started out by saying that drug addicts were
the same. Now he says that smokers are the same. What will it
be next? People who get an insect bite and accidentally get
infected? Is he going to compensate them too?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly the point we are making. We are making
the point that we are responsible. Suddenly, the same people who
want to cut all the social programs find a cause to try to gain
votes with that. They are just trying to score political points
and they are completely irresponsible.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Health contended that Quebec was the
primary source of the problems in the health care system.
Quebec is far from the only province facing problems. In
Manitoba, the sick are having to seek treatment in mobile
hospitals in the United States. In Newfoundland, the military
is having to fly in to help out with an overload of emergency
cases. There are any number of examples throughout Canada.
Is the minister so tuned out and so insensitive he cannot see
that the federal government's $6 billion in cuts have threatened
the health care system not only in Quebec but in every province
in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
between 1993 and 1998, in cumulative terms, the value of tax
points increased by $2.1 billion in Quebec alone. Equalization
payments increased by $1 billion, and the drop in interest rates
should enable Quebec alone to save $1.4 billion in debt
servicing. That is how things stand.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the Minister of Finance should tell us whether the drop
in the Canadian dollar also helps repay the debt. Perhaps he
should look at the studies done by the C.D. Howe Institute,
which show that the average Canadian family pays Ottawa $652
more than it gets.
I would like the minister—the new Minister of Health competing
with the current one for the leadership—to explain how the cash
payment dropped from $678 per person to $386 per person, nearly
50% less. These are the Minister of Finance's figures.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member should know that this year, for the first time in ten
years, there has been an increase in the average family's
disposable income.
That means that, because of this government's economic policies,
the economic recovery is truly taking place. The recovery is a
reality and Quebeckers and Canadians across the country are
benefiting.
1425
Today, Professor Marchon of the University of Montreal released
his study, which indicates that, of all the G-7 countries, Canada
has the best economic management—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it must impress
hospital patients to hear the Minister of Finance telling them
how things stand, but omitting a few details.
An Angus Reid poll published by the Canadian Healthcare
Association—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval has the
floor.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, an Angus Reid poll revealed
that the 61% of Canadians who thought we had a good health
system has dropped to 37% as a result of this government's cuts.
I ask the Minister of Health if he is still saying that it is
because of the poor decisions made by Jean Rochon that only 37%
of Canadians now think we have a decent health care system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Roberval mentions Dr. Rochon, but two can play at
that. Dr. Rochon said, and I quote “It has been over two years
since we began to transform the health and social services
system in order to adjust to the evolving needs of the public,
to take advantage of new technologies, to bring services closer
to the public, and to shift the emphasis to prevention and
health promotion”. It was not a money issue for Dr. Rochon.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see that the
Minister of Health has been muzzled after yesterday's
performance. Now we have the Minister of Finance fielding
health questions.
At the last Liberal convention, the Minister of Health said
“This government's greatest responsibility is restoring
Canadians' confidence in the health system”.
Will he not admit today that he was badly mistaken? He misled
Canadians.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Dr.
Rochon went on to say, and I quote “Whatever the government's
budgetary constraints, the need to transform Quebec's health
services could no longer be ignored”.
Dr. Rochon himself said that. For him, it was not a money issue.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was
downright sick for the Prime Minister to choose a youth audience
in Regina yesterday to argue that compensating hepatitis C
victims will open the door to compensation for smoking related
cancers. There were no warning labels on the blood that infected
hepatitis C victims; no labels that said “This blood is
dangerous to your health”. Why does the Prime Minister not just
slap a label on his lapel saying “This government is dangerous
to your health”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question was asked by a student in Saskatchewan and
the position I have on it is exactly the same as the premier of
Saskatchewan, who is an NDP premier. He is responsible and he
knows the consequences of what is going on.
Before 1986 nobody in the system knew that it was dangerous to
give blood transfusions. After 1986 we could have detected that.
We had the responsibility. We have accepted our responsibility
and we were the ones to take the initiative to compensate and the
provinces did not want to do anything at that time.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how low
can you go? How sick can you get?
The Prime Minister signalled again yesterday his government's
refusal to put another nickel into hepatitis C compensation.
1430
Is the Prime Minister simply trying to lessen the resolve of
hepatitis C victims to fight for fair compensation? Why is the
Prime Minister actively sabotaging the success of negotiations
for fair compensation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the NDP does not understand that we were
the ones who initiated the compensation and we put $800 million
on the table. At that time the provinces, including the
socialist premier, did not want to put a cent on the table. It
is this Minister of Health who decided that the compensation was
needed for those infected after 1986 and he forced the provincial
governments to the table to try to get compensation.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
asked about increased compensation for hep C victims the Prime
Minister also stated “The money is not mine. It is very easy to
be generous when the money is not yours”. That is Canadians'
money and they want all victims to be treated equally.
It is unfortunate that the government did not hold the same
sentiment when it spent $500 million of taxpayers' money to
cancel a helicopter contract and then turned around and bought
the same helicopters.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether his comments mean that
this government has no intention of compensating all—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with permission I would like to say that the member is
doing quite good so far. Since becoming leader she has managed
to move her party ahead of the Reform Party, so I want
congratulate her. I really do not know why her party would want
to have the former secretary to Brian Mulroney be leader of the
party when they have one who is doing so well at this time.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the Prime Minister for his kind comments. Now that we are
working so closely together and all working in the same
direction, will he please tell me if he is going to compensate
all the hep C victims?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the provinces are meeting at this time to try to
find a solution to this problem.
I believe that it is very evident to the House of Commons that
the hon. member is the evident candidate to be able to unite the
right because to be ahead of the Tories, the Reform Party would
have to unite with the Bloc.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
somehow I do not think the hepatitis C victims will be very
amused by this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
now said that there is really no difference between innocent
hepatitis C victims and those who smoke. Except that cigarettes
carry a health warning and blood products do not.
1435
Obviously the health minister thinks this is okay. Can the
health minister defend his boss who says that hepatitis C victims
are really no different than two pack a day smokers or drug
addicts? Is that okay?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the point that comes of all this is that the Reform Party likes
to pick and choose those to whom it is prepared to show its
political compassion. It is all in favour of certain victims
that it puts in the gallery for show. But when it comes to the
HIV strategy to help those with AIDS, even those who got HIV
through the blood system, the Reformers will not support it. It
is called hypocrisy.
The Speaker: Colleagues, on the word hypocrisy, or
hypocrite, I would much prefer that we do not use these words in
the House because it tends excite one another. I would ask that
we not use this term in the House. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this whole government has one agenda for the Prime Minister and
that is to keep him out of town. Unfortunately they cannot keep
him out of trouble.
He tries very hard to say that he cares so much about the
working group and the hep C victims, but he made it obvious last
night that he has no intention of helping these people who are in
trouble through no fault of their own.
How can the health minister defend his boss who says such
ridiculous, irresponsible, indefensible statements right across
the country?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we can see for ourselves what goes on across the way—
An hon. member: Resign.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health has the floor.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, Reformers pick and choose
those to whom they calculate they should send their political
compassion. They may not have been very successful in uniting
the right over there but this party sure has united the wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport, who told us last week
that his government was taking decisions in the best interests
of all Canadians. Once again, we have to face the fact that
what is good for Canada is not good for Quebec.
1440
Will the Minister of Transport admit that, by refusing to allow
Air Canada to fly between Montreal and such lucrative markets as
Milan, Mexico City and Rio, it is penalizing not only Air Canada
but especially Dorval and the entire Montreal area?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, what is good for Canada is good for
Quebec.
We have taken steps regarding air routes for all Canadians,
regardless of the region they live in, even Montreal, even
Quebec.
[English]
We have a balanced approach that has helped everybody in the
country. It is good for every city in the country and it is good
for the health of a competitive airline industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the minister, it was necessary to help Canadian
restructure.
Using that same argument, will he not admit that it would be
only right to also help Montreal, which has paid dearly for past
federal government decisions relating to airports?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, the Bloc is always whining.
Yesterday I went to Dorval. I had a tour of the airport. I am
proud of what ADM is doing to that airport. I am proud of the
amount of traffic I saw there, international flights. There is
no doubt that is the result of our policies in this government.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the wake
of the supreme court's Delgamuukw decision, aboriginal bands
across British Columbia have laid claim to the entire province,
including Vancouver and Stanley Park.
Can the Indian affairs minister tell us what the government's
position is? Can she tell us in the federal government's eyes
who owns British Columbia?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday there is
nothing in the comments of the opposition members that suggests
anything except that they want to fearmonger and find scapegoats.
Let us be clear on what the First Nations are saying. I will
quote Chief Ed John of the B.C. summit who said “First Nations
share a common objective with other British Columbians that a
strong and productive economy benefits everyone and we are
prepared to do what we can to ensure there is economic stability
in British Columbia”.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
fascinating to watch this minister pirouetting in her place,
ducking and dodging the questions and giving no answers. This
issue is far too important to treat in this flippant and
self-serving manner.
Is the minister prepared to go to Vancouver, hold a town hall
meeting and tell the people who show up there that the city
belongs to aboriginals? Will she answer the question of who owns
B.C.?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition is totally
out of touch on this. What it wants to do is legislate away
aboriginal rights and blame aboriginal people for the economic
woes in British Columbia.
The people of British Columbia understand it. In an Angus Reid
poll this weekend nine out of ten British Columbians believe that
aboriginal people have legitimate land claims and should be
compensated. Seventy-two per cent say that settling these claims
will either improve B.C.'s investment climate or have no impact
on the business investment.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when we ask the Minister of Transport about the
preferential treatment he is systematically giving Canadian
Airlines, his only answer is that he is trying to foster healthy
competition between the two carriers.
Can the minister tell us how it would hurt Canadian to give Air
Canada a Montreal-Milan route, for example, or a
Montreal-Amsterdam route, since Canadian Airlines does not even
offer these two destinations?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member. He should know
that there is a second carrier policy in place that Air Canada
asked this government to put in place and which Air Canada should
live by. When a market reaches 300,000 trips, then the
government can designate a second carrier. I have said that we
expect Taiwan to reach that position later this year and
therefore we would designate a second carrier. The same will go
for the other countries. Air Canada should live by the rule that
it wanted this government to establish.
1445
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about the existing policy.
How can the minister explain that, in most cases where he
refuses to allow Air Canada to fly to some destination, it is a
route originating in Montreal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget that Canadian Airlines
currently employs 1,000 people in Quebec.
[English]
In other words this fellow and his friends speak only for one
company. He does not speak for the 1,000 people who work for
Canadian Airlines in Quebec, unlike those on this side who speak
for the interest of the travelling public. We speak for both
airlines and the employees of both airlines, no matter where they
live.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia talk about
compensation. They want to know from the minister how much. How
much will it cost Canadian people to pay for land claim
settlements?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual opposition members
have it all wrong. When we talk about money and talk about
investments the people of British Columbia understand that by
settling land claims we will improve the economy of British
Columbia. Whether it be the Laurier Institute or KPMG, the issue
here is the huge cost of doing nothing or at least of following
their approach.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the media talk in terms of $50 billion
that these settlement claims will cost Canadians.
Canadians and British Columbians want to know from the minister
after seven years of treaty negotiations how much it will cost
the governments of Canada and British Columbia to settle these
land claims.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they ask how much for land
claims but they do not ask how much for hepatitis C. Where is
their compassion here? Systematically they undermine the
aboriginal people. It is an outrage.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
A big demonstration in favour of a new groundfish strategy is
under way as we speak in the Magdalen Islands.
We have been requesting such a strategy and the government has
been thinking about it for quite some time now. What is the
government waiting for to give an answer to these people who are
expressing their dismay and crying out for help, especially
since the premiers of the five provinces concerned are asking
the federal government to take its responsibilities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have worked very
hard on this issue recently. I sent my own associate deputy
minister to meet with provincial officials in the Atlantic
region. We believe that the post-TAGS challenge to communities
and individuals should be addressed in partnership with the
provinces.
Now I am hearing the Bloc tells us “This is your responsibility,
not ours”. It is always like that with the Bloc. It is either
Ottawa's responsibility or a provincial jurisdiction, depending
on what suits them at the time. We are going to work on this
issue in partnership with the provinces.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Yesterday the Ottawa Citizen reported that Canada had
promised to approve a $1.5 billion loan to finance the sale of
Candu reactors to Turkey.
What specific assurances can the minister give that the nuclear
technology we are offering Turkey will not be used to develop
nuclear weapons?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are a variety of safeguards in place with respect
to current or future nuclear trade including the requirement of a
bilateral nuclear co-operation agreement between Canada and the
recipient country and including the imposition of the terms of
multilateral agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty
which involves complete inspections by the International Atomic
Energy Agency and all international safeguards that apply under
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Only countries that are prepared to sign on to these safeguards
are allowed to do business with Canada.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister does not seem to get it. The Delgamuukw
decision has directly impacted on all economic sectors of British
Columbia as well as of Canada. It is chasing investors out of
Canada as well as jobs due to lack of land tenure.
1450
How long will the Canadian public have to put up with the
minister not making a decision with regard to the Delgamuukw
case?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, look at the progress that
has been made under the government. When we took office in 1993
there was one table of negotiations occurring in British
Columbia. Now there are over 60. Thirty of those have framework
agreements that are moving toward agreements in principle.
Perhaps, if hon. members opposite would go into their ridings
and join the celebrations that occur as we make progress in this
process, they would see that we have the right approach.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have continually asked the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development exactly what the government's position
is on land claims and whether she understands how this
uncertainty impacts on the people of British Columbia.
For two days the only clear thing is that the minister has no
idea what we are talking about. She does not know how to do her
job and she is way over her head.
I ask her very simply and slowly so that her friends can help
her, what exactly is the federal government's position, what is
her position, on the issue of land claims in British Columbia.
Does she know the impact on the people of British Columbia?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position is supported by
the first nations. Our position is supported by the province of
British Columbia. Our position is supported by all the economic
sectors in British Columbia.
It is about negotiating in good faith and in a peaceful fashion
around the table, not what these guys recommend when they talk
about Ipperwash.
As I mentioned yesterday, when the hon. member for Skeena
suggested the only solution in that case was to call in the army
that must be negotiation Reform style.
* * *
RAILWAYS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport has said that he was counting
on the goodwill of the railways not to close branch lines until
Justice Estey's federal review was complete.
CN Rail is closing two more branch lines including the Imperial
subdivision in my riding. Why does the government delay acting
to save our banking system until that task force reports but lets
CN dismantle a rail system that is still under review? Why the
double standard?
In the name of consistency why will the minister not order CN
and CP to stop ripping up branch lines until Justice Estey's
review is complete?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was in the House when we
debated the amendments to the National Transportation Act which
give the railway some latitude in terms of dealing with their
excess infrastructure, much of it in western Canada.
We put in place the Estey commission, the statutory grain
transportation review, to look at all various aspects of grain
transportation including rail line abandonment. What I found in
our dealings with the railways is that they are very sensitive to
the concerns of the hon. member, especially in his province of
Saskatchewan, as we are here.
After all, we on this side of the House agreed to fund
facilitators to help small communities that want to take over
these branch lines.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Transportation Act took any decisions about
the railways out of the Liberal government's hands. Since those
changes took effect the track record of the railways has been a
failure.
Will the minister today stand up for western farmers and demand
a standstill in rail line abandonments now? Will he back that
demand with legislation if necessary?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the policy of 1996 has been very successful because
five times as many short lines have been created as have been
abandoned. That shows the policy is working. Smaller companies
can take over these small tracks, make them economically viable
and serve the interests of producers and especially farmers in
Saskatchewan.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, according
to a recent consultant's report Canada's health protection branch
is in a crisis. This is the second report in two years reaching
the same conclusion.
The head of Canada's health protection branch says that the
bureau is not working at peak efficiency and the minister says he
has not read the report.
Will the minister take the time to read the report, at least one
of them? If he does read it, would he act expeditiously to
protect Canada's health and safety?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first I want to stress that this report deals with the workplace
atmosphere in the veterinary drugs department and has nothing to
do with the safety or quality of its work.
It was Health Canada that engaged this consultant to examine the
workplace environment.
1455
Recommendations have now been received, employees' concerns have
been taken into account, and the recommendations have been
presented to and discussed with the employees. I am assured by
officials that the positive recommendations will be implemented
shortly.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister is underplaying the crisis because it does involve
real people and a problem at the health inspection branch.
I am quoting from this morning's statements in the CBC news:
“The report describes managers as autocratic, abrasive,
difficult to approach and dismissive”. How can we have a
functioning health protection branch when that is the attitude?
It does come down to attitude and at the end of the day the
health and safety of all Canadians.
If the minister refuses to do something, would he at least table
the report in the House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I emphasize again the report dealt not with the scientific
capacity of the branch but rather the workplace environment.
Recommendations have been made. The new director has been given
a mandate to implement them. The employees have been spoken to
about this change.
This is a report that was commissioned by Health Canada because
we want to resolve this issue and we will.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In many cases CF members, their spouses and DND employees are
scared to talk to somebody in their unit because of perceived
problems that could result from the truth.
Could the estimable Minister of National Defence tell the House
what he plans to do to help those who are unfairly treated?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are making substantial changes in the
system, providing a strengthening of the system for people who
want to put their complaints in and up through the chain of
command.
We are also providing an alternative for those who want to go
outside the chain of command, who might feel more comfortable
doing so. This morning I was very pleased on behalf of the
government to announce the appointment of the first ombudsman of
the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence.
That person will listen to people who feel that their complaints
need to be addressed by somebody outside the chain of command, a
civilian, and I am very pleased—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is what you get when you unite the tripe, I guess.
The supreme court's Delgamuukw decision opens the way for huge
financial settlements for natives in B.C. Experts are saying the
Delgamuukw decision could cost up to $50 billion in B.C., but
unfortunately the finance minister has not seen fit to set aside
anything in the main estimates in the form of contingent
liabilities for this huge draw upon the federal treasury.
Why not? Why has the finance minister not put anything on the
books? Where is this money to come from? Is it to come from
increases in taxes or is he to cut social programs again?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the
difference between the approaches here. First we have the Reform
who opposes the Nisga'a agreement in principle. We have the
Reform who says that we can legislate away the constitutional
rights of aboriginal people. We have the Reform Party that six
months later, after the Delgamuukw decision, finally starts
talking about it and then of course wants to bring in the army
anyway.
If we look at our approach we are making progress with the
Nisga'a. We understand and support the supreme court's
recommendation that we negotiate solutions. Most important, the
day after the Delgamuukw decision I was in British Columbia with
our partners who are all at the table recognizing that to make
progress on this very important issue we must be together.
* * *
[Translation]
DREDGING OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of the Environment.
Quebec stakeholders agree on the need to hold public hearings on
the dredging of the St. Lawrence River. However, the minister
will not hold such hearings, as authorized under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
How could the Minister of the Environment allow these dredging
contracts to be awarded without public hearings, without giving
members of the public an opportunity to express their views on
the matter, when everyone, including the Quebec government, is
asking for public hearings?
1500
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue my colleague refers to has been
dealt with by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In reviewing this project, it had two public hearings. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given permits. I have
reviewed the process and it has complied with everything
necessary under the Environmental Assessment Act.
I am convinced that this project will be good for the
environment. I will receive regular reports from my colleague on
the remedial aspects of it.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government has stated it will act responsibly toward the Dene of
Deline and the terrible legacy inflicted on them.
Members of this community still watch loved ones die from these,
to quote the government's words, deadly and insidious substances
radium and uranium.
Will this government commit to immediate crisis assistance, the
first step of the community's 14 point essential response and
redress plan, yes or no?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned
with the potential impacts of historical uranium mining in the
Northwest Territories. Along with my colleague, the Minister of
Natural Resources, I am looking forward to meeting with
representatives of the Deline tomorrow.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on June 5, the
officials of Human Resources Development advised the offices in
the regions of Quebec affected by the ice storm to stop all new
activities involving additional funds.
Despite the injection of $6.4 million into the program, the
Quebec region is still short nearly $2 million and there is
still a desperate need. We have been told that an additional $9
million plus is required.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development follow the
recommendations of his officials and ask Treasury Board for
additional funds?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I receive a number of memos and
recommendations from my department. I always look at them
carefully and with respect. I do the necessary follow-up in the
best interests of my fellow citizens.
In this matter, as in others, I think we are considered to have
been vigilant. We are following the situation very closely.
I think we acted quickly and efficiently in the case of the ice
storm. We have invested between $45 million and $50 million
from the employment insurance fund to help people through it.
If more needs to be done, we will consider the matter with an
open mind.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MEMBER FOR AHUNTSIC
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know that
you are very interested in the good reputation of the House and
its members.
1505
For your information and the information of members and of the
general public, I would like to elaborate on a statement made by
our colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, during the period set
aside for statements by members, regarding an action by our
colleague, the member for Rosemont.
In fairness to the member for Rosemont, and out of respect for
him, I would like to point out that he acted in good faith, not
realizing that he was breaking any Standing Order. When he
became aware that he had done so, he immediately consulted the
House's Director General of Financial Services, who confirmed
that he had indeed breached the Standing Orders. The member for
Rosemont therefore undertook to pay, and did in fact pay, the
costs of the mailing, including postage, envelopes and
letterhead.
I am therefore inclined to regard the remarks by the member for
Ahuntsic as defamatory.
The Speaker: This is not really a point of order, but I
thank the Bloc Quebecois whip for this clarification.
Personally, I would prefer not to see members launching these
sorts of attacks because sometimes we do not have all the facts.
In my view, this is not a point of order, but I accept the
clarification and I would like the matter to end there.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1998-99
The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pointing out that today, as we are debating the estimates, when
we think the most important issue facing parliament is the
spending of the public purse, the approving of taxation and the
spending of $145 billion of taxpayer money, we would take that
very seriously in our debates in the House of Commons.
The unfortunate news is that we treat the whole process as a
completely perfunctory process where we have the estimates tabled
by the President of the Treasury Board and automatically refer
them to committee.
Unfortunately we know that the committees do not take their work
seriously as far as the estimates, the reason being they know
they make no difference. Never in the last 25 years have we in
this House been able to change one single penny of the estimates.
For that reason, the committees say why should they bother
knocking their heads trying to introduce changes to the
estimates, spending the money more intelligently, spending the
money on issues that are more important to Canadians. The
problem is this government is not prepared to listen and previous
governments have not been prepared to listen.
When the President of the Treasury Board tables his estimates
around March 1, he takes the arrogant approach and says he
basically has the approval of the House even though here we are
on June 9 voting on these amounts.
One of the big affronts is that we are dealing only with is $42
billion of expenditures.
1510
The other $103 billion was approved by statute some time in the
past. When I say some time in the past, that could have been 50
years ago. It was the last time that we in this House had the
opportunity to pass judgement on a program that required
expenditure of taxpayer funds.
When the legislation is passed, that is called statutory
authority and the government never has to come back to this House
again to seek its approval to spend the money on these programs
as the costs balloon up and up.
It is a huge affront to this place and to the Canadian people
that later on today we will be voting on only $42 billion of a
total expenditure of $145 billion.
The other affront is the way the rules of this House have been
organized to ensure the government gets its way. When we look at
the normal process in the business of the House, a bill is
introduced which can be amended and the amendment can be amended
again. We first vote on the subamendment and if that passes, it
amends the main amendment. If we vote on that and it passes,
then we have amended the piece of legislation. We will vote on
the legislation and if that passes, the amendments have caused a
change.
We start at the bottom and work our way up. Not so with the
estimates because as soon as we table a motion that we want to
reduce the estimates, in essence if we wish to amend the
estimates, we do not vote on the amendment, we do not vote on any
subamendment. The first thing the rules say is that when we put
forth an amendment, that causes the President of the Treasury
Board to move concurrence in his main amount.
I am looking at the 1998-99 estimates, parts one and two, page
1-44. Their total expenditure under Vote No. 1 is $867,573,000.
If we want to reduce the amount of money the Department of Health
is going to spend by even $10, that will cause the President of
the Treasury Board to put forth a motion to concur in the total
expenditure of $867,573,000 and the House has to vote to say we
are going to give the department that full amount of money. If
that vote were to fail, the department would get no money and
therefore our motion to reduce would be irrelevant.
That is why it is impossible to defeat a motion on the main
estimates, because it is preceded by a concurrence motion. That
is why the rules have been turned upside down.
I use health as an example because in the public accounts
committee some months ago we dealt with the Department of Health
and its supply of services to natives and aboriginals.
We found, for example, and this is no fault on the aboriginals
but certainly every fault on the Department of Health, that they
were approving payment of bills submitted to them by dentists and
so on in amounts 40 times greater than the provincial amount
approved for these procedures. A multiple of 40 is the mark-up
that some dentists have been putting on some treatment, sending
the bill to the federal government for payment and it was being
paid without even a question.
The provincial governments have been trying to husband their
health resources and scrutinizing the bills and saying they feel
this is about the amount they are prepared to pay for this
procedure. For the federal government there is no limit to what
it is prepared to pay, even 40 times the regular amount.
If we wanted to take $55,000 out of health in the estimates today
because we should be paying only the appropriate amounts rather
than these exorbitant amounts, it would cause the President of
the Treasury Board to move a motion to concur in the entire
amount. Once we have voted for the entire amount, how can we turn
around and say that we want to change our minds and vote for
something less? It makes an ass of the system.
1515
I am sorry to use something that may be close to unparliamentary
language, but I am talking about the system, not a member,
although that sometimes is open for debate.
Let me use another example, which is the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. Again I think about our
committee, the public accounts committee, where the auditor
general pointed out to us a problem that he found regarding a
water treatment system on one reserve in the province of Ontario.
The water treatment plant, according to the consultant, could be
fixed for $26,000. But by the time the job was done, and it was
not done properly, the bill was over $2.3 million. There is no
control. If we wanted to remove that amount from the estimates
we could not do it. That is a serious problem that we have with
the main estimates as they are presented and with the process.
The finance department will spend approximately $45 billion a
year on interest on our national debt. Because that is deemed to
be statutory spending, as I referred to earlier, we cannot vote
on one single penny of that $45 billion. Surely it is the House
that is supreme and it is the House that has control of the
public purse. We thought we had control of the public purse, but
obviously the House does not have control of the public purse.
Therefore, my question is: Where do we go from here? The good
news is that there is an answer. The answer lies, in my opinion,
in the report that was tabled in the last parliament, called
“The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”. It
was an all-party committee chaired by the deputy whip of the
government. It dealt with a lot of the problems I have raised
here today. This report, which one eminent person called the
best report on parliamentary procedure in 50 years, deserves a
great deal of consideration by the House.
I believe that 52 recommendations were made. I will just
mention one or two of them to give hon. members an idea of how
“The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”
report dealt with these issues.
It recommended that a committee be set up to monitor and review
the estimates and the supply process. That is just a simple
recommendation to say this asinine procedure of putting the cart
before the horse should stop and we should get it back to the
right way. That way the House will be able to express its
opinion on how to change the estimates.
It said that the standing orders should be amended to create a
standing committee on the estimates with a mandate to monitor and
review the estimates, the supply process and related matters and
that the work of the standing committees on the estimates be
referred to them. That way we would be able to ensure that the
committees that deal with the estimates would be dealing with
them in an appropriate fashion and bringing back to the House
appropriate recommendations based on all parties' opinions as to
what they thought of the estimates.
It goes on to say that a standing committee on the estimates
should be specifically empowered to report to the House on the
estimates and on the supply process at least on an annual basis.
We want to ensure, again, bringing back to the House the
authority and the primacy that the House is the granter of supply
to the government.
The committee went on to recommend that the standing committee
on the estimates be authorized to undertake periodic reviews of
the mechanism used by crown corporations to report to parliament
and the adequacy of the means by which they receive
appropriations from parliament. That is an excellent
recommendation.
It goes on to talk about how in this day and age, when we know
that people want to spend all of the budget rather than achieve
their objectives within budget, the parliamentary committees
should be allowed to move up to 5% from one allocation to
another.
That makes common sense today when we hear so much about wastage
and balloon budget spending toward the end of the fiscal year.
1520
I could go on and on about the problems related to the business
of supply and how the subcommittee on the business of supply
dealt with the issue on a constructive, all-party basis that had
the unanimous support of all parties in the last parliament.
It is high time this government and this parliament realized
that Canadian taxpayers deserve much better and that this report
needs to be adopted. The recommendations contained in the report
need to be adequately considered, rather than being put on the
shelf. I seriously hope this government will ensure today that
we look at this report and adopt the recommendations contained
therein.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Motion No. 1, through which the President of
the Treasury Board seeks to grant a vote of over $193 million to
the Department of Justice.
I wish to inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois opposes the
vote proposed by the President of the Treasury Board for the
Department of Justice, for a number of reasons.
Since the opening of the parliamentary session in September, the
government's justice policies have often been criticized by
opposition parties and by Canadians and Quebeckers, who are
tired of seeing their tax dollars being used for objectives that
do not meet their needs.
The government has been turning a deaf ear for a long time. It
runs the country as it pleases, without listening to what
taxpayers have to say.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are the only ones
to set priorities, and these priorities do not at all serve the
interests of those most in need. Because of the government's way
of managing, an increasing number of our fellow citizens have
difficulty making ends meet.
The Liberal government's priorities are very poorly defined. The
measures taken by the Department of Justice are a perfect
illustration of the Liberals' bankruptcy.
For example, by going ahead with its reference to the Supreme
Court of Canada, in spite of all the opposition to such a
measure, the Liberal government showed that it is prepared to
blindly spend public money, against the interests of Canadians
and particularly of Quebeckers.
Quebeckers unanimously opposed the decision of the federal
Minister of Justice because, among other reasons, the issue does
not concern the federal government but Quebeckers, who alone
must decide on their future.
The reference to the supreme court is a prime example of how
public money is wasted. What are we to think of the comments
made by the Minister of Justice, to the effect that her
government's representations to the supreme court are useless?
Indeed, while the lawyer representing the federal government was
pleading before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of
Justice said that, in any case, this exercise was useless. She
said the process was unnecessary.
In fact, the minister is quite right in saying that the nine
judges appointed to the supreme court will be unable to resolve
the problem of Quebec sovereignty, because it is up to Quebec,
in all legitimacy, to decide on its own future.
By admitting to the media that the reference is pointless from
the constitutional point of view, the Minister of Justice was
adding insult to injury. In addition to denying the right of
the people of Quebec to self-determination, this reference is a
total waste of public funds, and the federal government ought to
be ashamed. This is one of the reasons for our opposition to the
$193 million-plus the President of Treasury Board has given to
the Department of Justice.
In addition, it must not be thought that the funds committed to
this political waste are coming solely from the coffers of the
Department of Justice. People must be aware that the Privy
Council, and the departments of Canadian Heritage and of
Finance, are all very actively involved in the reference.
We must not, therefore, be surprised to learn that the bill is a
lot stiffer than the Minister of Justice suggests in her answers
to questions in committee.
1525
Funding of the reference to the supreme court comes not only
from Justice, but from other departments as well. It is
virtually impossible to know which departments have spent money
on the reference to the supreme court, but we do know that
millions of dollars have been spent on it. Members will
therefore understand that, when we are presented with a bill for
$193 million, the Bloc Quebecois is against it, knowing what the
money is going for.
The supreme court reference on Quebec's right to be the only one
to decide its future proves to us, without a shadow of a doubt,
that the Liberal government holds the democratic rights of
Quebeckers in complete contempt.
Unfortunately, the sombre list of Liberal nonsense does not end
there.
The reference is not the only example of the profound malaise on
the Liberal benches. In introducing her strategy for the
renewal of the youth justice system recently, the Minister of
Justice demonstrated again that her government was light years
removed from the needs of its people, and especially light years
away from what Quebec wants.
The reform of the Young Offenders Act, which, according to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, is to calm
misinformed public opinion, is another example of poor
management of public funds. As the primary stakeholders in the
field of juvenile crime pointed out, the Young Offenders Act is
sufficient.
It needs only be properly applied. The problem is not the act,
as I have said, but its application.
Quebec, whose youth crime rate is the lowest in Canada, sets an
example for all Canadians in its application of the law.
Instead of encouraging the other provinces to follow Quebec's
example, the minister embarked on a costly reform that will not
serve society's interests.
Instead of following Quebec's lead and intervening in the
reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders, the
Minister of Justice has opted for stigmatization and easy votes
in western Canada. Quite honestly, this is not a judicious use
of public funds, of the taxes paid by Quebeckers and Canadians
alike.
The minister took the easy way out by ignoring the advice of
experts in this area as well as that of her predecessor. The
minister's predecessor, another Liberal justice minister, was
also involved in this, but he did not share the current
minister's opinion.
As evidenced by the following remarks, the current Minister of
Health and former justice minister repeatedly spoke in favour of
the existing legislation.
For the benefit of the people listening to us, I shall quote
him. The minister said “The government continues to believe the
youth justice system is a valid one and supports it.
The Young Offenders Act as it exists at present is more than
sufficient, if properly administered, to deal with juvenile
justice in the country.” That is what the then Minister of
Justice, now health minister, said at the time about the Young
Offenders Act.
Yet, the current minister is nevertheless going to legislate on
the basis of an unfounded public perception fostered by the
Reform Party. In addition, the minister indulges in unjustified
spending, while her government owes the Government of Quebec $77
million for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. The
Quebec justice minister repeatedly asked that the costs
associated with implementing the act in Quebec be reimbursed to
Quebec.
Quebec is home to approximately 25% of all young Canadians,
while in terms of funding it receives only 18% of the federal
budget for implementing the Young Offenders Act.
I personally questioned the minister on this, given how unfair
this is to Quebec, which has been requesting funding for years,
and in light of the fact that the predecessor of the current
Minister of Justice all but admitted this money was owed to
Quebec.
1530
When he is asked to justify this imbalance, his response in
committee is that Quebec got less because it had placed the
emphasis on rehabilitating young offenders and these measures
were less costly than the measures involving incarceration which
were used by other provinces.
I find this answer rather fascinating. Since the objective of
the Young Offenders Act is reintegration into society, I would
have thought the province best applying the act would get more
money, but the opposite is true. In Quebec we are penalized
because we are implementing an act passed by the federal
government; however, the western provinces, which have focussed
on structures and on locking people up, will get more money,
because that approach is more costly.
There is something illogical about this, and members will
understand that, when one sees the Department of Justice
spending the $193 million it will be getting via supply, why the
Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with this, given that these monies
are mismanaged and misspent by a minister concerned only with
raising her profile and getting easy votes in the west.
The Department of Justice's strategy on youth crime can,
therefore, be summarized as follows. It sets up a new,
expensive, and inadequate program; it turns a deaf ear to
Quebec, which is implementing the legislation properly; it
refuses to reimburse Quebec for doing so.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just wonder if you would perhaps check if we have quorum or
not. After this morning's debate, I am concerned about what is
happening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just to be clear. Is
the hon. member for West Nova requesting a quorum call?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, yes I am calling quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Liberals to
stick around and listen. What I have to say is extremely
interesting. I extend that invitation to the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister in particular. It would be worth her
while.
To get back to what I was saying before I was interrupted by the
quorum call, which incidentally the government, and not the
opposition, is responsible for maintaining—if a quorum is
called for, it is because there are not enough government MPs in
the House, and this needs to be explained because people are not
aware of it—
What the government MPs fail to understand is that it is up to
them to maintain a presence in this House. They are the ones
who have to maintain a quorum, not the Bloc Quebecois, not the
Conservatives, not the NDP. They are the ones in power, and
they are the ones who have to be here if the House is to keep
operating.
That said—they cut me off in the best part and they are annoying
me—the Minister of Justice's strategy for juvenile crime may be
summarized as follows.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not leave but listen. She sets
up an expensive and unsatisfactory new plan; she turns a deaf
ear to remarks by Quebec, which properly applies the law; she
refuses to reimburse Quebec for applying the law and, in the
end, she is making political points in the West. Once again,
the Liberal government should be ashamed of the way it manages
its priorities.
Instead of spending most of this money on unlawful political
forays such as the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and
unsuitable programs such as the reform of the Young Offenders
Act and all the programs involving young offenders, the federal
government should respond to the desperate needs of the people
and to the legitimate expectations of Quebeckers.
For example, when will the government agree to make the
necessary changes to the Freedom of Information Act, among
others? How many reports by the commissioner of information
have to be tabled in this House before the Minister of Justice
agrees to reform a law which lacks the teeth to ensure access to
information in Canada?
I will quote the information commissioner, who says “After 15
years, the Freedom of Information Act must be consolidated and
modernized”.
1535
He went on to say “The blame lies neither with fate nor with the
law, it lies with the government and officials who prefer to
complain of the demands of access to information rather than
espouse its noble objectives, who prefer to deny the public the
information it paid for with its taxes”.
If the government spent carefully, perhaps we might see an
access to information act that would give Canadians and
Quebeckers the transparency democracy requires.
What is strange, when one looks at past Debates, is that when
the Liberals were the opposition, they made comments, for
instance about the Access to Information Act, to the effect that
it did not meet their needs, that it did not give access to all
documents, that things were being concealed. They said that it
was not strict enough, or this or that.
Now they are on the other side. They could amend the Access to
Information Act, to reflect their criticisms while in
opposition. But when one is on the gravy train, when one is
busy concealing all manner of things from the public, and when
one is in government, there is no desire to change things. That
is where the Liberals are at now. They are hiding behind a law
that needs changing, even the access to information commissioner
says so.
I could also say a great deal about all the unnecessary
expenditures, or more particularly what the department is not
doing and ought to be doing, with the $193 million or so that
will be voted to it this evening.
Among other things, it could introduce a money laundering bill.
Why does the federal government not spend some money on looking
at the possibility of legislation to tighten things up so that
Canada is no longer the hub of money laundering? Billions pass
through Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces for that very
purpose, and the federal government sits there with its arms
folded.
It says “Isn't it terrible about all that money laundering” but
does nothing. The opposition has often asked questions on this
and the members of the government do nothing about it.
The Bloc Quebecois did manage, through its efforts, to push the
government across the way into introducing anti-gang legislation.
I see the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who worked hard
with me on this issue in the Standing Committee on Justice, when
we were the official opposition. We managed to get the Liberal
government to make concessions, although not as many as we would
have liked.
If we are going to give a little over $193 million to the
Department of Justice, why not add certain provisions to the
anti-gang legislation, so we can go after gang leaders? As we
know, all those who implement this legislation say that it does
not allow them to go after the leaders.
It is time the government used its money for legitimate
purposes. It is time it admitted to making some bad choices. It
is time it recognized that things are done differently in Quebec
and listened to Quebeckers' concerns about, among other things,
the Young Offenders Act, which is a very simple piece of
legislation.
An hon. member: It costs a lot more in Quebec.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: One can see the ignorance of members
opposite. One can see the ignorance of government members who
say that it costs more in Quebec to implement the Young
Offenders Act. This is not true. Look at the figures.
Even if you take into account the outstanding claim that the
federal government is refusing to pay, Quebec gets less money
per young offender than any other Canadian province. For a total
of 10,000 young offenders, Quebec is getting eight times less
than western provinces.
What I do not understand is that the person who made these
comments is a member from Quebec. I think he should work harder
at protecting the interests of his constituents. The member for
Beauce should be ashamed of distorting the facts, as he is now
doing, and not adequately protecting his constituents.
He should rise and tell the Liberals that it does not make sense
to use public money the way they do, including the $193 million
allocated to the Department of Justice.
In conclusion, I wish the Liberals who are listening would be
more perceptive. They look concerned. I get the impression that
I taught them a few things today. They should take a closer look
at the budget before voting on the business of supply tonight. I
do hope they will at least check on what the Minister of Justice
will do with this $193 million.
1540
I do hope that Quebec members—and many of them are listening—will
also keep an eye on the Minister of Justice to stop her
from spending Quebeckers' money on things such as references to
the Supreme Court of Canada, because Quebeckers have had enough
of this.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to my hon. colleague with interest.
The removal of $193,805,000 would completely remove the client
services and the law and policy administration. I recall earlier
this year that the Bloc Quebecois pleaded with the government for
help with motorcycle gangs like the Posse, the Rock Machine and
Hell's Angels. Will my hon. colleague still be asking for that
kind of help? Where would the money come from to fund that
resource?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, in a sense, I answered that
question when I commented on the amendments to the Young
Offenders Act.
If the member has been following the Bloc Quebecois' arguments
since 1993 regarding the criminal justice system, I will not be
telling him anything he does not already know when I say that,
when it comes to justice and the application of the Criminal
Code, the federal government should simply withdraw. It should
negotiate with the provinces so that they can recover full
jurisdiction over the criminal justice system and all criminal
courts. This should come entirely under provincial
jurisdiction.
The present situation makes no sense. The federal government
passes laws, but does not apply them. That is left to the
provinces, because the administration of justice is a provincial
matter.
Perhaps back in 1867 the Fathers of Confederation—or is it
federation, because the federalists opposite use a different
jargon and cannot agree on whether it is a federation or a
confederation, but that is not my problem, given the Bloc
Quebecois' objective—thought it would work well. But, as it
happens, it does not.
As it happens, there is extremely expensive overlap and
duplication. The federal government should withdraw and return
full jurisdiction to the National Assembly and the other
provinces so that they can have full control over the criminal
justice system and all related matters. The $193 million not
spent by the federal government could thus be transferred to the
provinces so that they can have jurisdiction and administer the
criminal justice system properly.
I can give another very recent example. In committee, we are
studying provisions that would create a kind of victims'
assistance bureau, or something of the sort.
A number of provinces, including Quebec, already have a law
known as the victims of crime act. We have an office to help
victims of crime, and compensation is given to these victims.
The federal government wants to legislate in this area and to
parallel Quebec, because we already have this. I have heard
from representatives of British Columbia the same thing I have
heard in Quebec. They do not want the federal government
intervening in an area of provincial jurisdiction and investing
money in programs paralleling those already existing in the
provinces. They want it to give the money to the provinces so
they can spend it where it would do the most good.
So what I mean when I say I oppose the appropriations worth $193
million we will be voting on is that the money is badly used and
badly spent.
If there is one area where the provinces are more competent and
closer to the people in order to better respond to their
expectations, it is the area of the Criminal Code and related
legislation, and the provinces should have full jurisdiction
there.
The other question the hon. member raised is that if $193
million is cut, there will be no more money to go after the
motorcycle gangs. In this regard, I will speak to you of
Quebec. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois government—first under
Mr. Parizeau, then under Mr. Bouchard, assumed its full
responsibilities.
1545
They created some highly competent squads with excellent
results. The people across the floor may well laugh. The hon.
member for Beauce may well not know his history, or what is
going on in the National Assembly, but I think that where the
anti-gang legislation is concerned, if the Government of Quebec
had not acted on it, if the Government of Quebec had not helped
the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. members over there would never have
had the political courage to listen to what many Quebeckers were
calling for in connection with legislation against motorcycle
gangs. The Minister of Justice decided to act because of the
Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec.
Once again, I understand that the Liberal MPs from Quebec do not
want to hear that.
They are ignorant of their history, as we have often said, but
today we have one more proof of it.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that you will join with me in commenting on the eloquence
of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, as he spoke with a
depth one very rarely gets from that side of the House.
I would like to ask one question of my colleague, the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm. Can he tell us why it is important
at this point in history and in the present situation with
organized crime, to have MPs like those in the Bloc Quebecois
able to stand up and propose concrete measures?
My colleague referred to money laundering. This is cause for
great concern. I would like my colleague, with his knowledge in
this area, to raise the awareness of others, the government
members in particular, who are a bit slow to assimilate anything
new.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, money laundering is indeed
a major industry in Canada. According to police officers and
experts in the field—and the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
can correct me if I am wrong—between $225 and $250 billion are
laundered in Canada every year. It should come as no surprise
that Canada is known internationally as a haven for money
laundering.
As a Quebecker, this does not make me proud. We are working hard
to achieve our goal but, for the time being, Quebec is still
part of Canada. Every year, between $225 and $250 billion are
laundered in our country. This bothers me a bit. We repeatedly
asked this government to introduce legislation to make it harder
to launder money in Canada, since it is done all too easily
right now.
In its electoral platform, the Bloc Quebecois suggested a very
simple idea which the government could implement immediately.
It could even be implemented before we adjourn for the summer.
Canada is about the only country in the world with bank notes of
$1,000. No other country has $1,000 bills. Why not stop
producing these $1,000 bank notes? Who in this House walks
around with ten bills of $1,000 in his pockets?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Raise your hand.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Come on, raise your hand. There are not
many Liberals and there is no one on our side.
Mr. Speaker, do you have ten bills of $1,000 in your pockets?
No?
In Canada, $1,000 bank notes are used almost exclusively for
transfers, for buying land, or by organized crime members.
Not many people walk around with $1,000 bank notes in their
pockets. I think that bills of $100, $50 and $20 adequately meet
the needs of Canadians, particularly since we make extensive use
of credit cards. There is no need to carry large amounts of
money in our pockets.
1550
Why not, then, go along with what the Bloc Quebecois requested
during the election campaign and on a few occasions since 1997
and take one thousand dollar bills out of circulation? It is
very simple.
I have a friend who is a lawyer, a judge now, whom I will not
name for fear of making his life difficult—
An hon. member: Appointed by the federal government.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, appointed by the federal
government. Admittedly, I was once a Liberal, but he is still
one.
The judge said that there was a case of a man appearing in a
financial institution with a hockey bag stuffed with $20, $50
and $100 dollar bills. He had the tidy little sum of about
$270,000 in there.
As things now stand, the institution is not required to refuse
this, to say the least, odd deposit.
This would be one place where the lawmakers could amend the law
to reinforce this and not allow such strange deposits. An
individual should be required to report the source of bills
being deposited.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a
bill to which the concurrence of the House is
desired.
* * *
[English]
SUPPLY
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1998-99
The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the subject of the Department of Canadian
Heritage estimates. I am splitting my time with the hon. member
for Palliser.
Canadian heritage may seem like a vague term to most Canadians.
However, when they begin to understand the areas which heritage
covers it has tremendous importance to each and every one of us.
When we talk about the heritage department we are talking about
the Canada Council, the CBC, the Canadian Film Development
Corporation, all of our libraries and museums, the art gallery,
the CRTC, the NFB and all of the community grants and supports to
individual artists.
I remember back in September of last year at one of the first
meetings of the heritage committee we had a visit from the
minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Dartmouth would excuse me for a moment, I just want to be
assured that the hon. member for Dartmouth is speaking to Motion
No. 1 which has to do with the Department of Justice. If the hon.
member could work the Department of Justice into her
intervention, it would make it much more relevant to the debate
at hand.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the
Department of Canadian Heritage estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The floor must then
go to a member to speak to the motion that is being debated at
hand. The hon. member for Dartmouth was splitting her time. If
the hon. member for Palliser does not wish to continue debate at
this time, I will then recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Justice.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and also the
member for Berthier—Montcalm propose to vote down the operating
expenditures of the Department of Justice.
If the House approves this motion, it would prevent the
Department of Justice from conducting its statutory
responsibilities. The $193.8 million in operating expenditures
required in 1998-99 will allow the department to carry out its
responsibilities for the legal affairs of the government as a
whole and to provide legal services to individual departments and
agencies.
More specifically, these funds will enable the department to
continue to meet its responsibilities under three lines: one,
the provision of services to the government; two, policy
development and administration of the law; and three, the
administration itself. I intend to elaborate on each line or
point today.
1555
[Translation]
The Department of Justice serves the government in various ways.
It drafts all government legislation. It provides legal advice
to all departments and represents the government in court.
To ensure the timely provision of the services they need, most
department incorporate legal services in their departmental
headquarters. These are the legal services falling under the
justice department, in charge of providing legal advice, court
representation and legal assistance on all legal matters that
concern the various departments.
A network of regional offices provides most court representation
services. These offices also provide legal advice to meet the
needs of the government and its agencies in terms of regional
operations.
[English]
There are three main areas where the Department of Justice has
lead responsibility: criminal justice policy, family and youth
law policy arising out of marriage and divorce; and human rights
policy. The department also has the lead role in constitutional
law, administrative law, aboriginal justice, access to
information and privacy law, official languages law and the
government's mandate for courts and judges.
The Minister of Justice and her department are responsible for
over 40 statutes, many with major policy ramifications. The
department must anticipate future legal and societal trends in
order to provide timely, strategic and effective responses; to
provide leadership both to the government and the public in
understanding the changing legal world; and to provide guidance
in achieving governmental objectives in a manner consistent with
fundamental rights and freedoms, fairness, equality,
accessibility, and effective and efficient legal policy.
To meet this challenge and to ensure Canadians have a fair,
efficient, accessible and inclusive national system of justice,
the department provides a range of services relating to the
planning, co-ordination, development, promotion and
implementation of justice related policies.
The Department of Justice 1998-99 report on plans and priorities
shows that the department is moving forward with a balanced and
focused policy agenda which responds to the issues Canadians have
identified as important to them.
Let us examine some of the areas the department is currently
working on. One is the crime prevention strategy.
[Translation]
Last week, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General
announced a new phase in the national community safety and crime
prevention strategy, whose budget has increased from $3 million
to $32 million a year. This strategy is designed to help
communities address the root causes of crime.
The role of the justice department in this new phase of the
program will be to promote the exchange of information between
communities on effective crime prevention measures, help federal
departments co-ordinate their efforts and establish relationships
based on partnership between the governments, NGOs and the
private sector. To this end, the justice department will have to
call upon the interest, expertise, ideas and contribution of all
Canadians.
[English]
Let me now turn to youth justice, on which the members of the
opposition had much to say today. The Minister of Justice
recognizes that Canadians' confidence in the youth justice system
has been shaken in recent years. She announced a few weeks ago a
youth justice strategy that would lead to the replacement of the
Young Offenders Act. The reform would ensure that violent young
offenders would face meaningful consequences for their crimes. It
would also provide new ways of approaching youth justice that
give young people the opportunity to turn their lives around.
The Minister of Justice does not believe, as the Reform Party
does, that putting more kids in jail for longer periods is the
solution. This is too simplistic an approach, as are most of the
Reform Party's approaches on justice.
Violent youth will face custody but jail terms are often
counterproductive for the vast majority of youth who are
non-violent. The strategy involves looking at alternative
approaches, approaches that specifically aim to instil the values
of responsibility and accountability in youth.
[Translation]
The treatment accorded victims of crime is another of the
Minister of Justice's priorities. The work done by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights should provide the
Department of Justice with useful information to find ways to
guarantee victims at least two things: access to information and
protection under the law.
1600
[English]
Last night the Minister of Justice visited a town hall meeting
that I held in my riding with the assistance of the hon. member
for Mount Royal and other members of the Quebec caucus on the
government side. Despite what the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm said, most people who were present at this
meeting, although the Quebec system is a good one, still found a
lack of funding for a lot of the resources that victims need.
One thing we are attempting to do through this type of
consultation with Quebeckers and all other Canadians across the
country is to ensure that there is collaboration between federal
and provincial governments and to ensure there are services
available for victims. Certainly last night that was not the
portrait presented in Quebec in terms of the system in place in
Quebec which lacks funding. We encourage all members of the
House of Commons to told town hall meetings.
[Translation]
The department is looking to resolve victims' frustration by
trying to improve access to appropriate information, especially
as concerns the co-ordination and sharing of information on
victims' rights and services.
The Minister of Justice has asked the department to examine the
possibility—and, I repeat, possibility, one of the ones on the
table, nothing is written yet—of creating a central office to
assist victims. However, she never said, and reference was made
yesterday at my town hall meeting, that this would duplicate
something that already exists in the provinces.
There is no question of that. It is only one of the things
raised by the agencies working with victims. We are looking at
all the options. Everything is on the table.
As for legal protection, counsel with the Department of Justice
recently defended the constitutional validity of the new
provisions of the Criminal Code aimed at limiting public access
to the medical records of plaintiffs in proceedings involving
sexual offences.
The department is also looking into the possibility of amending
the Criminal Code to respond to their concerns by, among other
things, permitting greater use of victims' statements.
[English]
Conditional sentencing is another favourite topic of the
opposition. The Department of Justice is examining on an ongoing
basis areas which are controversial. One of those areas is
conditional sentencing. Since September 1996 when judges have
been able to grant conditional sentences over 18,000 such
sentences have been imposed. The vast majority of these orders
were considered appropriate dispositions. However some decisions
have caused concern and controversy.
One of the reasons they have caused concern and controversy is
that they are constantly being exploited by members of the Reform
Party. Sensationalizing the most violent criminals in our
society seems to be the game of the day. Fearmongering is also
part of Reform's strategy.
The Department of Justice is working closely with the provinces
and territories to monitor conditional sentences at the request
of the attorneys general of all provinces. This monitoring work
is important to ensure that any reform to the law is based on
real facts, not on perceptions based on media reporting or
fearmongering on the part of the opposition.
Very recently the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals
in five cases involving persons who received conditional
sentences of imprisonment. The appeals are expected to provide
clarification and guidance in the use of conditional sentences in
cases involving violence resulting in death or injury or other
such cases. The department has also been asked by the Minister
of Justice to consider the development of common guidelines that
would assist prosecutors in deciding when to seek conditional
sentences. We have acted despite the opposition saying that we
do not act.
There has been a constant debate in the House on firearms
control. We must never forget that opposition members oppose any
type of gun control system in Canada, even though 80% of
Canadians support a universal registration system for shotguns
and rifles. The opposition is out of touch with Canadians.
Effective implementation of a firearms control program is among
the highest priorities of the Department of Justice. The
regulations required to implement the system have been made
following the scrutiny of both houses of parliament. The system
will be functional by October 1, 1998.
Registration together with licensing and the other aspects of
the Firearms Act are aimed at facilitating the continued
enjoyment of their sport by responsible owners using safe
practices. This will decrease the risk of gratuitous violence
and will promote a culture that recognizes safety and
responsibility. We do not want children killing children in
Canada.
1605
The new firearms legislation is a positive effective contributor
to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by the
government to further a safe and secure society. The gun control
legislation has the support of a large majority, as high as 80%
and as high as 72% in some rural areas, and is a reflection of a
country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.
Concerning administration it is a third business line of the
Department of Justice. It encompasses the range of corporate
management and administrative services required to support the
department's program delivery and internal administration.
To conclude, I believe the department is managing its resources
responsibly. The department's policy work will have an impact on
the confidence of Canadians in their justice system. In addition
the role of the Department of Justice in advising the government
on legal issues—and let us not forget it is the legal department
for all government departments—and in conducting litigation on
behalf of the crown is vital to the proper functioning of the
Canadian government and Canadian society as a whole. The
department should be given the means to conduct its
responsibilities.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
always amazed when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice speaks in the House.
She is given the opportunity to bring forward the programs of
government and the benefits that it believes will flow from those
programs. She either seems to be uncomfortable or lacking
confidence in her own position or in her government's programs
and legislation because she always has to take up much of the
time simply attacking the opposition.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the gun control program
and said that 80% of the people supported the hideous, ill
conceived Bill C-68. If that were the case we would not have
four provincial governments having to answer to their electorate
just as the federal government will have to do. If 80% of voters
were telling their provincial governments to support the bill, we
would not have four provinces and two territories supporting the
constitutional challenge that is occurring now before the appeal
court of Alberta. I will get back to this point when I speak in
the House on the estimates.
The member talked about spending more money. The minister
announced the expenditure of $32 million in the area of crime
prevention and so on. However, when the justice minister and her
officials appeared before the standing committee on the estimates
I asked this question of the minister: “Why is it that the
province of Manitoba is considering litigation to get out from
under the administration of the Young Offenders Act? Why is that
happening based upon the fact that the federal government is
reneging on its cost sharing program?” I also asked the minister
where that stood and if there was more money on the table to
bring Manitoba back onside. At that time the answer was no.
In view of additional expenditure in the area of justice, has
new money been offered to the province of Manitoba to get it
onside and to get it to continue to administer the Young
Offenders Act, or is it still heading for court to get out from
under the administration of the Young Offenders Act?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I take offence at the
suggestion that we are trying to dodge our responsibilities in
the House, be it the minister or be it myself as parliamentary
secretary.
As far as the question the member asked, the $32 million put
forward by the government was the crime prevention initiative to
ensure community involvement in terms of crime prevention.
1610
We as a government, unlike the Reform Party, believe that we
have to start early in order to prevent crime. Jail is not the
answer for children. Nor is whipping, as one member would like
us to believe. Nor is caning, as another members would like us
to believe. We should take the $32 million and sit down with the
provinces, the municipalities and the private sector to come up
with effective crime prevention initiatives across the country.
There will be ongoing negotiations with the municipal
governments, the provincial governments and all other players, be
they private or community based organizations, to ensure that we
prevent crime and do not continue to spend as much money as we
spend right now in terms of incarcerating people. That is
totally different from what the Reform Party would like us to
believe.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take a few moments to exchange views with my
colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, who I hear is very involved
in the school elections, but we will have another chance to talk
about that. I nonetheless wish her good luck on Sunday, because
she could find it rough going.
Can the minister tell us a little about what her government
plans to do with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act? I
have its latest report here. I have always been extremely
interested in the whole human rights issue, and we are urgently
calling for an overhaul of the legislation.
This is a piece of legislation that has not been amended, except
obviously for the addition of an 11th prohibited ground of
discrimination last year. It cries out for an overhaul. Does
the minister agree with those who think that poverty is a
growing reality in Canada? Did members know that there have
never been so many poor people in Canada? I can see, of course,
that you are thinking that there is a direct link with the
terrible cuts to transfers made by this government and you are
not mistaken. The fact is that the income of approximately 40%
of Canadians and Quebeckers is below the poverty line.
What connection does this have with the Canadian Human Rights
Act? The connection is that we should give economic rights and
that we should never allow discrimination based on social
status.
May I remind you that in France, the mother country of us all
and the elder daughter of the Church, there is an obligation for
the human rights commission to review all acts, and to advise on
the impact legislation passed by the French government will have
on poverty. Might I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary, whose
sensitivity to this issue I am well aware of, whether she
subscribes to such measures?
Second, does she acknowledge that her government is particularly
clam-like, if not jellyfish-like, lacking in scope or ambition,
when it comes to fighting organized crime? The hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm, a rising star in the Quebec firmament, has
clearly pointed out to us that a meaningful policy against crime
requires a number of significant measures that are lacking at
present.
Of course, there is all the business of money laundering.
I have no great expectations of the parliamentary secretary's
answers to the questions, but if she would agree to cast a
little light on this question, I would be grateful to her.
In closing, can she tell us who she plans to support in the
school board elections coming up this Sunday, June 14, in
Montreal?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, first, we are not discussing
school elections here. When a member abuses his privileges here
in this House, it is my duty, as a member of this House, to
point it out, even when he has repaid the money, because he
still committed the act. Political parties do not enter into
it.
I have never been involved in school elections. The Bloc gets
involved in every one. Every time one is held, there they are.
The former member for Rosemont would get involved, the leader of
the Bloc has been involved and now the new member for Rosemont.
Three times they have got involved. They are involved in school
elections.
I was not involved, I simply pointed out to all Canadians,
including the people of Rosemont who complained to me, that the
member for Rosemont sent a letter in support of MEMO, the gang
of separatists in Quebec, to everyone.
1615
That said, I will answer the question.
First, in terms of the fight against crime, I think the member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is aware that the former Minister of
Justice introduced the first bill against biker gangs in the
House. I think we are in favour and that we can consider the
suggestion by the Bloc justice critic on money laundering.
The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice are aware of
the need. We were the ones to first introduce anti-gang
legislation here. We are therefore well aware of the problem to
be resolved.
Second, on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I want
to mention to the hon. member that the Quebec charter contains
no provision on economic rights. I may be mistaken—
Mr. Réal Ménard: On social conditions.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Right, on social conditions. I do
approve of his suggestion, though, and I think we should examine
the possibility of adding another condition to the Canadian
charter.
We recognize as a government that poverty is an important aspect
of crime in this country. If people live in poverty, aspects of
their lives may lead them into crime. This is why we invested
$32 million in crime prevention—in order to help people and
prevent crime.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand I have 20 minutes to address the estimates.
The hon. parliamentary
secretary to the justice minister refused to answer my question
regarding the position that Manitoba is in right now.
Is there more money placed on the table to keep that government
on side in terms of administering the Young Offenders Act? I
asked that question very clearly. I repeated it and she refused
to answer it. That is the type of response we get from this
government on very vital issues. Yet she can stand in her place
and criticize, scorn and mock the opposition, all opposition
members, including the official opposition, that we have nothing
good to say, nothing good to offer. There is nothing over here
worth consideration.
Yet when we ask her a straightforward question about a province
struggling to administer a key component of the justice system
what do we get from her? Her answer is on the record. My
question is on the record and her non-answer is on the record.
She ought to be ashamed of herself.
To the motion we are debating now, Motion No. 1 moved by my hon.
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I cannot support
this motion because if passed it would mean that all funding
would be eliminated within the solicitor general's department.
If these motions were to pass we would effectively shut down the
RCMP, the DNA databank, the RCMP external review committee, the
National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada. Although
we have some serious concerns and reservations about these
departments and the expenditures within, we cannot support
completely shutting them down.
I appreciate this motion put forward by the hon. member because
it does open the avenue for the debate I think is very necessary
in this whole area of justice.
We do not support certain expenditures under the solicitor
general and we do not agree with particular expenditures of this
government under justice.
1620
Justice is one area the Reform Party believes funding should
remain constant in, with priorities being shifted. The Reform
Party would increase spending in areas such as community
policing. Our police forces are slowly diminishing to the
detriment of public safety. Thus we would propose increased
transfers to the provinces to provide for more police on the
streets.
We moved 200 RCMP officers to an international posting but we
did not replace them. Imagine the positive effect of having 200
RCMP members wisely deployed across this country and the enormous
deterrent they would have on the streets.
We are making these types of decisions and expending this kind
of funding to help internationally while at the same time
reducing the effectiveness of our police forces and law
enforcement agencies at home. We question that.
I have proposed to reduce spending by $20,390,330 within the
Department of Justice under grants and contributions. This money
has been allocated as a contribution to the provinces and
territories for the firearms program. Under the supplementary
estimates I proposed the $87,467,000 allotted for the Canadian
firearms registration system be reduced to $1. It is no secret
that the Reform Party is opposed to the expenditure of scarce
dollars for the registration of riffles and shotguns.
For years we have been fighting long and hard to repeal Bill
C-68 and its ill conceived firearms registry. We are adamantly
opposed to the costly bureaucratic registry because to date the
government has failed to provide any statistical justification
for registration. The statistics used by the Department of
Justice have caused significant controversy and concern among
firearm owners, Canadians in general and specifically the
Canadian Police Association since the release of a letter from
the commissioner of the RCMP to the deputy minister of justice
regarding his concern over the bogus use of RCMP statistics.
I have a copy of that letter from the RCMP commissioner's office
dated July 21, 1997 to Mr. George Thompson, deputy minister of
justice and deputy attorney general of Canada wherein he
expresses his grave concern and the grave concern of the RCMP
over the misuse of RCMP statistics.
In spite of that, these statistics were placed in a document
called “The Illegal Movement of Firearms In Canada”. One
example is on page 10 of the document, and there are many other
examples in this document. On page 10 is table III. The top of
the table states “Firearms Involved in Crime. Type of Firearm
Removed According to Offence”. Then there are categories such
as violent offences, rifles and shotguns, 915.
When this first came to the public's attention we met with
members of the firearms section of the justice department and
also with a member of the RCMP. It was admitted to members of
parliament that this creates an erroneous perception that all the
915 riffles and shotguns recovered in violent crimes, according
to this table, was not accurate. Many of those rifles and
shotguns had never been used in the commission of a criminal
offence. They had been seized by police in other matters. For
example, they would stop a drug dealer and conduct an arrest. He
would have a rifle or a shotgun in the trunk of the car. It had
not been used in the commission of a crime. They would seize
that.
Another example given was they would attend a domestic dispute.
Although the spouse had not been threatened by a firearm she felt
that she had been threatened. For safety reasons the police
would seize the firearm in the house.
1625
They are using those kinds of statistics to justify what
amounted to be an erroneous and false perception of the number of
firearms used in the commission of criminal offences.
The worst part about this is that this letter expressing the
concern of the RCMP was dated July 21, 1997. The Alberta court
case, the constitutional challenge to Bill C-68, proceeded I
think in November of that same year, a number of months
afterwards. In spite of the concerns raised here there were six
affidavits filed by justice officials containing these same bogus
statistics, creating a false representation of the number of
firearms used in the commission of a criminal offence. There we
go. In the letter from the commissioner's office, concern is
expressed that there was an improper and a false basis created to
justify the creation of Bill C-68.
It is clear there is not anyone in the House who does not
support firearms control. We have asked the former justice
minister, now the health minister, we have asked all the
proponents of that bill to please tell the House and the people
of Canada how the registration of a rifle and shotgun will reduce
the criminal use of those firearms. Of course they were never
able to do that. If they could have shown us something that we
were unable to see of course they would have had our support.
The fact is that is a myth. The registration of a rifle or
shotgun will not reduce its criminal use. The weapon of choice
for the street criminal is still the handgun, which has been
registered in this country for the last 64 years. It has not
reduced the criminal use of that firearm, because the use of that
firearm, by their own statistics, is on the rise, certainly over
the 64 years since registration was put into place.
When we look at the enormous cost contained within these
estimates simply to administer, to set up the software, to get
things ready for October 1, 1998, it is an unacceptable cost that
ought to be going to crime prevention or it ought to be going to
our DNA databank where it will have an impact on the commission
of crime and there is a chance of reducing crime in certain
areas.
Look at the polls. They quote the polls to support this
erroneous, ill conceived piece of legislation. After this bill
came into effect we had the province of Manitoba go to the polls,
the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Ontario. In
every case the party that formed the government came out strongly
and publicly against the registration and licensing portion of
Bill C-68.
If we want to talk about polls, the most significant poll we can
get is a poll where the issue is debated and the people have a
vote. That is exactly what happened in all three of those
provinces. To suggest that 80% of the people support that
portion of this ill conceived bill is utter nonsense. If that
were the case we would not have Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta risking their political future by taking the most
obnoxious portion of the bill, the licensing and registration
portion, to court on a constitutional challenge. We would not
have the two territories saying the same thing.
We have here a needless and useless piece of legislation and we
are spending millions on it.
1630
What we are saying is that there are other areas in justice
crying out for these types of resources which are being ignored.
Why? It is because the government has set itself on a path and
will not change it in spite of evidence to the contrary.
What is the government going to do? The registration and
licensing portion of that bill is not aimed at the criminals who
use firearms, it is aimed at the law-abiding gun owner. If
someone deliberately and knowingly refuses or neglects to
register their .22, what is the penalty they will pay under the
bill? The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. Is that not
wonderful? They will have to do that simply because they failed
to fulfil an administrative requirement.
When we look at the legislation that has come forward since the
Liberals formed the government in 1993, it is unbelievable that
they are allowing conditional sentencing to continue. Convicted
rapists and people who have been convicted of manslaughter have
been allowed to walk free, and yet they are saying to the
law-abiding rancher, farmer, gun owner that if they do not
register their firearms by the year 2003 there will be a series
of penalties, the most severe of which can be a 10 year jail
sentence. However, the rapists are walking free. Violent
offenders can walk free. It is a gift from the Liberal Party.
We have examined what is happening in our country in this
particular area and at the economic impact. We had witness after
witness appear before the standing committee, not only on the
bill itself but on the regulations, who told us about the
enormous negative impact it is having on the economy in certain
areas of this country.
When we asked the justice officials if they had done an economic
impact study on this bill and what impact, negative or otherwise,
it would have on the economy, they said they had not done an
impact study. They do not seem to care whether they drive people
out of business or shut down gun shows, shooting ranges or gun
clubs. They do not care.
When the witnesses appeared before the committee that was what
they told us. Their testimony is on the record. They were
saying that with the implementation of these regulations they may
not be able to function as a gun club, as a shooting range or as
a gun show any longer. The government is threatening to destroy
the social events in the firearms community, those social events
where people get together at a gun show to display their
collections. They buy and they trade. It is much like a garage
sale.
When we asked the witnesses from these shows who appeared before
the committee if their activities over the past 20 years of
running these gun shows had ever created personal or public
danger to anyone, they replied that they had not. We asked them
why they thought the government was regulating something that was
not causing a problem. They had no answer for that. The
minister has no answer to that question either.
The government is simply regulating many of these law-abiding
organizations out of business, possibly through the increased
insurance they are going to have pay.
This bill and the money that we are spending on this bill is
wrong. It was wrong-headed at the beginning and the government
has never been able to admit that it is wrong.
1635
In spite of the fact that evidence to the contrary is
overwhelming, it still continues with its mantra: gun control.
Bill C-68 and the registration of rifles and shotguns is not gun
control at all.
Everyone is in favour of the common sense control of firearms.
The registration of rifles and shotguns does not contain the
capacity to do that, nor does it contain the capacity to reduce
the criminal use of the firearms.
The legislation will allow the confiscation, without
compensation, of thousands of firearms. Bill C-68 will prohibit
over 500,000 handguns. Why? The barrels are too short.
This is property which has been lawfully acquired and legally
held for years. It is going to be confiscated, ultimately,
without any compensation. Again, this is wrong.
We are saying that it is wrong to spend money on an
ill-conceived bill like this and the government is not fully
disclosing the cost to us.
The firearms group has said that it is the greatest boondoggle
this country has every seen.
We will see. We will watch to see whether it comes into effect
on October 1 and what kind of mess occurs. There are 20,000 to
30,000 of these handguns under this specific category that are
going to be lost by the firearm owners themselves, the dealers.
There is no law covering them. Therefore, they will lose them,
apparently without compensation.
We will watch to see this ill-conceived piece of legislation as
it moves into effect to see whether it brings safety to streets
and homes or whether it continues to be an unmitigated mess.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the hon. member that I do not pull figures
out of the air.
In a recent Angus Reid poll, 82% of Canadians supported a system
of universal registration of rifles and shotguns. There was 72%
per cent approval for that same system in rural communities.
Those members just do not get it. This government was voted in
after it adopted that piece of legislation, which had the support
of this side of the House but was opposed by the opposition
parties.
The hon. member keeps referring to a letter which he says
distorts the facts. In fact, he is distorting the facts. The
minister herself tabled a letter right here in the House which
stated that the facts and figures represented in the first letter
were true, but that they were based on a different system of
calculation.
The hon. member refused, both in the justice committee and here
in the House after it was debated on numerous occasions, to make
reference to the second letter which was tabled in this House.
Constant distortion of the facts continues on this issue because
the hon. member and his party refuse to accept that Canadians do
not want children killing children, as happens elsewhere in the
world, but in fact want to know that if somebody has a gun in
their house the police know about it.
The RCMP and the Canadian Police Association endorse our policy
of gun control.
Would the hon. member like to tell this House why he refuses to
make reference to the second letter that was tabled by the hon.
minister in this House which in fact says that the statistics are
true?
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. She is
asking me a question after she refused to answer mine. I will do
what she did not do and answer the question.
I have looked at both letters. The RCMP is saying that our
statistics are true.
Those statistics that we gave represent firearms used in the
actual commission of a crime. What the deputy minister said was
that their group looked at it from a broader point of view. They
looked at firearms seized by the police in any type of
investigation, not necessarily those used in a crime.
1640
But that is not what is in this book of theirs. That is not in
the “Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada”. Chart No. 3 is
found on page 10 of that book. At the top of the chart it says
“Firearms Involved in Crime”. Under the violent column it says
that rifles and shotguns were used in 915 crimes. When we met
with the firearms officials, as well as a member of the RCMP,
they admitted to us that the figure of 915 did not accurately
represent firearms used in crimes, but that is the perception
created there. They admitted it could very well create a false
perception.
The point that we have been making is that this false and bogus
piece of information was filed in the Alberta Court of Appeal in
six different affidavits in the constitutional court challenge of
Bill C-68. The figures are wrong. They were wrong then and they
are wrong now.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I have a couple of brief questions for the hon. member.
I have watched the estimate of the cost of this firearms control
effort rise from an estimated $85 million to what it is now being
estimated at, which is $133.9 million just for this year alone.
That estimate was made by the spokesman for the new firearms
centre. It will be $133.9 million for this year alone and it has
not even begun yet.
I wonder if the hon. member has had any indication from the
government what the total cost is going to be? Or has he been
able to conclude a cost himself?
My second question refers to the $32 million crime prevention
initiative announced by the government, which a newspaper article
cites as another $32 million down the drain. It says that the
minister's crime prevention initiative is more of the same
mollycoddling that has made a joke out of the Young Offenders
Act. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with that comment which
appeared the Toronto Sun.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cost of
the firearms program, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough asked the minister that very
question when the minister appeared before the committee on April
20 of this year.
Of course the minister, with the deepest respect, mugwumped
around that question and did not give us a clear and decisive
answer as to the exact amount of money that had been spent up
until that time, that is, April 1 of this year. What the
minister did say was that they had spent $66 million, but that
also included the administration of Bill C-17. We do not know
the cost of Bill C-17. Therefore, we do not know how much had
been spent up until that time.
Mr. Valin, who was reported by Sean Durkan of the Ottawa
Sun, claimed that we just did not ask the right question of
the minister and that the total cost for this year was the figure
that my hon. colleague mentioned, which is $133.9 million.
It is such a confusing mess. We do not know if this is on top
of the $85 million or on top of the $20 million that the
estimates are going to send out to the provinces. We just do not
know.
Mr. Speaker, if you are only going to give me 90 seconds on that
question, then I will have to sit down and beg my hon.
colleague's pardon for not getting to his second question.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, many
witnesses who testified at the standing committee on justice with
regard to firearms registration said many times that a registry
of firearms is certainly not going to prevent crime in any
substantive way.
The Conservative Party supports proper control of firearms and
their proper use, but we think this expense of $85 million
referred to by the government is low. We hear rumours of a
potential for maybe $500 million.
1645
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe what
we are reading we will spend another $133 million on top of
whatever has been spent before a single firearm is registered.
If we look at the process to register a firearm or simply to get
a licence to hold one, it is the same process or almost identical
to the requirement for an FAC. The Toronto police board
estimated the cost to process a single FAC requirement in 1994.
I think it came to $181 to do that.
If Ontario is high and we knock it down to $100 and if there are
three to six million firearm owners and we have to spend $100 to
process a licence application, we will spend $300 million to $600
million before we register a single firearm. The cost has never
been honestly declared by the government, either because it does
not know it or it does not want us to know it.
The former minister of justice is on record as saying that if it
came anywhere near half a billion dollars he would withdraw and
not proceed. The government is hiding the cost and I dare say
for that very reason.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
oppose the motion of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough if it is a serious motion. If
the motion were to pass it would literally handcuff the
Department of Justice and the important work it has to do.
It is quite clear to me as a member of parliament in my second
term that Canadians want an improved system of justice. This is
a priority concern of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Obviously it will be necessary to invest some taxpayer dollars
into priority areas. To pass a motion like this one would
prevent the department from carrying out its existing duties and
would certainly make it impossible for the Department of Justice
to move into new priority areas of the Canadian public.
I will address the heavy responsibilities the department
executes. There is service to the government itself. There is
the matter of policy development and the administration of law,
and there is general administration.
Regarding service to the government, we well know that the
Department of Justice drafts all legislation and provides legal
advice to all departments. The department has the lead role in
criminal justice policy in the areas of family and youth law
policy arising out of marriage and divorce and of human rights
policy.
I have heard very clearly from my constituents in
London—Fanshawe that they are looking for new initiatives from
the government. The government is responding and I support those
initiatives.
One that comes to mind very readily is the area of crime
prevention strategy. The minister is embarking on a national
strategy for community safety and crime prevention. These lofty
words are not just words but are being backed up by an important
expenditure of funds. There is an increase in funding from $3
million a year to $32 million a year. That is a very real
commitment to the important area of crime prevention.
I well know from my conversations with the chief of police in
London, Ontario, Chief Fantino, that the chiefs of police
understand the importance of preventing crime in the first place.
It is the old analogy of the Fram oil filter we have all seen on
TV, pay me now or pay me later.
For every crime we can prevent through investment in people,
particularly young people and families, the savings later on will
be much greater than the necessary investment. Chief Fantino and
other police chiefs and social agencies across the country have
made that point repeatedly.
1650
I was a member of the municipal council of London, Ontario, for
11 years during which time I spent several years serving on the
Children's Aid Society. Over those years we repeatedly heard of
the need to invest in families and in children which leads
directly to preventing youth crime. It is very simple. We know
a very high percentage of young people in Canada who get into
difficulty with the law or who break the law come from problem
families described one way or another.
Such initiatives will also involve other levels of provincial
and municipal governments, NGOs, community experts such as the
Children's Aid Society and the private sector in a very important
partnership with this government to do much more in the area of
crime prevention.
I know colleagues throughout the House heard the following
concern from their constituents as I do from my constituents in
London—Fanshawe. They are very worried about the issue of youth
justice. They are concerned about youth crime, particularly the
increase in violent youth crime. I share that concern as a
Canadian and as a member of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I know you
do as well.
The minister is trying to respond to those concerns. She
proposed a justice strategy to replace the Young Offenders Act.
It is clear to me and to most Canadians that the confidence of
the Canadian public in the Young Offenders Act has been badly
shaken.
It is important, however, to draw the important distinction
between violent and non-violent youth crime. The input I have
received from the people of London is that they have very little
if any tolerance for violent youth crime, particularly by repeat
young offenders. They expect the government to implement tougher
penalties in this area.
We have done that since being elected in 1993 and we intend to
go further in the area of violent youth crime particularly when
we are dealing with repeat violent young offenders. In this
instance public safety must and will come first.
I hear from social agencies, the chief of police and others in
London that when we are dealing with non-violent youth crime
incarceration is not a panacea. This is where the majority of my
constituents and I as a member of parliament perhaps disagree
with some colleagues in other parts of the House. Throwing these
young people into institutions and thinking that will solve their
problems and that they will not repeat these offences when they
are let free is not realistic. It is incredibly expensive to put
them in these institutions. More to the point, it is not an
effective way to deal with non-violent criminals.
Mr. Myron Thompson: And we agree.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I am very pleased to note the agreement
of my colleague from Wild Rose. We draw a distinction between
violent and non-violent criminals particularly when we are
talking about young offenders. We could say that for any
offender. I believe and my constituents recognize that when we
are dealing with violent and non-violent crime we need two
different strategies. The answer is not to lock them up and
throw away the key. We have to be more analytical and realistic
than that and try to take the best action in whichever situation
we are dealing with, violence or non-violence.
Earlier I alluded to the well known fact that the vast majority
of young offenders, a shockingly high proportion of young
offenders or criminals of an age, come from families with serious
problems of one type or another. I know that is so from 22 years
in the classroom in the field of education.
1655
Perhaps there are more people from the field of education in
this parliament than ever before in the history of the Canadian
parliament. These educators know. They have seen it. When a
young person acting out and getting in trouble at school
unfortunately slides into youth crime, in a shockingly high
percentage of cases we are dealing with a young person who comes
from a “problem family”.
It is extremely important as a government to support Canadian
families more effectively. I am very proud of the fact the
government has made several steps in that direction. It needs to
go further and I hope it will. I for one intend to encourage
that so that we will do even more to promote healthy family life
as a way of preventing and minimizing the chances of young
offenders being involved crime and crime in general.
I can speak specifically to several important initiatives
undertaken in the past and previous budgets. One initiative was
increasing the child tax credit for families that wish to have
one of the parents stay at home with the children. They wish to
exercise the option my wife and I exercised as a mutual decision.
There ought to be recognition that those families are making a
very important contribution to society and to raising good
children.
The increase in the child tax credit and the increase in support
for poor families by removing them from the tax rolls in the last
budget are very real and tangible ways the government has tried
to support families. We need to and will do more.
Another initiative is the increase in the child care expense
deduction for families that choose not to have one of the parents
at home or through whatever situation cannot have one of the
parents at home with the children. There is also the case of a
single parent family where the single parent must work to support
the children. Increasing the child care expense deduction was a
important improvement in supporting those families.
I may be considered old fashioned, but if so I proudly say I
think many of the problems in Canada begin with problem families.
That is not to be simplistic. To me it is quite obvious. I am
proud of the initiatives the government has undertaken to improve
support for Canadian families. I look forward to even further
increases over the next three budgets during the time we intend
to be in office and hopefully for many more thereafter.
A third area that has come to my attention repeatedly in the
town hall meetings I have held on a regular basis with my
constituents and in many calls and letters I receive as all
members receive is the need to be more cognizant of justice to
victims, better treatment for victims. Perhaps the pendulum has
swung too much toward being so concerned about the rights of the
accused that we have failed to take proper care of victims and to
respect their rights.
I am pleased to see the initiatives the minister is undertaking
to begin to do more to improve the treatment of victims.
Specifically what? Better access to information for victims. The
notion that the minister has put forth for discussion with other
governments of a central victims office for victims who are
trying to obtain information so that they are not tied up in a
bureaucratic maze. They could get the information and the legal
protection they need much more quickly and much more readily and
could deal with their situations much more effectively.
The whole idea needs to be explored. The minister is committed
to exploring the necessity of having victim impact statements
play a much greater role in court cases and in sentencing
convicted persons. We have seen more of this in the last few
years. There is much more room for it. I am pleased the
minister has indicated she is moving in that direction.
I sensed a fair bit of support from some of my colleagues
opposite of a number of my comments. I suspect at this point we
may digress.
1700
I want to move to the area of the firearms debate, the Bill C-68
debate we all lived through. I thought it had begun to wrap up,
but I am hearing some points raised from hon. members opposite. I
have a number of concerns about some of the statements I have
heard. I do not purport to be an expert on this topic. I never
did. I will simply state the following.
I know what the officials in my community think. I was pleased
that the Reform Party held a convention in London, Ontario a
couple of weeks ago. They were very welcome and they have been a
nice economic boost to London, Ontario. I had a lot of good
feedback from the Reform members of how impressed they were with
our community. We were pleased to hear that.
Let me share with my colleagues opposite the views of the people
of London, Ontario. They expressed them without any reservation
to me and my colleagues in the past term.
First of all, the well-respected and nationally known chief of
police in London, Ontario, Julian Fantiono, came on my monthly
show which I hold on cable television for my constituents. He
obviously was not going to be partisan supporting me, but in a
very non-partisan, clear and effective statement he outlined why
he as the chief of police of London, Ontario fully, totally and
completely supported the registration of firearms. His
explanation was not at all nebulous. Let me share the key point of
it with my colleagues who question the value of this.
Chief Fantiono and other experts across this country have said
that registration of firearms will improve the safety of the
public, particularly front line officers working for the chief
who attend at a crime scene or a potential crime scene.
Registration of firearms will lead to more effective police work
in tracking down weapons used in the commission of crimes and in
the conviction of criminals using those weapons.
This is interesting. As soon as we quote experts who disagree
with some of the members, they do not want to hear those
opinions. That may be the case. What I am putting forward are
not my personal explanations about the necessity of registration
of firearms. I am putting forward the views of Chief Julian
Fantiono, that I have on tape and which I would be glad to share
with my sceptical colleagues opposite. I have heard these views
shared by chiefs of police coast to coast to coast.
There is a very real value in the minds of the chiefs of police
and front line officers in the registration of legal firearms. To
me it is nonsense to say that criminals are not going to register
their firearms and therefore no one should have to. The chief
simply said his word for that was “nonsense”.
The member for Crowfoot has raised some very important points
about the validity of this whole action by the government. Let
me share with him some other facts from London, Ontario and my
riding of London—Fanshawe. These are based on hundreds of
inputs by phone calls, responses to a questionnaire that went to
every household in my riding, meetings which I attended
specifically on Bill C-68 and general meetings throughout the
term where this topic came up. Seventy per cent of my
constituents clearly supported the government in its action.
Despite the heckling of the members opposite, those facts do not
change.
Reference was made to election results somehow questioning the
validity of Bill C-68. I would point out that in the province of
Ontario in the last federal election certain colleagues of mine
on our side of the House were targeted by the opponents to Bill
C-68. They were targeted specifically for their support of that
bill to try and have them lose the election. The reality is that
every single one of those people who sought re-election is back
here and where the people did not seek re-election, the Liberal
replacement candidate is in this House now.
I would suggest to my friend from Wild Rose that you have to be
careful when you draw results of elections, be they provincial or
federal, highlighting one issue and drawing conclusions.
There is evidence on this side that Bill C-68 did not defeat any
Liberal MPs in the province of Ontario. I think that evidence is
very clear for anyone to see.
1705
Madam Speaker, subject to your ruling I have some facts on the
estimates in terms of the economic performance of the government
that I would be quite happy to move to if that is in order at
this time. Could I ask for your guidance on that now? Could I
move to the area of economic performance of the government as it
relates to the estimates?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I am
afraid that the debate must remain on Motion No. 1 on justice.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, at another time I will be
pleased to highlight the outstanding economic performance of the
government and remind Canadians and the members in the House of
that.
In conclusion and I say this with respect, if it really is a
seriously intended motion of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, obviously I cannot support it.
It would literally handcuff the Department of Justice in the
duties it now has to carry out. It would also make impossible a
number of very important initiatives that I have tried to outline
today. With those remarks, I say I cannot support the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have a few questions for my distinguished colleague, the hon.
member for London—Fanshawe, who is also the president of the
Canada-Ireland committee.
The hon. member introduced himself earlier as a teacher of 22
years and a councillor in his lovely town for 11 years. To
become a teacher, one must have one essential quality and that
is fairness.
Had he had favorites in his class, our colleague, the hon.
member for London—Fanshawe would certainly not have had such a
long career because, as he knows, there is nothing that students
hate more than unfairness.
How can this member explain that Ontario and Quebec have their
own police forces, namely the Sûreté du Québec in Quebec and the
OPP in Ontario, while in the other provinces, police services
are provided to municipalities by the RCMP?
The federal government bills the other provinces, or the RCMP,
for only a fraction of the actual costs. As a result, with 60%
of the population, Ontario and Quebec pay 60% of the costs
incurred by municipalities and provinces served by the RCMP.
That is one example of unfairness.
Had he been this unfair as a teacher or city councillor, he
would have been kicked out. When hit with a claim from Ontario
and Quebec, which pay for part of the police services provided
outside these two provinces, his government refuses to pay up.
Douglas Young, who used to sit over there, did not care about
poor people. He unilaterally abolished POWA, a program designed
to help older laid-off workers. He abolished it unilaterally,
without consulting any province, simply stating he would come up
with another program, a superior program of course, to replace
it with. We are still waiting.
1710
In my riding, the average age of the 305 workers who were laid
off at the asbestos mine is over 52. A good number of these
workers contributed to employment insurance for 25, 30 or 32
years. Now they are only being given 55% of their insurable
earnings.
Worse still, Clermont Bégin, a 63-year-old former asbestos mine
worker, has seen his EI benefits cut off by the human resources
development office in Thetford because he did not tour the
riding every day to look for a job. How can you expect the
Liberal Party of Canada to instil a sense of justice in this
country?
I now go back to my main question to the distinguished member
for London—Fanshawe.
Does he find it fair that Ontario and Quebec pay for 25% or 30%
of the costs of police services in municipalities and other
provinces without compensation from the federal government?
Better yet, if the federal government charged municipalities and
provinces for every dollar spent, then the money demanded from
the Treasury Board for the justice budget would be much lower
than the current $193 million.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from Frontenac—Mégantic for his important questions.
He has noted my involvement in the Canada-Ireland
interparliamentary friendship group and I thank him for that
commercial.
I will not belabour the point other than to simply say in the
most serious way I can that if there is a country in the world
perhaps where we can see the results of there being no control or
very inadequate control over firearms and other dangerous
weapons, I think that unfortunately the country of my ancestors
is a very ready example of where the problem can lead to whatever
the motivation is behind it.
The most relevant question my colleague asked was that the
provinces of Quebec and Ontario have their own police forces
whereas in other provinces those services are provided by the
RCMP. That is quite true, but of course as we know, the other
eight provinces contract for the services. They pay for the
services by the RCMP.
La belle province du Quebec and the province of Ontario choose
to have their own police forces. They would not have to have
their own police forces if they did not choose to. They could
apply for the same service to be contracted with the RCMP. I
think it is a reflection of the size of the two provinces, Quebec
and Ontario, that they wish to have their own police forces.
As for municipal forces, my friend again mentioned my
involvement in municipal government. While I well know there is
no requirement for my city of London, Ontario to have its own
municipal force, it chooses to have it. The taxpayers of the
city of London fund it and are prepared to do so on a priority
basis. There are smaller communities near my riding such as the
town of Exeter just to the north of London. A number of those
communities are now saying that perhaps they cannot afford their
own municipal force any more.
The decisions my colleague refers to really are choices in my
view that the municipalities across Canada make, be they in
Ontario or Quebec. In the example he cited, the choices of the
provinces of Quebec and Ontario to have their own police forces
are choices the people and their governments have made
provincially.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.
I understand the compassion he has for people who are suffering
in our land. I understand the member quite clearly on those
things. I know he is concerned about the poverty that exists in
this country. He also suggested that a lot of these problems can
lead to crime.
1715
I agree that possibility exists.
In 1993 it was quoted in this House that there were
approximately a million children starving, living in poverty in
this land, and that we needed to do something. The latest figure
I heard is a million. Evidently we are not making much progress.
When I look at the public accounts I do not want to support this
motion either, but I have a fear that this money is going to go
for a golf course or other ridiculous things. Are we going to
spend money on transition to adulthood, $105,00; sexual
dissidence in historical context, $23,000; infants understanding
how people act, $75,000; institutional change in household
behaviour in rural China, $55,000; sexual behaviour of senior
citizens, $116,000. I feel good about that being a senior. That
is what this government has spent. Then we talk about the
billions of dollars given to companies like Bombardier or a $25
million free flag giveaway. This spending is going on.
Does the member agree that is good spending or should we
redirect that money to those poverty ridden places and give a
chunk of that money to the children's societies of Ottawa and
Toronto and every city and stop this foolish spending that goes
on? Believe me it exists. Sell the charter jets that these
members in the front row fly around in. They should sell them
and take economy flights like the rest of us try to. Save bucks
and help these people. When is it going to stop on that side?
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, they are important
questions.
I agree with the member for Wild Rose that a priority of our
government spending ought to be poorer families and children in
poorer families, to assist them for a number of reasons, one of
which is to reduce the likelihood that some of these young people
would find themselves in a criminal situation.
I concede readily as an MP, and I am sure any colleague on my
side would, that I do not support every single dollar spent by
this government on every single project.
Madam Speaker, you ruled me out of order to tell the very good
economic story, so I will have to wait for another time to do
that. I know the member will be anxiously waiting for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on the Main Estimates, within this debate
on supply.
As we know, the President of Treasury Board intends to allocate
$194 million to the Department of Justice for the coming fiscal
year.
I have examined the estimates presented by the President of
Treasury Board with great interest and great care. I have just
recently discussed them with a few of my colleagues, including
the hon. members for Châteaugay, Frontenac—Mégantic, Rosemont and
Champlain.
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was
unable to join in our discussion on this vital issue.
Looking at the government's proposal with great interest and
great care, one can see that this $194 million budget allocation
to the Department of Justice shows just how much this government
lives from day to day, without any road map or compass, and
practically without giving its actions any thought.
They move from one slapdash policy to another without an overall
plan, and this is unfortunate.
I could give numerous examples to illustrate this, the first
being of course the reference to the Supreme Court. As we know,
in 1980 the Government of Quebec and all the people of Quebec
voted on a rather specific question concerning
sovereignty-association.
The federal government of the day, led by Prime Minister Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, accepted the rules for consultation of the
people of Quebec.
They said at the time that it was democratic and that it was
accepted. Trudeau's participation implicitly validated the
referendum process in Quebec.
1720
Although at that time the question also concerned Quebec
sovereignty, another consultation was held after 1992, again in
accordance with the Quebec referendum legislation. Again the
federal government took part, at Charlottetown, and validated
the Quebec referendum act.
In 1995 there was a referendum campaign. The debate was fierce,
fair, and intense, but it was always serene.
This is the great quality that Quebeckers have. They had a calm
and peaceful debate on the future of a country to be, Quebec,
and therefore of an existing one, Canada, which shows that the
Quebec society is a perfect model of democracy.
Of course, the federal government took part in the process. The
then Prime Minister, who is still the Prime Minister—although I
do not know for how much longer—also got involved by organizing
rallies and appearing on television to discuss the impact of
sovereignty. The result of the vote was so close that neither
side can really claim victory.
In light of this, the federal government said “Since I almost
lost, I will change the rules of the game. I will deny
Quebeckers the right to decide their own future, as they did in
1980, 1992 and 1995”. What did the government do to achieve
this?
It asked the supreme court to rule on the issue.
This is like having a problem with the fence between our
property and that of our neighbour and telling him “Listen, we
have a problem with the fence. I will ask my best friend, whom I
will pay, to make a decision”. This is what is happening with
the supreme court. The judges are appointed by the federal
government. They are paid by the federal government. Not only
that, but they are interpreting a document, the Constitution of
Canada, which was never recognized by any Quebec government,
whether federalist or sovereignist. So, the decision is removed
from the hands of the people of Quebec and handed over to an
unelected authority, the supreme court.
It is sad to see that this unilateral action by the federal
government takes us back 150 years.
Back then, in the 1830s, the elected assembly, the people's
democratic representatives, wanted to wrest power from an
oligarchy appointed by the Imperial government in London. It
was this debate that led to the rebellion and that later, much
later, led to responsible government.
By going back 150 years, this government is deciding to take
away Quebeckers' right to decide on their own future and giving
it to nine individuals it has appointed, who are interpreting a
document it produced without Quebec's consent.
As the current Minister of Justice herself has said, this
reference will bring absolutely nothing new to the debate from a
constitutional point of view. We can even tell you what the
court's ruling will be.
It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money, all for the purpose
of hijacking democracy in Quebec.
I will give another example of how little the government—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the hon.
member. All Speakers of the House have always considered
references to magistrates and tribunals unparliamentary when
they took the form of a personal attack or blame.
I will therefore ask the hon. member to choose his words
carefully and to be careful about attacking the court.
1725
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, on this point of order,
members will recall the Reform Party motion of not so long ago
in which they debated the position of the judicial arm vis-à-vis
the legislative and executive. Numerous questions were asked
about the nature of supreme court appointments. The Prime
Minister even appointed some of his former law office colleagues
to the supreme court. These debates were allowed by the Speaker
of the House. As democratically elected representatives, we are
therefore perfectly entitled to speak about appointments and the
operation of the supreme court.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. You are right, we can speak of such things, but at
some point there is a limit and we have to stop there.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order—and
I do hope this time will not be subtracted from my speaking
time—I would like someone to tell me where I went overboard,
because I have followed the rules of debate ever since I was
elected to this House on June 2 last.
Its handling of the young offenders issue is another example of
how completely out of touch with reality this government is. The
Liberal government plans to spend huge amounts on reforming the
Young Offenders Act. The intention is laudable; we are always in
favour of fighting crime.
Unfortunately, as mentioned repeatedly by stakeholders from
various communities, the problem with the Young Offenders Act is
not the act itself, but rather its enforcement.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who is
unfortunately not in the House, even stated candidly on national
television that the main purpose of this reform was to placate
public opinion, especially in western Canada, and give the
impression the government was taking charge in this matter. But
the fact is no policy can be worse than a policy guided by petty
politics and by the desire to court public opinion in any given
part of the country.
Everyone in the community agrees that the enforcement of the
Young Offenders Act by Quebec is exemplary. Many stakeholders in
Quebec and even outside Quebec have said so.
Not only does the Quebec government understand and enforce this
legislation designed to rehabilitate young offenders, but it has
applied the provisions of this act better than anybody else.
The Bloc Quebecois criticized this reform, because it is a
reform for Reform's sake or worthy of Reform. The new bill on
young offenders aims to brand young offenders. It thus runs
counter to the objective of rehabilitation that is, that should
be and that was at the very heart of the legislation on young
offenders.
Rather than implement rehabilitation or education programs for
young offenders, the Minister of Justice is capitulating to
western pressure, in favour of sentences and their reinforcement
and the hardening of the attitude to this problem, which affects
us all.
In this regard, I must denounce in the strongest possible terms
the attitude of this government, which penalizes the province,
namely Quebec, applying its own legislation in the best way
possible.
The federal government owes $77 million for the application of
its law in Quebec, and it has yet to pay one cent.
I find that unspeakable, and there is no shortage of words to
criticize this attitude, which is totally unacceptable on the
part of this government. True to form, the federal government
is refusing to pay and it is logical to think that this matter
will drag on, proving once again that the federal government
does not honour its commitments.
1730
I have given an account of the useless reform to the Young
Offenders Act. Once again, there are a lot of other things to
talk about. Now, I would like to move on to discuss Bill C-37,
the Judges Act.
Without Bill C-37, what is the status of judges' salaries? On
April 1, 1997, judges were entitled to an increase of 2.08%. On
April 1, 1998, they had another increase of 2.08%, which is
pretty good, given that many officials and public sector
employees did not get such an increase. So that is something
already.
The government decided to give the judges, with Bill C-37, a 4.1%
increase effective April 1, 1997, retroactively, and another
4.1% effective April 1, 1998, also retroactive. This means an
increase of over 13% in the salary of this country's
magistrates.
At the same time, there are cuts to health, forced hospital bed
closings, cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, and a
surplus of $20 billion in the employment insurance fund. What
happens? Instead of returning these funds to the most
disadvantaged members of our society, to women and children
living below the poverty line, they decide to turn it over to
people who, important as they may be, are not necessarily in
need of a 13%-plus raise.
This is not to say that the judges do not deserve a raise in
salary, nor that they do not do a good job. What we are saying
is that, in today's economic and budgetary context, it is high
time to make some enlightened choices, it is high time to make
some fair choices. The duty of all parliamentarians, of all
governments, is first of all to give priority to the most
disadvantaged members of society, and this government has
steadfastly refused to do so, ever since 1993, when they were
first elected as a majority government.
It is a matter of societal choices. We have seen all this.
What are this government's priorities? The money goes to the
judges, rather than the disadvantaged. Money is spent on
denying Quebeckers the right to determine their own future.
Instead of respecting their commitments and the very logic of
the Young Offenders Act, which is the rehabilitation of
delinquent youth, it has been decided to brand them as
criminals.
Those are three examples of the lack of direction, of the lack
of wise choices, and the lack of judgment demonstrated by this
government in the area of justice.
In closing, let me say that this is proof of how much this
government is out of touch with reality. I hope that, when the
time comes to make choices, and to vote on this, all of my
colleagues in this House will realize that this request for
appropriation absolutely must be turned down.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a pleasure to speak when you are in the chair.
I thank my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. I am sure
you will not mind my pointing out that he is certainly one of
our more talented members. I think my colleagues would give him
a boisterous round of approval.
Two points must be made. As the member for Beauce is apparently
not up to it, I will make them myself. First, there is a
concern that must be noted, and that is the concern over
organized crime. We have spoken about this on several
occasions. The member for Berthier—Montcalm pointed out how,
somewhere around 1995—you were already in the House of Commons,
Mr. Speaker—we fought for anti-gang legislation.
1735
We got it, not only because of our perseverance and our powers
of persuasion in those days, but because we convinced the
government that it was not possible for us to win this war
without the help of lawmakers.
I will tell you one thing that could be done, and I would like
to hear what my colleague thinks of this. The Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, which is a fairly neutral
group—the member for Beauce will agree that we are not talking
about a pocket of sovereignists or a breeding ground for
indépendantistes—has asked the government to take one thousand
dollar bills out of circulation because this denomination
encourages money laundering and is obviously of no use to the
average citizen.
If I did an informal survey and asked those hon. members who
have $1,000 in their pockets to raise their hands, it seems to
me I will find few Conservatives, no Bloc Quebecois members and
probably no government members either.
All this to say that we made a very reasonable suggestion to the
government to fight organized crime and the underworld, but the
government did not act on it. I think the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, who is quite familiar with this issue, will agree
that there are no concrete measures.
Why should we agree—and this is the real issue—to support the
budget proposed for a department that did not have the courage
to take the necessary measures to fight organized crime?
I want to ask my nice, attractive colleague from Charlesbourg
whether he agrees that the government could, among other things,
have acted on the proposal made for the past two years by the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and withdraw the $1,000
bank notes. If the hon. member has other ideas, I wonder if he
could share them with us.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank
the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question.
I would like to start by mentioning why the previous legislature
passed anti-gang legislation. It was thanks to the perseverance
and the initiative of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who
was one of the first to raise this important issue in this
august Chamber. This is the perfect example, one of the
examples, of the situation where a member decides to push an
issue and succeeds in changing things.
As to the withdrawal of the $1,000 bill, I am sorry to say I
have never had one in my possession. A number of my colleagues
opposite have no doubt had a few in their pocket, but this is
unfortunately not true in my case.
Perhaps one reason the government is refusing to take $1,000
bills out of circulation is that one day, in the quest for
visibility, the Prime Minister might put his face on the bill.
That said, this question obviously warrants consideration. I
take note of the proposal by the Association of Canadian Chiefs
of Police and I am eager to meet with them to discuss the terms
of such an operation.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take part in the debate on the Estimates,
especially the $193 million allocated to the Department of
Justice. That is a lot of money.
It reminds me of the surplus in the EI fund, which will
apparently top $20 billion by the end of the 1998-99 fiscal year.
I wonder whether we could not have the Department of Justice pay
for itself, the way EI is expected to.
As my colleague so aptly pointed out earlier, in reference to
young offenders, I have always thought that this was an
investment that could yield dividends. If the government
invested wisely and judiciously in solutions to the problem of
juvenile delinquency, there would surely be fewer inmates being
housed at government expense, for it apparently costs over
$80,000 to keep one inmate in jail.
1740
I now come to my main question for my distinguished colleague,
the member for Charlesbourg. How does he think the government
is being fair when it penalizes those who must resort to EI,
when fewer than 43% are eligible, but must still pay $2.70 for
every $100 of insurable earnings?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, we can indeed talk about
justice in general. It is incredibly wrong and unacceptable to
be accumulating a $20 billion surplus in the employment
insurance fund while the justice department is making all sorts
of wasteful expenditures like the ones I mentioned earlier, to
the tune of $194 million. The government will not use this
surplus to help workers, the asbestos mine workers who are
asking for a POWA assistance program, for instance, because we
must realize that on average the 305 workers at the BC mine,
which has closed down, are over 52 years old.
It is morally wrong for the government to accumulate billions
of dollars in a surplus transferred into the consolidated
revenue fund while refusing to provide the assistance they need
to workers who have worked hard all their lives, working day and
night in mines to put bread and butter on the table for their
families.
It laughs in their face and says “We have a $20 billion surplus
in our coffers. Never mind you, workers over the age of 52 on
average. You will not get any help from us. You can die, we
don't care”. That is what the government is saying. This shows
that the government does not know the first thing about being
fair.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is quite interesting to me as we head into the marathon debate
that is going to 4 a.m. that I am sure the Canadian public will
understand the importance of our staying in this place and
debating until 4 a.m. I am sure we will be even more productive
than we normally are as the midnight hour comes and we move on.
I would like to explain to the millions of viewers why we are
actually going to be here until 4 a.m. This is the new brand of
politics that we heard the leader of the Reform Party and all of
his cohorts talk about during the campaign, how they were going
to do things differently. In all the speeches earlier this
afternoon leading up to this debate we heard—
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is a justice discussion and we are not talking about
elections and things like that. We are off track. We should
bring the debate back to justice.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I bring to the
attention of hon. members that we are discussing under main
estimates Motion No. 1 which has to do with the justice
department's operating expenditures.
As we have asked other members today to stay relevant and on
topic, I also ask the hon. member for Mississauga West to stick
to the subject at hand.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I got two
sentences out and the member is up on a point of order. Certainly
I intend to talk about the justice estimates. To prove there is
in this situation very little justice I was explaining why we are
here to this extent going on until 4 a.m. We are here because the
members opposite seem to think they are the only ones in this
place who have anything to put into the system of justice in the
country.
They come into town riding on their ponies with backs bowed
because of the weight of the guns at their sides, shooting them
up in the air. They are going to solve all of these problems.
These people are just wonderful.
1745
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member has been illustrating the reason we are going to
be here until four in the morning. We are actually going to be
here until four in the morning because of a Liberal motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Okay, we are even.
Let us start all over again.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, would you reset the
clock. I would like a full, uninterrupted 20 minutes. I am sure
that will be difficult. It is quite clear to me what the
strategy is. The thin skinned members on the opposite benches
simply rise every time a member says something they do not agree
with. They interrupt the obvious wonderful flow of the speech in
an attempt to throw the person off. What they fail to understand
is that they simply add ammunition. So, Mr. Speaker, allow them
to carry on if that is what they want to do as we debate this
very important issue of the justice estimates.
The member points out in this debate that we are here because of
a Liberal motion. He is right. I think the people should know
that earlier today, instead of debating the estimates of the
justice department and every other department, we wasted hours of
debate because of the members opposite. They are like the little
kids in school who know the teacher has an apple in the drawer.
They are all planning. They say “You divert their attention and
when they are not looking, the member from White Rose is going to
sneak up and steal the apple and he is going to run back to his
seat”.
An hon. member: White Rose?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well maybe he could not sneak up.
There would not be much running and there would not be a lot of
sneaking. But they are going to steal the teacher's apple. They
think “Oh goody goody” and they run back. This is the new kind
of politics the Reform Party has brought to Ottawa. Reform
members are stealing apples. It is truly a remarkable thing to
watch.
When Canadians watch the debate in this place they must wonder
“What are these guys talking about? They are supposed to be
debating estimates and spending”. The government record is
quite extensive. We are supposed to be talking about how we have
managed the debt, about how when this government took office we
inherited a $42 billion deficit, get the size of that. Most
people would look at that and say there is no hope, there is no
opportunity, there is no chance for us to get out of this
terrible hole.
That is not what this government did. We reduced the size of
government by $14 billion. It is a smaller government. It is
more efficient.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know what this member's speech has to do with
the motion. It is supposed to be on justice and on the
estimates. What in the world is he offering this House on this
motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Earlier today I had
the unfortunate responsibility of asking a member opposite to
stay on topic because the hon. member was not on topic. It was a
difficult time for me because she had friends watching. The hon.
member for Crowfoot is quite right. If we are going to be here
debating this, then let us stay on topic and debate Motion No. 1
which has to do with the estimate for the Department of Justice.
Resuming debate on Motion No. 1, the justice department
estimates.
1750
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting.
The members just simply get up and continue to raise the same
issue.
There is no question this debate is on the motion and the
justice estimates. It has to do with the entire estimate
portfolio, indeed the entire reason we are in this place.
Canadians need to know why we are here. That is my point. I
think it is on topic. I know the member would not understand. I
will send him over the written notes with some crayons if he
would like, and he can follow the bouncing ball.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to point out
to the member for Mississauga West that the Chair agrees with the
member for Crowfoot that the member for Mississauga West should
stay on topic. I do not really care whether you think the
opposition thinks you are on topic, it is whether the Chair
thinks you are on topic. The Chair would ask that you stay on
topic.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I
will be on topic. I would not want to lose your confidence.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could refrain if I might respectfully
suggest from accepting frivolous points of order.
In any kind of speech in this place, one must talk about the
broad range of issues as they affect the Canadian taxpayers and
the justice system.
We saw a motion in this place on the Reform Party's idea of what
justice should be in this country. Reformers think they should
have the control over the judges. Of course that would have a
tremendous impact I might add on the estimates, on the spending.
I would suggest that in the Reform Party's attitude toward
justice—and I do not know how many times you want me to mention
the word justice but I am quite prepared to do it for the next 10
or 15 minutes just to prove to you that there is indeed justice
in what I am trying to say—there is no justice in what the
Reform Party is putting forward.
Justice I might add is a subjective perspective depending on
your definition of justice. My definition of justice in this
country is a parliamentary democracy with a separate judiciary
that is not influenced by the kind of nonsense we have seen being
perpetrated and which results in a lack of fairness and justice
to the Canadian taxpayer.
The reality is that members of the Reform Party would bring a
new way of doing justice to the Canadian parliament. One of
their ideas was that they thought it was just and the leader of
the Reform Party thought it was just which thereby would imply a
certain amount of justice, if he were not to occupy Stornoway.
He said “If I am elected I will not occupy Stornoway”. Where
is the justice?
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is the fourth time the member has been asked to speak to the
motion. If he has nothing to say to this motion, then he ought to
be ruled out of order and go on to the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Crowfoot has made his point.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I suspect members
opposite do not like what I am saying. I am sure they will not
like what I am about to say.
The whole aspect of delivering justice to the Canadian people is
one where this party would strongly disagree with anything that
the justice critic opposite or any of his colleagues would have
to say. Their solution to providing justice in this country is
to change the way the government works in terms of the
relationship with the provinces and municipalities.
The member might not think it is on topic but it clearly is
because everything that goes on in the estimates debate has to do
with what this government is spending. If there is too much
spent in one area, it cannot be spent in another. That is fairly
fundamental and simple for the Canadian people to understand.
What the Reform would do is totally turn our Confederation
upside down. I do not see the justice in that.
Let me share an example. This is from the so-called new Canada
act that Reform has brought forward. For the member's comfort I
will relate it back to the issue at hand here.
1755
The Reform Party's suggestion is that the Government of Canada
hereby recognize municipal governments as the first level of
government and agrees to ensure municipal government
representation at federal-provincial conferences.
I was a councillor for almost 10 years. My wife sits on
municipal council in Mississauga in the region of Peel. I have
very strong roots in municipal government.
When we look at the impact of policing, at the impact of clogged
up courts, at the backlog that exists in our community and we look
at the cost of crime in our community, our municipal governments
are very much impacted by the justice estimates and by the entire
justice system. The Reform Party suggests it will recognize them
in some sort of special category.
What Reform does not say is that it is going to transfer all
powers in this federation to the provinces. Guess what happens
when that is done? Guess who takes it in the end? It is the
municipalities because they are creatures of the provincial
governments. They indeed rely on the fairness of provincial
governments to redistribute and pass on assistance in the form of
transfer payments for social services, education, health care and
justice. Municipalities rely on the provinces. Yet Reform would
give with one hand and take away with the other hand and put all
of the pressure on the property tax.
What we would have I would argue is a justice system under the
Reform Party that simply would not have the strength of the
national system. It would not have the backing of the national
taxpayer and the strength of a united Canada. Indeed it would be
put out to the provincial level which in turn would foist it off
on the municipalities and they would wind up putting it on to the
property taxpayer.
I do not care what estimates we want to talk about or debate in
this place. I would remind members opposite that there is only
one taxpayer and that taxpayer pays property tax, sales tax,
provincial taxes and federal taxes. People just do not buy the
rejigging that sounds like wonderful stuff by the Reform Party.
It is a matter of trust.
If we want to talk about who should be responsible for spending
the justice dollar, because that is what we are talking about
here, should it be the federal government?
Would the Canadian taxpayers trust someone, and those members
might not like this example, who said “I am not going to do
this,” and then got elected and immediately did it. “I am not
going to accept the limo,” and now rides around in a limo. “I
am not going to live in Stornoway,” and now lives in Stornoway.
Would the Canadian people trust a party with the estimates in
the justice department that was actually entering into
negotiations with the party that wants to destroy the country?
They would form what was it called, the Re-Bloc party. Imagine a
justice system that was run by some coalition, separatists
yanking power away from the central federation, trying to take
everything back into their hands so they can do it their way, and
another party bent on regional disparities. Imagine what kind of
a justice system that would be. I was asked to speak about
justice issues and I am doing that.
I see the hon. member for Saint John who I was going to suggest
should indeed be the leader of the united right. There might then
at least be some type of tempering, instead of the extremists,
instead of this particular leader of this particular party.
The question is what are the average Canadians' views of
politicians and what they stand for and what they say they will
do?
1800
We are talking about things that are as critical and as
important as the administration of justice in this country. This
country was built on democratic principles that are envied all
over the world. We are not only envied for our justice system,
we are also envied for the success that we have had with our
fiscal programs since 1993.
In fact, the deputy minister of finance, Mr. Scott, appeared
before the public accounts committee earlier today. This
certainly impacts on justice estimates because there is only so
much money to go around in every department. Every department
must get its allocation and we would say that our justice system
and our justice department should indeed have clear access to a
fair allocation of the national revenue.
The deputy minister talked about what a job this government has
done since 1993. It has put the justice department and every
other department on firm, sound financial footing. There is no
question that without fiscal responsibility there would be no
justice. There is no question that without strong leadership
there would be no justice.
It is absolutely clear to me that the policies that are espoused
by the Reform politicians to totally denigrate the Canadian
institution, to totally denigrate the justice system and to turn
it over to the hands of pork-barrel politicians is wrong. It is
not justice. It is not something this government or the Canadian
people will tolerate, no matter how much they get up with their
puffery and their nonsense. The Canadian people know that in
Reform's policies there is clearly no justice.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we endured the rantings of the member opposite for
the last 20 minutes. It seemed like a lifetime. However, he did
make two very interesting and truthful points in his last
statement.
First, he said that the justice system cannot survive without
strong leadership. We agree with that. That is why we have been
encouraging the Liberals to take some leadership and put some
justice back into the legal system that they created for their
lawyer friends out there in legal land.
The other thing the hon. member said was that there is no
justice and then he went on to rant about something else. But I
caught that phrase and he is absolutely right. There is no
justice in this country.
If he believes that we have a workable justice system in this
country, then why on earth are we hearing this huge outcry from
Canadians from coast to coast to coast, railing against the
justice system at every opportunity, at every town hall meeting,
at every rally where they can possibly make their voices heard?
Why do we have that all across this country if, in his opinion,
we have a justice system that works?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, with the extreme view
that this group wants to take of the justice system, we get the
feeling that there is a lynch mob walking down the street with a
noose. They are tightening the knot and they are banging on the
sheriff's door saying “Let me have that person out here. We are
going to string him up”.
1805
They want to give that impression. It is just not the truth. I
will admit that there are problems in the justice system, but any
system with people in it will have problems. There is no
question. There are good guys and bad guys. There is no
question that there are difficulties.
This government is committed to ensuring that there is
stability. That is the key, bringing stability into the justice
system. Do not subject it to the possibility of having a judge
run for election or giving a parliamentarian the power to
overturn a judge's decision.
Appeal it, yes; repeal it, no. Stability will maintain good
justice in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
listening to my hon. colleague, I am reminded of this old Jesuit
proverb “Those whose thinking lacks depth make up for it with
length”. We have seen a lot of that today.
What I want to ask my hon. colleague, in a very friendly way, is
this. Does he not think that, beyond the statement he made in
this House in praise of the justice system, there are serious
flaws in the Canadian judicial system, particularly with respect
to human rights?
Does my hon. colleague agree with the Prime Minister, his
government and party leader, who said earlier this week that one
of the differences between the Reform Party and the Liberal
Party was the fact that the Liberals were in favour of
recognizing same sex couples while the Reformers took a more
traditional view of the family? Does he agree with recognizing
same sex couples, which is basically a human rights issue?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite
proves that some thoughts are neither long nor deep. However, I
would suggest that the question is a fair question. In fact, the
Reform Party put the issue under some disguise yesterday when it
put its motion forward. It tried to wrap it in the justice
system.
If the member wants, he could look at my remarks in
Hansard. It is my view that one should neither get rights
nor lose rights because of their sexual orientation. I have no
difficulty with that. It is important that both of those are
taken in context: one should neither get rights nor lose rights
because of their choice of sexual orientation.
I do not much care what anyone does with their own private life.
I do not think it drives a political agenda. We should not
discriminate against anyone in this country. It is unfair.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my hon. colleague about gun registration. According
to the government, when it started out it would cost $85 million
over five years. It has ballooned to $133.9 million and
counting.
Why would those members not put $133.9 million into front-line
police officers? We need them in Saint John, New Brunswick. We
need them in every municipality. Why are we wasting this money?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member for Saint John, I believe that we probably do need some
assistance in the form of policing. I know we do in Peel. In
fact, the region of Peel police force recently took over the
policing of Pearson International Airport. It has to find the
money to hire an entire division, 101 officers, in the region of
Peel. They will be contracted out to run the policing system at
Pearson, a facility that I am sure members use.
The member's question was about gun control. I think the
Canadian people have spoken very clearly on that issue. We do
not want to see what we tragically see every day in the news in
the United States of America.
My goodness, we register our dogs in this country. We register
our cars. We register our boats. Why in the world would anyone
object to registering a weapon like a gun that could kill if it
fell into the wrong hands?
1810
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not even know where to start with a guy like this. I do know one
thing. He talked about Reformers wanting to string somebody up.
The last thing I strung up was a balloon for my grandson that was
full of hot air, and he certainly qualifies for that job.
The member did not address the previous question at all
concerning the registration of firearms. There are tonnes of
dollars being spent on the registration of firearms as if
criminals are going to line up to register their guns
immediately. It is not going to save one life.
I have challenged the ministers of the past and the present that
if they could prove to me that it will save one life then I would
support it today. However, they cannot because it will not. It
is a big waste of money.
How can a person like this get up and constantly talk about the
problems we are having in our country, starving families,
children in poverty and unbelievably high unemployment in regions
of our land, and still be willing to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars on a program that will not work?
Stick to the question on registration and answer the question.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have
accomplished something in a day if I can get the member from
White Rose a little agitated.
Some hon. members: Wild Rose.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: My apologies, Wild Rose. He is wild,
I must say.
I am happy to talk about this because it is such a simple issue.
Although maybe it is not. If it was, maybe they would understand
it. The reality is that I am not willing to stand here and take
this member's challenge. His challenge is for me to prove that
this will save one life. Does that require a death? Does it
require that kind of activity?
The common sense of this is so clear. We have hundreds of
thousands of weapons that are not registered and, in many cases,
not cared for in this country and nobody should be adverse to
registering them. No one should object to this. As I said
before, we register our vehicles. We register ourselves. We
register most of our animals, at least the four-legged kind.
I do not understand where these people come from when they say
we should not register guns. We absolutely must follow through
with this. It is a commitment to the people of Canada and the
people of Canada spoke in the last election on this issue very
clearly.
Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Speaker made comments earlier concerning debate. In debate
the first person up is the person who is recognized. The rules
that apply in question period are not the same rules that apply
in debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In debate it goes
back and forth. In questions and comments the Chair will see
members on the opposition benches before the Chair will see
members from the same party in debate. It just makes sense and
that has always been the case and will continue to be the case.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Obviously the House was really enjoying the question and answer
session with the hon. member for Mississauga West, so I would
like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue the
question and answer session with the hon. member for five or 10
minutes, whatever the Chair sees fit.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to extend the question and comment period up to 10 minutes.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
1815
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, speaking on justice, the member on the government side
was asking what the definition of justice is. My first reaction
was getting rid of the Liberal government. We are working on
that.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Angela Vautour: How interesting, we get a reaction once in a
while. They appear to feel threatened, and they have every
reason to.
I welcome this opportunity today to speak on justice. There are
problems in this respect. We often disagree with the Reform
Party, which claims that this country's judicial system is a
mess. This seems to be a very serious problem out west, where
the Reform Party got many members elected. I cannot help but
wonder if there is connection there.
In Atlantic Canada, we know that the top priority, especially in
New Brunswick, is job creation.
There are certainly serious problems with justice. As a woman,
I must also point out that women may have particular grounds for
concern about justice. Many women are involved in violent
situations and our system does not respond properly to their
needs.
I speak about women because of my own experiences. But men have
the same experiences sometimes, and children often do. I shall
speak mainly of women, however, because we know that there is a
serious problem of violence against women, whether physical,
mental or sexual.
What is sad is that the process a woman has to go through to try
to get the abuser stopped is a very long one and one that can
cost her her life.
For instance, a woman takes her partner before a judge and there
it is acknowledged that violence took place, that he stabbed or
shot her, if she is still around to testify. Sometimes it is a
matter of threats.
If threats are involved, the judge issues a a restraining order.
This is just a piece of paper. The judge signs it, and hands it
over, saying “Don't try to kill her next week”.
There is a problem here. There should be a system in place for
when a woman is in acknowledged danger, a process of counselling
for these individuals. Just handing over a piece of paper
saying “Don't try to kill her next week” does not solve the
problem. The person who wants to do harm to this woman feels
justified in doing so. This must be acknowledged and efforts
must be made to determine why he thinks that way and convince
him that he is not justified.
There is no justification for attacking someone. There is no
justification for raping someone.
When judges have these people before them, there ought to be
laws forcing them into therapy.
As things stand now, once they leave the courthouse, there is no
follow up.
1820
That is what happened about two years ago in Toronto, and there
have certainly been other incidents since then. Every week, we
hear stories on the news about domestic violence resulting in
death. Often, children are involved and are also victims. We
must work and make resources available to try to stop this
vicious cycle. It is a cycle that is costing people their
lives, a cycle in which children learn from what they see, and
our institutions end up full of criminals, and people wonder
why.
I must say that I was pleased to learn that our solicitor
general had announced funding for prevention. That is a start.
I must congratulate him. We will see how the $32 million is
used, because there are serious problems. And throwing everyone
into jail will not solve the problem. Locking them up is not
the answer. The majority of inmates in our institutions will
eventually be released and an effort must be made to see that
these people are better and not worse when they get out.
The solution to the problem is prevention with our young people
and assistance to families that need it. That is how we will
lower the crime rate in this country. We must make sure that
the government's decisions do not make the problem worse. I am
not prepared to say that the increase in the poverty rate will
help, because when people are poor and have nothing to eat, they
will perhaps rob the corner store.
They lack the necessary resources and perhaps did not have the
access they should have had to post-secondary education. All
this adds to crime in this country.
It is a crime there is poverty in this country. There should be
none. So long as we do not try to eliminate poverty here, we
will not be dealing with prevention. First we need good,
healthy people. We need people who are comfortable with
themselves to make good choices.
To return to the judges, they too need education. I was reading
in the paper this morning or yesterday about a man who may have
raped his partner because he did not understand that no meant
no. He thought she did not mean it, because he had already had
sexual relations with her. He was found not guilty, because he
did not know the difference.
I did not hear the case, I have reported what I read, but it is
food for thought. Even if we said yes yesterday, it does not
mean we will say yes tomorrow. No is no, yesterday, today or
tomorrow. We cannot have judges in this country who think it is
all right for the accused to think the other person said yes.
For sure there are big problems in rural communities, where the
level of unemployment is even higher. The solicitor general
announced the appointment of 1,000 more prison guards in the
country. We could call that positive right off, but we might
ask ourselves why. No doubt the guards already on the job in
institutions are happy to have help, because with the cuts in
this area, help will certainly improve things.
Poverty is on the rise in this country, the number of prison
guards is on the rise. Is anyone looking at the whole picture?
This worries me, because I see many decisions being taken.
1825
If I look in my riding, the family crisis resource centre in
Shediac is working very hard to eliminate family violence and
family crime in general. They are all volunteers who work very
hard. These centres are well organized, offer good service and
help people in trouble. They will find sources of assistance
for people. Money is not pouring into these organizations and
yet, they should have more assistance.
Many volunteers get involved in putting together a half-way
house, a family crisis centre or a crime prevention centre, but
it takes assistance and money. Yet the will is there. There
are many volunteers raising money here and there.
Where I come from, people may not have a lot of money, but they
give generously. They deserve to be congratulated. But the
government must not rely on these resources alone.
I think it is too bad that there are such capable people,
willing to do something, very dedicated to the cause, who are
always scrambling for money. There are many of them. The
riding of Kent apparently needs a half-way house. All ridings
need them. There is a need for a very safe place where people
can go. The vicious cycles must be stopped. This is only
possible through prevention and resources.
I needed a half-way house a number of years ago. There was one
in my area in those days. I was able to stay there for three
weeks.
I was able to get therapy. My son was well treated because the
resources were available. Had they not been, I would probably
not be here today, because I would not have been able to get out
of the situation I was in, without the necessary help.
So, when I speak of family violence, I know what I am talking
about, believe me. I know how important it is for these women
to get help free of charge, because not everybody has money set
aside in case they have to get out of the house. Services have
to be there for these people.
They can be teenagers too. There are lots of young people who
turn up every Tuesday. It is nearly always the same ones we see
in court. But they are salvageable.
Priority must be given to this, because no child is born bad.
Society makes them bad, the society we as a government create.
If we create a society, an environment that is not good for our
youth, we must accept the responsibility and go back in time to
see what we did that had a bad outcome. This must be dealt
with, or we will create a world that will not be a nice one.
That is a pity, in my opinion, because often, the resources are
not available. I have often spoken to people in schools, to
teachers and principals. They say “We have loads of kids who
need help, but no resources”. These are young people that can
be helped.
It is very rare for a 6, 7 or 8 year old to have decided to be
bad for life. There are reasons, and often we need to really
get inside these children to find out where the problem lies.
Having a part-time counsellor in a school with 500 students is
not the way to find out the child's problems. Not in the least.
There must be people in the schools who have the time and the
expertise to work with these young people and their parents.
1830
The governments of this country will one day have to establish
the priority. Is it to ensure that major corporations continue
to make profits? Is it to believe things are going well because
the economy has improved, while neglecting social programs?
Poverty and stress are increasing. Think of the stress with the
cutting of 45,000 federal jobs.
Not only are the poor affected, so is the middle class. There
is violence in the middle class. There is violence everywhere.
Family violence is not limited to the poor. Violence can be
found at all levels.
It is the same with young offenders. They do not come just from
poor families. They come from all walks of life. Work needs to
be done with them. Until it is, we are missing the boat and by
a long shot.
I would also like to talk about registration of firearms. Our
constituents are wondering about this too. There is a need to
control firearms. But we should not forget that people who kill
their partners do not always use guns. Controlling firearms
will not resolve all the problems in the world. It will worsen
things in certain situations.
In a rural riding, no price is set for registering firearms. It
keeps going up and up. In the regions, cuts continue to be
made. That means that hunters have a problem. Things are out
of balance. It is a problem for the people in our ridings.
I do not want to put all my eggs in one basket and say that
everyone is safe in the country because the Liberals passed a
bill on registering firearms. That is not true. There are a
lot of disturbing factors there. Responsibilities must be
assumed.
[English]
It is very important that we look at the justice system, at what
works and at what does not work. It can put someone in jail. If
people commit crimes that is their punishment, but have to look
at why they are there and what brought them to that. What is the
percentage of people in jail today who had a terrible past, who
never worked out their past? It is a very large majority. If we
had caught on to that before they committed crimes we would not
be paying $75,000 or $85,000 a year for one person in jail. It
is a lot of money.
That is why we have to look at prevention, not only prevention
once they are 16. We have to look at the whole picture: the
family environment and the policies of governments that perhaps
make it more difficult, and many policies make it very difficult.
We have to make prevention a top priority and provide funds for
it. It should begin in the the schools starting at kindergarten.
All kinds of children may be physically abused or sexually
abused. It does not only start at the age of 10 years. We need
resources available for them if we want to make sure they become
a benefit to the society. Until we do that I have no doubt that
crime will increase.
1835
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
comment on the speech by the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac,
which gets us thinking about domestic violence.
It is true that there are many volunteers doing some really good
work right now. They have the expertise and often work long
hours during the day and even late into the night to prevent
suicides and help people in our society, in Abitibi, in her
riding and in many areas of Canada.
I raise my hat to the member and say to her that we took due
note when she said that prevention is really necessary and that
there must be more family-oriented policies.
Much work must be done, even though the Minister of Justice has
introduced a multi-million dollar plan for Canadians and
families. I congratulate the member. The speech she gave this
evening has made us think about Canada as a whole.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague.
When one has experienced difficulties oneself, one understands.
As I said, I have a 12-year-old son who went through some
difficult times and he had access to resources. My son will do
well in life, I have no doubt, because he had access to
resources, as did I. That is the key to success. That is why
this deserves our attention.
I thank the member for his comments.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking at this point about Motion
No. 1 in relation to spending in the area of justice. I will try
to relate to how much society and government resources are
committed to the area of justice and then relate that to our lack
of satisfaction.
I did a quick addition of how much we will be spending under the
justice and the solicitor general ministries. My addition might
be incorrect but I came up with $2,889,701,564 that we are about
to vote on. That is a tremendous amount of money. Yet it does
not represent the money that may be hidden incidentally in other
departments such as defence, foreign affairs, the environment and
whatnot.
That justice spending does not reflect all the provincial or
municipal budgets for crime prevention and other service programs
or all volunteer organizations that do fundraising to provide
general justice services. That is a tremendous commitment of the
resources of Canadian society to justice, peace and public order.
Yet we have tremendous dissatisfaction and discomfort with all
the services that are delivered.
I would like the member to respond to this inequity, to respond
to how we can have greater value for the dollar and greater
accountability for what we commit as a society to the judicial
area so that the public can have a renewed sense of confidence
that all the resources we spend in this area could not be spent
wisely in other areas.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are happy with
the money we spend on justice when we are spending it the right
way. Spending it only once a crime has been committed is not
spending it the right way. It is not by taking funds away that
we will fix it. It is not by privatizing the institutions as I
know the Reform Party wants to do that we will fix it.
1840
What we need is prevention. We need to give the dollars
necessary to make sure we have the resources available when
someone is in need, when we think someone needs counselling and
there is a need for a teacher to say “I believe this child is
having problems”. We need counsellors in the schools and places
for the kids to go in the evening to play a game or something
where it is healthy, where there are no cigarettes or alcohol.
That is all part of crime prevention. How many communities do
not have a community centre and if they do have one cannot afford
to pay a co-ordinator for the centre? Those are important
factors in our daily lives and our children's daily lives. It is
important they have a healthy place to go to instead of just
hanging around a nice place that may not be nice to hang around.
I believe the Canadian public will not mind that its tax dollars
being spent like that because they are being spent in the right
way.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is a success story when it comes to the economy and how we
as a government handle the finances of the nation. This success
is not only recognized as such within Canada but is certainly
recognized in international circles as well.
To achieve this there had to be and has to be balance between
federal services, deficit control, debt management, economic
growth and other factors. I was quite amazed to note the motion
of the opposition member to reduce justice estimates.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough proposes to
vote down the operating expenditures of the Department of
Justice. If the House approves that motion it would prevent the
Department of Justice from conducting its statutory
responsibilities.
The $193.8 million in operating expenditures required in 1998-99
will allow the department to carry out its responsibility for the
legal affairs of the government as a whole and to provide legal
services to individual departments and agencies. More
specifically these funds will enable the department to continue
to meet its responsibilities under three lines. The first is the
provision of services to the government. The second is the
policy development and administration of the law and the third is
administration.
There are three main areas where the Department of Justice has
lead responsibility. They are criminal justice policy, family
and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce, and
human rights policy. The department also has a lead role in
constitutional law, administrative law, aboriginal justice,
access to information and privacy law, official languages law and
the government's mandate for courts and judges.
The Minister of Justice and her department are responsible for
more than 40 statutes, many of them with major policy
ramifications. The department must anticipate future legal and
societal trends in order to provide timely strategic and
effective responses, to provide leadership both to the government
and the public in understanding the changing legal world, and to
provide guidance in achieving governmental objectives in a manner
consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms, fairness,
equality, accessibility, and effective and efficient legal
policy.
The justice department provides a range of services relating to
the planning, co-ordination, development, promotion and
implementation of justice related policies. The justice
department is moving forward with a balanced and focused policy
agenda which responds to the issues Canadians have identified as
being important to them.
Some of the areas the department is working on includes the
crime prevention strategy, youth justice, victims and the rights
of victims, conditional sentencing, firearms control and many
others. I will elaborate on firearms control.
I want to point out that effective implementation of the firearms
control program is among the Department of Justice's highest
priorities. The regulations required to implement the system
have been made following scrutiny of both houses of parliament
and the system will be functional by October 1, 1998.
1845
Registration together with licensing and the other aspects of the
Firearms Act is aimed at facilitating the continued enjoyment of
sport by responsible owners using safe practices. This will
decrease the risk of gratuitous violence and will promote a
culture which recognizes safety and responsibility.
The new firearms legislation is a positive and effective
contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in
place by the government to further a safe and secure society. The
gun control legislation has the support of a large majority of
Canadians as we all know and is a reflection of a country of
peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.
The Firearms Act is legislation which its opponents seem
determined to distort and misrepresent in addition to denying its
many benefits. Certainly that is most unfortunate. The law
imposes tough criminal penalties on those who choose to use
firearms in the commission of crimes. Even the opponents of the
legislation endorse its strong crime prevention aspects. The
minimum penalties, four years in most cases, inserted into the
Criminal Code for offences committed with firearms send a strong
deterrent message, a message which has been upheld at every state
to date by the courts.
This statute is all about regulating lethal instruments,
articles designed for the most part to kill. This legislation is
not about confiscation. It recognizes that the vast majority of
firearms owners and users are responsible and prudent people. The
practices embodied in the statute reflect the prudent practices
of those responsible people.
The statute strives to encourage a culture of safety in Canada,
a culture which is well ingrained in the activities and
responsibilities of firearm owners.
The legitimate practices of those responsible owners can all be
continued under this statute. Hunters can continue to hunt,
target shooters can continue to shoot targets, buyers and sellers
can continue their activities, collectors and museums can
continue to function and thrive, and responsible owners who carry
out their activities safely have certainly nothing to fear in the
new gun control legislation.
Many of our opponents advocate a situation representing and
respecting firearms such as that which exists in the United
States. It is worthy to note there are 30 times more
firearms in the United States than in Canada. A much higher
proportion of homicides in the United States involves firearms.
On average 65% of homicides in the United States involve firearms
as opposed to 33% in Canada.
Firearm homicide rates per capita in the United States are 7.6
times higher than in Canada. This is unacceptable. The United
States environment respecting guns does not correspond to the
vision of Canadians.
The Firearms Act addresses another crucial social situation,
domestic violence. The Firearms Act requires licensing and
screening of gun owners and will result in specific checking of
probation orders and prohibition orders before licences are
granted.
When fully implemented, all firearms owners will be licensed.
They will have taken a course emphasizing the safety and safe
handling aspects of their sport. The guns they use will be
registered and this will assist the police in enforcement
functions and in tracing the illegal movement or transfer of
firearms. It will encourage owners to store their guns carefully
and it will assist in the recovery of lost and stolen firearms.
The new system will reduce by half the paper work and
administrative tasks which are today performed by police, and
this will put police back on the streets where they belong.
The Firearms Act embraces all these things and is a positive and
effective contributor to the range of criminal and social
measures put in place by our government to further a safe and
secure society. The Firearms Act has the support of a large
majority of Canadians and is reflective of a country of peaceful
communities, safe streets and fairness.
By way of conclusion, I believe the department is managing its
resources responsibly and the department's policy will have an
impact on Canadians' confidence in their justice system.
1850
In addition, the role of the Department of Justice in advising
the government on legal issues and in conducting litigation on
behalf of the crown is vital to the proper functioning of the
Canadian government and Canadian society as a whole.
The department therefore should be given the means to conduct
its responsibilities and I urge all members of the House to vote
accordingly on this measure.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, after
listening to the hon. member speak on the merits of the
government's gun control Bill C-68 I have a question. We are
going to speak shortly on our own party's position so I do not
want to get into that. It is obvious to me the hon. member has a
certain amount of information in front of him but I do not think
he understands any of the differences between Bill C-17 and Bill
C-68.
The effective and important measures and the measures that will
work in this country to prevent crime were all incorporated in
Bill C-17. When this government brought in Bill C-68 it was
simply a tax on ownership of firearms. It had nothing to do with
gun control.
I would like to ask the hon. member how a responsible member of
parliament can consider for a moment that registration of
firearms of law-abiding owners of this country is going to
prevent crime. I would like to know that.
There are literally thousands of guns on the streets. It is
obvious that not one criminal in Canada is going to stand up to
register their firearms, so how do we go to the people who are
not abusing the firearm? Bill C-17 looked after anyone abusing
firearms. There is no sympathy from the Canadian public for
anyone abusing firearms. There is not one iota of sympathy for
that person.
The only people who are going to pay the tax on ownership of
firearms are the honest people who admit they have the firearms
to begin with. How is that going to prevent crime?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question.
I understand only too well the issue with respect to firearms
and the Firearms Act. I sat for 10 years as a member of the
Waterloo regional police commission. As chairman of the Waterloo
regional police we were very much in favour of having this type
of legislation in place which would prevent and assist in terms
of prevention of crime throughout not only our community with
approximately 500,000 people but across Ontario and across
Canada.
What amazed me was that the member's party during the last
election would try to out reform the Reform Party on this very
contentious issue. Instead it should have been leading with us
in the vanguard to ensure that the streets were safe, criminals
were put away and firearms were protected in a manner consistent
with the values and norms of society.
The Canadian people do not like that, do not want that and do
not respect that. What the Canadian people would rather see is
our society as a safe and caring one with caring communities in a
manner consistent with what we as Canadians value.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the question from the member for South Shore. I
noticed there was not an answer given to that question. I think
it deserves an answer.
We have had hand gun registration in Canada since 1935. We have
a long gun or rifle and shotgun registration system based very
much on that same principle. We know there are more hand guns
used in the commission of crimes than ever.
Looking at that model I am wondering if the member for
Waterloo—Wellington can tell us how registering rifles and
shotguns will improve that situation based on the knowledge we
have that it has not improved the situation by having hand guns
registered all this time. I think the member for South Shore
made a very important point.
1855
We know criminals are not going to register their long guns.
They did not register their handguns either, we know that. In
rural areas like I represent, it is a real inconvenience. It is
a high cost for people to register their guns.
It is not going to be as simple as some member suggested, a
postcard style registration mailed back in. We know over 20% of
guns do not have proper serial numbers or duplicates. It is going
to be much more expensive.
The question bears repeating. How is Bill C-68 going to cut down
on crime by causing the registration of riffles and shotguns?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Anything we as a society, anything we as a government, anything
we as a country can do to ensure there are not firearms on the
streets in whatever form will make our society a safer place. I
and most Canadians do not want to go down the path of the
Americans in this regard. We do not want the kind of crime that
exists in the United States. Our values and system of norms and
what we hold dear as a society are very strong.
As a society we need to ensure we take weapons out of the hands
of people who commit crime. In doing that we have put in place
the kind of laws which enable us to do that. They ensure Canada
remains distinct in this area, rightfully so, and in the process
allows police to do the kind of work they are best charged to do,
to get back on the streets and make sure our communities are safe
and sound for everyone. Canadians deserve that and we owe that to
our young people.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the member has not answered the question. He said he
wants to take weapons out of the hands of people who commit
crimes. The people who are registering these guns are
law-abiding Canadian citizens. They are not committing crimes
with these guns.
Why can the member not understand the question? It is put about
as simply as we can possibly put it. The question is how will
this expensive registry get weapons off the streets and make
Canada safer.
This program originally was to cost $85 million or $87 million,
whatever the magic number was that the justice minister of the
day happened to invent. We now know that it is going to be at
least double that number just for the registration program
itself.
There is terminology. It is called GIGO, garbage in equals
garbage out. It is a terminology of slang used in information
systems. If you put in garbage, you get garbage out. If you go
with an imperfect registration system such as proposed by this
minister and by this government, there is no way the registration
system will work.
Furthermore, in my constituency the RCMP has had to try to
impose fees in order to cover its cost of doing the extra work
caused by Bill C-68. These are realities and facts. We are
talking about millions of dollars, much inconvenience. The
question remains specifically can the member tell this House how
we will have safer streets and fewer guns on the streets as a
result of this very expensive multimillion dollar registration
system?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question.
I reject outright the premise that the registration system will
not work. It will work. It will be a very effective one which
will be for the benefit of all Canadians.
Perhaps the hon. member was not listening when I said this in
direct answer to his question. We are not about to penalize
legitimate people in terms of gun ownership, farmers, hunters and
others.
1900
For example, I live on the family farm. We have those kind of
things that are required from time to time. We are not after
those kinds of people. They will be licensed and we will keep
track of what they have. That is a reasonable thing to do. From
an overall macro point of view what we are doing as a government
is ensuring that the streets will be safer and police will have
the capability to do their work. Ultimately, we as a caring
community and by extension a caring society will have a far, far
better place and a far, far better Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In view of the fact that the hon. member was asked a specific
question on three occasions and was not able to respond, I would
like to ask for unanimous consent that we extend this question
and comment period for another three minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley has asked for the unanimous consent
to extend the period of questions and comments for three minutes.
Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to take a moment to point out that the question
was very explicitly asked three times and no answer was
forthcoming.
I want to take a different turn on the justice discussion. Quite
often the justice system seems so gigantic, so distant and so
impregnable that people feel there is nothing they can do or that
it might not have an impact on them. Nothing could be further
from the truth. There is nothing more personal than the justice
system if you have been involved in it or have had to deal with
it. The example I will use shows the lack of direction and the
wrong focus we have in our proposed spending estimates that we
are talking about today.
Justice is about people and how it affects them. I want to talk
about how the justice system has failed a family in my riding, a
family that has gone through a great deal of suffering from three
arms of the justice system. They have all failed to some degree
to recognize the situation and to take the appropriate steps to
help this family.
I am talking about James Mills who was murdered on July 24, 1991
while in custody of Corrections Canada. He was murdered while
under an arm of the justice system in Canada. At the time and
since then, suggestions have been made that there were serious
errors made at the time of the murder on behalf of Corrections
Canada. I do not know if that is true, but the accusations have
been made about the disruption of the crime scene. Perhaps it
was a shortage of training. Perhaps it was a shortage of staff.
In any case there was a deficiency that caused an awful problem.
Eventually the RCMP were called to the scene of the crime,
another arm of the justice system. The RCMP have investigated
this. It still tells us that there is an ongoing investigation
but there are still no results. Again, the third arm of the
justice system, the crown prosecutor, was involved. Even though
charges were recommended on two previous occasions, they have
never been laid.
The family of Mr. James Mills has waited seven years for an
answer. There is no answer. There is no explanation of what
happened at the crime scene. There is no explanation of how he
was murdered. There is no explanation of how it could happen
right under the nose of the justice system in Canada.
The family, especially the father Mr. Robert Mills, has been
haunted for years and years. All he wants is an answer. He
wants to have an explanation of what happened, why his son was
murdered, how he was murdered and why nothing was ever done about
it. The solicitor general still says and maintains to this time
that the case is still under investigation.
Looking for answers, Mr. Mills and sometimes Mr. Mills and
myself have met with top level senior RCMP officials. We are
trying to get answers. The commissioner of corrections came to
Amherst to meet with Mr. Mills. We were hopeful that he would
bring information with him. That did not arrive. It did not
happen. We did not get any new information, even though the
commissioner came to Amherst and we appreciated that.
We have brought up questions in the House of Commons month after
month. We have been in the media. We have even used the access
to information office to try to get information on what happened.
Where was the deficiency? Where did the system fail?
How can the Mills family be let down so badly when their son was
murdered right under the nose of the justice system? How did
the other parts of the justice system fail? Was it lack of
training? Was it—
1905
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. First of all, I apologize to the hon. member for having
cut him off in midstream, but I think that there is now consent
for the following motion, and I would invite colleagues to verify
if they are unsure. The motion would be the following:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, the
business to be considered under Government Orders on Wednesday,
June 10, 1998 shall be the report stage of Bill C-25; a motion
relating to the appointment of the information commissioner; the
third reading of Bill C-30; and the consideration of Senate
amendments stage of Bill C-4;
That, no later than 5 p.m. on all questions necessary to dispose
of the report stage of Bill C-25, all questions shall be put and
a division or divisions thereon deemed requested, provided that
the said division or divisions may not be deferred;
In other words, we will vote at 5 p.m. tomorrow on Bill C-25.
That during the remainder of the sitting on that day, no quorum
calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motions may be
received by the Chair, provided, for greater clarity, that it is
confirmed that an amendment proposed to a motion under Government
Orders is not a dilatory motion and is therefore admissible under
the terms of this order and provided that, when debate concludes
on Bill C-4, the question then under consideration shall be
deemed to have been put, a division thereon requested and
deferred to 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 1998; and
That the House shall then adjourn and shall meet at 9 a.m. on
Thursday, June 11, 1998 and the ordinary daily routine of
business shall be taken up at that time.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It was my impression that the wording of the motion that
was agreed to did not include any reference to quorum calls.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would put it to
the hon. House leader that this perchance is something that could
be debated behind the curtains and we will come back.
I would like to catch the mood of the House. Does the hon. the
government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded during
that little interruption that I am dividing my time with the hon.
member for South Shore. I neglected to say that at the beginning.
In any case, we are back to the Mills family who have lost their
son who was in the custody of Corrections Canada, the justice
system in effect, investigated by the RCMP, the justice system in
effect again, and the crown prosecutor of New Brunswick, again
the justice system. It has now been seven years that they have
been waiting for answers, explanations, anything at all, any
scrap of information, but there has been nothing.
We asked for a final report from Corrections Canada. We were
promised that we would get a final report on November 20 and we
were to get a report of the investigation and all aspects
surrounding the death.
1910
On November 20 we were presented with a report that was mostly
all blank pages, not an ounce of new information, nothing more
for the Mills family, nothing to give them a little peace or
contentment or any information that would allow them to let this
go away. In fact three arms of the justice system have failed
the Mills family: the RCMP, Corrections Canada and the crown
attorney.
Meanwhile, it has not got enough money to provide the training
at Corrections Canada or whatever the problem is, or it does not
have enough officers to investigate the situation properly, the
government is talking about spending anywhere from $85 million
for this gun registry process and now it is talking about $133.9
million this year alone. In any case, it is going to be hundreds
of millions of dollars and this money could be spent in adding
training, equipment, facilities and officers to the police forces
and Corrections Canada which could really serve a purpose and do
some good.
The recently announced $32 million crime prevention initiative
is the same thing. It is public relations and there is nothing
in it for the police. I read in the Toronto Sun on June 7
“another $32 million down the drain”. The article went on to
state “The minister's crime prevention initiative is more of the
same molly-coddling that has made a joke of the Young Offenders
Act and if Liberalism at its worst may be defined as public
boondoggles premised on good intention, then this justice
minister is a true Liberal having a bad day”.
The fact of the matter is that the latest report from the
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics states that 1994 had the
largest decline in police strength since 1962, the year when
statistics were first kept. It goes on to state that in 1962
there were 20 criminal infractions per police officer. But in
1994 there were 47, far more than double the number of
infractions or criminal offences per police officer. That
indicates where the money should be going. It should be going to
these issues and not the issues where the government has focused
the money.
We now have the fewest number of police officers since 1972. In
addition to that, the police officers we do have are now
preoccupied with the long gun registration, the Young Offenders
Act and all the things the government has brought in.
We think a better plan would be to take the long gun
registration money, put more officers on the street and give them
more tools to work with.
No wonder people like the Mills family wonder how our justice
dollars are being spent. The large amount of money in the
justice department estimates should be redirected to be useful,
functional and directed where it is most needed.
Mr. Speaker, I will now turn my time over to the hon. member for
South Shore.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have to endure
the possibility of questions and comments first.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was wondering if the hon. member would like to explain to the
House who administers and hires and fires policemen. As far as I
know it is the municipal authorities and not the federal
government.
I fail to see why he is referring to our crime prevention
initiative. It is a collaborative effort of the federal,
provincial and municipal authorities in order to prevent crimes
and ensure that we do not need more policemen in the long run. We
can start preventing crime at the age of zero instead of at the
age of 17 when it is too late. We want to prevent crime from the
very beginning to ensure that eventually there will never be
crime again in this country.
The $32 million will be a shared responsibility between the
federal, provincial and municipal authorities.
How does the member explain the fact that the hiring and firing
of policemen is a municipal responsibility, not a federal one?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Certainly our municipal police are hired but some of the things
the government is doing, such as the gun registry, are going to
take so much of their time. Instead of being on the street they
are going to be registering firearms, implementing the Young
Offenders Act and all the other aspects the government is
downloading. The government is supposed to pay half of the costs
of the implementation of the Young Offenders Act and it is only
paying 30%. The municipalities and the local police forces are
also supposed to implement the gun registry.
As an aside, not all police officers are hired by the
municipalities. The RCMP certainly play a big role in my part of
the country. It is a federal agency, federally funded and
federally paid.
1915
Some of the $133.9 million already spent on the gun registry
could supply police officers with better tools to work with or to
put more policemen on the street. That is where I think the
money should be going instead of to these programs.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has considered that there
are more parts to the country than Cumberland—Colchester. In a
city like Windsor, Ontario, which abuts on the great city of
Detroit, Michigan, we see the impact every day of having no gun
control and having no gun registry. Every night when we watch
the news on television we see shootings in schools being treated
as though they are car accidents. I do not want Canada to turn
out that way. I want Canada to be a distinct and different
culture from that of the United States.
Does the hon. member think by having people wear sidearms and by
not taking care of things such as crime prevention and our
children that this will be a better place? Does he believe that
municipalities do not pay for the services of the RCMP? I think
he is on a stretch here.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I would say the opposite is
true. The hon. member asked whether I was aware there were other
areas than Cumberland—Colchester like Windsor. I think the
government is not aware that there are other areas such as
Toronto, Mississauga, Windsor and maybe even Ottawa. There is
also a vast part of Canada that is rural and we do not see the
need for a gun registry.
The member also asked whether I believed in gun control. I
certainly believe in gun control. My government, the government
I was a part of between 1988 and 1993, brought in very good gun
control that emphasized safe storage of weapons, training and
elimination of dangerous weapons. We did not bring in a gun
registry.
This is all about a gun registry, not gun control. Yes, I
believe in gun control. We put it in and put it in well.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I almost hate to interrupt.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members are getting excited in
the debate, but we have another matter before us. The government
House leader is rising on a point of order which no doubt is
important and which all hon. members would want to hear.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, some four or five minutes
ago I read a motion and sought unanimous consent which at that
time still needed further review by some hon. members. I will
put it that way.
If you were to seek consent to adopt the motion I put earlier I
believe you would perhaps receive it. I will dispense with
reading it again because the table already has the text and it
has been read into the record.
The Deputy Speaker: The government House leader has asked
me to put a motion that was read some time ago. Does the hon.
government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to
put the motion?
Some hon. members: Read it again, please.
The Deputy Speaker: I will read the motion in a minute.
Is there consent to put it?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
certainly with much interest that I rise to speak to the motion
to fund the continued business of the government in power today.
I would specifically like to speak to gun control and to the
justice issue which I think are interesting points.
1920
I have been sitting here listening to the debate and have been
extremely interested in a lot of the comments coming from the
government benches. It is obvious that they have totally mixed
up gun control. They do not understand the difference between
Bill C-17 and Bill C-68.
It is time we had a little lesson in history. I am going to use
an analogy. If anybody in the House happens to be a fly
fisherman, I would like him to listen to this analogy. We had a
situation in 1993 where we had just gone through a major debate
in the country on gun control and an election. What ensued from
that debate was Bill C-17 which at the time was a very
responsible bill on gun control.
What happened? We ran a federal election and we elected, much
to the chagrin of many Canadians, a disjointed and separated
parliament. We did not have an opposition that was interested in
being an opposition. We had a government with a huge majority.
It was bereft of ideas—
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There were what I would describe as further consultations and I
think you would find consent to put the motion now and that the
motion would be carried. It has already be read into the record
and I think members have had time to consider it.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria: I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the
business to be considered under Government Orders on Wednesday,
June 10, 1998 shall be the report stage of Bill C-25, a motion
relating to the appointment of the Information Commissioner, the
third reading stage of Bill C-30 and the consideration of Senate
amendments stage of Bill C-4;
That, no later than 5 p.m. on all questions necessary to dispose
of the report stage of Bill C-25 shall be put and a division or
divisions thereon deemed requested, provided that the said
division or divisions may not be deferred;
That during the remainder of the sitting on that day, no quorum
calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motions may be
received by the Chair, provided, for greater clarity, that it is
confirmed that an amendment proposed to a motion under Government
Orders is not a dilatory motion and is therefore admissible under
the terms of this Order and provided that, when debate concludes
on Bill C-4, the question then under consideration shall be
deemed to have been put, a division thereon requested and
deferred to 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 1998; and
That the House shall then adjourn and shall meet at 9 a.m. on
Thursday, June 11, 1998 and the ordinary daily routine of
business shall be taken up at that time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to pass
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1998-99
The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with the
little lesson in history. It is obvious a great many members of
the government need to hear this history lesson.
It is quite simple. In 1993 we had a government elected with a
huge majority. We did not have an effective opposition. We were
in a situation where we had a government that got elected on a
couple of items. I followed that election very closely and I can
say with some authority that gun control was not one of those
items. Gun registration was not even discussed. It was not an
issue.
What were the issues in the federal election of 1993 that
elected many of the members sitting opposite? The first issue
was the GST. These guys were elected on the GST. They were
elected on kicking free trade out of the country.
What did we get in return for that? In the first 11 months the
government took power we discussed gun control in the House of
Commons.
We never discussed the GST. We never discussed getting rid of
free trade. We never discussed any of the substantive issues
they were elected on.
1925
I want to go back to my fly fishing analogy. Someone who is fly
fishing knows there is nothing like laying a nice dry fly out,
letting the line go a couple of times, laying that fly on a
little ripple and watching a fish come up and snap it.
That is what happened with gun control. A group of individuals
could not believe this was to be rammed down their throats. They
could not believe they would see this type of registration from
honest citizens. They snapped that fly. The hon. minister of
justice of the day played that fish for everything it was worth.
He surely did.
Was it important? Was it substantive? Did it help the country?
No, it did not. We ended up with 11 months of argument, 11
months of discussion. We did not gain one thing. We obtained a
bill that was defective, to say the least. We have a major
supreme court challenge against it. We have four provinces and
two territories that have no intention of abiding by the rules.
We have gone further than that. We have made a totally separate
set of rules under Bill C-68 for first nations. It is not a
problem. We can do that. We can have a separate set of rules
just by snapping our fingers.
I will back up because these guys lump everything together. They
say that somehow if we are against registration we are against
gun control. I separate the two. I am all for gun control. I
am a gun owner. I am a hunter. I am a farmer. I am someone who
actually uses a firearm in a safe and responsible manner. I have
zero sympathy for everyone out there who abuses the rights and
the privileges of owning and using a firearm. I have no sympathy
for them at all. They should be slapped with the full force of
the law.
However, we are not willing to do that. It is much easier to
tell all law-abiding citizens of Canada that they have not broken
the law or done anything wrong and if they register their guns
somehow it will make things safer. It does not work like that.
We have rules, laws and regulations for the people of the country
and it is extremely important that they follow them.
The greatest insult was under a criminal bill. It was a
criminal bill. Do members know what it is now? Now it is a
safety bill. Excuse me if I cannot quite swallow that. I have
swallowed a lot of stories in my life but I cannot quite swallow
that one.
At the end of the day what will we have accomplished? What good
will it do? Under Bill C-17 we had responsible gun control. We
said to firearm owners, long gun owners, shotgunners and hunters
that if they wanted to own firearms they had to store them in a
responsible manner. They have to prove they are responsible
enough to own them to begin with. We do want a lot of firearms
sold to people with criminal records.
A number of issues were raise today such as domestic violence.
Nobody in the House is so wrongheaded that they would somehow try
to justify domestic violence. What have we actually done to
avoid it? Will registration avoid it? I suggest that it will
not. Is there a better way? Is there another way?
We had Bill C-17. We had responsible gun control. It was never
given a chance to work. We had a justice minister who wanted to
make a name for himself. We had a government that did not want
to talk about what it was elected to talk about. It did not want
to go down that road. It did not want to govern on what it was
elected to do. It was elected to do a number of things and gun
control was not in the equation. GST was in the equation. Free
trade was in the equation.
Somehow we got off track. If we want to talk about smoke and
mirrors, there was never a better smoke and mirror act than this
whole deal on gun control. That is exactly what it was. It was
wrong-headed, it was ill thought out and it is not going to make
any difference.
1930
Now we are telling the people of Canada to register the guns
themselves. They are being told to send their cards in. I
thought it was Sunday morning and I was watching TV. Just send
money. It does not work like that. There is a lot of confusion
out there. There are a number of people who did not understand
Bill C-17. They certainly do not have the first idea about Bill
C-68. What we are going to have is a lot of people who will not
register their guns. A lot of them will be taken into the black
market.
I need some clarification. I will ask for assistance. How does
that prevent crime? The government is forcing a bunch of people
to do something when they do not understand the rules and
regulations. It had a law that would have worked, but it did not
give it a chance. It is mixing that up with registration and now
it is saying it is kicking out registration, it is kicking out
responsible storage and the safe handling of firearms. That is
just not so.
That is not what was discussed to begin with. Registration is
not going to change that one iota and members opposite know it.
We cannot afford it. People will not do it. More guns will be
put on the black market, which will end up in the hands of
criminals. I cannot understand how government members can sit
there and continue to mix up the two.
If government members want to talk about registration
separately, fine. But tell me what they have done in their bill
to prevent domestic violence and the use of firearms by
irresponsible persons. That was in Bill C-17, but it is not in
Bill C-68.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague. I am sure
the House will know that one of the problems with people who tell
stories about fish is the reputation that these stories have,
because of course with each telling the tale gets taller, the
tale gets longer, and the tale gets further and further away from
the truth.
Of course the very interesting thing about the hon. member's
remarks was that he was talking about the fly being cast and back
in 1993 the fish grabbed the bait. What the fisherman forgets is
that there was an election in 1997.
All of these issues were mentioned. I am sure my hon. colleague
mentioned them when he was running. The people of Canada spoke.
The people of Canada said that, over all, the Liberal government
was doing a good job and it deserved another mandate to continue
doing what it had promised to do.
It is all well and good to talk about fishing, but let us
remember that he was talking about history. Let us go back and
give these people on the other side a history lesson. Obviously
my friend over there needs a history lesson because he forgot
that just one year ago the people of Canada gave us a second
majority mandate.
Let us talk about facts. We cannot see into the future. We do
not know whether or not the dire predictions are going to be
correct with respect to gun control. All we know is that we are
going to give it—and I hate to use the phrase—a shot to see
what happens.
I ask my hon. friend, is it not true, notwithstanding his
wonderful analogy about fly fishing, that there was an election
in 1997 and that the people of Canada gave the Liberal government
a second majority mandate? Is that not true?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for this opportunity because in Nova Scotia the
people of Canada spoke. There were 11 Liberals from Nova Scotia
prior to the election. There are zero today.
As far as the fishing analogy goes, yes, quite often the tale
does not get blurred, it gets longer. That is what I am hearing
from the government side. It is getting longer.
1935
The government has blurred Bill C-17 and Bill C-68 together.
The hon. member does not even know the difference between the two
bills.
I am willing to do anything in the name of responsible gun
ownership and gun control that will actually help to correct the
issues we are talking about and that will be a positive step
toward preventing violence.
I have heard nothing, and I am willing to listen, to convince me
that registration and the spending of millions of dollars of
Canadians' money is going to make a difference.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the member's intervention. I understand
the fishing analogy but, unfortunately, where I live there are no
fish left thanks to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, so I
cannot use that analogy. I think the member might have the same
problem in his province.
I would like to ask the member, does he believe that the reason
the Liberals brought Bill C-68 into this House and passed it had
nothing to do with the safety of Canadians? They knew that full
well when they brought it in.
It was nothing more than a deliberate Machiavellian attempt to
conceal from Canadians the failure of their justice system, the
failure of their inability to deal with the shortcomings in the
criminal justice system. This was a way to try to persuade
Canadians that the government was actually doing something, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
We have a justice minister who has for over a year promised
changes to the YOA and no changes have been made to date.
We have a criminal justice system that lets convicted rapists
walk the streets without serving any time in jail.
Is that not the reason they brought this so-called gun control
legislation in? Does it not have more to do with trying to hide
their own failure?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, there was a serious lack
of direction on the government's part. There was a serious lack
of alternatives, of new ideas. They came down an old, worn out
path and they walked and walked back and forth on it.
Unfortunately, they are not accomplishing a lot. The justice
minister and the government did not have any new ideas. They
were not willing to listen to people. They were not willing to
look at alternatives. Here we have this half-baked idea and a
half-baked system with no hope of it ever working.
Personally, when I eat my apple pie, I like to have it
completely baked, not half baked.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
consider it a privilege to speak on this debate.
Recently a constituent of mine forwarded a column by Diane
Francis contained in the May 18 issue of Maclean's
magazine. The constituent was commenting favourably upon the
article and requested a detailed response. I thought I should
respond with some detail.
The column unfortunately betrays a woeful lack of understanding
of Canadian history and an appalling ignorance of government
finances, which is what we are debating tonight.
I could forgive Ms. Francis for her lack of Canadian historical
knowledge, as she was originally an American citizen, however, I
am unable to forgive her for her limited grasp of the federal
government's finances and the role of the federal government
vis-à-vis its citizens in this country.
She states “The federal government is in need of serious
downsizing. It need not be involved in health, education,
welfare, mining, forestry, culture or the fisheries. They are
adequately handled by the provinces and the federal role should
only be one of co-ordination. On the other hand, Ottawa should
remain in charge of justice, economic management, international
diplomacy, defence, internal security and communications
policy”.
Ms. Francis seems not to understand that the government is not
involved in health, education, welfare and has entered into
management agreements with the provinces in the areas of mining
and forestry.
1940
For a nationally syndicated columnist this is a woeful
misunderstanding of the jurisdictions involved in this country.
The federal government is still involved in culture and fisheries
because those endeavours do not recognize provincial boundaries.
Ottawa still remains in other areas of government approved by
Ms. Francis, although its role in the daily delivery of justice
services is quite limited. All in all Ottawa is pretty well out
of everything that Ms. Francis thinks it should be out of and is
in everything that Ms. Francis thinks it should be in. Never one
to let facts get in the way of a fixed religious belief, Ms.
Francis goes on to chastise the government for its enormous
duplication and says that downsizing is not in the lexicon of the
Liberal government.
Ms. Francis is the editor of the Financial Post. As such,
she should have a working familiarity with the budget of the
federal government. For hon. members present and for Ms. Francis
I will go over some fundamentals of the federal budget.
The federal government has a budget of approximately $150
billion to $160 billion annually. In fiscal year 1996-97, 30% of
that money went to service the national debt. The next 15% was
transferred to the provinces and a further 23% was transferred to
other organizations, such as the OAS, ET, et cetera. That
amounts to 68% before Ottawa spends a dime on its own programs.
I am assuming that Ms. Francis does not want the federal
government to default on its debts. That is possibly not true in
the province which I come from, however, I am assuming that Ms.
Francis wants that. I am also assuming that she does not want
the amount of moneys allocated under the CHST to be reduced,
especially to her favourite little buddy Mike Harris, and does
not feel that the old age benefits or employment insurers are
overly generous.
Ms. Francis approves of the federal government having a role in
defence. That accounts for $9 billion to $10 billion. In gross
numbers on a budget of $161 billion, the federal government
transferred $41.6 billion to persons, $22 billion to provinces
and paid $44.9 billion in interest on the national debt. That
leaves approximately $50 billion or 33% on which to run all the
federal programs which Ms. Francis finds so burdensome. This is
essentially the only money over which the federal government has
any real control.
Ms. Francis apparently approves of Ottawa being involved in
defence and apparently approves that this is—
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Are we not supposed to be debating Motion No. 1 which is on
justice and not on the overall budget?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. member is quite right.
We are debating Motion No. 1 which deals with the estimates of
the Department of Justice. I know the hon. member for
Scarborough East will get to the point of the motion in due
course.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
intervention of the hon. member, but you will note that Motion
No. 1 accounts for $193 million worth of spending in areas of
justice. In my riding that is an area of extreme significance.
These are areas of spending with which we have already dealt.
We are down to 33% of the balance of the federal government's
moneys, and in those moneys, of course, are justice moneys.
I am assuming that Ms. Francis approves of our spending in areas
of veterans affairs. I assume she does not wish to cut off
veterans from their benefits. I also assume that she does not
want to cut aboriginal expenditures. She neglected to mention
anything with respect to those issues, out of oversight rather
than any intention on her part.
1945
I do not wish to get too detailed for fear that the essential
point will be lost on hon. members opposite.
The federal government has gone to great lengths to remove
itself from overlapping jurisdiction and wasteful expenditures
particularly in the area of justice. The hon. member should be
aware that the justice system is largely administered by the
provinces. Not only is the federal government far leaner than it
was before, it is now arguably one of the most efficient
governments in the world.
When you read the overblown rhetoric of this particular
columnist and members opposite it sounds like sound bite
journalism. One has to wonder whether members opposite and this
journalist have been in a coma since 1993.
Far from being one of the most overgoverned jurisdictions in the
world, just the opposite is true. Sixty-seven per cent of
government revenues require virtually no bureaucracy at all. We
collect it and then we ship it out.
Again I quote Ms. Francis “We have too many layers of
bureaucracy doing too many of the same things. We have too many
municipalities and school boards complicating our lives and
adding to costs. We have too many provinces. We have too big a
federal government”.
The facts point in exactly the opposite direction. To the extent
that the federal government is able to remove itself from
overlapping jurisdictions, it has. In some respects and arguably
it has become somewhat too remote from the daily lives of
Canadians. Absence of a strong federal government to provide a
sense of being Canadian, Canada will degenerate into a bunch of
separatist entities which plays into the agenda of the Lucien
Bouchards of this world, and the Glen Clarks of this world. This
is the world they—
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Following up on the earlier point of order, members opposite have
been waiting with bated breath to hear the relevance in the
member's intervention. We have not heard that. I would ask that
we have the speaker speak to the motion rather than going off on
a rant about Diane Francis.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member for
Scarborough East will want to direct his remarks to the issue of
the estimates of the Department of Justice which are after all
the subject matter of the motion now before the House.
If members have run out of things to say on the justice issue we
can move on to one of the other motions. Heaven knows there are
enough of them.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, one hesitates to say that
one will get to it in a timely fashion. It is difficult to
determine relevance for members opposite since one has to speak
so slowly to get to the point.
Having elucidated that in fact only about 33% is available for
federal government program spending and in that program spending
are justice issues, I would say that is a matter of relevance and
concern to all members.
As I pointed out, absent a strong federal government to provide
a role of leadership in this issue, we play into the hands of the
Lucien Bouchards, the Mike Harrises and the Glen Clarks of this
world who fervently desire the little flag sur le hood exercise.
Ms. Francis is a great admirer of California. If we follow her
suggestion, that is exactly how we will end up, one of the states
governed by Washington. That is exactly where some members
opposite would wish us to go. I would put a number of members in
the category of fervently desiring to be nothing other than a
state of the United States.
It has been a 150-year struggle to continue to identify Canada
as a nation and we are by and large, in spite of members
opposite, doing rather well in accordance with the United Nations
identifications. By any UN standards we are doing very well.
1950
I would recommend to members opposite as they peruse the justice
estimates that they also refer to the Fraser Forum for
bedtime reading. That in and of itself identifies Canada as a
foremost country in this issue.
Ms. Francis and her political front, the Reform Party, do not
understand Canadian history and government finances.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been complaining for the longest time that we have been
speaking to empty seats. This member's speech has indicated it
really does not make any difference if they are here or not.
I really do not understand what this man has against Diane
Francis. This rant that was supposed to be going on about
justice had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with justice.
Let me ask him a question. He is flanked on either side by
members who do not seem to understand the meaning of the word
how. The question is, how will Bill C-68 and the registration
make the streets of Canada any safer? How?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to speak to
empty seats and it is another thing to speak to empty heads. The
issue that was raised was the fronting of the Reform Party by
this particular columnist.
To go to the member's question, it reminds me of the election
and particularly of a constituent on whose door I was knocking.
I was getting quite a beating about this particular piece of
legislation of interest to the member opposite. As I was getting
beaten up I could see that his wife was coming to the door. She
had a tea towel over her arm. She slapped him and said “Don't
listen to that idiot, he doesn't know anything about gun
control”. That was the response of many of my constituents in
Scarborough East.
Any piece of legislation, and this is under the how part, which
removes guns, which makes guns less accessible to the citizens of
this country is a good piece of legislation by definition.
During this past election we had a terrible incident involving
long guns which I know the member opposite is quite interested
in, resulting in the death of a spouse and four children.
I do not care how the legislation is drafted. I do not care how
the regulations are drafted. In my community of Scarborough East
this is good legislation and it gets guns inaccessible to more
and more citizens. Anything that does that, I am in favour of.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. colleague for his background on the budget and the
importance this government has shown toward justice issues.
I too would like to direct a comment and a question to the hon.
member on Bill C-68 as well. Bill C-68 is nothing more than a
record or an accountability of all the weapons or long arms, guns
that are out there in Canada. It is not dissimilar to
refrigerators, automobiles, cars and animals.
Does the hon. member believe that if we create this data bank of
weapons, that the police deserve to have access to the knowledge
of whether or not weapons are located in a house when they go to
a domestic call? Does the member think that is a good idea?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that
statistically most offences involving firearms are committed by
people who are known to the victim. It is something in the order
of 80% or 90%. Anytime a piece of legislation is being passed
which makes guns and weapons generally inaccessible to those
kinds of classes of people, we are ahead of the game.
1955
This is a matter of registration. As loath as I am to adopt the
remarks of my colleague sitting with me here from Mississauga
West, I am of the view that this is a simple form of
registration. It is a registration that is easily filled out. It
is similar to a car registration. It is similar to birth
registration. It is similar to other forms of registration which
a civilized society requires.
What we are trying to fashion in this country is a civilized
society which is distinct from Ms. Francis' favourite country,
the one to the south of us.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
fail to understand the infatuation with Diane Francis but I
suggest that he might want to give her a call sometime and talk
to her. I can assure the hon. member that he would probably get
an education.
My friend across the way suggests that a strong, big, bloated,
fat central government somehow will serve Canadians much better
than a decentralized government that is better able to respond to
the needs of constituents.
I want to point out to my friend that it was the federal Liberal
government that broke the contract it made with Canadians with
respect to how much money it would put into health care and
higher education. In the 1993 election this big, bloated, fat
central government and the Prime Minister said “Oh, no. We are
going to continue to spend the same amount of money on health
care and higher education. In fact, we will probably increase
it”. The Liberals blatantly broke that promise, cutting
transfers to the provinces by $6 billion. That is an
unbelievably abrogation of a contract.
I would suggest to my friend across the way that history does
not bear out his rosy view of federalism. In fact, if federalism
worked so well, then why do we have a separatist movement in this
country today that is threatening to rip the country right apart?
It is because of their vision of federalism that tries to suck
all the power into the middle. That is why the separatists in
Quebec want to leave.
I suggest to my friend, instead of worrying about the provinces
becoming another state, I am concerned about him becoming a ward
of the state after that nonsensical speech he gave. I say to him
the provinces were the ones that led when it came to balancing
budgets. The provinces are the ones who lead when it comes to
social responsibility.
When is my friend going to wake up over there and understand
that all the power in the country does not belong just in Ottawa?
People at the local level know how to make their own decisions
and they do not need the nanny state in Ottawa deciding those
things for them.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to the
extreme that one of the leading members of the Reform Party
should speak in this fashion. The two parties that would like to
lead us into separation sit opposite. Those are the two parties
that degenerate this country and make it a very difficult country
to govern.
The hon. member's infatuation with Diane Francis, who is nothing
other than a mouthpiece for the Reform Party, fails to understand
in its essence the point of my speech. I can see that the hon.
member has missed the point of the answers that he has been
getting from the finance minister in the House of Commons as
well. He is obviously not listening.
He is not listening that the CHST was in fact raised from $11
billion up to $12.5 billion. He obviously does not understand
the point of tax room. He does not understand that tax room has
in fact created more money in the hands of the Mike Harrises and
the Lucien Bouchards of this world. He just simply does not get
it.
It is typical of the Reform Party members. They do not get it.
If we continue to downsize the federal government there will be
no Canada as we know it.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to return to the issue of gun registration. There seems to
be a common thread going through the Reform Party's criticism of
the justice estimates.
We have seen a lot of letters being waved around with various
dates. In the United States confronted with the increase in
children killing children, to the tune of about every two hours
an American child is killed because of a firearm, the NRA
proposes they send a great big fuzzy bird into the schools, Eddy
the Eagle they call it. It is almost like Tommy the Tooth. This
is their solution. They are going to go into the schools and
they are going to teach kids that if they see a gun they should
run to their parents. In other words, the responsibility is the
child's. That is absolutely ridiculous.
But I do want to refer to the how with a letter here from Scott
Newark. Members quote him all the time, except when it does not
suit them.
2000
On June 3, 1998 he said: “Having now seen the registration
system demonstrated, it is clear it will live up to the claims
originally made in relation to supply of important safety
information for both the public and police. Further, it should
be an extremely valuable tool in the detection and prosecution of
stolen or smuggled firearms”. They listen to the CPA, listen to
CAVEAT even when it does not suit their agenda. What would the
member say about that?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, that was a very fine
question.
As far as I know Eddie the Eagle was a ski jumper with Great
Britain in one of the Olympics. I suspect that Eddie the Eagle
as a ski jumper was not terribly successful, as will this not be
very successful.
The simple fact is that in this justice system, as imperfect as
it is, it is working. I argue that crime is down. The
perception of crime is up but the fact of crime is down. That is
a good message. That means this government is working properly.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the business of supply of the main
estimates at this time is on Motion No. 1 on the justice. I will
confine my comments to the administration of justice. Although
there is much that I would like to talk about concerning this
rather weak government.
In respect of the motion of the expenditure of funds in the
general areas of public safety and the administration of justice,
the justice minister and the solicitor general spend a
considerable amount of our precious resources. Specifically I
want to talk about what is happening with this government in the
administration of jails. It is associated with the correctional
services that it administers. The history has been a long one
but it has not been without problems and failures. Considering
the difficult and problematic people correctional services deal
with on behalf Canadians we owe a thank you to the honourable
record of custodial staff across this country who work in jails.
I received with satisfaction the government's announcement
several weeks ago that it was going to hire more jail guards. The
government has a labour contract in place. I do not believe that
it has been fulfilling it in recent years concerning staffing
strength and being able to meet the standards that it has agreed
to.
The government has an obligation to all Canadians and to the
world community to operate prisons according to the standards of
basic decency and human rights. Canada has been rather
judgmental and condescending about human rights in other
countries but how about how we operate our jails. Canada may
believe that we are so much better than others. There are
standards that we have committed to and that we must fulfill.
Correctional Service Canada has an awesome mandate. The average
Canadian has no idea what it is like in our major prisons. I
have visited a number of those prisons. I have observed that we
have our problems but some progress is being made. We can do so
much better.
Canadians need confidence in the ability of the government to
take care of the people's business and to administer prisons in
full accordance with the commitments and the labour agreements
made which are well within the bounds of the international
standards. A measure of a nation's stature and its civilization,
among so many other things, is how it administers its prisons and
treats the basic rights of even the most objectionable heinous
offenders.
A budget is being put forward tonight. Canadians want to be
assured that this Liberal government, which has been so poor in
managing its other departments, this weak government through
these requests and appropriations is fulfilling its mandate of
public protection and basic decency both for the humane
environment for the workers who work in jails and for their
charges. We must do a comprehensive job of duly considering the
keepers and the kept.
Will this government assure this House that the funds requested
fulfill completely all its labour contracts and the manuals of
standards of operations that it has outlined for itself? Will
the funds requested permit the speedy resolution of all
outstanding union grievances? Is it appropriately taking into
account the dynamics of stress and administrative pressure?
The best riot prevention program in a jail is a system that meets
all standards, that is fully staffed wherein there are no corners
cut on required staff levels, bed loads and living up to the
commitments it has made. We need more capacity to provide a
greater range of facilities and operations to more innovatively
respond to the challenges presented by some of these very
problematic individuals.
2005
Canadians have a right to expect better of than we have been
getting so far from this weak government. Canadians need to be
assured that the money requested fully meets the public
constituents' needs. On checking the details the government's
administration of departments lately falls short of its press
releases. The Liberals who smile and pronounce it repeatedly
have been shown to fail to deliver. So please say it isn't so
with corrections Canada or the Ministry of Justice.
I call on these ministers to place themselves on the record in
this House that the administration of the federal corrections for
instance meets all standards and commitments. I need not remind
the minister of what it means to mislead this House. We have had
many instances of the government saying one thing but in reality
it finally turns out to be quite different upon examination. I
challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to
say it clearly, place it on the line and tell it like it is. Let
the average rank and file guard on the tier or the control centre
personnel read what the minister says. May what the minister
says match up to the real experience of staff on the line behind
the walls. They are paying attention.
Can it be described how the money is asked for, will be spent
and that there will be value for dollar? Will the government
fulfil its commitments? It makes its obligations to follow the
rules. The shortcomings of the government in its administration
of justice are well known across the country but the resources
asked for under the general area we are talking about tonight in
the estimates are considerable. Built into that area are the
mandates of the solicitor general and the justice minister.
Let us first review what is contemplated under justice and then
we will recount what the solicitor general wants. We should put
what is being asked for specifically on the public record. Under
the Minister of Justice and operating expenditures, the grants
listed in the estimates in contributions are $477,456,000.
Related to that are the human rights commission with $12,874,000;
the commissioner for federal judicial affairs with $4,354,000;
the Federal Court of Canada with $27,002,000; the human rights
tribunal with $2,076,000; the Law Commission of Canada with
$2,791,000; offices of the information and privacy commissioner
of Canada with $5,760,000; the Supreme Court of Canada with
$10,090,000; the Tax Court of Canada with $9,304,000; the
Security Intelligence Review Committee with $1,239,000.
Then there is the solicitor general and the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police with $900,459,880; the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police external review committee with $718,000; the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police public complaints commission with
$3,123,000. It continues in the justice area.
We will be voting on every one of these tonight. For
the Department of Justice operating expenditures, the grants
listed in the estimates and contributions total $115,248,185.
There is also the solicitor general, Canadian Security
Intelligence Service with $5,580,000.
It is up to the government to respond based on what it has
requested. Will it give value for money? Will the reality
fulfill its rhetoric and its press releases?
The opposition is watching. Canadians are watching. What is
being expended is an astounding amount of money in the general
area of justice, yet the dissatisfaction about the government's
justice and public safety agenda has never been worse. There is
little public confidence in the justice system and Liberals are
responsible. They are accountable. I challenge the Minister of
Justice and the solicitor general to justify their spending
requests to this House.
2010
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the member and his remarks.
Quite frankly, I felt it was a Liberal speech. He talked about
the mandate to make sure that the administration of our prison
system kept basic standards, kept confidence with our labour
agreements. He talked about making sure the keepers and the kept
are treated with a basic decency.
I support the member's remarks. I think our prison system
should be an environment that can foster rehabilitation and
renewal and not one where people are treated in a way that we see
in movies where prisons are like dungeons.
The problem I have is that for the last 10 years I have been
listening to members of the Reform Party and their chant
constantly about cut, cut, cut, its obsession with the deficit,
the debt and the fiscal framework.
Here we have a member from the Reform Party tonight pleading the
prison system of Canada be properly funded. Is this a change of
gears from the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby?
Does this reflect the position of the party where all of a sudden
it comes full circle and is now saying the cuts have gone too
far, which I personally believe, and we are now going to begin,
which I would celebrate, with the correctional service system of
Canada and make sure that it is properly funded so that the
management there, the keepers and the kept, are treated in a way
that they have a decent shot at rehabilitation and renewal. Which
pathway are we to choose?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago
when we brought attention to this House about how certain prisons
were about ready to blow as far as riots are concerned and the
management-staff relations were right on the edge. That has to do
with funding. It has to do with administrative attitude and it
has to do with care of how the government administers its
prisons.
I was quite pleased to hear that the solicitor general a few
weeks ago announced something in the order of 1,000 new staff
across the country would be hired. We applaud that.
There is no change in message from the Reform Party. We have
always advocated we needed more facilities, not just brick and
mortar in building more jails. We need more of a broader set of
complex facilities. Some of them may be without locked doors,
but a range of facilities to respond to the challenges if we are
to have a justice system to respond more resolutely to crime.
That means there will be perhaps some type of custodial
facilities. But that does not necessarily mean the old-fashioned
high tiers with a dome and bars.
Certainly it does mean the kind of facility that may respond to
the treatment needs of individuals and also adequately separates
different offenders from each other, specializes in programs but
also controls their access to the community. We also consider
the protection of the community first.
Remember, the Reform Party is bringing the message to the
country of fiscal responsibility so that we can generate the
wealth to pay for the social programs that Canadians want, for
the people's agenda we might say is to provide more facilities in
Correctional Service Canada. That has been the people's agenda
but it certainly has not been the bureaucratic top down agenda
that we have from governments for the last 15 years.
It has squeezed Correctional Service Canada. Yet the public has
been asking Correctional Service Canada to do things when it
really never had the resources to do. Because of the fiscal
irresponsibility in other areas and the failure to set
appropriate priorities, Correctional Service Canada has really
been in a tough situation.
2015
The more the government is fiscally responsible, the more it is
able to generate wealth and reorder its priorities to respond to
a people accountable agenda rather than a top down agenda. That
is what we are looking for.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, we have
been hearing a lot of criticism from the Reform Party today
directed toward the government's Bill C-68 on the registration of
firearms.
I am a little confused. I have a titbit of information that I
would like to share and I would like my hon. colleague from the
Reform Party to answer.
I am reading from Hansard, November 6, 1991, the comments
of the hon. member for Edmonton North who was referring to a
Canadian Police Association survey. She said that over 90% of
the respondents believed that guns of all kinds should be
registered. She agreed with that and went on to say that she
thought every Canadian would agree with that.
Just what message is the Reform Party giving? We hear it
criticizing the government and now we hear the comments of the
member for Edmonton North. I would like the hon. member to speak
to that.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which member
he was talking about. We had no Reform Party members from
Edmonton North in the House of Commons in 1991. We had one
member from Beaver River and that was it until 1993 when we had
the Reform wave.
We have always been consistent in saying that if the gun
registration program could clearly be demonstrated to be
efficacious for public safety we would support it. In view of a
lack of evidence it clearly appeared to be a misappropriation of
public money and should be reassigned to other areas of the
justice system.
We are supportive of gun control. We have had handgun control
in Canada since 1934 or something like that and we never objected
to Bill C-17. However, it was escalated to the final level of
wasting money on a program which the government has failed to
demonstrate will accomplish its stated objectives.
Money is laid aside for a program and it has stated objectives,
but it has failed to justify that it will deliver the stated
program objectives. We are predicting at some point in the light
of day after we spend several hundred million dollars down this
blind alley that it will in retrospect be seen to be
misappropriated money.
Why do we not spend that money on the Young Offenders Act and
other facilities rather than waste it on gun registration?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not want to name the member, but I found out that at the
time the member was representing the riding of Beaver River.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that clears it up.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague
opposite and two things caught my attention: weak government and
history.
I am just wondering what he is referring to. Is he referring to
the government of 1993 that swept in with a majority? Is he
referring to the government of 1997 that swept in with a
majority? Which part of history does he not understand? There
were two mandates and two majorities, but I will put that aside.
I listened with great interest that he wants more jail guards,
rights of offenders and on and on. I did not hear anything about
treatment. Is the Reform agenda more jails and more jail guards?
Does Reform not have compassion? Does Reform not understand the
need for treatment?
First, what history is my hon. colleague talking about? If he
wants to give us a history lesson, by all means let us talk about
1993 and 1997. Second, what about treatment?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We
are talking about who is accountable and who is responsible.
We believe we have had very poor administration of public
business since 1993.
2020
I will refer also to his comment about treatment. Anybody
involved in corrections has long abandoned the medical model of
prisoner care. We got rid of that years ago. It is not someone
who has a disease and therefore some kind of treatment or
medicine is applied.
When we administer prisons or programs we must provide options
and we must provide consequences. We can provide opportunities
for offenders to rehabilitate themselves. In some cases these
individuals were never habilitated in the first place and were
the walking wounded in the psychological sense and/or physical
sense. We must provide some types of programming, but to say
that we can just write out a prescription in the medical model
ideology is a long outdated notion in corrections.
First we must have fiscal responsibility. Then we are able to
generate wealth to pay for the social programs we need.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. Let me start by
saying that in the last election there were two particular issues
relating to justice and justice estimates on which I campaigned.
One was gun registration.
During the election campaign I ended every debate with these
concluding remarks: “If you in this audience do not want gun
registration, do not vote for me. Rather, if you are against it,
you want to vote for the New Democratic Party, you want to vote
for the Conservative Party or you want to vote for the Reform
Party”. In every debate that was one of my concluding remarks
and the results were 28 points ahead of the Reform Party, 28
points ahead of the Conservative and the New Democrats were much
further back.
My constituents fundamentally feel that it is not too much to
register guns in many ways like is done in Europe. We do not
want to have the gun culture in this country that exists south of
the border where all too often we see the tragedy of innocent
victims being gunned down ruthlessly and needlessly. More and
more we are seeing young children killing other young children
and their teachers.
I make absolutely no apologies for it. I stand with the chiefs
of police and with victims groups. I think our party, the
governing party, recognizes the need to be dealt with. We
definitely do not want to adopt the culture south of our border.
Let me get on to another very important part of the justice
agenda that we will be implementing. Let me ask members of all
parties, all members of parliament, to play a role in this
challenge.
We have put together a $32 million community safety crime
prevention program which will afford opportunity to each riding
across the country to join in the crusade, to join in the project
to prevent crime.
We will do that by working with people at the community level:
police forces, service clubs, school boards, recreational and
planning departments of municipalities and various neighbourhood
groups. Our challenge is how we as a country can improve our
record of crime prevention and have safer streets and homes.
2025
Prior to being elected to parliament I was executive director of
an organization called Youth in Conflict with the Law from 1976
to 1993. For some who might recall, Youth in Conflict with the
Law was to be under the youth in conflict with the law act. It was
changed to the Young Offenders Act in 1984.
I had occasion to observe the workings of the criminal justice
system firsthand at the criminal courts. I also had the
opportunity to work with other organizations involved in
community justice and community corrections. I can say that much
pioneering work was done in my community.
David Worth, head of the Mennonite Central Committee, worked
with communities right across the country trying to look at
alternative ways of dealing with crime and conflict resolution.
I worked with John Bilton of the John Howard Society. His
organization was also very much involved in preventive work. It
had anti-shoplifting campaigns which involved young people. Young
people would be diverted from the court system and would go
through alternative measures. Not only did this lessen the strain
on the courts. It also provided a much more meaningful
resolutions to the problem.
Dean Peachey pioneered community mediation in our community where
disputants were brought together to see if with a trained
facilitator they could reach a successful resolution. While
originally there was a great deal of resistance to that program
eventually it was embraced by the courts and the municipalities
and now a system of conflict resolution exists in schools.
Ken Motts pioneered the first halfway house for provincially
sentenced inmates in Ontario called Kitchener House.
Unfortunately that program was closed a couple of years ago by
Mike Harris and his agenda.
Another important program pioneered in my community through
community justice initiatives and the Mennonite Central Committee
was the victim-offender reconciliation program. Let me tell some
of my colleagues how that program works. It is fundamental to
the whole issue of preventing crime and creating safer and more
secure communities. It also deals with the rights of victims.
2030
A typical victim-offender reconciliation case would involve a
young person who broke into a business establishment or a private
dwelling. We all know people who have been victimized through
break and entry. We all know the sense of violation the victim
of that offence feels. Somebody has come into their home, which
is their castle, invaded their private space, caused damage and
committed theft. Many people who are victims of crime feel a
personal sense of violation.
I recall one of the cases that I worked on under the
victim-offender reconciliation model. It involved a 17 year old
who was under the supervision of our organization, Youth in
Conflict with the Law. During the course of the pretrial
hearing before that person was sentenced for the offence we met
with the individual whose store he had broken into.
There was a humorous side to the break and enter because the two
young people broke into a restaurant and somehow managed to lock
themselves inside. It took them a great deal of effort to break
out. Mind you, they rifled the cash register and took $20.
Ultimately they were caught because when the police came to
investigate they followed their footprints which led to the house
where they lived.
The first impact of bringing the two people together, the victim
and the offender, was that the restaurant owner felt a sense of
relief. He was looking upon a young person of 17 years of age
who was not a scholar, who was not particularly accomplished in
any area. Some could say that he had some tough knocks in life.
There was a sense of relief that the person he was dealing with
was not a Clifford Olson, a Paul Bernardo or whatever one's worst
nightmare might be.
After we went through that exercise, the resolution we arrived
at was that this young person would pay back something like $300
to fix the cash register and to make restitution for the damage
caused as well as the money taken. In this case and in most
cases of victim-offender reconciliation the money was paid back
and the young person learned from the experience. The court
made sure it was part of the sentence that the money was paid
back. As well, the court made sure that the young person did
community service.
At the end of the day, under our Criminal Code, break and enter
is liable for life imprisonment. That really does not happen,
but that is what the law allows. Any time of incarceration in
this case would have been a waste of taxpayers' money. This
young person would have been sent into an environment where he
would have been exposed to more negative influences and probably
would have come out a much more accomplished criminal.
One of the people who played a very key role in our justice
efforts was Henry Bloos who was a teacher at Kitchener
Collegiate. Henry Bloos used to teach law. He started a law day
at KCI that eventually involved the whole regional municipality
of Waterloo. Within a few years of its establishment it became
the single biggest extra curricular day for students in the
Waterloo region.
2035
Once a year, starting in 1978, in order to educate the community
and get people involved in community justice and crime
prevention, we established what was fondly known as justice
dinners. Our 20th justice dinner took place this past April and
we were fortunate to have the Minister of Justice attend.
It is no longer the people I referred to previously who are
putting on this justice dinner. The justice dinner is now being
put on by the community safety crime prevention council of
Waterloo region. That council is a project of my community,
funded by regional council to the tune of $75,000 a year in cash
as well as the provision of office space and other resources.
I am very happy to say that we have two members of this
parliament on this side of the House, the member for Kitchener
Centre and the member for Waterloo—Wellington, who were members
of the regional council that gave funding to this project.
This project initially was headed by the chief of police for
Waterloo region. The council includes people from justice
agencies. It includes people from probation and parole. It
includes people from community social services, people from the
school boards, people from the planning departments and the
commissioner of social services. It has fairly heavy
representation from the provincial police. It includes the now
mayor of the city of Waterloo, Joan McKinnon, the commissioner
and director of family and children services, as well as the
executive director of the Children's Aid Society. The list goes
on. There are 33 members.
These people have taken up the challenge of co-ordinating in our
community the services of the various governments, be they the
school board, social services, children's aid, the police, the
planning departments or the voluntary sector.
They produced numerous planning documents and strategies to deal
with prevention in our community.
The first report came out in November 1996. The second report
came out in 1997. The third report came out in 1998. They came
up with a proposal to have a unified community response to deal
with the issue of crime.
The province of Quebec deals with crime much more effectively
than we do in the rest of the country. Crime is very expensive.
The federal and provincial governments spend $9.6 billion a year
on crime. If we include the victims and other costs associated
with crime we are talking about $46 billion.
What we are talking about in the first year of this crime
prevention effort is $32 million. It is a little more than $1
per capita. The money that we spend, the $9.6 billion, is more
than $300 per capita. Clearly what we are trying to do is to
start diverting some of the money at prevention so we do not have
the victims, we do not have the shattered lives. Then we will
have contributing members of society, as well as safe homes and
safe streets.
2040
When we deal with the the Young Offenders Act and with the
people who exploit it, be it for economic or political
considerations, let me say that we imprison 15 times as many
young offenders as they do in Australia or in New Zealand. We
imprison 10 times as many young offenders as they do in the
western European countries. But to our shame, we incarcerate two
and a half times as many young offenders as they do in the United
States of America. That is a shame. That is not the perception
that the Canadian public has.
The perception that the Canadian public has, if they watch the
proceedings of this House or if they watch the media which likes
to exploit crime, is that we have a system which is in disarray
and we have a society that is not as safe as it really is. The
perception has been driving the agenda and it is time for us to
get together and make sure that the reality drives the agenda and
that we work on realistic solutions to make Canada one of the
safest countries in the world.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with great interest and
I was delighted to hear what he had to say with respect to all
the work that has been done in the region of Kitchener—Waterloo.
I was impressed with everybody who is concerned. I was really
impressed with the effort that is going on in his community to
make it a better community. I congratulate him for being there
20 years for his constituents.
I want to share with him an instance that occurred in my riding
right after the Young Offenders Act was implemented. A young
offender committed a multiple killing and unfortunately received
only a three year sentence. It is in those instances that I
agree with my colleague, who I hope will find it in his heart to
agree that moving toward publishing the names of the young
offenders and bringing them to adult court is something that is
definitely needed. If these measures were in place in our
communities this killing might not have happened.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his intervention. First, let me say that there is a need for
prisons to house people who are a danger to the community. There
is no question about that.
I agree with my colleague that a three year sentence was not
adequate. That has been changed. Under the changes that will be
tabled in the House that will be changed again.
But I point out to my colleague that attempted murder and
homicide make up one-tenth of 1% of crime. So we are talking
about a very small number.
Most of the offences occurring under the Young Offenders Act are
property offences, law and order offences.
Let me tell my colleague that his point is very correct. We
have to assure the public that for those offenders, and there are
not as many as people would have us believe, lengthy jail terms
are appropriate.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the hon.
member for Kitchener—Waterloo and I have a great deal of respect
for the work that he did within the justice system prior to
becoming a member of the House. He has displayed at the justice
committee a great depth of knowledge in the area of victims'
rights. I know he has made a personal commitment and has been a
part of various systems within his riding. He encourages
restorative justice. He has spoken very eloquently with respect
to victims.
2045
On balance, given a choice of priorities, would the hon. member
prefer to see astronomical and staggering amounts of money set
aside by his government to further this ill-conceived gun
registry? We are talking money in excess of $133 million thus
far and the amount is still accumulating as we speak. It will go
up to the half a billion dollar mark before this is up and
running.
It is not going to impact in any significant way on violent
crime. It has been stated time and time again and I think the
hon. member will also agree that for crimes committed in fits of
passion it will not matter whether a serial number is stamped on
the butt of a rifle. Violent criminals are going to be loath to
register their guns.
I ask the hon. member this question in a very non-partisan way
and on an intellectual level. Would he not prefer to see his
government's commitment to justice result in moneys spent in the
area of furthering the cause of victims or furthering the cause
of front line police officers, to beef up our justice system in
that regard? Would he not prefer putting the money into some of
the more innovative approaches to justice that he speaks of, some
of the preventative programs he has initiated in his own
constituency? Would this not further the cause of justice as
opposed to this priority decision that has been made on this
ill-fated ill-conceived gun registry?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for
his question. I note that he is a former crown attorney. He
certainly has some knowledge of the criminal justice system. I
very much enjoy working with him. Unfortunately he missed my
opening comments where I actually talked about gun control, the
position I took in the last election campaign and why I supported
it. To recap, victims wanted us to pass it and they supported
it. My community virtually demanded it.
There is the issue that law-abiding people will register guns
and criminals will not. As a crown attorney, the member will
know that at some point this week there will be a raid on a
motorcycle club some place. Chances are there will be all sorts
of guns around. When a police officer is able to say “This gun
is not registered and you have committed an offence,” then we
have done something good.
I also mentioned that it is too easy to obtain guns in this
country. We do not want to repeat some of the mistakes made
south of the border where children are killing children and their
teachers. We must have control of firearms. During the election
campaign I was very up front. At the conclusion of my remarks I
said if you do not support Bill C-68, if you do not believe we
should have gun control, do not vote for me, vote for the New
Democrats, the Conservatives or the Reform Party. There was a
lot of support for it in my community which was attested to by
the results.
The member talked about the expensive cost of crime. He knows
that the cost of crime in Canada is $46 billion. What we spend
at the government level is $9.6 billion. What we are talking
about in terms of crime prevention is really a small amount of
money. We are talking $32 million.
The member will know that I have lobbied the justice minister
that we should reallocate some of the money that we have now
allocated under the federal government budget. Thirty-two
million dollars represents 1% of the federal budget for justice
and the solicitor general. Let us reallocate something like 5%
over the coming years. Let us help communities to come up with
the plans, the strategies and the projects to battle crime and to
work on crime prevention.
2050
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter. I
notice the member for Wild Rose is lamenting the fact that he has
not been recognized by the Chair to speak, but I would simply ask
him to be patient.
I and other Canadians would like to think that what we are
debating and discussing here tonight is somehow relevant to
ordinary Canadians from coast to coast. Yesterday in the House
what became crystal clear to all Canadians from coast to coast
and to every member in the House, if they already were not aware,
is that this House of Commons for all intents and purposes is
irrelevant. It does not mean anything. Decisions are not taken
in this Chamber. Decisions are taken behind closed doors, in the
Prime Minister's office and in the House leader's office. Five
men get together and decide what the business of the House will
be.
Yesterday while this House was sitting, not a single, solitary
government member was present during debate. As a result of the
total and complete abdication of its responsibility to govern,
the opposition parties passed a motion which carried unanimously.
That motion would prevent the government from introducing any
form of closure.
What is more important is that because of the abdication of
responsibility of the Government of Canada, and we are talking
about the Government of Canada. Think of what could have
happened yesterday in this House because of the fact that there
was not a single Liberal member present. The opposition could
have declared war yesterday.
Members laugh and chuckle but as a result of the absence of the
Government of Canada, the opposition could have completely
abolished the Department of Foreign Affairs. The opposition
could have defeated the government on a vote of confidence. That
is the respect the government has for this Chamber, for the House
of Commons. Not a single, solitary member was present.
I do not think Canadians recognize how totally irrelevant the
House is. That action yesterday crystallized for Canadians how
irrelevant this place is.
In an hour or so the government wants to pass through this House
some 70-odd votes. It wants authorization to spend billions of
taxpayers' dollars. It expects, as a result of a backroom deal
by five House leaders, that this House will totally expedite all
the business of the House this evening. I think not.
The people of York—South Weston put their trust in me. They
voted for me in the last election campaign not to be a party to
backroom deals.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There were a few points of order today about the relevance of
speeches. We are dealing with justice. I do not hear the word
justice mentioned and I do not see any relevance in this speech
to the topic at hand.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for
York—South Weston knows that the motion we are debating before
the House is a motion to concur in the estimates of the
Department of Justice and that the speeches are to be on the
subject of justice. I know that he is coming to that subject
very shortly in his remarks.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, what I am speaking about
is justice. It is democratic justice. It is criminal justice.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that the
estimates of the Department of Justice are a different thing from
the abstract notion of justice. They are rather concrete and
deal with dollars and cents. That is what the subject of the
debate is this evening. I invite the hon. member to direct his
comments to that.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that
the debate is irrelevant.
2055
We are talking about the justice department and the allocation
of sufficient funds, some $193 million to fund justice. What I
am saying is that it is irrelevant what we are talking about.
But I will speak about justice and how unjust it is to put the
House through this debate to talk about the criminal justice
system. If members want me to talk about the criminal justice
system, I will talk about it, but it is irrelevant because
decisions have already been taken in the backrooms.
I had a bill before the last parliament to repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code. That bill, to repeal section 745 of the
Criminal Code which allows convicted killers to apply to have
their release date reduced from 25 years down to 15 years, was
passed by the House of Commons at second reading. It was passed
by the House of Commons with some 80 Liberals, and I was part of
that caucus, supporting that motion.
Let me give another example of how irrelevant the House is. The
House passed the legislation in principle to repeal section 745.
That was the intent of parliament. It expressed its will, each
member in a free vote. What did the government do? It killed
the bill at committee. That is what it did. It pretends to be
democratic. It pretends that the private members process is
important. It pretends that somehow what we do in the House is
relevant, but it is irrelevant.
Until and unless members of the House take a stand, our
parliamentary system will continue to degenerate. Canadians will
continue to lose confidence and have contempt for this
institution.
Is it any wonder that collectively we are looked down upon by
Canadians? Collectively as politicians we are told day in day
out, justifiably so by Canadians, that they have no confidence in
this institution of parliament. They see things like the
government abandoning its responsibility yesterday and not a
single member being present. They see the House of Commons
passing a bill to ameliorate the criminal justice system with
respect to 745. There is the hepatitis C issue, and the list
goes on and on. Is it any wonder that we have to hang our heads
in shame?
The government with the complicity of the opposition parties
wants to pass a bill in less than a day to increase the pay and
benefits for members of parliament. Think about it. When it
comes to our own collective pockets we are prepared to pass a
bill—we are not, the backroom boys are—and members are not
objecting. They come to me. I have had maybe a dozen or 15
members ask me as an independent member to please hold up
consent. Please do not give unanimous consent to this. They are
afraid to speak out because they will be reprimanded by the
powers that be, by those unelected people in the Prime Minister's
office who have control.
I have said time and time again that we do not live in a
democracy. We say this sometimes frivolously, but the reality is
we do not live in a democracy. This is nothing short of a
glorified dictatorship. This country is run by half a dozen
people, half of whom are unelected, as some hon. members have
said and I have repeated many times. Unelected people make
decisions with respect to the public interest.
Where is the public interest? Who is watching for the public
interest? I am not setting myself up as some saviour for the
public interest but I have been given a voice as a result of the
people's mandate in York—South Weston.
Pay and benefits, run it through in a day. Why is that bill
dealing with remuneration, pensions, salaries of members of
parliament not being referred to a parliamentary committee? Why
is it that witnesses are not being called?
2100
Why can members of parliament, the political parties, not serve
the public interests as opposed to serving themselves? I would
like to attend an open meeting an give my views on pay and
benefits. There has to be in the process some transparency.
The House leaders met, all the political parties in this
chamber, and took a decision with respect to pay and benefits.
They expect everyone in this House, including me, to support it.
I think not. I do not intend to. I am going to insist we not
participate in these votes these evening and that we, as a
parliament, sit down and find ways to make this parliament more
democratic. That is the only way to do it.
When I woke up this morning I expected three votes at 5.30 p.m.
today. I was in Toronto. Then I get word that there are 70 some
votes taking place today. Most members did not know. They were
told to hurry back. Is that any way to run the Government of
Canada, by having no members present when the House of Commons is
sitting and then pile up these votes? Two weeks ago we had about
100 votes in this House. I will say without equivocation that
the majority of members—
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am not sure I grasp the relevancy of this debate to the justice
estimates. I do not see the connection.
The Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated to the hon.
member for York South—Weston the need for relevance in his
remarks to the justice estimates. I know he will go back to
those estimates very quickly.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it appears the government
does not like listening to what I am saying. Well, tough. I was
given voice to speak and I will speak.
He wants me to speak about justice. Let us talk about criminal
justice. The member was elected in Etobicoke. He was given a
mandate to represent the people of Etobicoke, not to be a trained
seal. He was elected, as I was elected, to speak out on their
behalf, not to defer to some unelected people. I want to tell
the hon. member what the people of Etobicoke are saying to him
and what they expect of him as their member of parliament. They
expect him to come into this House, to go to caucus and to speak
out about criminal law reform.
I ask the hon. member what has he said about criminal law reform
in the House of Commons. Has he simply deferred. The member
laughs. Let him laugh. I hope his constituents recognize how
ill served they are in the House of Commons. If I can help in
any way to inform his constituents I intend to do that.
Let me get back to justice. It relates directly to the comments
I made about the relevancy of parliament. If this parliament
were relevant it would be passing laws to ameliorate, to fix, to
reform a criminal justice system in this country that is broken.
It is a criminal justice system that allows an individual who
raped and murdered 11 children to make a mockery out of the
criminal justice system by applying and exercising his rights.
Had the government not stopped and blocked my bill, Clifford
Olson would not have had the opportunity last summer to make a
mockery of the criminal justice system. He forced the families
to relive the trauma, the feelings of total devastation of
learning their children were raped and murdered. This government
decided that Clifford Olson, not the public, could have a say. I
use Clifford Olson because he is probably the most notorious
example. The member from Etobicoke agreed with the position of
the Government of Canada.
Section 745 is a travesty.
2105
This government supports a criminal justice system that caters
to the accused, to the convicted, to inmates and to prisoners and
sets aside the public interest, the interest of victims. Is it
any wonder Canadians have lost faith in the criminal justice
system, in parliament?
I can go on about the Young Offenders Act. The minister kept
repeating in due course she would bring in amendments. What has
she brought in? Absolutely nothing.
This government has been in office for five years and it has
done nothing meaningful when it comes to reforming the Young
Offenders Act which invites 16 and 17-year olds to break the law.
It treats 16 and 17-year olds like children.
If you are 16 or 17 you are old enough to drive a car, you are
old enough to get married, you are old enough to leave home, but
the criminal justice system in this country says you do not know
the difference between right and wrong and we are not going to
treat you like an adult. What pure nonsense. They know the
difference between right and wrong and they ought to be dealt
with in adult court.
That is the line the Liberals continue to throw back, that we
want to lock up children. That is a crock. Subject the 16 and
17-year olds to the criminal justice system. Age will always be
a mitigating factor at sentencing, not with respect to
culpability.
If a 16-year old murders or rapes or robs or commits any serious
offence, once there is a finding of guilt, let the defence make
an argument for leniency because of age. This government says
they are to be treated more leniently. Is it any wonder that the
police and those involved with the criminal justice system have
no confidence in it?
We all know who Paul Bernardo is. He is rotting in a jail
somewhere in Kingston, but he is going to have the same right
that Clifford Olson had. What about his accomplice? Paul
Bernardo will be able to apply in about 10 or 11 years to chop
the families of the victims after the crimes he committed. What
about his accomplice? She is eligible for parole today as we
speak because of the criminal justice system. Talk about justice.
She will be released from prison and there is nothing the system
can do in less than eight years I think it is.
An hon. member: She can vote.
Mr. John Nunziata: She can vote. She can even have her
sex changed, believe it or not. Cable television in their cells,
computers, photocopiers. Clifford Olson had access to computers,
photocopiers. He was entering poetry contests in the United
States. He had pornography in his cell. He was sending
pornography.
This is the criminal justice system we are talking about. This
is the criminal justice system crafted by Liberals, by bleeding
hearts in the sixties and seventies, and it continues to be
protected. This criminal justice system continues to be
protected by the government. Is it serving the interests of
Canadians? No. If you ask Canadians what they want done, they
want a fair criminal justice system. They want a criminal
justice system that puts the rights of citizens before the rights
of criminals.
What action has this government taken? Very little. The
government is big on photo ops whether it is in Naples or Rome or
Havana or other parts of the world, but when it comes to concrete
action here in the House of Commons, the government deserves an
F. We are talking about the criminal justice system here
and I could speak for hours about the deficiencies of the system
and how the public is not served.
We have two penitentiary systems. Who is serving the public
interest? We have a provincial system. If you are sentenced to
two years less a day, you go into the provincial penitentiary
system, provincial parole board.
If it is two years plus a day, you go into the federal
penitentiary system. Who is being served by that? It is because
of turf wars between the provinces and the federal government.
2110
We have a system that does not work. Is the government prepared
to fix the system? No. We have a criminal justice system that
provides for concurrent sentencing. Someone can walk out of this
place, kill one person, plan in a very deliberate way the murder
of two, three, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, commit an act of
terrorism, kill two hundred people and the penalty is the same.
One would think if we had a fairer system of justice,
consecutive sentencing would be provided for. In the case of
Paul Bernardo who was convicted of murdering two innocent young
women, instead of being eligible for parole after 25 years at the
very least, if we had consecutive sentencing he would not be
eligible for 50 years.
No, the Liberals do not want to change that. They do not want
to change that because the backroom boys have said no. I know
individual members of parliament, if there were free votes in
this place, if this place were relevant, could correct the
criminal justice system. We could correct a lot of the
deficiencies within the system.
Before we do that we have to correct this place. We have to
make the Parliament of Canada relevant. It is time for electoral
reform. It is time for parliamentary reform. I know there is
considerable support for it.
I was recently in British Columbia where I gave a speech about
the lack of democracy in this country. When I speak to people in
other countries or in Canada, when I point out to them some of
the realities of Ottawa, they become very disturbed. They become
very concerned and ask what they can do.
Let me give an example in the minute that remains. We call
Canada a democracy. In the last election campaign more than six
out of ten people who went to vote did not vote Liberal. They
did not vote for the Prime Minister. They voted for other
political parties. They voted for other individuals. They
rejected the government, over 60%. Only 38% of those who voted
voted for the Liberal government.
As a result of our electoral system, one man is given virtual
dictatorial power with the support of 38% of the electorate in
Canada. Is that democracy? I think not.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member referred I
believe six times to the absence of members of parliament. I
thought while we were participating in debate we were not
supposed to refer to the presence or absence. Since Mr. Speaker
let it go six times, I decided I would ask the member—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is going to have to
ask questions about justice issues since we are discussing the
justice estimates. On two occasions I had to intervene to deal
with the hon. member for York South—Weston because he was going
off on other topics.
I know my correction may not have been as efficacious as the
parliamentary secretary would have hoped, but I am sure he would
not want to provoke further difficulty for the Chair and that he
will want to ask about the justice estimates.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, in essence,
I would like to maybe correct the claim of the member for York
South—Weston that had we removed section 745, Clifford Olson
would not have been able to apply.
The member knows full well that even rescinding section 745 of
the Criminal Code would be retroactive and therefore the likes of
Bernardo or Clifford Olson would not have been taken care of.
The changes we made will prevent Paul Bernardo from applying
because he has to be able to prove with a certain amount of cause
that he will be able to succeed.
I would like to ask the member one question. He refers to the
relevancy of parliament. Is it relevant that he attends the
House of Commons only on Tuesdays, especially when there are a
lot of votes, to make his record better? Is relevancy only for
members on this side? Is it maybe relevant for independent
members to attend parliament on days other than Tuesdays?
2115
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken
and I would expect the member to at least be honest. To suggest
that I am only here on Tuesdays is erroneous and he knows it. If
he wants to make those statements outside the House of Commons
where he is subject to slander laws then I challenge him to make
those statements outside.
I can tell the hon. member that I will not hesitate for a moment
to issue a writ against the member. He has a responsibility as
an officer, as a parliamentary secretary, not only to be honest
to the House—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member knows that
all hon. members are always considered to be honest in their
dealings in the House. I do not think he would want to suggest
otherwise.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will simply consider
the source. He speaks of Clifford Olson. He says that his
application could not have been denied. That is not true. I
suggest he get an opinion from the Department of Justice. He has
access to the Department of Justice.
He might have someone's opinion that it might have somehow
contravened the right of Clifford Olson to apply under section
745. I would like the member to address the point that the House
of Commons passed a bill to repeal section 745. Notwithstanding
the argument he is putting forward that Clifford Olson could have
applied in any event, which is not true, and even if it were true
that Clifford Olson's constitutional rights would have somehow
been affected, the House had the authority to use the
notwithstanding clause to say we in parliament make laws, not the
courts of Canada.
We believe that Clifford Olson and others like him should not be
permitted to apply for early release. We could have invoked the
notwithstanding clause. The member knows that.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
a pleasure it was to hear somebody say exactly some of the things
I have been saying for quite some time about the way this place
operates. I agree fully with what the member said.
It is a little discouraging. I have been on duty all day. It
is past 9 p.m. It could be 4 a.m. We will go through a pile of
votes that there is no point in anybody voting on because the
government has already made up its mind how it will turn out. It
has done that behind closed doors. It will boldly say that is
how democracy works. That is hog manure. I am tired of hearing
that baloney.
During the years 1984 to 1993 did the Conservative Party under
Mulroney do anything different? The GST people who were kicked
out, was that an accident or was there an error? What was the
difference back then? What is the difference between the
Conservatives and the Liberals in the last 20 years?
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for York
South—Weston will seek to make the answer relevant to the
justice estimates, as I am sure the hon. member for Wild Rose was
doing his best to do with that question.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I could be cynical and
say there is no difference between the Mulroney government and
the Chrétien government. It is not the government—
The Deputy Speaker: Once again, the hon. member of York
South—Weston cannot refer to members of the House by name. He is
an experienced member and he knows that. I invite him to comply
with the rules in that regard.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we ought not to look at
the problem from a partisan perspective. Regardless of who forms
the government and given the present way we conduct business in
Ottawa, it will be no different if the Reform Party forms the
government or the Conservative Party or the NDP. We have to
change the system.
Winston Churchill, perhaps the most learned student of
parliamentary democracy, often said that in order for
parliamentary democracy to survive it must continually evolve. It
must continually be made better and more sensitive to the people
that it purports to serve.
We are not ameliorating the parliamentary system. If anything we
are going backward. That is the reason public opinion poll after
public opinion poll rates parliamentarians, MPs, almost at the
bottom in terms of public respect and integrity. That is why
Canadians have so very little confidence in the parliamentary
system.
2120
The only people that could make a difference—and I believe
parliament could do it—are individual members of parliament who
will take a stand and say “Enough is enough. We are going to
take control. We are going to democratize the House of
Commons”. I intend to do that in approximately 40 minutes
because I do not intend to give my consent to any motion that
requires unanimous consent to expedite the business of the
government.
The government showed its contempt for the people of Canada, for
the Parliament of Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington on a question or comment.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member for York South—Weston knows and the
member for Wild Rose ought to know, the issues we are debating
tonight are considered and deliberated on in committee, either
the finance committee or the justice committee.
I would like to ask a direct question of the member for York
South—Weston. Does he have the courage to tell the House
whether in this current session of parliament he has attended a
single committee meeting and if—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We are on a debate on
the justice estimates and I urge hon. members to be relevant in
their questions and in their comments. I cut off the hon. member
for York South—Weston in his reply because in my view it was not
relevant to the debate before us.
I know hon. members want to debate the justice estimates. That
is why we are here. I invite the question to be relevant to the
justice estimates. It will be a very short question.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I hope I was not out of
order but the member for York South—Weston keeps alluding to the
fact that the rest of us do not work. My role is not just in the
House of Commons. My role is also to work in the standing
committees, to listen to witnesses and to discuss issues like the
estimates and the justice issues the member is talking about.
Could the member for York South—Weston give us a sense of his
involvement in this type of activity of parliament? Does he
concede that it is an important activity?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as those who are
listening have noticed and as other Canadians have noticed, the
only thing Liberal members can do is to attack me personally as
they did during the election campaign.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Nunziata: Let them carry on, Mr. Speaker. In the
election campaign of a year ago they levelled personal attacks
instead of speaking to the merits of what I was talking about. I
did not attack any individual personally other than the member
from Etobicoke.
I was speaking to some fundamental issues that all Canadians
wanted to see addressed. If all the Liberals can resort to is
name calling and personal attacks, let them do it because their
candidate lost in the riding of York South—Weston.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
following the member for York South—Weston is an honour. I
certainly agree with everything he said. I hope members of the
House do not think for a moment I am trying to reflect on the way
things are today by referring to what happened in the past.
We do need changes with regard to justice, the way we do
business in the House and the way we spend money. To use a
phrase from my colleague from Edmonton North, it is not a matter
of uniting the right. It is a matter of uniting the bright and
there are no bright lights on that side of the House. That is
why we are looking over here. We need someone who has vision
that will work in the justice system and in the country as a
whole.
Justice is a very high priority on our list. Therefore I would
not want to see any reduction in spending. There are a lot of
ways we could handle this kind of situation. All we need to do
is look at some things that are going on within government in
terms of spending and come up with some good ideas.
I appreciate the waste report we get from our colleague from St.
Albert. I wonder how many members of the House would like to see
some of the following money going to justice or to some other
good cause like feeding hungry children.
2125
On transition to adulthood research we spent $105,000. On
sexual dissidence, historical content, we spent $23,000. On
institutional change and household behaviour in rural China we
spent $55,000. On infants and understanding how people act we
spent $75,000. On limited editions of Spanish golden age plays
we spent $44,000. I really liked what happened about two years
ago. We spent $116,000 on a committee to study seniors and
sexuality. Being a senior I cannot say how good it makes me feel
that the government could find $116,000 to spend on this. The
list goes on and on.
We are talking about spending millions and pretty soon it will
be billions. The government spent close to $2 million on Angus
Reid, Createc and Ekos Research doing polls in just one year.
Hopefully it made the government feel good.
According to the auditor general we are probably spending $1
billion on registering the guns of duck hunters, deer hunters,
trophy hunters and trap shooters. How can anyone support
spending that kind of money on a project that will just not do
the job? It will not solve a thing.
When we go through all this waste we wonder how long it has been
going on. Is that why we are $600 billion in the hole? I hate
to refer to the past but I have to be reminded of why I became so
disillusioned with the Conservative Party and tore up my card a
few years back. I only have to walk down to the museum and look
at a little red line on a board that costs $6 million to remember
why. The same kind of crazy spending was going on at that time,
much to the objection of many of us in the country.
When will it stop? The government has to get its priorities
straight. We could do lots of valuable things with all that
money. We have a health system and an education system that are
crumbling. We have a justice system that could use help.
I want to take a look at these misplaced priorities. I have
been analysing the solicitor general's department for over a year
now. Let me give an example. Last October 1, a guard from
Joyceville came to see me who had been pricked by a tattoo needle
and could have potentially contracted the AIDS virus. He asked
the commissioner of corrections to provide guards with puncture
resistant gloves. Nine months have now passed and there are no
gloves.
Correctional Service of Canada will say that it is still
researching to find the best possible equipment when the guards
themselves found appropriate gloves many months ago.
I learned yesterday that an officer in Joyceville in the visits
and correspondence unit was stabbed with a needle while he was
opening mail. The least we could provide these frontline workers
with is a pair of puncture resistant gloves. We could spend some
money protecting our guards who put their very lives on the line
day in and day out. We could do a lot about that.
A thousand new guards are to be hired. That is great. That is
important. It is a good decision. However I hope they do not
advertise, pull people off the street and spend thousands of
millions of dollars training them when we have casual workers who
are already trained and well prepared to fill these positions. I
understand that will not necessarily be the case, that it will be
open advertising. They will pull them off the street and retrain
a whole pile of people when they already have trained casual
workers. Money should not be wasted doing that.
I have looked at the spending to keep inmates comfortable during
the past four years of touring prisons throughout the country. I
have been in every one with the exception of one or two. The
facilities provide convicts with three square meals a day,
complete medical and dental care, big screen TVs, rumpus rooms
and now in Ferndale a golf course and probably a golf range. Is
it good to see that a convicted murderer can reduce his handicap
while he is behind bars?
2130
In the real world I have met hundreds of people, and I know all
the members have met hundreds of people, who cannot even meet the
bare necessities for their own kids let alone have a golf game or
a pool game or watch anything on a big screen TV. But this is
readily available.
It has been a while since I was at the Drumheller Institution. I
met six inmates that day in the little apartment they have which
they call a prison. They were marinating beautiful Alberta rib
eye steaks, one each.
I would like the government members to explain to the needy
children that we hear about from them all the time, the people in
this country who are starving and suffering. I would like them
to explain to all Canadians why it is that convicts can eat
steaks when a lot of people, including seniors, cannot even
afford macaroni. I would like that explained.
Why do inmates get free education? The poor have to wait in
line for a draw. They call it the millennium scholarship lottery.
Why can a low income family not take their children to a
dentist? Because they cannot afford it, yet there is a dentist
who makes house calls to Millhaven. They do not have to worry
about their teeth.
People in my own hometown have come to me asking what can they
do. They have four and five year old kids with rotten teeth and
they cannot afford to pay the dentist. They cannot get help from
social services and they cannot afford a dentist. Yet this is
done openly in the penitentiaries.
Seniors suffer from poor health. Convicts can have a sex change
on demand, but seniors are suffering without health programs.
It is really sad that the veterans of the world wars and the
Korean war are living in absolute poverty. Some have called me
saying “I do not understand what is happening. I have been on
the veterans pension. Now my wife has reached 65 years of age and
she has gone on the old age pension and they have taken all my
veterans benefits away. We are trying to get by on $600 or $700 a
month”.
I visited the home of one of these veterans. He had a medal of
honour and a medal of bravery for World War II which he once was
very proud of. He wanted me to bring those medals back here and
I do not want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, where he wanted me to put
them. The kind of language he used to tell me where to put them
would not be fitting for these kind ladies and gentlemen in this
place. These are our veterans from the wars.
I defy any member in the House to stand up and say he does not
know of a veteran who fought for this country, for the very
freedoms we try to enjoy, who is not in the same kind of a
predicament because they are out there. We just do not pay
attention to that. We have too many more important things to do.
That attitude has to change.
Take a look at our military. Compare that to our justice
system. Over the past several months the standing committee on
defence has heard about the living conditions and the quality of
life of our military personnel and what they are experiencing.
The only real reason for this is that successive governments have
overworked and underequipped the members of our forces and have
left them grossly underpaid. The underfunding of defence has led
to a debate whether to buy essential equipment for the survival
of our soldiers in the field or to compensate our soldiers with
the salaries and benefits they deserve. In trying to do both,
the equipment is falling apart and our service personnel are
suffering beyond belief.
At the same time we heard the solicitor general praise our
prison system as being one of the best in the world. This system
provides our federal inmates with the use of miniature golf
courses, tennis courts, basketball courts, softball diamonds,
jogging tracks, cable television, big screen TV, racquetball, all
other kinds of entertainment, weight lifting and automatic gyms
which cost thousands of dollars, all at taxpayers' expense.
Most of our soldiers only dream about all of those activities.
The possibility of getting involved in these activities is nil.
The soldiers who are serving in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia get
relatively few if any of these things, let alone a conjugal
visit. Even those personnel posted in Canada cannot afford to
enjoy the range of goodies afforded to our prison inmates. Our
soldiers now have to pay recreation fees for the use of the gyms
and the ice rinks on the bases. Our soldiers.
2135
On Monday, April 27, Colonel Jim Calvin appeared before the
standing committee on defence. He reported that a fully trained
private, married with two children, after three years of service
takes home $49 of disposable income per month. This compares to
our inmates who receive in the same case a monthly disposable
amount of $157.50, three times more than what the military
personnel are forced to get by on. Only a Liberal could smile
about that. Only a Liberal could laugh about that.
The bottom line is that our convicts are given more
consideration by our government than our soldiers, sailors and
air crew, an attitude that has to change. How can we ever hope
to recruit young people into our services to serve our country
knowing that those in jail are treated better? Some of these
soldiers have to stand in line at a food bank in order to get
enough to feed their families. It is absolutely ridiculous. They
do not enjoy the luxuries that many of the inmates do.
Look at the parole system. Over the past month the solicitor
general and the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada have
been quoted at length listing the reasons why imprisonment is so
debilitating and that parole is the answer. They claim that there
is no link between incarceration and public safety.
The commissioner was at a loss to understand how the federal
inmate population has gone up by 23% over the past five years and
the crime rate has fallen by 13%. It never entered these two
expert's minds that maybe if we put the criminals behind bars,
then the crime rate may fall.
Lo and behold, it reminds me of a study which the New York mayor
did before he implemented the brick, broke and pain philosophy to
try to improve the situation. He did a big study. He wanted to
know the causes of crime. He spent lots of money going into the
causes of crime. Eureka, he found out the number one cause of
crime. Do you know what it was, Mr. Speaker? Criminals. Is
that not hard to understand.
The alternative the government is promoting to keeping them in
is that it only costs $9,000 a year to supervise an inmate on
parole. That is well and fine when public safety is guaranteed.
But when the National Parole Board's record of releasing
dangerous offenders who go on to commit murder while on parole is
questionable because of what has happened in the past, it is not
a valid solution.
According to the government's own statistics which it provided
to my office, from 1986 to 1997, 2,292 people were murdered,
assaulted, taken as hostage, forcibly confined or robbed by
offenders on parole. Of those 2,292 people, 217 were murdered.
We never hear these statistics from these masterminds.
When we look at those kinds of figures, it simply is too big a
price to ask society to continue to support that kind of result.
What kind of sacrifice do we expect of Canadians? Accept the
parole system where there are only 2,200 victims every 10 years
and 200 or so murdered. Accept it as good because after all only
about 10% of those who were on parole did that. The other 90%
were all good. That kind of figure is too big a sacrifice to ask
Canadians to pay.
2140
If we need to spend more money, let us look at where we waste
it. Let us look at what we are doing in other areas like
defence. Let us see what we can do about changing some things,
see what we can do about where we spend our money.
Maybe the seniors do not need a sexuality study. Maybe we do
not. It would have been nice if the government had asked me. I
could have told it right at the beginning and it would have saved
$100,000. Seniors and sexuality. The sad part about it is I did
not get a copy of the report.
It is nice to be here tonight. There are a few things I need to
get off my chest.
Look at “The Waste Report” and look at the public accounts to
see where some of this money is going. Look at the whole
scenario. Almost every day in the House of Commons for the last
five years government members have talked about the suffering in
the cities, families who need help, starving children, people who
are suffering and who need help. The Liberals stand in this
House saying we have got to do something about it and then
miraculously the government finds some billions of dollars to
give to Bombardier. It finds $25 million to give away free
flags. It finds $116,000 to form a committee on seniors and
sexuality.
These decisions are coming from the Liberal Party of Canada, the
governing body of this country. The people of this land need to
know that. I hope that in the next election they kick them right
out of here.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you will find unanimous consent to deem the question
to have been put, a division requested and an order deferred
until 10.00 p.m so that we might spend more time debating the
next item on the Order Paper. I believe there is unanimous
consent, if the Speaker would request it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
proposition put forward by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not consent.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe what I have been hearing. My colleague from Wild
Rose has been complaining about his sexuality. I want to say
that there is some quick help on the way. Viagra is just about
to hit the waves here. He may have an opportunity to re-examine
this issue. We heard a lot of rubbish from him tonight.
There is a great difference between this party on this side of
the House and his party on the other side. We are a party that
looks toward the future with optimism. That party on the other
side looks to the future with pessimism. It lives in the past.
It does not look forward, it looks backward. It has absolutely
no vision. Every time we hear one of these guys speak, we get
depressed. We feel absolutely terrible.
The member for Wild Rose is the same guy who wanted to tie
10-year old children upside down and beat them to discipline
them. That is his definition of law and order. It did not
matter what the child did. He wanted to put the child behind
bars. That is his way of disciplining. His way of dealing with
law and order is to jail them.
For the Reform Party there are two classes of people. They are
either law-abiding citizens or they are criminals. It does not
matter. The Reform Party views all who are accused as criminals.
Look at its famous bill of rights which clearly states that. Look
at its opposition to the charter of rights and freedoms. It
opposed the charter of rights and freedoms because it gives the
people the right to be protected by law in Canada.
The member for Wild Rose stood up over and over again in the
House of Commons to attack the government on issues of law and
order and the protection of victims. When the Minister of
Justice introduced legislation in the House—
2145
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if there is anything we can do to get this member to stay
somewhere near the truth.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for Elk
Island knows that is not a point of order.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, the member has nothing to say
on the issue. Every time the Minister of Justice has introduced
a measure to protect victims, members of his party voted against
it.
Why is he against gun control as a measure to protect
communities? Why is he against the initiatives of the government
which deal with the protection of our society and with the
prevention of crimes in our society? Why is it that I only hear
doom from this member and his colleagues over and over again and
about the terrible things that happen in our society? Never once
have they proposed something that is tangible, that is positive,
to deal with the problems at hand.
Our society is in good hands. For four years in a row crime has
decreased. What does he have to say to that?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that member is a perfect
illustration of why it is so difficult to be here. This is the
only place I know of where you can stand and lie and it is okay.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member for Wild Rose
wants to give a response.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, if we use the L
word, then we are out of here. Is that correct? I do not know
any other way to say it, except I never saw more people who are
strangers to the truth than the members across the way. It is a
shame that it has to be that way.
I loudly and clearly said that $1 billion for the registration
of rifles and shotguns of duck hunters and deer hunters is a
waste of money. It will not be effective.
I have challenged the government: show me where it will save
lives and I will support it tonight. Show me where the
registration of a shotgun or a rifle will save lives and I will
support it tonight. I have challenged the government for four
years. It has not been done. It cannot be done because, number
one, criminals do not register their guns. They do a lot of
things with their guns, but they do not register them. It is
pure and simple. To spend $1 billion under the umbrella of what
the government thinks is protecting society is just not the
answer, but the government does not listen.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening to what the member for Wild Rose was saying and I have
a question for him.
I think this is part of the problem with the total disrespect
for the justice system and the lack of faith which Canadians have
in the justice system.
2150
We must understand when we deal with Bill C-68 and a lot of
other legislation that we cannot keep drugs out of our prisons in
Canada. We cannot keep heroin out, we cannot keep methadone out,
we cannot keep marijuana out, we cannot keep LSD out, we cannot
keep anything out of our prisons. They are not ordinary
buildings. They are buildings that are surrounded by barbed wire
and great big walls. That is relevant. That is part of the
reason the Canadian public has no faith in the justice system. I
would like the member's comments on that.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to determine
why prisons are full of drugs. It is not that we cannot, it is
that we will not. The reason we will not is because we do not
have people on that side of the House with the intestinal
fortitude to implement that kind of measure. They would rather
sit back and not get too intrusive with the inmates in the
penitentiaries. I am sure they would find some way to say that
it offends the charter of rights. They would want to check that
out very carefully. Would it be a right to be a heroin addict in
the pen?
The sad part about it is that about 80% of those people are
there because of drugs. That is what put them there in the first
place. In prison it is more plentiful than you could ever
imagine. I might as well sentence my Uncle Henry who is an
alcoholic to the wine cellar for the rest of his life. It does
not make a bit of sense. That is the problem with the entire
group over there. Most of the things that happen just do not
make sense.
When drugs are the cause of putting a person in a penitentiary,
then why do we not work hard to get it out of the penitentiary
and save these people from their own fate?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild
Rose was cited as saying that if we put more criminals behind
bars the crime rate may fall. I think I am quoting him exactly.
I would like him to explain why the American theory does not
apply. They have the highest number of penitentiaries, yet they
also have the highest number of criminals.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time
trying to understand the stats we get from these guys. It
usually takes a little interpretation. They are difficult to
understand.
In California we have learned that the crime rate is down by a
huge percentage. In New York City it has gone down even further,
simply by starting the broke and pain theory. That is the picture
in those two areas. The only reason I know about them is because
I read the reports in the newspapers. I try to keep track—
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to enter the debate on the justice estimates. I
find it strangely ironic that the member for York South—Weston,
who is not in the House at the moment, would come into this
House, someone who has championed, as he would put it, the rules
and regulations of the House, to speak on a topic totally
unrelated to the justice estimates. I will not do that. I will
immediately proceed to the justice estimates because that is what
we are here to debate.
I will get into two areas with respect to the justice estimates.
One is gun control. The other is the question of drinking and
driving that has come up in the House over the last little while.
The House should support the justice estimates. With the budget
that the justice department will have, if it passes the House, it
will be able to get on with implementing a number of very
important initiatives. Gun control is but one of them.
We have seen that this is a very useful, efficient and effective
program and it is supported by Canadians very broadly.
2155
We can see the effects of it already. The police in my riding
in Etobicoke are already reporting some of the very positive
effects of some of the early measures that were implemented and I
am confident that more will come. I am totally convinced of
that. We register pets and we register bicycles. I do not know
why in the heck we should not register guns. They are lethal
weapons.
There are other very important initiatives like the changes we
are making to the youth justice system that this budget will
allow our government to implement. With the changes now before
us, youth 14 years and older who are repeat and violent
offenders, who are convicted of murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult
sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.
I know in my riding of Etobicoke North that people are concerned
about repeat young offenders. I think the justice minister and
the department have come forward with very pragmatic and
excellent solutions to this very serious problem.
The changes will also permit the publication of the names upon
conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult
sentence. Publication of the names of 14 to 17 year olds who are
given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent
offences could also be permitted.
I think these are very important measures and this House should
support them.
I would like to turn briefly to the question of drinking and
driving. It is a very topical subject and I am sure it will be
before the justice committee in the not too distant future.
Everyone in this House I am sure is very concerned, very
saddened and shocked when they see individuals who are injured or
who die as a result of being hit by a car driven by a drunk
driver. We should be concerned about that. It is a very serious
issue.
In the ensuing months when we debate these changes, I think that
we should avoid simplistic solutions. Moving the tolerance level
from .08 to .05 or to zero does not really address the problem.
The problem is the repeat offender, the chronic drinker, the
drinker who drinks and drives repeatedly.
The drinker who drives and gets into serious accidents is
sanctioned by society through either a criminal sentence, a
serious fine, or through the repeal of their licence. Immediately
they jump back into their car, go down to the local bar, gets
drunk, go out and maybe injure or kill someone.
That is the problem. It is not the casual responsible drinker.
If the level were dropped to .05 or to .00 it would mean that
people could not even have a beer and get in their car. Why
should we be designing laws in this country to deal with the 5%
or the 3% of society who are irresponsible? Why do we not use
tougher sanctions on them?
I am amazed when I see drivers who drink and who get into
serious accidents. Their licence is revoked, but they are caught
a few months later in a car without a valid licence. Why do we
not put people like that into jail? To me that is the solution.
Why do we have to penalize people for having one drink
responsibly in an evening, getting in their car and driving home
in a very safe and cautious manner?
We should be thinking about those kinds of solutions. If we
went with no risk policies it would mean that people would always
leave their cars at home. They would not get into an aircraft.
They would not cross the street. We cannot design policies to
deal with every single risk in life. I think we need to have
pragmatic policies that deal with serious problems, but they have
to deal with the offenders of the problems.
In my mind, the problem is not the responsible drinker, it is
the repeat offender who just turns their nose up at the justice
system. They have been convicted of an offence, they have had
their licence revoked, and they get back into a car, go out and
drink and drive, and behave irresponsibly.
I understand that a coalition has been formed which includes
MADD, Mothers Against Drinking and Driving.
2200
I am sure it will present to the justice committee. It is saying
that moving tolerance to .05 will not work either.
The Speaker: It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
2230
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 89
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| 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
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 184
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2240
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 124
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $82,636,000, under Human Resources
Development—Department—Corporate Services Program—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2250
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 124
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 3.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That,
Vote 1, in the amount of $426,162,000, under
INDUSTRY—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2305
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 124
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 4.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $17,544,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 4 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question in on Motion No. 5.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $907,704,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—Correctional Service—Penitentiary Service and National
Parole Service—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that
you seek the unanimous consent of the House to apply the result
of the vote just taken to the following: Vote 1 under Health,
Vote 1 under Fisheries and Oceans, Vote 1 under National Defence,
Vote 1 under Agriculture and Agri-Food, Vote 1, under
Environment, Vote 1 under Privy Council, Vote 1 under Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Vote 1 under Transport, Vote 25
under Health, Vote 1 under Foreign Affairs, Vote 1 under Natural
Resources, Vote 35 under Canadian Heritage, Vote 1 under Treasury
Board, Vote 1 under Canadian Heritage and Vote 5 under Finance.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2320
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 164
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 109
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 6.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $20,224,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—National Parole Board—Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2330
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 125
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 7
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $789,932,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—Royal Canadian Mounted Police—Operating expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would propose that you seek unanimous consent of the
House to apply the result of the vote just taken to the following
items—
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
2345
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Baker
| 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
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 164
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 104
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 8.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45—SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 45, in the amount of $718,000, under SOLICITOR
GENERAL—Royal Canadian Police External Review Committee—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2355
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 167
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 106
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 carried.
I know it is a long night and I know many of the
members want to come in and come out. The rule is this. You
should be in your seat when I am finished reading the motion.
After you have voted you are to stay in your seat and you are to
be in your seat at the end of the vote.
If someone does leave and another hon. member wants to challenge
whether that member was here for a vote or not what I simply do
is ask the member who was mentioned if he or she was here under
those conditions. If he or she was not then his or her vote will
not be counted.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That
Vote 5, in the amount of $131,745,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT—Department—Human Resources Investment and
Insurance Program—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2405
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| 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
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 160
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 106
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 10.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $1,018,347,000, under HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—Department—Human Resources Investment
and Insurance Program—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2415
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 159
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 99
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 11.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 1—HEALTH
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $867,573,000, under
HEALTH—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2425
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| 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
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 111
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 12.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $793,631,000, under FISHERIES AND
OCEANS—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for members
to remove their coats.
The Speaker: Does the member have unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2435
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 114
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 carried.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if there are any rules in the House that would allow the
member for York South—Weston and his five conspirators from the
Reform and Conservatives to be charged the $40,000 it has cost
the Canadian taxpayers for this farce tonight.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the
evening I wonder if I could get unanimous consent of the House to
allow our pages to go home if they so choose.
The Speaker: I need them to help me up here for the most
part. I need them to get through the night.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything
when the member for York South—Weston got up from his seat when
we voted on Motion No. 3. Nor did I say anything when he got up
from his seat on Motion No. 6. Nor did I say anything when he
used his cellular as we were voting on Motion No. 8.
However, on the current motion, Mr. Speaker, if you consult
Beauchesne's it says that the member should remain in his seat
until the division is complete and the result announced. I
believe the member left his seat before the result was announced.
The Speaker: I will address myself to the hon. member for
York South—Weston. Did he vote according to the rules of the
House?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite
right. I was absent as was the House leader of the government.
I would expect his vote to be nullified.
2440
I should add that on several of those matters I voted with the
government. Many members of the House throughout the evening
have absented themselves.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I know voting this late in
the evening is very stressful for us. I also know that you are
very concerned, as are the rest of us, about decorum in the
House. I would appreciate it very much if you would rule on the
propriety of the member for Medicine Hat and the member for
Edmonton North playing cards in the House of Commons while the
Leader of the Opposition looks on.
The Speaker: I agree that it is a long night and I would
appeal to my colleagues. We are going to go through this
exercise unless the House decides not to go through it. I would
suggest that we have to keep decorum in the House. I would hope
all hon. members would conduct themselves accordingly as members
of parliament.
Points of order are being raised. I will hear the points of
order because it is the right of members to raise them, but I
would hope you would reflect on the points you are raising.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for London North made comments that were not in order
when he referred to the member for York—South Weston and said
that he and a few Conservatives and Reformers know—
The Speaker: I ruled that the hon. member did not have a
point of order and therefore that ended it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that
things seem to be breaking down on that side. I would like to
make the point that we will be voting. We will be standing up—
2445
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 13.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $6,875,690,000, under NATIONAL
DEFENCE—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2450
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Barnes
|
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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 140
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 108
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 14.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $70,818,000, under
FINANCE—Department—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2500
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| 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
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 128
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Crête
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Duceppe
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Mitchell
| Perron
|
Rocheleau
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 15.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $361,286,000, under AGRICULTURE AND
AGRI-FOOD—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in the favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 15 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 16.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $388,654,000, under
ENVIRONMENT—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 16 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 17.
2505
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $65,162,000, under PRIVY
COUNCIL—Department—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 17 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 18.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $63,272,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Administration
Program—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 18 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 19.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $219,317,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Indian and Inuit Affairs
Program—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 19 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 20.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $3,783,017,000, under INDIAN
AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Indian and Inuit
Affairs Program—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 20 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 21.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $83,507,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Northern Affairs
Program—OuOperating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 21 agreed to)
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I noted that on the last several votes you have declared
votes carried on division. My understanding is that these
motions in fact are not carried on division but are carried on
your interpretation of the voice vote. I would ask for a ruling
on that matter.
2510
The Speaker: The member is correct. It is my call on the
voice vote and I say that it is on division.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $90,940,000, under INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Northern Affairs
Program—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 22 agreed to)
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Historically the phrase on division has come to mean
something. It has been parliamentary tradition. That means that
rather than taking a roll call vote and requiring every member to
stand in his or her place to cast a ballot, the political parties
agree that the motion is to carry without the opposition
suggesting it is voting in favour, that there is opposition to
the motion. That is what the words on division—
The Speaker: I made the decision that it would be carried
on division because there were not five members standing.
Therefore I said that it was on division. I made the ruling and
it will stand.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $7,728,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT—Canada Labour Relations Board—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 23 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 24.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $1,528,000, under HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT—Canadian Artists and Producers Tribunal—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 24 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 25.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $143,098,000, under
TRANSPORT—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 25 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 26.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $17,568,000, under
TRANSPORT—Canadian Transportation Agency—Program expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 26 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 27.
2515
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—HEALTH
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $717,993,000, under
HEALTH—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 27 agreed to)
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Given the procedure that the House has adopted to vote on these
matters, I presume that on the votes that are not being taken
none of the members will be shown in the official record as
having voted this evening on these matters. Is that correct?
The Speaker: That is correct. The next question is on
Motion No. 28.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—HEALTH
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $995,000, under HEALTH—Hazardous
Materials Information Review Commission—Program Expenditures,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 28 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 29.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—HEALTH
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $8,239,000, under HEALTH—Medical
Research Council—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 29 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 30.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—HEALTH
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $218,212,000, under
HEALTH—Medical Research Council—Grants, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 30 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 31.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—HEALTH
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $2,698,000, under
HEALTH—Patented Medicines Prices Review Board—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 31 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 32.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $96,498,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian International Development
Agency—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 32 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 33.
2520
[Translation]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 25—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $1,341,069,000, under FOREIGN
AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Canadian International
Development Agency—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 33 agreed to)
[English]
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 34.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—JUSTICE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $283,651,000, under
JUSTICE—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
2525
The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| 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
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 94
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 34 carried.
2530
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $809,752,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Operating Expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 35 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 36.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $81,661,000, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Capital Expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion No. 36 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 37.
[English]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $288,570,000, under FOREIGN
AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Grants and
Contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 37 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 38.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $258,918,000, under
INDUSTRY—Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 38 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 39.
[English]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 60—INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 60, in the amount of $216,376,000, under
INDUSTRY—Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 39 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 40.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 120—INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 120, in the amount of $231,263,000, under
INDUSTRY—Western Economic Diversification—Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The English translation of the motion that was just put
before the House indicated that it was $250,263,000 as opposed to
$231,263,000, a difference of $19 million.
2535
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member is
correct in the figures. He cited the exact figure of
$231,263,000.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 40 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion. No.
41.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $372,776,000, under NATURAL
RESOURCES—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 41 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 42.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $19,181,000, under CANADIAN
HERITAGE—Canada Information Office—Program expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 42 agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No.
43.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $73,766,000, under TREASURY
BOARD—Secretariat—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 43 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 44.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 2—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 2, in the amount of $44,229,000, under TREASURY
BOARD—Secretariat—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 44 agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We
are dealing with millions and billions of dollars. It is totally
appropriate for you to go as far as reading the motion as to read
the number so that we know it is accurate.
The Deputy Speaker: I go as far as the House demands.
When I asked if I could dispense there was a chorus of yeses and
I dispensed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask the Chair to kindly slow down because it is
very difficult for members to follow the English translation. I
would ask you to slow down if you might.
The Deputy Speaker: It is getting late and we do have to
try to move through the work.
The next question is on Motion No. 45.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $450,000,000, under TREASURY
BOARD—Secretariat—Government Contingencies, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five having risen:
2545
(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 82
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| McWhinney
| Mitchell
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Phinney
| Proud
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 45 carried.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I apologize for being absent when the vote was started on the
last motion. Would you be kind enough to record my vote as
voting with my government?
The Deputy Speaker: I think in the circumstances that
will require the unanimous consent of the House and I expect you
might have trouble.
The next question is on Motion No. 46.
[Translation]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 95—INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 95, in the amount of $6,409,000, under
INDUSTRY—Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 46 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 47.
[Translation]
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 100—INDUSTRY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 100, in the amount of $84,201,000, under
INDUSTRY—Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council—Grants, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 47 agreed to)
2550
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 48.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $32,178,000, under
ENVIRONMENT—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 48 agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No.
49.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 20, in the amount of $2,614,000, under PRIVY
COUNCIL—Chief Electoral Officer—Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 49 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 50.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $41,594,000, under FISHERIES AND
OCEANS—Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2600
(The House divided on Motion No. 50, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Laurin
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 88
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| McWhinney
| Mitchell
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Phinney
| Proud
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 50 carried.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 51.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $96,322,000, under CANADIAN
HERITAGE—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 51 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 52.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $281,200,000, under
FINANCE—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 52 agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No.
53.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PARLIAMENT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $28,245,000, under PARLIAMENT—The
Senate—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2605
(The House divided on Motion No. 53, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 84
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| McWhinney
| Mitchell
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Phinney
| Proud
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 53 carried.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House for me to
reverse my vote on that last motion.
Some hon. members: No.
2610
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid there is no consent.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. For the last vote I was required to leave the Chamber in
the middle of the vote. Therefore I would request that my vote be
struck.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote will be struck.
The next question is on Motion No. 54.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of
$463,875,000, under CANADIAN HERITAGE—Department—Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 54 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 55.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 25, in the
amount of $8,912,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL—Office of the
Commissioner of Official Languages—Program expenditures, in
the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 55 agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on the motion for
concurrence. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-45, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999,
be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-45, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999,
be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair.)
(On clause 2)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that the
bill is in its usual form?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous
years.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Chairman, presumably hon. members are permitted to ask questions
as we proceed through the clauses.
The Chairman: No, because the rules provide that there is
no debate on this bill.
Standing Order 81 provides that at 10 o'clock p.m. on the last
supply day the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all proceedings
under supply without debate or amendments.
2615
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, why
did you permit the hon. member for Medicine Hat to ask a
question?
The Chairman: Because there is a longstanding tradition
that that question is asked on each bill to assure the House that
the bill is in the usual form.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
[English]
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 1.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1a, in the amount of $95,548,185, under
JUSTICE—Department, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2625
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| 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
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 129
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 97
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 2.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That
Vote 11a, in the amount of $13,800,000, under AGRICULTURE AND
AGRI-FOOD—Department—Debt forgiveness, in the Supplementary
Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 , be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 26a, in the amount of $4,600,000, under PRIVY
COUNCIL—Millenium Bureau of Canada—Operating expenditures, in
the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1999, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 3 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 27a, in the amount of $40,000,000, under PRIVY
COUNCIL—Millenium Bureau of Canada—The Grants listed in the
Estimates and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (A)
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 4 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That
Vote 95a, in the amount of $625,000, INDUSTRY—Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council—Operating expenditures, in the
Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1999, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 5 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That
Vote 100a, in the amount of $8,300,000, INDUSTRY—Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council—The Grants listed in
the Estimates, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1999, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 6 agreed to)
2630
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999, except any vote disposed of earlier today, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-46, entitled an act
for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999,
be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read a second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
(On Clause 2)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that the
bill is in its usual form?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the form of the bill is the same as that passed in previous
years.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
2635
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-37, an act
to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 4,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-37.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
2640
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would just like confirmation that the vote of the member for
Burlington was not counted. She was not sitting in her place.
The Speaker: She was not counted. The next question is
on Motion No. 2. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Editor's Note: Chair read text of Motion No. 2 to House]
2650
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 94
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 carried.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred
in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the
votes taken on report stage Motion No.1 standing in the name of
the member from Berthier—Montcalm to the vote currently before
the House, with the Liberal members voting yes with the exception
of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who
has since left the Chamber.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed from June 4 Bill C-3 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA Identification and to
make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other
acts, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant order made on Thursday, June 4,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the amendment to
the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-3.
2700
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 70
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Laurin
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| 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
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 168
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, it being 3 o'clock I
wonder if you would declare question period over for the day.
The Speaker: I am willing.
* * *
MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
The House resumed from June 8 consideration of Bill C-30, an act
respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation
to education, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report
stage of Bill C-30.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you
seek the unanimous consent of the House that the members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I propose that the
next three motions be deferred until 3 o'clock tomorrow.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
2710
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guimond
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 33
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desjarlais
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guimond
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 33
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Brown
| Caccia
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Dion
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Goodale
| Harb
| Jackson
| Karygiannis
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lee
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Normand
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Wappel
| Wood – 54
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McWhinney
| Mitchell
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Phinney
| Proud
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 3.14 a.m.)