36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 13
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 8, 1997
1400
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BETTY TRAINOR
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KINGSTON PENITENTIARY
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWMARKET YOUTH CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOURISM
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROVINCIAL RIDING OF DUPLESSIS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BERG CHILLING SYSTEMS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BCE INC.
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC FINANCES
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAGUENAY AND MANITOBA FLOODS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANITOBA FLOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1415
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSUMER AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE CLAUDE ELLIS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1510
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1515
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE MR. J. CHESTER MACRAE
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1520
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1525
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Time Allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1530
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1535
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1550
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Decorum in Chamber
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1555
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Snowmobile Safety
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Family life
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1600
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fishing Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1605
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2—Motion for Time Allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1650
(Division 6)
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Second reading
|
1655
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1700
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
1715
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Jean Augustine |
1735
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1810
1815
1845
(Division 7)
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
1855
(Division 8)
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1905
(Division 9)
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Consideration resumed of motion
|
1915
(Division 10)
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 13
![](/web/20061116184754im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 8, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BETTY TRAINOR
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Gwendolyn Elizabeth, Betty, Trainor who died in Vancouver on
September 22 was a graduate of the Montreal General Hospital
School of Nursing and of the Sloane Hospital in the Columbia
Medical Centre in New York.
During her active practice of nursing in the Yukon Territory she
also founded the Yukon Native Arts, a lifeskills program for
native youth. Later in Ottawa she was cofounder of the
Tweedsmuir Centre, which pioneered the use of megavitamins in the
treatment of mental and behavioural disorders.
She and her husband, the late Justice William Joseph Trainor of
the Supreme Court of B.C., were leaders in Vancouver in community
affairs activities relating to handicapped persons and in church
welfare organizations.
* * *
KINGSTON PENITENTIARY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
speak, guards at Kingston Penitentiary are on the picket lines.
They are saying the institution is out of control and ready to
blow.
Kingston Pen was previously designated a multilevel institution
dealing primarily with protective custody inmates. It now houses
a greater percentage of non-protective custody offenders who are
defiant, aggressive and organized. Past incidents reflect this
aggression with numerous staff assaults, two hostage takings and
two riots since August 27.
Unfortunately the physical layout and the daily operations at
Kingston Pen are not conducive to managing these maximum security
offenders. Staff now work in extremely hazardous situations.
The guards want action from management and have come up with
their own cost effective solutions. Once again it is the
frontline workers who can predict what is going to happen if
these changes are not forthcoming.
Mark my words. If management does not act now, we are going to
see destruction, both physical and human, that will put the $3.1
million Headingley riot to shame.
* * *
NEWMARKET YOUTH CENTRE
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Pat McIintosh and Janice McLaughlin have worked tirelessly with
the Newmarket area youth in an equal and full participatory
partnership to make a longtime dream reality. The Newmarket Youth
Centre opens its doors next week.
Young people were hired through a Canada youth service corps
project to complete renovations for the centre. The local Canada
HRD office, the town of Newmarket and local business and
community service partners should be commended for their
contribution to and support of Newmarket area youth.
Surrounding communities have shown interest in replicating the
unique Newmarket Youth Centre model as it has proven to be an
effective and successful way to empower and engage youth with
community partners.
* * *
TOURISM
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
my first S.O. 31 statement I would like to concentrate on the
importance of the tourism industry and the role it is playing in
my riding.
The riding of Simcoe—Grey is one of the most beautiful areas in
Canada. It offers the majestic Niagara escarpment rolling down
into the pristine waters of Georgian Bay. With areas like Wasaga
Beach, home of the world's largest freshwater beach, and
Collingwood's beautiful turn of the century main street, it is a
tourist's dream.
1405
Tourism is a significant and vital component of the Simcoe—Grey
economy. It is a major job creator and a great many small
businesses depend on tourism for their livelihood.
I am proud of the initiatives brought forward by the government
to assist in the continued development of the tourism industry. I
am proud of the great strides made within the tourism industry
within our riding.
I encourage all Canadians to come and visit my riding and see
the many splendours it has to offer.
* * *
[Translation]
PROVINCIAL RIDING OF DUPLESSIS
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the hon. member for Bourassa exhibited the pettiness and
partisan narrow-mindedness for which he is already legendary, by
omitting congratulations to the newly elected PQ member for
Duplessis, Normand Duguay, a native of the village of Rivière-au-Tonnerre
in my riding.
The population of this fine North Shore riding, the country of
Gilles Vigneault, which is known for its vast spaces and its
people's joie de vivre, has staunchly and proudly supported the
sovereignist option.
The people of Duplessis withstood the Liberals' blackmail and
threats during this campaign.
In the context of cuts Quebec has been forced into by the
federal government, this election of October 6 is a great victory,
and a tie between the parties.
People of the North Shore—
The Speaker: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre now has the floor.
* * *
[English]
BERG CHILLING SYSTEMS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I recognize a company in my riding of Scarborough Centre
that has had major successes in the international trade
community.
Berg Chilling Systems is a family owned business employing 81
people which manufactures industrial refrigeration systems. Its
systems are exported to 29 countries around the world, and in
1996 exports accounted for 68% of its total sales.
On Monday of this week the company was awarded the 1997 Canada
Export Award by the Minister for International Trade at a
ceremony in Quebec City. This award recognizes outstanding
performance by a smaller exporter in the global forum.
I congratulate Berg's chairman Lorne Berggren and its president
Don Berggren on their achievements. I wish them and the company
continued success.
* * *
BCE INC.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
monopoly giant BCE wants it all and this Liberal government is
giving it to them on a silver platter. Despite the Liberals'
commitment to competition and growing small businesses, here are
the facts.
BCE's Teleglobe was just licensed by the CRTC to operate a
wireless cable system in Ontario. BCE's Bell Canada has been
licensed to operate the Expressvu direct to home satellite
system.
Now the Liberals have created team Canada to assist small
business with exports, and who have the Liberals named as chief
of team Canada? Why, BCE chairman Lynton Wilson. Surprise.
Surprise. And who has contributed over $70,000 to the Liberals in
the past two years? BCE. Surprise. Surprise.
So listen up small business. Here is how to get preferential
treatment from the Liberals. Become a subsidiary of BCE and
donate liberally to the Liberal Party of Canada.
It should not have to be that way. The Liberal Party is an
affront to small business.
* * *
BREAST CANCER
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many members have spoken recently on the subject of breast
cancer, a devastating disease that has become the leading cause
of death among women 35 to 55 years of age.
Breast cancer has had a profound effect on my own family. My
grandmother had breast cancer 35 years ago and survived. While,
I lost my mother to breast cancer five years ago, I am very proud
to say that one of my sisters is now doing leading edge research
at the University of Ottawa.
Every 30 minutes another Canadian woman is diagnosed with breast
cancer and more than 5,400 women die of the disease every year.
While these statistics are alarming, we have made great strides
in the fight against this disease. The benefits of extensive
awareness programs and early detection screening are starting to
be felt as mortality rates for breast cancer in Canada have begun
to decline.
October is breast cancer awareness month. Let us all wear the
pink ribbon and show our support for women confronting this
dreaded disease.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC FINANCES
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister trumpets in his Speech from the Throne “We have
put our public finances in order”. Patting himself on the back
like that makes one wonder, when one knows that these same Liberals
are the ones who left behind a $38 billion deficit when they were
booted out of office in 1984.
1410
Let us remember the performance of the present Prime Minister
when he was Minister of Finance from 1977 to 1979. He doubled the
deficit. He increased the federal government's debt by 50%.
But that impudence changes to cynicism when one realizes that
the Liberals are reducing the deficit with provincial funds for
health and education, as well as with funds hijacked from
employment insurance.
They are tickled pink to announce that they will soon be able
to put out a fire which they themselves started. The Liberal
pyromaniac turns into a firefighter, and then uses the neighbour's
well to extinguish the fire he has started. Really now!
* * *
SAGUENAY AND MANITOBA FLOODS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): I am honoured to be able to
pay tribute to the extraordinary efforts of the thousands of
courageous and determined men and women volunteers and Canadian
military personnel who fought the Saguenay floods in Quebec and the
Red River floods in Manitoba.
A mere mention of these two events is sufficient to remind us
of the immensity of the disasters which struck these areas and the
immensity of the needs they created. These unprecedented natural
disasters led to the greatest expression of generosity and
solidarity modern-day Canada has ever known.
The Saguenay and Manitoba floods have not only left their mark
on the geography of those regions. They have also left their mark
on the hearts of all Canadians, with an undying memory of a people
standing up against adversity and reaching out to help those in
need.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again under these Liberals we see the voices of
Canadians being trampled under the hooves of a government that
clearly prefers dictatorship to democracy.
By the introduction of closure on Bill C-2, the Liberals are
saying one of two things: that the Liberals just do not care if
the Canadian people are concerned about the biggest tax grab in
the history of this country; or that the Liberals just do not
want the Canadian people to find out exactly how destructive
these new pension proposals are.
Whatever their agenda, the bottom line is that these Liberals
are refusing to allow enough informed and constructive debate to
clearly show Canadians what this is all about. The last time I
checked, this was a democratic country. It is obvious today that
those Liberals do not believe that.
* * *
MANITOBA FLOOD
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Manitoba flood has changed us forever. Today in the riding of
Provencher many families are still in the process of returning to
a normal life. However the generosity expressed from across
Canada was remarkable and will never be forgotten.
Thousands of donations and boxes full of food and clothing
arrived to help fellow Canadians. Thousands of volunteers
selflessly gave their time, skill and energy to ensure the safety
of their fellow citizens. Our communities will never forget the
francophone armed forces and reserve members from Quebec who
fought alongside Mennonite families to save their homes.
These demonstrations of unity from across Canada express who we
really are as a people. Today I am most proud to be here in the
House of Commons to recognize these great Canadians.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
many members would agree, I am sure all, that this Parliament is
off to a good start. We face difficulties with five official
parties but the general feeling is that we are off to a good
start.
In that context I would like to say how much we in the NDP
regret that the government has fouled that good start by moving
to closure on a major national policy issue after only one day of
debate. One day of debate. The Liberals cannot even tolerate a
day and a half of debate before they move to closure on CPP
reform, a major policy issue.
Shame on the Liberals. Shame on the Liberals. Shame on the
Liberals. This is a travesty when it comes to parliamentary
democracy and they should be ashamed of themselves. Was it the
NDP amendment they were ashamed of? They did not want to vote
for it, they did not want to discuss it. What is going on?
* * *
1415
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: My colleagues before we begin oral
questions, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in
the gallery of Mr. Arthur Donahoe, Secretary General of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AIRBUS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt about it, Irish eyes are smiling today. Brian
Mulroney's legal team will now cash a cheque from the taxpayers
of Canada for more than $2 million. This is what the government
had to pay out for the bungled Airbus investigation. Libel
lawyers across the country are calling this payout immense,
astonishing and stunning.
My question for the prime minister is will he apologize to
Canadian taxpayers for this fiasco and in particular for the huge
payout to former Prime Minister Mulroney?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was an inquiry by the RCMP and there were some problems
that arose during that inquiry. This led to a case which would
have taken the government to court and the case was settled out
of court.
There was an arbitrator, Mr. Justice Gold, who asked the
government to pay the bills which were submitted by the lawyers
and the public relations people working for Mr. Mulroney. It was
agreed between the Minister of Justice at the time and the
lawyers at the moment of settlement that the bills would be
presented and those that were justified were to be paid and they
have been paid.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in January the justice minister at the time swore that
the government would never pay Mulroney's legal team a cent. That
is what he said. Now they have cut a cheque so big that Dennis
Rodman would blush. This cheque includes $600,000 for Luc
Lavoie, the PR man hired to polish Mulroney's image.
Why would the government pay Brian Mulroney's bills including
his huge PR tab but it will not pick up the $30,000 legal bill
for the government's fall—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
1420
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the amount of the settlement was decided by former Chief
Justice Gold.
It was determined in that settlement that he would determine
what were reasonable expenses. It has been done. It is binding.
Case closed.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this whole problem started when the current health
minister was the justice minister. In pursuing this politically
motivated goose chase he embarrassed himself, embarrassed the
justice department, embarrassed the RCMP, embarrassed the House
and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will there be any
disciplinary consequences for the current Minister of Health, or
will the government spend another $600,000 rehabilitating his
image?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as is the custom, investigations by the RCMP are always
made at arm's length from the government. It is always like
that.
We do not intervene in investigations by the RCMP. They decide
when there will be an investigation. They decide when to launch
actions against individuals and they decide when to settle out of
court.
It is the practice in Canada that the government does not
dictate to the police.
* * *
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
senior Liberal Party official, Luc Desbiens, said that there is
absolutely nothing unusual about the RCMP raiding Liberal Party
offices.
I want to tell the prime minister that I will not put up or shut
up until the prime minister coughs up whose offices—cabinet
ministers, MPs, the prime minister or any departmental
official—have been raided by the RCMP in this ongoing Shawinigan
shemozzle.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I hope the hon. member will start to use the truth once in a
while.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yesterday she accused somebody who
made a statement that money had been given on a project being
built in my riding. The person who was dealing with the
department of manpower, a Mr. Thibault, has never given a cent to
the Liberal Party.
The hon. member mixed up a company from Winnipeg with a company
from Montreal. She should have her facts before getting up in
the House of Commons.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
would be funny if it were not so sad that the Liberal Party
initiated the investigation a long time before the campaign
started in late April. This was only made public five days after
the election campaign was over.
We have a real problem with that, even if the minister and prime
minister do not happen to have a problem with that.
Who was it over on that side? I want them to stand and say “We
told the RCMP to hold off until after the election” because it
would be an embarrassment.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sincerely hope the hon. member realizes it would be
absolutely inappropriate to suggest that anybody would tell the
RCMP to hold off on an investigation.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development said not only that
the Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre had lists of
people waiting for grants, but that the political minister responsible
for the region was aware of the contents of this list.
1425
Under what pretext is the Minister of Human Resources Development
providing confidential lists of people waiting for grants to the
political ministers responsible for the regions, and who instructed him
to do so?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to remind the House that the
very strength of this system of consultations in connection with the
transitional job creation fund is that my department checks with Ms.
Harel, based on our government's spending commitments to the Société
québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, the regional minister and socio-economic
organizations. Opposition members are consulted in their own ridings
about each of the proposals.
I think that this kind of checking is what makes our system so
strong.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is well aware that opposition members are consulted only after
his department has made its recommendation, not before.
Given his code of conduct, how can the Prime Minister allow
confidential information about people waiting for grants to be released
to political ministers responsible for the regions, and what is his
motive?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we check with people well informed about their
ridings. I assume members know their ridings, and the businesses in
them, well.
We check out the reliability of businesses. We want to find out
whether they are businesses that will create jobs meeting the riding's
socio-economic needs. If I consult the Government of Quebec, I can
certainly consult the Government of Canada's minister responsible for
the region.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Guy
Gendron reported on CBC radio that Jacques Roy, who works in the office
of the President of the Treasury Board, is allegedly under investigation
in this matter of influence peddling.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Under the government's code
of ethics, should an employee working in a minister's office, who is
under investigation by the RCMP for influence peddling, not be
immediately suspended until the matter he or she is involved in has been
resolved?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have to
be very careful here, because I myself am not aware that someone in my
office may be under investigation.
Questions put by the opposition parties may sully the reputation of
innocent people. I think it would be advisable for my hon. colleagues to
wait for an investigation to be completed, for charges to be laid and
for guilt to be established before taking general information—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are very
serious allegations of influence peddling currently sullying the
government.
Is the President of the Treasury Board telling us that, after the
revelations made yesterday on CBC radio, he did not bother to check with
his employee, a member of his political staff, if indeed he was
implicated in this matter?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an
investigation in which no charges have been laid so far.
The investigation is under way. I think the opposition should be
very careful not to create a situation of injustice where it could drag
in the mud someone who may end up not being charged with anything. Let
the investigation take its course.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the prime minister.
Millions and millions of Canadians under the age of 60 will be
affected by the government changes to the Canada pension plan and
yet, after only a few hours in second reading, the government is
choking off parliamentary debate, shutting down on democracy.
1430
Is it the prime minister's intention to govern parliament by
closure? What is it he is trying to hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is the reference of legislation to a committee. There were two
motions by the opposition refusing to send the legislation to
committee to be studied by members of Parliament. They were just
trying to delay debate rather than having a real debate.
It is in committee where members and people will be able to
appear and make representations, but your members do not want to
have a debate on it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when did
the government become afraid of the 301 members elected to
represent—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: The government has provided no
information on the adequacy of retirement incomes for Canadians
as a result of these changes. Yet it is determined to ram the
legislation through.
Why will the prime minister not permit more debate before he
makes mistakes that Canadians will have to live with for the rest
of their lives?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is opposition members who are refusing to have a real
debate. They want to postpone. They want to have a vote, to
have no debate.
The government is absolutely committed—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure we are interested in both the
questions and the answers. I know all hon. members would want to
hear the answer. I know I would.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if they want to
have a debate they should withdraw their tactics not to have a
debate.
There will be a debate but we want to refer it to a committee so
that it will be studied. It is an agreement that the Minister of
Finance made with all provincial governments. All provincial
governments agreed to the legislation and this government is
committed, along with the provincial governments, to having the
legislation passed by Christmas.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether one or more
employees in his office had given confidential information to Pierre
Gobeil, who is currently under investigation by the RCMP. The minister's
response was no.
Can the minister reaffirm in this House that Jacques Roy, an
employee in his Montreal office who is paid by Treasury Board and who
receives his orders directly from the minister, never had any contact
with Pierre Gobeil or shared with him confidential information
connecting the government with influence peddling?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the
opposition party is naming people who, so far as I know, have not been
charged with anything. An investigation is under way to determine just
what happened and whether charges should be laid.
The opposition should refrain from tarnishing the reputation of
people who may be innocent and should wait for the investigation to be
completed.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we now know for a fact that the RCMP visited the
Liberal Party headquarters. We know for a fact that there is an
individual currently working in the minister's office under
investigation by the RCMP.
1435
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Could
he confirm for us that Mr. Jacques Roy was under the direct
orders of his executive assistance, Mr. Marcel Proulx?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again we hear innuendoes and accusations from the other side
that are not based on fact.
The proper and equitable course to follow is to wait until the
RCMP investigation has taken place to see if they will lay
charges and what happens if they do. That is the proper way, and
not to start affecting the reputations of a number of people who
must be held to be innocent until otherwise proven.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what do the letters CPP stand for? The Liberals will
say that they stand for Canada pension plan, but young Canadians
do not believe they will collect this pension. They say it
stands for crazy political promises.
Now the Liberals are cutting off debate after only seven hours.
They are shutting down the democratic process.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does CPP really stand
for cowardly parliamentary procedure?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, CPP stands for a basic pension for all working
Canadians.
CPP stands for a disability pension for Canadians when they need
it, which the Reform Party refuses to offer.
CPP stands for maternity benefits, which the Reform Party
refuses to offer.
CPP stands for the Canadian government standing behind the
Canadian people, which the Reform Party refuses to do.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals want to cut short the debate because they
do not want Canadian employers to find out that their payroll
taxes are about to jump sky high.
They do not want employees to know that their take home pay is
about to shrink. They do not want self-employed entrepreneurs to
know that they will soon be paying a tenth of their earnings
straight into the finance minister's slush fund.
The Tories gave us the hated GST. Are the Liberals not just the
same, by pushing through a bigger pension tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for over two years consultation on the CPP took place right
across the country, not only by the federal government but every
provincial government had discussions in their houses.
There will be a legislative committee which will deal with it.
Hearings will be held.
The issue is why the Reform Party is trying to crush this
debate.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I am having a difficult time hearing the
questions and answers.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the light
of the very serious allegations in the matter of influence
peddling, how does the Prime Minister explain the government's
ethics section not ordering an immediate internal inquiry in the
offices of ministers who may be involved and the fact that it has
taken over seven months, questions from the opposition and from
journalists and a report by the CBC pointing the finger at an
employee of the minister to discover that the minister still has
not found out what was going on in his office?
1440
Is there some rule in the Liberal code of ethics providing
that, in the case of this government, “if nobody can see you,
nobody can catch you”?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
proof of this government's integrity lies in the fact that the
person who requested an investigation by the RCMP was our colleague
the Minister of Human Resources Development. He asked for an
investigation as soon as he learned of the allegations.
I do not think anyone, especially the Bloc Quebecois, is in a
position to point the finger on the subject of taking the
appropriate action in such a case.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
minister was saved by the bell. He was in the process of telling
us something he could never finish.
This minister learned last night on the CBC that one of his
assistants may be directly involved in the worst affair to hit the
government in three years and here he is saying he did not know, he
did not check.
We want to know whether or not he checked with his executive
assistant—
The Speaker: The President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure has the floor.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, no charges have been laid in this investigation. An
investigation is underway, and the Bloc is busy sullying the
reputation of people who have not yet had a chance to defend
themselves.
The right thing to do is to ignore the gossip mongers who are
tarnishing people's reputations. Right now, we just have to let
the investigation take its course.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister's massive CPP rip-off is a little bit like a
dead fish. The longer it sits in public the more it stinks.
Cutting off debate after one and a half days is a massive insult
to Canadians.
Why will the finance minister not admit that he is ramming
through this tax to avoid the stink of this bad deal sticking to
his own political ambitions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is very clear that debate will be extensive. There will be debate
in committee and debate in this House.
The real issue is why is Reform trying to frustrate that debate?
Is Reform worried that there will be an examination of its own
alternative? Is Reform afraid that the Canadian people will see
how the Reform plan will leave the poor and the middle class
unattended? Is Reform afraid that we will see how much its plan
will gouge the Canadian people? What is Reform afraid of?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the largest single tax grab in Canadian history: $10
billion a year by the time the government is done hiking
premiums; a 73% increase.
When is the minister going to change the name from 24 Sussex
Drive to 24 Sucks us Dry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member had all night to think about that and if
that is the best that he can come up with it is pretty pathetic.
There is only one issue here. We support the Canada pension
plan. Reform would destroy it.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development informed us that he forwarded
lists of grant applicants to the ministers responsible for the regions,
including the President of Treasury Board.
1445
I would like to know whether the President of Treasury Board, as
the minister responsible for the Quebec region, receives such lists from
other ministers. I am thinking of the Minister of Industry, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the Minister of Health
and the Minister of Transport. Does he receive such lists from other
departments or only from the Minister of Human Resources Development?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, in my opinion, this question is out
of order.
[English]
Once again, we are not talking about a political responsibility.
The question must go to the administrative responsibility of a
member of the government or the government. I will permit a
second question. The first one is not in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development is telling us how his department
operates and that the minister responsible for the Quebec region is
consulted by the Department of Human Resources Development.
It seems to me that it would be natural to want to know whether he
is consulted as part of the overall government procedure, not just that
for one department. We have been told about the procedure for one
department. I would like to know whether it is the same for other
departments.
These are not just political, but administrative responsibilities,
as part of the administrative procedure.
The Speaker: In his question, the hon. member mentioned the
Minister of Human Resources Development and what he did. If the
Minister of Human Resources Development wishes to reply to this
question, he may do so.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will avail myself of your kind invitation to
clarify what I said a bit earlier. It was not lists but proposals that
I forwarded to ministers and individual members. The consultations are
about proposals, not lists. They are based on proposals.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the House is now debating the single largest tax increase in
Canadian history, a $10 billion tax grab that will take 10% off
the paycheques of every Canadian and will forever make the future
of young Canadians poorer.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is he shutting down
debate on the single largest tax increase ever considered by
Parliament after only seven hours of debate? Why?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member refers, as have his colleagues, to the 9.9%. He
says that this is a very large increase and it is. It is however
substantially lower than the 13% increase that would arise from
the alternative plan.
Since the hon. member will have the opportunity to ask a
supplementary question, will he stand in the House now and tell
us how much the Reform cost premiums will be? Will they be 13%
or will they be higher?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to do just that, which is why I am furious that this
government is trying to gag Parliament on this issue.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jason Kenney: This closure “displays the utter
disdain with which the government treats the Canadian people”.
That was said by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1993 when the
Tories did the same thing. “I am shocked—This is just
terrible. Shame on the government”. That is what the House
leader said in 1991.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When the Mulroney Tories
tried to invoke closure on the GST, the Liberals cried bloody
murder. Why is he doing the same thing? Why is acting like a
hypocrite? Why is he—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is sheer bunk. There will be debate in committee. There
will be debate at report stage. There will be debate in the
House at third reading. There will be plenty of opportunity for
debate.
1450
The Reform Party is afraid to state that its plan does not hold
water. Reformers are afraid that Canadians are going to
understand the degree to which they are going to let the Canadian
citizenry fall.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister responsible for Public Works and Government
Services.
I would like to know from this minister whether, in awarding
contracts, project by project, file by file, his procedure is as
his colleague at human resources development has indicated, to
transmit the lists to the President of Treasury Board, to the
minister responsible for the Quebec region?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once contracts have been awarded, we
have a policy of issuing a press release on the contracts awarded.
Therefore, they are available to everyone.
* * *
[English]
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, inquiring Canadians across
this country would like to know, what the minister responsible
for consumer affairs plans to do to protect Canadian consumers
from the kind of unscrupulous business practices in long term
vehicle leasing that was reported in today's and yesterday's
media.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure I can maintain the level of excitement at this point.
Regulating leasing is the responsibility of the provincial
governments. However, the Automobile Protection Association
study which was funded in part by my ministry and which was
reported in the media over the last two days we had hoped would
reveal a widespread use by automobile dealers of the new plain
language, full disclosure lease agreement that we introduced with
much fanfare with my colleague from Ontario a few months ago.
Unfortunately—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
foreign affairs minister said in 1993 that limiting debate brings
this House into disgrace. Then the Deputy Speaker, the member
for Kingston and the Islands, said “What we have here is an
absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to
listen to the representatives of the people in the House. Never
before has the government been so reluctant to engage in public
debate”.
What is the matter over there? Why do you not want to have
public debate on the floor of the House of Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we wanted to have a debate. It is the opposition that
moved a motion to make sure that there would be no debate.
They said “Let's postpone the debate”. They do not want to
debate for six months so the government cannot respect the
agreement that we made with the provinces. We want a debate.
They do not want a debate so we are going to send it to committee
and there will be a debate there.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been waiting to debate the CPP thing all summer. We were
elected by the people of this country to come to the floor of the
House of Commons and debate the issues of the day.
This government is restricting our privileges as members of
Parliament to debate the most important tax issue of this
Parliament.
Why does the government restrict the debate for ordinary members
of the House of Commons when it is the most important tax issue
in this entire Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I will
be very calm, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult to be more
ridiculous than that because they moved a motion that says “This
House declines to give second reading to Bill C-2”. They
declined to have a debate. They are afraid to debate. They want
to postpone it for six months.
We want a debate. We want to hear witnesses. We will have a
debate and witnesses will come. We will have a CPP that will
protect Canadian pensioners in the 21st century.
* * *
1455
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
In his previous answers the Prime Minister, I am sure, made an
honest mistake when he implied that all the provinces had agreed
to the CPP changes. The fact is that the NDP governments of
B.C., Saskatchewan and the Yukon did not agree, precisely because
they shared our concerns about the effects of the changes on
women, the disabled, survivors, etc. It is precisely because of
those concerns that we moved an amendment to make debate on this
possible.
Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten when he was in
opposition these motions are inclined to provoke debate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is very clear what has happened. I mentioned this in the House
the other day.
There are two ways to destroy the Canada pension plan. One is
to confront it like the Reform. The other way is to do what the
NDP is doing, which is to refuse to recognize the absolute need
for change.
The only issue before the House now is why is the NDP walking
arm and arm toward the sunset and out of the CPP?
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister knows that it is intellectually dishonest in
the extreme to suggest that we want to destroy the Canada pension
plan. It is precisely because we want to strengthen it that we
want a debate.
My question is for the Prime Minister. He said it was the
amendments that caused him to move closure. Is he saying or will
he say now that in the absence of such amendments on future
legislation there will be no closure, there will be no time
allocation and we will be able to debate legislation until such
time as the matter is confirmed or dismissed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the NDP members want to preserve the Canada pension
plan then why will they not let it go to committee where there
can be debate?
Why will they not let the Canada pension plan pass so that we
can get on to track two where we can deal with mandatory credit
splitting, where we can deal with a number of issues that were
raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance?
Why will the NDP not attempt for once to be constructive as we
head into the 21st century?
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. It is on an issue
close and dear to the hearts of western Canadian farmers.
The CTA inquiry into the grain transportation delays that
occurred last winter were supposed to start in August. It was
then delayed to November and now it is delayed until April.
Agricultural stakeholders have said repeatedly that they want
immediate action taken on this issue and will no longer accept
political juggling acts. Producers want to hear solutions now
before more problems arise.
My question: Is your department prepared to immediately
conduct—
The Speaker: The hon. member should always address his
question to the Chair. I will permit the hon. Minister of
Transport to reply the preamble.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in terms of grain transportation we have been
preoccupied with the fast movement of grain since we came into
office. We have had a number of meetings with stakeholders
across the country attended by my colleagues in agriculture and
the minister responsible for the wheat board.
The CTA appeal does cause us some problem but it is not stopping
us from doing the preparatory work, such as the terms of
reference, going over lists of individuals who could conduct the
review. Even though recruitment has not started we are working
toward an early start.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Producers are sick and tired of hearing who is to blame for the
grain delays of last winter. What producers want is a government
that is not going to hide behind the CTA hearing in an effort to
prolong the initiative. Producers want answers now.
The minister has the authority but will he have the political
will? Will he walk out of the House, call the chief commissioner
of the CWB, cancel the CTA hearing and get a review under way
right now?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the legal delay is certainly frustrating for everyone.
The hon. member knows that what he is asking the government to do
is to intervene in a quasi-judicial process and that would be
improper.
He is also asking me to exercise a directive power under the
existing Canadian Wheat Board Act to which the opposition is
unalterably opposed.
1500
Maybe the most advisable thing to modernize procedures is to
pass Bill C-4 at the earliest possible moment and put farmers in
charge.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: Today is a rather special day for us in the
House for a reason other than question period.
We have with us today a large group of very distinguished
Canadians. Canadians will not soon forget the Saguenay floods or
those of the Red River Valley. They have become part of our
history because of the extent of the disaster but mostly because
in a time of crisis a remarkable spirit of co-operation emerged
that left no one indifferent and brought all Canadians together
in Quebec and in Manitoba.
Canadian military personnel led rescue and relief efforts
working alongside civilian volunteers in difficult and dangerous
conditions.
Humanitarian agencies, municipal, provincial and federal
officials together came to the aid of families and communities.
Canadians from every part of the country responded generously to
appeals for assistance.
It was a remarkable show of Canadian solidarity. It was the
finest possible example of team Canada at work.
[Translation]
Sometimes, it is the most difficult of times that show what it
is that unites a community. In the Saguenay, and in Manitoba,
thousands of Canadians battled together to save homes and lives, to
help their neighbours and to rebuild communities.
There are so many of them, these volunteers, these heroes and
heroines, that it would be impossible to receive them all here in
the House of Commons. But what an honour it is for us to receive
30 Canadian military personnel and 40 civilians who brought
assistance to the disaster victims.
Those of you who are here before me today represent all of the
men and women who took part in that effort of Canadian solidarity.
Through you, we salute their extraordinary work, their courage,
their spirit of co-operation, and their readiness to lend a helping
hand.
[English]
We, the collective members of the House of Commons and the
representatives of us, the 30 million Canadians, thank you and
all those you represent for showing us that there is a powerful
sense of community in Canada and for reminding us that when it
really counts we are there for each other.
To the heroes and heroines du Saguenay et de la riviére Rouge,
please stand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in your name and on your behalf I
will be receiving these distinguished Canadian in room 216 for a
reception.
I formally invite all of you to meet them and to speak with them
right after question period.
* * *
1505
THE LATE CLAUDE ELLIS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to say a few words in tribute to Mr. Claude Ellis who was a
member of Parliament elected for the CCF in the city of Regina in
1953 and again in 1957.
Unfortunately Mr. Ellis passed away on October 1 of this year at
the age of 77. He served two terms in the House. He was well
known as a dedicated member of Parliament who served his
constituents very well. He was also a superb educator and
teacher. As a matter of fact, he was one of my professors when I
first attended university back in the mid-1960s.
Mr. Ellis was also one of the founders of the CCF in
Saskatchewan in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. He was very active
in the educational movement, in the trade union movement and in
the formation of the CCF both provincially and federally.
At this stage I pay tribute to his wife Bessie who has been an
activist for many years, to his three sons and his daughter and
to their spouses, to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren,
and to his friends.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, like the member for Qu'Appelle I was saddened to hear of
the passing of Mr. Claude Ellis, a former member of Parliament
for Regina City from 1952 to 1958 representing the CCF.
Mr. Ellis' interest in politics started very early in life. As
a youth he served on his party's provincial council in
Saskatchewan and as youth president in the late 1930s. His
political involvement continued through his university years at
the University of Saskatchewan. Mr. Ellis also showed his
aspirations to serve very early on in life, being elected prime
minister of the university parliamentary forum for two years
running.
During that time Mr. Ellis was very well served by his excellent
speaking ability, an ability for which he won both oratory prizes
and debating trophies, culminating in a trip to Guelph, Ontario,
where he walked away with the Canadian debating championship.
In the House of Commons Mr. Ellis was an advocate for the less
well off in society, in particular in the areas of housing and
health care, helping to form the caring society that Canada has
become, a tradition that all of us from Regina would aspire to
continue.
Mr. Ellis is survived by his wife Bessie, three sons and one
daughter. On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to
offer our sincere condolences to the Ellis family.
1510
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the official opposition I would like to pay tribute to
Claude Ellis and the work he did in the Canadian parliament.
The minister mentioned that he was involved at a very young age.
He was involved at 16 years old. How many of us were thinking
and breathing politics at that age? He had a pretty remarkable
career. Think of the thrill he must have felt as a young man
when he appeared on the same stage as J. S. Woodsworth, one of
the founders of the CCF, and Mr. J. Coldwell, the national leader
at that time. What a thrill it must have been for that young
man.
He was elected in 1953 and again in 1957. On a personal note,
my great-grandfather, Ted Applewhait, was in the 1953 to 1957
parliament. He was the Liberal member for Skeena.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: It was amazing that my great-grandfather
and Claude Ellis were colleagues. I am sure they had some
friendly discussions. They may have disagreed politically, but
that does not matter. They served in the House. They were
parliamentarians during that parliament.
On behalf of my family and the official opposition I wish his
family well and thank them for the public service they and their
family shared through Claude Ellis.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not have the
honour of knowing Mr. Ellis, to whom tribute is being paid today,
personally. But I want to say that when someone has sat in the House
for two terms of office and worked hard for his constituents, we cannot
but express our admiration and note that this was truly someone who put
himself out for those he represented.
He was a CCF member, someone who undoubtedly did some very useful
work in the Parliament of Canada and who spared no effort in serving his
fellow citizens in the Regina area.
On behalf of Bloc Quebecois members, I would therefore like to
express our deepest condolences to his entire family and to tell them
that we are keenly aware that there were lengthy periods during which
they had to manage without Mr. Ellis, because he had to be here in
Ottawa to serve his constituents. They have our sympathy and our
deepest respect for the sacrifices they were willing to make so that he
could do his work in the House.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in tribute to Claude Ellis, former CCF member of Parliament
for the city of Regina. While I did not have the privilege of
knowing Mr. Ellis, I have to say the tale of his 77 years is
quite unique as lives of MPs go.
Although he was a long time resident of Regina, the city he
represented in the House of Commons, Mr. Ellis was born in
Weyburn, Saskatchewan, the son of Bill Ellis and Peggy Dawson
Gibson. He was educated at public schools and Scott Collegiate
in Regina, moving on to teachers college. From this Claude Ellis
enjoyed a lengthy career as an educator, teaching in Manor,
Saskatchewan, and at his alma mater of Scott Collegiate.
Mr. Ellis' impressive career came to an end at the University of
Regina where he was awarded the title of professor emeritus.
Claude Ellis did take some time from teaching to represent the
city of Regina in the House of Commons. He was first elected in
1953 and re-elected in 1957, during which time he actively
articulated the needs and concerns of his constituents. Even
when he did not serve as an elected MP, Mr. Ellis remained a
strong supporter of the CCF movement and later the New Democratic
Party.
He formed a vibrant partnership with his beautiful wife Bessie,
who for many years has been a tireless worker in the community.
Together they raised three sons and one daughter, who in turn
blessed Claude and Bessie Ellis with five grandchildren and two
great-grandchildren.
When Claude Ellis passed away on October 1, parliament lost a
former member, Saskatchewan lost a distinguished educator, but
most important the Ellis family lost a husband, a father, a
brother, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. We could only
hope that they find solace in the wonderful life he lived and the
contributions he made to education and to the public service.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I offer my
condolences to members of the Ellis family on their loss.
1515
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to join with colleagues in the House of
Commons to pay tribute to Claude Ellis.
I had the honour and privilege of knowing Claude Ellis for the
last 24 years. I represented him and his wife Bessie in the 1993
to 1997 term. Throughout that period Bessie and Claude were
advisors to me. They sat on my executive and were very wise
counsel on many issues, in particular when in the last parliament
the New Democratic Party did not have a lot of resources. Their
experience and counsel were very important to us.
I had occasion to have supper with Mr. Ellis about 18 months ago
when he was in Ottawa with his wife Bessie and we talked about a
lot of important issues affecting our country. Even during the
last couple of months in Regina he was always very keen on
ensuring that New Democrats represented citizens well in
parliament. He was very keen on ensuing that issues such as
pensions were a priority and he asked us to ensure that the
principles and fundamental issues which are important to all
Canadians remain on the agenda of parliament.
I want to join with members in acknowledging Mr. Ellis'
contribution to the city of Regina, the province of Saskatchewan
and to our country. As citizens we have suffered a great loss
as a result of his passing. I appreciate the opportunity to
extend my condolences to his widow Bessie and their family.
The Speaker: We also have tributes to Mr. J. Chester
MacRae a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party.
* * *
THE LATE MR. J. CHESTER MACRAE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
citizens of New Brunswick and the constituents of the former
federal riding of York—Sunbury are mourning the death of
long-time resident and friend, John Chester MacRae. The former
member of Parliament and D-Day veteran died this past Sunday
after a brief illness.
John Chester MacRae was born in Hope-Town, Quebec, received his
education at Campbellton High School and the provincial Normal
School in Fredericton. He taught in the public school system
until 1940 when his regiment was called out to active service. He
served in Britain and France, going into France on D-Day. For
service in France he was awarded the Military Cross and after his
return to Canada received the Efficiency Decoration.
J. Chester MacRae continued his interest in the military after
the war and throughout his life with his final appointment being
honorary Colonel of the First Battalion, the Royal New Brunswick
Regiment (Carleton and York).
J. Chester MacRae was elected to the House of Commons in 1957,
won five subsequent elections and retired undefeated in 1972.
Former New Brunswick Premier Hugh John Flemming once described
Chester MacRae as being a man who it was a privilege and pleasure
to know, stating that “he was a great Canadian, distinguished in
everything he's ever undertaken”.
People from the Fredericton area will always remember Chester
MacRae for his dry wit. He once said “My relationship with the
Conservative Party was a happy and cordial one, although
elections to me were agony.”
As a long-time member of the Royal Canadian Legion he served as
branch president, provincial president, grand patron and a life
member of the St. Machar Masonic Lodge, Aberdeen, Scotland.
In one of his final speeches in the House 31 years ago, he
reflected on a wide range of matters, some of which are very
relevant today. He spoke on the issue of the population
explosion, of the need for peace in the world, on the equality of
all races, and the matter dearest to his heart, the veterans of
Canada and, indeed, the veterans of all countries. He stated in
this Chamber that those veterans who were prisoners of war
underwent greater hardships than perhaps any of the rest of us
who were privileged to serve in World War II.
The people of Fredericton and the people of New Brunswick will
long remember J. Chester MacRae for his dedication, his service,
his kindness and that rare quality, his heroism.
Chet MacRae is survived by his wife of 64 years, Mina Catherine
Gerrard MacRae, one daughter Marjory Ann and her husband Jack
Patterson of Vancouver, one daughter-in-law Darlene MacRae of
Saint John, 10 grandchildren and six great grandchildren.
1520
Chet MacRae would want to be remembered as an ordinary Canadian
who served his country well. This he did.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured, humbled and saddened to pay tribute to
Chester MacRae. He was a friend of my father's although I did
not meet him until I was going door to door during the 1993
election campaign. He brought the futility of my exercise to my
attention.
Being the wonderful gentleman that he was, after the election he
came to visit me. We spent a wonderful afternoon discussing the
difference between being a member of Parliament in 1993 and being
a member of Parliament in the late fifties and early sixties. He
spoke of travelling to Ottawa on the train and being away from
home so much of the time. It was remarkable for me as a brand
new member who had not yet been to Ottawa to have that kind of
discussion.
I had the good fortune two years later on Remembrance Day as a
member of Parliament to lay wreathes on behalf of the government
in our communities, often in many places at the same time. I
asked Chester to represent the Government of Canada and to lay
the wreath in Fredericton. This was the last Remembrance Day
before the onset of his illness.
During the campaign I had the opportunity to drop in and visit
Chester at the DVA in Fredericton. He was very alert. He
advised me that my success in 1993 was surely a fluke. I will
remember him fondly for the rest of my life.
The people of the community of Fredericton know what a
contribution Chester MacRae made in war, in peace, as an
educator. They remember what he did for the Legion, for veterans
and for his community. He will be missed. All his family and
his friends in Fredericton have our condolences.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in this House privileged to pay tribute to Chester MacRae.
Chester MacRae was the finest example of a dedicated
parliamentarian, having won six federal elections and retired
undefeated after 15 years of service.
The dedication one puts toward the goal of improving one's
country is the mark of a great person. Chester MacRae worked
tirelessly toward the improvement of Canada for future
generations.
Not only did Chester MacRae serve Canada and Parliament but he
was a decorated war veteran who served in both England and
France, having participated in the D-Day invasion of France. For
his service he was awarded the Military Cross.
Just yesterday I walked through the visitor's welcome centre to
see Chester's name on a plaque that commemorates those who
preceded us in this House. In addition to his honoured name we
all remember his qualities of integrity, compassion and devotion,
in particular toward the interests of Canada's veterans.
Chester MacRae will be sorely missed but never forgotten in this
House. We offer our condolences to the members of his family, to
his friends and colleagues and our sincere regrets in his
passing.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
were saddened yesterday to learn of the death of Chester MacRae,
who, for 15 years, from 1957 to 1972, was a Conservative member of
this House.
I did not know Mr. MacRae personally, but everyone I talked to
described him as a devoted individual and member of the
Conservative Party for 15 years, and especially as a devoted
officer in the Canadian army. Mr. MacRae was considered a hero in
the second world war. He even took part in the landing in France.
Although a Conservative, Mr. MacRae was known as an ambassador
of peace, mutual assistance between peoples, and equality.
It was more likely the vision of Lester B. Pearson that he carried
abroad than the Conservative vision of things.
1525
All those I spoke with remembered this man clearly. He was
devoted, good-natured, upstanding, courageous and a man of
conviction.
On behalf of myself and my party, the Bloc Quebecois, I offer
my sincere condolences to Mr. MacRae's family.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like
to pay my respects to the memory of J. Chester MacRae.
Mr. MacRae was a Progressive Conservative member of Parliament
from 1957 to 1972. He was a decorated war veteran who served in
both England and France.
As a fellow New Brunswicker, Mr. MacRae served the people of New
Brunswick well. I did not have the pleasure to sit in the House
with him, but he was known in Parliament as a devoted and
tireless advocate for veterans' interests.
My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party extend our
sincere condolences to Mr. MacRae's family, especially to his
wife Mina Catherine, his daughter Marjory Ann and his two
sisters.
His contribution to Canadian and New Brunswick political life
will remain with us for the years to come.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
TIME ALLOCATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question of privilege arises out of the motion that the
government intends to move with respect to time allocation on
Bill C-2. It has to do with what I regard to be the
responsibilities of the Chair to protect the rights and
privileges of members of this House of Commons to engage in
adequate debate on matters of national importance.
The Chair will know that the time allocation motion has to do
with the amendments to the Canada pension plan. This is a
national social program, an income security plan which is very
rarely before the House, very rarely debated, very rarely
amended. This is one of those occasions when it is being amended,
therefore, it is a unique opportunity for members of the House of
Commons to put their views on the record on what our national
pension plan system should look like. We will disagree with each
other about that. The Reform Party will have its position, as
will the NDP. The government will have its position, as
reflected in the legislation.
My concern is that the Chair consider, before seeing whoever it
is who will be moving the motion on behalf of the government—we
have notice that the motion will be moved—not seeing the mover
of the motion as a way of using the power of the Chair to
intervene on behalf of members of Parliament, both collectively
and individually, in a situation where our right to adequate
debate is being violated by the government's rush to judgment on
the appropriateness of time allocation.
Others have said in the course of comments during question
period that somehow the amendments that were moved by the
opposition were an attempt to close off debate. Quite the
contrary. We know these motions are procedurally designed in such
as way, whether a six-month hoist or whatever, and are often
moved in order to create the possibility of more debate so that
the government cannot move to the question on the main motion.
It is a bit disingenuous for the government to say that this was
an attempt to close off debate. It was, rather, to prevent or to
act in a preventive way against the government moving to the
question right away by not putting up speakers.
An amendment was moved, a subamendment was moved and right after
the subamendment was moved the government gave notice of closure.
How long did we debate this motion? We debated it for one day.
We did not debate it the next day in the morning because we were
debating Bill C-4.
Then we moved to Bill C-2 and we were hardly into the second or
third hour and the government moved closure.
1530
Mr. Speaker, I know that for you to do something about this
would be to break with Canadian precedent. I am aware of the
significance of what I am asking you to do. I have only asked a
Speaker to do this once before and it was Speaker Fraser in the
context of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But you will
know that at Westminster and in other Parliaments, Speakers have
sometimes taken upon themselves the responsibility of ensuring
that the rights of Parliament collectively are not abused by a
government which moves too quickly to closure or to time
allocation.
It is precisely what I am asking you to consider here today,
that this is an occasion where very early in this Parliament
there is no reason to believe that the debate would have gone on
and on. All we wanted was an opportunity to have our amendments
considered, to have a full airing of the subject, which is what
second reading used to be before we got the kind of rule changes
that we got in a previous Parliament in 1991 and which this
government having condemned these changes now uses to the full.
I think it is the wrong way to start off this Parliament. We
were doing just fine. We were getting along even though we
disagree with each other politically. For the government to move
at this time as I suggested earlier is a very unfortunate thing.
But it is an unfortunate thing that could be remedied by the
Chair taking, admittedly, new responsibilities but not
responsibilities that are totally out of character with what
Speakers have done in other Parliaments, to intervene on behalf
of the collective rights of parliamentarians to adequate debate
on a matter of obvious national importance.
Mr. Speaker, I rest my case and I ask you to consider the matter
and to consider it urgently because obviously if you were to
intervene you would have to do it when the motion was about to be
moved. Sometimes Speakers can be given to a judicious blindness
when it comes to motions being moved or to breaking new ground by
actually arriving at a judgment on this in time to prevent this
very unfortunate reaction on the part of the government to the
fact that there was lively, informed and concerned debate about
CPP reform and it moved to choke it off in the way that it did.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in support of this
member's point of privilege and lay before you two additional
pieces of information which may assist you in responding to this.
First I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 3 which
outlines some elements of the Constitution Act:
Without further elaboration, Canada thus was ensured a
responsible cabinet system with the assumption that there will
always be a recognizable government with a legislative program.
If the electorate so wishes, the system also presupposes an
opposition ready and willing to attack the government in an
attempt to have its legislation altered or rejected—. More
tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights
of the minority, which precludes a government from using to
excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to
proceed in what the public and the opposition might interpret as
unorthodox ways.
I suggest that is what we have happening here today. The
government is closing off debate on the bill that the opposition
and the public honestly feel is a tax increase and a massive
rip-off of young Canadians. We need to express those views and the
views of Canadians on this issue before the principle of the bill
is adopted.
To limit that debate is to permit in effect taxation without
effective and adequate representation. One of the fundamental
functions for which Parliament was created was specifically to
constrain arbitrary taxation and actions by the executive.
One further piece of reference for your consideration was
referred to by the hon. member. On April 14, 1987 Speaker Fraser
felt it necessary to make this comment to the House on this very
same issue:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial
issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every
reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments
pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be
permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public
support for their point of view.
1535
Speaker Fraser felt that the Speaker had a role to play in these
matters. He made this statement as a result of protest from the
opposition. Ironically one of the most vocal opponents to this
abuse at that time was the very minister who has given notice and
intends to close off debate on Bill C-2 after only eight hours of
debate on the very first bill to hit this floor, a bill that is
over 100 pages long and extremely technical and a bill that
happens to have attached to it a schedule which imposes a payroll
tax rise of 73% on millions of Canadians and employers.
The debate has only just begun and we are confident that a
reasonable debate will enlist public support for our point of
view and that of taxpayers and young Canadians who have little or
no voice in this debate.
As Speaker Fraser said, it is essential to our democratic
system, and therefore essential for you, Mr. Speaker, to protect
the opposition and delay even for one day the government from
moving to close off debate in this manner.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to add a few words with respect to the
point of privilege raised by the member from the New Democratic
Party.
The very first principle of parliamentary law as set out in
Beauchesne's states:
The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: to protect a
minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority;
to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly
manner; to enable every member to express opinions within limits
necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of
time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every
measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon
sudden impulse.
These are very telling words used in this very first section of
parliamentary procedure. This is not an untimely debate in any
way, shape or form. There are important issues that have to be
considered and discussed.
I would also bring to the Speaker's attention the fact that the
government House leader has brought forward a motion pursuant to
Standing Order 78(3) which is, as you know, predicated on the
House leader's not being able to reach an agreement for the
allocation of time for a stage of a bill.
I want to bring to the Chair's attention that at no time did the
government House leader raise the subject of a time allocation
agreement at our meetings. There was no consultation. He did
ask if a number of our members were prepared to debate further,
but there was no consideration given to the fact that there was
going to be further debate.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 78, I would ask you, in
your capacity as Speaker, to rule on the motion and rule it out
of order, keeping in mind that there were no actual attempts to
reach agreement between the House leaders. That may or may not
be possible but the government House leader has an obligation to
ask the question to the other House leaders and permit
consultation.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly
to the question of privilege raised by the House leader of the
New Democratic Party and supported by two other members of this
House earlier this day.
I think the Chair will need to consider two issues. One, is the
House leader of the New Democratic Party correct about what he
has alleged this afternoon? Two, is he also correct in the
purpose of the amendment that he has offered to the House along
with other members?
Let me take the points in reverse. The amendments that are
before us today, just to remind the Chair, are as follows. The
amendment offered in the name of the member for Calgary Southwest
reads “that this House declines to give second reading to Bill
C-2” and so on. That amendment is further amended by a
subamendment in the name of the hon. member for Halifax West.
In his presentation, the hon. member from the New Democratic
Party conceded to the fact that the purpose of the amendment was
to prevent the bill from proceeding. He said it in this House
some moments ago. In other words, the amendment is specifically
designed to prevent us from having the committee study of the
bill. That is what he admitted to on the floor of this House.
1540
Having established that the opposition has admitted today and
possibly in its speeches over the last couple of days that the
purpose of what it is doing is to prevent the bill from
proceeding to the next stage, I believe that any reasonable
person would claim that the government has an equal right to
propose measures to ensure that the bill does proceed in good and
proper form.
Hon. members across are heckling, very rudely I might add, at
this moment but they should be listening in particular to the
judgment that Mr. Speaker will no doubt be giving in a few
moments.
It has been alleged that there was no consultation. Let me
remind the Speaker of the rules of the House to that effect.
Standing Order 78(1) refers to the procedure as follows: “When
a minister of the crown, from his or her place in the House,
states that there is agreement” and so on. Standing Order 78(2)
states, “When a minister of the crown, from his or her place in
the House, states that a majority of the representatives—have
come to an agreement—” and finally, Standing Order 78(3) is
the procedure when an agreement cannot be reached.
Yesterday afternoon at 3.30 there was a meeting in which I asked
all members present, and all parties were present, whether or not
they intended to put more speakers. Only one of the four
opposition parties, I believe it was the Bloc Quebecois,
indicated a definite number of speakers that it wanted to put up.
Shortly afterward after having held the consultation in which I
did not get a commitment from all parties represented pursuant to
Standing Order 78(1) and (2), then on the floor of the House
moments later, a further dilatory motion was produced within
minutes of the end of our meeting, this time proposed by an NDP
member, the purpose of which was again to further delay
proceeding on the bill. That was after the consultation was
held.
Finally, later yesterday afternoon before I proposed a motion on
the floor of this House I even informed my counterpart in the
official opposition which I believe was the good and proper thing
to do so a motion would not be introduced behind his back. That
was done in good and proper form at a meeting at which Your
Honour was present.
Mr. Speaker, you must judge whether an amendment that you will
be receiving later is in order. Of course the House has not been
seized of that motion yet, which could come later this day. Once
you receive such an amendment, if one is forthcoming, the Chair
will have to decide whether the amendment is in order and
acceptable to this House.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that on the third day of debating
this bill, the purpose of which is to refer it to committee after
years of consultation in the public generally, to move it to
committee so we can hear witnesses on this federal-provincial
agreement is not wrong. To send it to committee for detailed
study is not wrong. It is the good and appropriate thing to do.
For the opposition to produce two different amendments, the
purpose of which is dilatory as admitted on the floor of this
House today, and the purpose of which is only to make the same
hon. members speak not once, not twice but even three times on
the same bill at second reading is nothing short of a dilatory
measure. It is quite legitimate for the government and for this
House to want to listen to ordinary Canadians, people from the
private sector and the provinces as to why this measure is
necessary in order to ensure a pension plan for our children and
grandchildren.
1545
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are two points which must be clarified in the House.
The government House leader is incorrect in his assertion that
the amendments may be an avenue to limit debate. The fact of the
matter is that our amendment in and of itself is debatable, and
that is what we want to do in the House. We want to debate the
merits of the bill through our amendments.
Our amendment reflects a difference of opinion in the House, an
alternative to be debated. I question the point of sending the
bill to committee if the government is already showing its
indifference to any other opinion but its own by shutting down
debate.
Furthermore, the government House leader indicated today that
adequate and reasonable notice was given to me in the House. As
it happened, yesterday I was at a meeting of the Board of
Internal Economy. I was called outside the door and given notice
that he was on his way downstairs to give notice to the House. I
hardly call that adequate and reasonable notice in this day and
age of democracy.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege to provide some
clarity. In my view the government House leader has partially
misinformed parliament.
The government House leader and all members know that it is
standard procedure for the opposition, and maybe another
opposition party or two, to move amendments and subamendments on
important bills. This is not out of the ordinary. The purpose
is to provide fuller debate.
When I was at a meeting yesterday with the government House
leader, other House leaders and whips, they asked us how many
more speakers we had and we said about five. The government
House leader has forgotten that number.
He also said that the motions we have passed with respect to the
amendments would allow each member of Parliament to speak three
times. The majority of New Democratic Party members have not had
an occasion to speak once on the bill, never mind three times. I
have not spoken on the bill and I want to speak on the bill. I
stepped aside for members of Parliament who have not had an
opportunity to speak yet. I would like to do that at some point.
The final point I want to make is quite outrageous. It deals
with what the government House leader said. He failed to give
New Democrats notice of this motion. That is absolutely
incredulous in view of our co-operative parliament and the way we
have made progress in the first three weeks of parliament as five
official parties.
He has failed his unofficial pact, denied the pact, or abandoned
the pact to provide some co-operation to deal with issues of a
substantive nature.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have new and relevant information on this issue. I am vice-chair
of the House of Commons finance committee. The government's
premise that it is important to get this legislation to committee
for debate is simply false.
Not only has this not been discussed, but the House of Commons
finance committee strikes out next week to go on a tour across
the country to hear from Canadians on completely different
issues.
The clerk and chairman of the committee made it very clear in
the discussions we had that in the nine days after that when we
will be sitting up until the middle of November we will be
hearing witnesses on a completely different issue, the pre-budget
hearings.
When the House leader opposite says this legislation is being
pushed into committee, I can assure that is absolutely false.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one
piece of information of which I would like you to be aware. I
have not spoken to the bill and I want to speak to the bill.
1550
The Speaker: Members have asked me to rule on a specific
question of privilege. I want to thank all hon. members who have
taken part in giving me the information I have before me now.
With regard to what the member for Winnipeg—Transcona said, I
am aware and I understand full well the serious nature of this
request and the rather innovative way that he suggests it might
be resolved.
At this point, unless I have more direction from the entire
House and in view of the fact that Speakers have consistently
ruled since 1968 that they would not intervene in the quality of
whatever discussions took place on either matter, I am left to
decide this on what is in the standing orders.
At this point I hesitate to go down the road where you would put
this kind of discretionary power into the hands of your Speaker.
Therefore I would rule at this time that there is no question of
privilege.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
DECORUM IN CHAMBER
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
when we were making tributes today to Chester MacRae and to
Claude Ellis, the House leader for the Liberal Party was
screaming across the floor to those who were sitting here. It
was not the Liberal who is sitting over here now. God bless him;
he is a nice young man. Nevertheless he was.
When we are giving tributes, and I know that you, Sir, have
brought this matter to our attention before, I think we should
all sit and show respect for the families of those to whom we are
paying tribute.
I bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and ask that it be
brought to the attention of the House leaders.
1555
The Speaker: I did not hear those conversations. At
times when we are paying tribute and at other times in the
debates, I would hope we would take the time to listen to what we
all have to say in the House.
I do not want to go into a debate on this issue. It is just a
normal thing that we accept. I ask my colleagues once again,
when we are making tributes, when we are asking or answering
questions, or when we are debating in the House, that we give
each other the respect that is due a member of the Canadian
Parliament.
I say this to no specific member, but I say it to all of us so
that we will be apprised of the situation.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if you will allow me a very brief moment to respond, I
do not know whether or not I responded to heckling from another
member.
One knows of the debate that was occurring only moments ago in
the House. If I did, there was no intention on my part to be
disrespectful to anyone.
I came to the House 31 years ago, I guess it will be in a few
days. I started as a busboy in the parliamentary restaurant with
nothing but respect for this great institution.
The day I leave here—and I hope it is not soon—I hope it is
after having had nothing but respect not only for the House but
for everyone who served here.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 and pursuant to the order
adopted by the House on Wednesday, October 1, 1997, I have the
honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of various
committees, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
SNOWMOBILE SAFETY
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition that has
been signed by over 1,500 individuals from across Canada.
The petition was initiated to confront the problem with
snowmobile safety, the cause of many winter deaths.
The petitioners would like to see the establishment of a
national snowmobile safe association that would deal with the
issues of licences, registration, insurance, driving age, speed
limits and regulations pertaining to the design of snowmobiles.
FAMILY LIFE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am very pleased today to present
a petition in the House from a number of my constituents and
other people in the London area.
They call on the government to take various steps to strengthen
family life in Canadian society.
* * *
1600
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to ask for leave to put forward a motion for a
special debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52, to discuss the
critical situation facing the fishing industry on the Pacific
coast and in Atlantic Canada and recent events which are causing
the government to revise its policies.
Just yesterday the auditor general reported his findings to the
House. He drew attention to the fact that he could not find
anywhere a clearly defined national fisheries policy on
sustainable fisheries.
Furthermore, in the past few weeks there have been suggestions
and allegations of interference with DFO science, the twisting
and manipulation of scientific data. The ability of the
department has been called into question as to whether the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans can effectively manage the
fisheries resource. Of course, that is a matter of debate right
across the country.
The government's handling and its management of the fishery has
given rise to confrontation and civil disorder in British
Columbia. Relationships between the federal government and the
Government of British Columbia have reached such a stage of
disharmony that other federal-provincial matters are threatened
and the federal-provincial relationship between Ottawa and
British Columbia is at an all-time low.
As well, the auditor general stated the obvious yesterday when
he said that fish stocks in Atlantic Canada are not regenerating.
There are not enough fish in the water to sustain a viable
fishing industry. He also stated the very obvious, in particular
to those of us from Atlantic Canada, that there are very few jobs
and employment opportunities in the hundreds of rural communities
in Atlantic Canada.
What is more compelling is that even since the moratorium was
announced in July 1992, this government, being in power now for
four years, has not developed or implemented a strategy or a plan
to deal with 35,000 to 40,000 Atlantic Canadians after May 1998.
We have had an historic day today. My submission to you, Mr.
Speaker, is that if we as elected members of Parliament to this
House of Commons are going to have ample opportunity to debate
the fisheries crisis on both coasts of our country, we are going
to need to do it soon. It is a matter of urgent public interest.
Before the anticipated, hopefully, national policy on fisheries
I think every member of this House should have an opportunity to
debate the present fisheries crisis on the west and east coasts.
They should be heard. The government can undertake to listen to
all members and to hopefully consider and incorporate some of the
ideas that might flow from my proposed debate into a national
fisheries policy, especially as it pertains to sustainable
fisheries and the difficulties that are being faced by fishers on
the west coast, in particular because of the salmon dispute and
in the Atlantic because of the decline in our fish stocks.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to you that
this matter in my estimation is very urgent and is of great
public significance and importance.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burin—St. George's
was kind enough to apprise me that he was going to rise and ask
for an emergency debate at this time.
I know the issue of the fisheries is of concern to all hon.
members in the House. However, in my view it does not fulfil the
requirements for an emergency debate at this time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1605
[Translation]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
BILL C-2—MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to establish the
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada
Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one
further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration
of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
that, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for Government Business on the day allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill,
any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if
required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every
question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the
Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without
further debate or amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't think you can move that on a
point of order.
The Speaker: When I stood, I asked if it was a point of
order and I was told it was not. I said it was not on a point of
order.
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:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1650
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| 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
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 76
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old
Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; of the
amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.
1655
The Deputy Speaker: When the House last considered the
matter, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke had the
floor. He has four minutes remaining in his speech.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be in this hallowed House
participating in this debate.
It is rather interesting to note that the party opposite has a
void in its argument on the Canada pension plan debate and it was
evinced by their void in not being here for the democratic vote.
Hopefully we will not be indulging in this vituperative political
rhetoric but I guess they will persist. It reminds me of last
night when I left this hallowed Chamber and thought of the
viciousness of their attack. It made me think that this is the
last refuge for the vaguely talented on the opposite side.
Having said this I notice that one of their main points of
contention in the debate is that this is a payroll tax. That is
utter rubbish and nonsense. It is a pension plan. It is a
contribution to a pension plan. It is not in any way shape or
form a payroll tax.
We do have an employment insurance tax but we are doing
everything we possibly can, and have done so since we were
elected, to reduce the employment insurance tax not once, not
twice but thrice. We will continue to reduce the employment
insurance tax whenever we have the opportunity and the fiscal
responsibility to do so.
One thing that we will not reduce is our commitment to Bill C-2.
Why? Because this has not been a cursory commitment. This has
not been a commitment just in the last week, the last month, the
last year or the last five years. This has been a commitment for
about 40 years. One of the great icons of Canadian political
history and it certainly endeared myself to him to know that he
was also one of the great icons of the Liberal Party, the late
Paul Martin Sr., was part and parcel of the genesis of this
wonderful bill.
It is rather remarkable to know that a very close relative of
Paul Martin Sr., our current finance minister, continues that
strong legacy. I am sure that Paul Martin Sr., being up in the
hallowed house in the celestial heavens with the other saints of
political history such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King
and Lester Pearson, would be smiling broadly knowing that his
legacy has lasted with the truly great finance minister in this
Liberal Party.
I notice that members of the Reform Party used an acronym, CPP.
We know it stands for Canada pension plan, but they cared to
indulge in some kind of fanatical rhetoric. I do not remember it
because it is not worthwhile remembering what that acronym stood
for. I would say to hon. members that perhaps CPP stands for a
commitment to Paul's plan. We are committed to the duty of
government and we most certainly recognize the fact that the
challenge of any government is to build a road for its citizens
that will lead to a sense of self-satisfaction, a sense of
self-esteem and a sense of fulfilment.
This coruscating Bill C-2 most certainly rises to that
challenge. May I even be so bold as to say that this is a
bodacious bill. Hon. members can look up that word.
I notice I have one minute left, Mr. Speaker. One further
minute to expound upon the great magnanimous qualities of Bill
C-2. This bill not only rises to the challenge, it supersedes
it. It eclipses the challenge not only for today, not only for
tomorrow, but for weeks and possibly decades to come.
1700
The Deputy Speaker: I should remind hon. members that it
is contrary to the rules to refer to the absence of members from
the Chamber. I would ask hon. members to bear that in mind in
the course of their remarks.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the last
member gave us a history lesson. Let us just review very quickly
some of the history since 1993. We nearly lost Canada in a
Quebec referendum. We are $100 billion deeper in debt. There
are $26 billion in increased taxes. Youth unemployment stands at
17%. Patronage appointments abound everywhere. We have job
equity. The deception is that somehow our financial problems
have been fixed although we have a $50 billion interest payment.
Now comes the most severe tax grab that we have ever had where
the tax will be raised from 5.6% to 9.9% of a person's income.
To show the total disrespect for democracy, we now have closure
being used on this bill that affects almost all Canadians.
Let us go back in history to 1966 when this experiment in
socialism was started. We were told that deductions would never
go above 5.5%. However, with mismanagement we now have a pension
plan that is underfunded by $560 billion.
Let us talk about the pension plan as hon. members across the
way want to keep talking about it. Let us talk about young
people. They are the people who are going to be affected by this
the most but let us also include seniors who have children and
grandchildren.
We are going to destroy the incentive of these young people. We
are going to rob them of their jobs because of these payroll tax
deductions. The small businessman is going to be put further
down the line and his chances of survival are that much less.
During the last election I made up a little card. This little
card refers to exactly what this plan is all about. I talked to
many young people, particularly, in the workforce at their places
of work. I said to them “Let us think about what this plan is
really about. In the next six years you are going to go from a
$935 maximum deduction if your income is $35,000 to a point where
you are paying $1,645. Your employer will have to match it.
This is roughly $3,300. If you are 30 years old you are going to
paying that $3,300 for 35 years until you are 65. At the end of
that time you will get $8,800 provided you don't have too high an
income. If you have too high an income the government is going
to claw it back from you. Maybe what you are doing is really
investing $3,300 a year for 35 or more years to get nothing”.
What would be a better way? Obviously, a better way would be
to take that $3,300 and invest it in almost any kind of
securities or program if it was compulsory. If it was at only
6%, at age 65 that very same person would have a $275,000 nest
egg and would have an annuity that would pay $26,000 until death.
What kind of investment are we asking our young people to make?
We are asking them to be robbed. We are asking them to be part
of this deceptive scheme that will take six years to implement.
Let us come to the present. The government is saying “We are
very early in our mandate and so let us get the dirty things done
quickly and then maybe people will forget about it. Maybe the
electorate will forget about it”. All of us in this House had
better dedicate ourselves to making sure that the electorate
knows what kind of robbery this is for our young people.
I would like to read some quotes. I really think these are
fitting. Mr. Axworthy, who was a member of Parliament, was
quoted on April 1, 1993 as saying “It displays the utter disdain
with which this government treats the Canadian people,” when he
talked about closure. The House leader said on November 16, 1992
as quoted in Hansard “I am shocked. This is just terrible.
This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation.
Shame on those Tories across the way for using closure”.
1705
Mr. Speaker, with all respect I must quote you on April 23, 1993
from Hansard when you said “This is not the way to run
Parliament. This is an abuse of the process of this House”. I
say to the government, it is a disgrace what it has just done,
using closure on a piece of important legislation. Mr. Speaker,
we agree with you totally. I tell you, they should go up in our
caucus room because you are right.
We know that you are close to the people of your riding and to
the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker. That is what the people are
saying about this charade that we saw taking place today.
The government will continue to move closure. That is the sad
part about it. This is just the beginning. In the last House
the government used closure 29 times, the most in the whole
history of Parliament.
The last member said “Hey, this is an honourable place”. This
place has lost its democratic reason to exist. This place is a
disgrace because of those people across the way.
I trust that all of us are going back to our ridings and I trust
that the people in those ridings are going to say “How can you
shut down debate? How can you not listen to us telling you about
this robbery that is going to take place of every Canadian?”
What are the options? The government would like us to think
that there are none. But let us just quickly talk about those.
There are many options. Within six years I believe the
government will admit it was wrong. Of course it will not be the
government at that point but when the government members are
sitting across here they will say “That was probably the worst
mistake we made in this House”.
What are the options? The options are obvious. Let young
people set up a private plan. Let us take a look at what Britain
is going to be doing. It is going to that sort of a plan. The
U.S. is pretty much committed to going to that plan within the
next two years. Australia and New Zealand have already done it.
Chile has been on that plan for 16 years. Let us examine those.
Let us see what other countries are doing so that we can do the
same for the people of Canada. There are options out there.
So that the hon. finance minister cannot continue to misquote
the Reform position, let us tell people today that all of those
people who have paid into the CPP will be paid out in a credit
system whereby they will get a prorated pension plan for the
years of contribution.
It will take time to phase in this plan but we have to start it
now. All of us know that in time if we stay with the plan we
have we will be going back for more contributions, more money,
more tax grabs.
We have to look at these options. We have to present them in
the House. They need to be debated here, but the government has
closed down that option. As we heard from the finance committee
they do not even have it in their schedule to discuss this.
As we know from the last Parliament. the government will think
nothing of using closure in committee, using closure at third
reading and ramming this legislation through because it has a
deadline of January 1. When the workers start to realize that
their contributions have gone from $935 to $1,645, we had better
believe they are going to let people know and we better believe
they will let the members across the way know. Four years from
now it should be time and it should have moved well enough along
that the results will be at the ballot box.
In conclusion, today has been a dark day for our country. It
has been a dark day for young people. It is up to us to
communicate that across the country. All of us on this side of
the House had better dedicate ourselves to that job.
1710
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, most in the House, indeed most Canadians, will
understand very clearly the commitment that the government made
to ensure that down the road we have a pension system that is not
only fair to people today, but is fair to those who will need it
later.
It is not news to members, certainly on this side of the House,
of the wisdom that was shown by the hon. Minister of Finance in
providing a new regime that will ensure sustainability of the
pension system. Most of us here campaigned on this. It was an
issue we discussed in the last Parliament.
It is very clear at least from the perspective of many members,
certainly from Ontario and right across the country, that what we
said is what we are about to do. I have no trepidation in saying
that in years to come I will be glad and so will many of my
constituents that the benefits and fruits of this nation will be
shared for generations to come.
I do not think one has to go too far to understand how we wound
up in a situation where the initiative of this government and of
several provincial governments who agreed to this formula came
about.
The reality is that over the years this was a situation that we
allowed to happen. We simply allowed it to transpire. We knew
that the demographics of this country were changing.
With the benefits of a health care system brought by, in many
respects, the father of the hon. member and finance minister, and
as a result of the medicare system which this party introduced
many years ago, people are living longer. The standard of living
is high, very much as a result of the progress and the
initiatives taken by the Liberal Party of which I am a proud
member.
In order to sustain that program, in order to ensure that we
have a viable pension system, someone had to take the bull by the
horns.
[Translation]
I am therefore rather proud of the initiatives taken by this
government to ensure the survival of our pension program.
[English]
No one in the House will be surprised to know that if nothing
had been done by the government in Bill C-2, it is conceivable
that in a few years the pension system, the program that helps
our seniors, the disability benefits, the maternity leave which
many, including my wife, take, would not be there. It would not
be there in our time, in our generation, and perhaps even within
the life of this Parliament.
I have heard hon. members opposite lamenting and saying “This
could have better invested. We could have done a lot of other
things differently,” but the reality is that I do not think we
walk around with a crystal ball in our hands anticipating what
the problems are in the future.
When we strip away the politics of all of this, when we take
away the partisanship that often clouds a decision that has to be
taken, we find that what is being done is necessary.
As members know, I did not take my MP pension. Yet I believe it
is very important to understand that most people of our
generation would appreciate and would applaud what this
government is doing today.
I am pleased to speak to the issue. I am pleased to speak to
the very necessary changes that are about to take place over the
next little while.
[Translation]
We are in a period of transition. It must be clearly
understood that, if we want to move into the new decade, the new
millennium that is approaching, it is absolutely vital that we
recognize problems before they arise.
[English]
The provinces that were involved in the negotiations dealing
with the changes to CPP earlier this year also recognize and gave
approval to the need to move ahead. I do not think that what we
are doing here is extraordinary.
1715
I know there are those who believe that we should be doing other
things, that there are all sorts of wonderful proposals out
there. It is far different to be sitting in the opposition
knowing that you do not have to take seriously the reality of
government than it is to be in a position where you are governing
and you have to make decisions that will count, decisions that
will stick and decisions that will sustain themselves over the
years to come.
We have one of the youngest communities, myself and the hon.
member for Whitby—Ajax who I am very pleased to say has done a
spectacular job as a member of Parliament and previously as a
councillor. I know we share in the common view that short term
pain sometimes means long term gain, but in this instance we are
not talking about gain for some. I think that is what separates
us from the opposition, the Reform Party.
We are here to ensure there is a modicum, a standard and a
benchmark by which Canadians at the lower end of the economic
spectrum will never be let down. That is a commitment that goes
to the core of the Liberal Party.
It is one of the reasons that we also understand that we cannot
get mired down in some of the wacky ideas that we can somehow
spend our way out of these problems. We understand people. We
understand the economics of the country in the 1990s as we go
into the new millennium. We also understand that if we want to
sustain and we want to maintain programs that help people in a
way that ensures equality, we have to take decisions that are
sometimes tough decisions.
I am prepared to say today as a member who is often very
outspoken on a number of issues that this is an initiative that I
can support. I support it because, and it may be trite to say,
it is the right thing to do. Members from across this country in
years to come, in particular some of the members on the other
side who are a little lighter in age as I am—well, I do have
until next week at which point the age of wisdom kicks in—will
appreciate that colleagues of their own, friends of theirs and
neighbours will be taken care of and the initiatives taken by
this government at this time in our lives helped. They helped to
bring people together, they helped to make sure those people had
the very basics.
I noticed a smile from my hon. colleague in the New Democratic
Party. I can say that it is very very good to see so many
shining beaming faces. It is great not to be a rookie. I know
that hon. members in the short term will be very happy after the
next election because I am sure that a pension will not be too
far away for them. There will be an opportunity for them to
enjoy the very things we are putting forth today.
The economy is growing. There is no doubt the result of the
decisions taken by the Minister of Finance with respect to
bringing down interest rates is giving the engine of the economy
the kind of drive that is taking place. In communities where we
once saw many closed shops and people out of work, we are now
seeing a full recovery in bloom. That did not just happen by
accident.
We could also compare ourselves with what happened provincially
with our counterparts in the province of Ontario who believe that
to slash and burn is the way to go about things and at the same
time wind up at the end of the day continuing to perpetuate a
deficit. We chose the balanced approach and we found lo and
behold after our commitments in 1993 and 1997 that the balanced
approach does indeed work.
There will no doubt be much controversy surrounding any decision
taken by a government that dares to lead and dares to challenge
the wisdom of those who would like to say “Let us leave things
the way they are, let us maintain the status quo”, but this is a
government that is prepared to move ahead. This is a government
and a minister that are prepared to seize the agenda for the
future and to seize an agenda that puts in its first instance all
the interests of Canadians, particularly those who are the most
vulnerable in our society.
I was just told by the member for Whitby—Ajax that that is the
Liberal way. I could not put it more eloquently and I terminate
on that. Let us move ahead with this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, an act to
establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment board and to amend the
Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts.
1720
In February of this year, the Minister of Finance introduced
in this House the first version of the legislation on the Canada
pension plan. Its provisions were improved through the
observations and comments made.
The changes put forward by the federal government were
approved, as the act provides, by at least two thirds of the
provinces representing two thirds of the population of Canada. In
all, eight provinces, including Quebec, approved the proposed
changes. Only British Columbia and Saskatchewan abstained.
Bill C-2, which the Minister of Finance introduced on September
25, provides for a reform of the Canada pension plan, among other
things. There are three main thrusts to the reform. The first
is to increase funding of the system, to take it from two to five
years, as proposed by the minister.
The second thrust is to maximize the rate of return through
the establishment of a Canada pension plan investment board.>
Finally, the bill will change certain benefits, such as
disability benefits.
Bill C-2 must follow the parliamentary process and be passed
by Parliament in order to come into force. Next the supporting
orders in council must be approved by two thirds of the provinces
representing two thirds of Canada's population. The Minister of
Finance expects all these changes to take effect on January 1,
1998.
In order to assess this reform, let us take a brief look at the
history of the Canada pension plan. It was established in 1966, and nine
provinces joined, Quebec having its own retirement pension plan, the
Quebec pension plan, commonly known as the QPP, which, incidentally, is
also under review.
The Canada pension plan pays out approximately $17 billion a year
in benefits. This amount includes survivor and disability benefits. The
value of the pension fund is equivalent to 2 years benefits, or roughly
$39 billion. Of course, this reform will have far-reaching effects on
the premiums paid by those contributing to the Canada pension plan.
Employer-employee premiums will increase over the next six years to
reach 9.9%, while the maximum contribution will rise from $975 to
$1,635. Nevertheless, the actuarial report on which the government based
its reform shows that, at this rate, the fund may run dry by the year
2015 and contribution levels should be 14% instead of the current 5.85%.
That is a 240% increase. You will understand that, between a 240%
increase and the proposed 73% increase, I definitely prefer the latter.
While being strongly in favour of this legislation, I must say
that the reform affects Canadians more than Quebeckers, since
very few Quebeckers get CPP. As of last August, there were
between 12,000 and 13,000 Quebeckers in this situation. These
beneficiaries are Quebec residents who worked all their lives in
another province and who only contributed to the CPP, such as a
person living in Hull but who worked in Ontario and paid
contributions in that province; members of the Canadian Armed
Forces and the RCMP who reside in Quebec but paid contributions
to the Canada pension plan, to the extent that they only
contributed to that plan; and those people who receive CPP
benefits but have settled in Quebec.
As the critic on youth issues, I took a close look at the first
two points I mentioned earlier, namely the funding of the plan
and its optimal rate of return. The latter will be easier to
achieve through the Canada pension plan investment board. This
board is essentially similar to Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et
placement, except that it will not have any economic mandate.
Its primary responsibility will be to achieve the best possible
rate of return, so that today's young people stand a better chance of
enjoying a retirement pension.
Moreover, having a reserve equivalent to five years of benefits
instead of just two will provide a major fund with more money than is
currently the case, thus ensuring that Canadians, and particularly
people of my generation, will receive retirement benefits when the time
comes.
1725
Although our party is in favour of this reform, I would like to
mention a few observations and questions that will have to be addressed
at the committee stage.
To begin with, we all agree that premiums will increase under this
plan. These increases will be absorbed in part by my generation. Will
young people also see a decrease in their pension benefits? Given
comparable premiums in constant dollars, will the pensions young people
receive on retiring be comparable to those of people now receiving
benefits under the plan? I would like these questions to be addressed,
for there is a cloud hanging over intergenerational equity.
As party critic, and as a young person myself, I find it
interesting that the focus is on the future to ensure that future
generations will have the same rights as today's generation.
To give a better idea of where I am coming from, I would like to
describe briefly the situation facing this country's youth. Each year
the rate of unemployment is somewhere between 16 and 17% and the
activity rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 is
dropping. All the Liberal promises to create jobs for young people are
slow to materialize, as is very clear from the rate of unemployment and
the decreasing activity rate among young people since this government
came to power. The Bloc Quebecois is strongly in favour of
responsibility for youth employment programs being returned to Quebec
and will do everything in its power to bring this about.
I have said this over and over again, and I will keep saying it for
the rest of this Parliament.
Because of the Conservatives' successive restrictions on
unemployment insurance and the Liberals' employment insurance reform,
fewer young people are able to take advantage of this program. This is
yet another reform that served present generations in the past, but that
will be inaccessible to my generation in the future.
Employment insurance, as it is now known, is a measure that is
almost completely inaccessible. There are, of course, certain
interesting adjustments, but for seasonal workers or young people
graduating from university, this reform is completely inaccessible.
In addition, the principle followed by the Liberals with regard
to premiums is simple: hold the line on premiums but cut back on
accessibility. Increases in tuition fees are the result of cuts
to provincial transfer payments for post-secondary education that
were imposed by this government. Finally, poverty is an
ever-increasing problem.
I am greatly concerned about the future, about environmental
questions, about a lot of issues, but one in particular which
this House must discuss, namely the widening gap between the rich
and poor.
For some years now, since 1980, in fact since the fall of the
Berlin Wall, we have seen that capitalism is growing by leaps and
bounds. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting
poorer, with the government across the way and its reforms,
particularly the employment insurance reform, which is
impoverishing the poor still further. I think this is cause for
concern.
I recently saw statistics indicating that the number of
millionaires in the world has doubled. This is cause for concern.
This is probably one of the consequences of the notion of the
global village, the world market, which makes it easier for the
rich to get richer, and more easily.
Markets are opening up increasingly toward Asia. The world is
becoming one huge global market. Will this accentuate the
difference between the rich and the poor? I am sounding an alarm,
and I believe that considerable thought must be given to this. I
think we shall be able to find a way out, but at what price?
Tenacity and perseverance will be needed.
What I wanted to show with my speech is that the Bloc Quebecois
is not here to oppose anything that moves, everything the
government does. On the contrary, we are delighted with the
pension reform. As a member of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, I shall make it my duty, along with my
colleagues, to ensure that all the reforms will apply equally to
the coming generations and that everyone will be able to benefit
from these services.
1730
[English]
Mrs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate to amend the
Canada pension plan.
In Etobicoke—Lakeshore there are many seniors who have written,
who have spoken with me and who have attended consultation
meetings where we discussed the changes and the need for changes
to the Canada pension plan. The plan is a primary source of
income on which many Canadians rely in retirement.
Indeed, Canadians are greatly concerned about any changes to the
plan which might have an adverse effect on their economic
stability.
As members of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure that the
financial future of all Canadians is secure and that Canadians
will continue to have confidence in the Canada pension plan. The
Liberal government is taking the responsibility for the future
direction of the plan seriously by initiating the proposed
changes. The changes are reflective of the Liberal government's
belief in assisting, providing and protecting those in need.
I support Bill C-2, the legislation to amend the plan because
that legislation will ensure that we have an improved and
effective public pension plan that protects individuals in
retirement. In an age where a wide variety of financial
instruments are available to Canadians to prepare for retirement,
not all Canadians can afford or have the protection of RRSPs.
Experts on CPP have drawn the government's attention to the fact
that in light of national realities such as an aging population,
the decline in population growth, that the plan needs to be
tailored to match the demographic realities of our country. We
are facing up to the demographic realities by securing the future
of the CPP.
The proposed changes were the result of a lengthy consultation
process with provincial and territorial governments,
professionals in the actuarial and insurance professions,
representatives of social planning organizations, seniors, young
people and other Canadians.
From this process, one thing was clear: Canadians want a
national pension plan even if changes are necessary to ensure its
viability in the future.
It has been established by repeated government studies that
payouts lagged behind the contributions. We need to have payouts
and contributions in line so that Canadians can have a plan
beyond the year 2015. This means that in order to maintain the
current benefit structure, contribution rates need to increase by
14% of income by the year 2030.
It is interesting that the consultation which I held in
Etobicoke—Lakeshore, individuals were talking about 15%. A 14%
increase in CPP premiums is a rate that most Canadians would find
difficult to manage. There needs to be a middle ground in
relation to what Canadians are willing to pay into and receive
from the plan.
Under the legislation, marginal increases to contribution rates
will be slowly phased in over a seven-year period. Contributions
will be increased by .4% of income this year and will go to 9.9%
of income by the year 2003 as compared with the current rate of
5.85%.
As evidenced, the increase in contribution rates will not be
dramatic and therefore Canadians can have a secure CPP that is
affordable.
I would like to reiterate the facts of the proposed changes that
the hon. Minister of Finance has given on numerous occasions in
the last Parliament and which are echoed in this Parliament by
many colleagues. My constituents would like to hear that current
benefits such as CPP retirement pensions, disability benefits,
survivor benefits or combined benefits are not affected by the
amendments in Bill C-2. Any Canadian over age 65 as of December
31, 1997 who elects to receive CPP as of this date their pension
will not be affected.
Likewise all benefits under the CPP except death benefits will be
fully indexed to inflation. If Canadians choose to retire at age
60 or 65 or up to age 70, these ages of eligibility for
retirement will remain unchanged.
1735
These are the principal tenets of the CPP that will remain
intact. As the government embarks on rebuilding a sound CPP
plan, Canadians who are not now in receipt of CPP need to know
that there will be future changes. Future beneficiaries who will
be in receipt of retirement pensions will see a change in
benefits because calculations will be based on five years of
pensionable earnings instead of the current three years.
The disability component of CPP will be affected by the proposed
changes. An applicant who is eligible to receive disability
benefits would have to contribute to the CPP in four of the last
six years instead of two of the last three years or five of the
last ten years which is the current contribution requirement.
Benefits for these applicants will be calculated based on the
applicant's maximum pensionable earnings at the time of
disablement instead of at age 65. I know that these are issues
that many of us deal with in our constituency offices.
Changes will be made to payments of death benefits. CPP
contributors will continue to receive death benefit payments
under the plan, but again the benefit will continue to be based
on six months of retirement benefits. They will see a decrease
and this decrease is due to the fact that we want to address the
problem of income disparity by ensuring that low income Canadians
are not adversely impacted by the proposed changes.
These proposed changes to the CPP will ensure that Canadians
will continue to have an economically viable and stable pension
plan that meets their future retirement needs. The intent of
these changes is to give us better options and to ensure the
viability of the plan.
I call on all members at this point in time to support this
initiative for the benefit of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your
appointment as deputy chairman of the committees of the whole
House.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the people
in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst for their support and their trust
in the June 2 federal election. Their support underscores their
belief in the government management and the importance of an open
democracy, and I will certainly not discuss this today.
Acadie—Bathurst has a population of nearly 100,000 people of
all ages and interests.
Its linguistic attributes, with anglophone and francophone
populations, mark it as a particular spot in Canada.
Mining, forestry and the fisheries are very active and the
main driving force of the local economy. Natural resources are
however very unstable. The pulp and paper industry has experienced
certain difficulties. Nevertheless, things in this industry are on
a better footing these days.
The fishing industry is not so well off. Since 1984, fishing
has produced little, and this situation has had an alarming effect
on communities.
As things currently stand in my region, the future looks
vulnerable and difficult.
This is why I wish to react to the changes proposed to the Canada
pension plan. Bill C-2 proposes increased contributions, the
creation of an independent agency to administer the plan and a
reduction in benefits to those least well off in our society.
In his press release on the new bill, the Minister of Finance
said that the changes would ensure the plan's long term viability,
while making it fairer and more affordable for future generations
of Canadians.
The Minister of Finance has an odd sense of fairness. He is
targeting Canada's most vulnerable people—older women and people
with a disability—in favour of his friends on Bay Street in
Toronto.
1740
The New Democratic Party finds this option unacceptable. We will
not go for the Liberal and Reform Party position, which would increase
inequity within Canadian society. The NDP believes that the voters must
be consulted before any changes are made to the pension system.
The people of Canada are the ones who will have to live with these
changes. They must be given an opportunity to express their views. When
one is elected to this House, one is supposed to be able to participate
in the debates, and I am really ashamed of what has happened here today.
The changes proposed in this bill hurt Canadians.
First, Bill C-2 reduces benefits in several ways. It makes it more
difficult to qualify for disability benefits and imposes stricter rules
for combining disability and survivor benefits.
Under the existing legislation, one must have worked during at
least four out of the past six years to be eligible for CPP disability
benefits. If this bill is passed, one will be required to have worked
during two of the past three years or five of the past six to be
eligible for disability benefits. With the proposed changes, some people
who are currently eligible would no longer be eligible.
Another problem is the whole issue of survivor and death benefits.
At present, the maximum is set at $3,580 for a person receiving survivor
benefits.
These have been reduced to $2,500 with the maximum being frozen, and
this will be especially harmful to widows and separated women who live
alone for a longer time.
[English]
Bill C-2 also freezes the low level of earnings that is exempt
from CPP contributions. This back door increase of CPP
contributions is regressive because it affects people with low
levels of earnings the most. The year's basic exemptions, the
first $3,500 of earnings, is no longer indexed to inflation which
means that the low income workers, many of whom are women, would
have to pay more in contributions.
[Translation]
The bill also includes amendments to the CPP's financial provisions
and changes the plan into an additional tax and a make-work project for
bankers, who are good friends of the Liberals.
Bill C-2 speeds up the planned increase in the contribution rate to
the CPP. The rate, which is currently set at 5.85%, will rise to 9.9% by
the year 2003, a 73% increase over a six year period. This rapid
increase in the contribution rate is a concern for several reasons.
First, the CPP will be refinanced at the expense of low income
people, particularly women.
To shift responsibility for refinancing the CPP to those who are least
able to do so, as our Liberal friends are proposing, is irresponsible
and will have a harmful impact on future generations.
This tax will also have to be paid by small businesses, many of
which will have a hard time meeting a 73% increase. It will prompt some
of them to go underground when it comes to managing their business or
hiring employees. Creating an environment that makes the underground
economy more attractive is harmful to all Canadians, and this concerns
me a great deal.
In addition to their ill-conceived idea of increasing contributions
at the expense of the poor, the Liberals will establish the Canada
pension plan investment board, whose role will be to manage the reserve
fund so as to maximize revenue.
However, the Liberals are not telling us that the board will not have
the mandate to promote investments in our domestic economy. I support
job creation programs, but I have a serious problem when I see that
friends of the Liberals, namely bankers, are the ones who will benefit,
while ordinary Canadians are still waiting for the Liberals to fulfill
their commitments and create jobs for them.
This government keeps promising jobs for all Canadians, but its
proposed changes to the CPP's financial provisions mean more power for
the big wigs and more hardship for ordinary people.
Let me give an example. Why does the government accept that, when
an accident occurs in the workplace, the CPP provides benefits for the
injured worker, instead of the workers compensation board?
It is a way of abusing the system and still keeping an eye out for their
friends.
1745
We must also come to the defence of the universal public pension
system. An older population does not mean we must adopt an
individualized approach or that we must privatize our public pension
system. On the contrary, our European friends offer good examples of
societies with older populations that now have public pension plans.
The Liberals have manufactured a crisis around the CPP in order to
be able to attack the concept of the universality of our pensions and to
save money on the backs of society's weakest members.
[English]
The Canadian public pension system is a crucial part of the
Canadian social security net. The CPP and the OAS have been
particularly important for lower and middle income seniors. It
embodies the values Canadians share and ensures a fair
redistribution of wealth.
Thanks to public pensions Canada has made tremendous gains in
overcoming poverty among senior citizens and has provided much
better prospects for retirement with dignity. In the three
decades since the CPP was adopted, the poverty rate among
Canadians 65 and older fell to 10.9% in 1995 from 33.5% in 1980.
The battle against poverty among seniors is far from over. Today
one of every five elderly persons still lives in poverty. In 1993
the poverty rate for seniors increased over the previous year in
almost every province. Scaling back CPP and OAS benefits will
hurt low and middle income seniors. We have a responsibility to
present and future senior citizens to oppose this legislation and
protect our public pension plan.
[Translation]
The health of the CPP is directly tied to the rate of economic
growth and a good level of employment, which increases the government's
revenues. This government's many cuts, high interest rates, the present
high rate of unemployment, and modest incomes have done more damage to
the CPP than the aging of the population.
It is terrible to see a government that calls itself democratic
refusing to let the debate continue, in this House, to get to the
bottom of things. It is unacceptable. We were elected to this
House to debate legislation. The CPP is of real importance to all
Canadians, and the Liberal government turned its back on them
today by refusing to allow the debate to continue. That is
regrettable. What the Government of Canada has done today is
truly shameful.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to join in the debate on the Canada pension
plan.
In February of this year the Liberal government acting with the
provinces took the lead to place the Canada pension plan on a
solid financial footing. The recent changes to the Canada
pension plan will do two important things. It will secure its
sustainability and will stabilize the contribution rates.
We should not forget that the plan is jointly managed by the
federal and provincial governments, and changes can only be made
to it if approved by two-thirds of the provinces representing
two-thirds of the population. All provinces, with the exception
of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, support the reforms. Yes,
let us look at it. The reforms are supported by Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
The consultation process was very extensive. During the 33
sessions held in 18 cities throughout the country, more than 270
formal presentations were held to find out what Canadians thought
should happen to their plan. Canadians had no hesitation. They
asked to have the plan preserved, its finances strengthened and
its investment practices improved.
Those who advocate scrapping the CPP and moving to a privatized
system with mandatory retirement savings plans do not understand
two things. First, Canadians want the CPP to remain. Second, the
CPP provides protection not available through private RRSPs, such
as disability benefits, provision for women of childbearing age
and survivor and death benefits.
The CPP premiums are insurance premiums paid by working
Canadians into a public pension plan from which they draw
benefits when they retire. To insinuate otherwise by calling the
rate increase in contributions a tax grab is misleading and
confusing. The CPP revenues are not revenues of the Government of
Canada. The fund is jointly administered by the federal and
provincial governments for the benefit of citizens, not for the
benefit of governments.
1750
Critics who maintain that the CPP is an insufficient public
pension plan conveniently forget that it is only one of three
pillars of our retirement system. The old age security and
guaranteed income supplement system and private retirement
savings plans such as RRSPs are the other two pillars. Action
has already been taken by this government to consolidate the OAS
and GIS into what we call the proposed seniors benefit which is
designed to help those most in need. Taken together, these
systems provide a good balance of government and individual
responsibility for retirement income security.
These changes in the CPP reflect the long held Liberal values of
providing stability for and protecting those in need. It is a
balanced approach.
Today the 5.85% legislated CPP contribution rate is shared
equally between employees and employers. Contributions are
levied on earnings between $3,500 and $35,800. Under the
existing legislation, rates were to rise to 10.1% by the year
2016. Yes they were to rise to 10.1%, although people forget
that. However the chief actuary of the CPP indicated that
without these changes the CPP fund would be depleted by the year
2015 and contribution rates would have to increase to 14.2% by
the year 2030 to cover escalating costs. Clearly the CPP was not
sustainable and something had to be done.
The federal and provincial ministers agreed on a three part
approach to restore the financial sustainability of the CPP and
make it fair and affordable for future generations. They did
this by moving to fuller funding by accelerating contribution
rate increases now so they will not have to exceed 10% for future
generations. We have come in at 9.9% They are improving the
rate of return for the CPP fund by investing it prudently and by
having a diversified portfolio of securities at an arm's length
from the government. They are slowing the growth in costs by
tightening the administration of benefits and changing the way
some are calculated.
Speaking about fuller funding, when the CPP was introduced in
1966 it was financed as a pay as you go system. The prospects of
rapid growth in real wages and labour force participation
promised that the CPP could be sustained and remain affordable.
As well, building up large reserves in a world of real low
interest rates would not have been much help. The pay as you go
CPP system made sense given those circumstances.
Since then however the slowdown in wages and workforce growth
and higher real interest rates have completely changed the
circumstances in which the CPP must be financed. The pay as you
go financing is no longer fair, appropriate and possible.
Building up a larger fund, fuller funding, and earning a higher
rate of return through investment in the market will help pay for
the rapidly growing cost that will occur once baby boomers begin
to retire. Accordingly the CPP will move from a pay as you go
financing system to fuller funding to build up substantially
larger reserve of funds. The fund will grow in value from about
two years of benefits currently to about four or five years of
benefits.
Indeed contribution rates will rise in steps over the next six
years from the current rate of 5.85% to 9.9% of contributory
earnings and then remain steady, instead of rising to 14.2% by
the year 2030 as projected by the chief actuary. In dollar terms
an employee earning $35,800 a year now pays about $945 in annual
contributions. In 2003 that employee will contribute about
$1,635. This is $450 more than what is currently legislated for
that year. However by 2030 an employee would be paying $565 less
a year than if we had not acted now.
Increasing rates more rapidly now will cover the cost of each
contributor's own benefits plus a uniform share of the unfunded
burden that has built up. These costs will not be passed on to
future generations.
At present the CPP has a fund equal to about two years of
benefits. Funds not required immediately to pay benefits are
invested in non-marketable provincial government securities.
Provinces pay interest at the federal long term bond rate when
the bonds are purchased.
Fuller funding of the CPP means that the fund will grow
substantially from about two years of benefits to about four or
five over the next two decades. A new investment policy is
required to secure the best possible return for contributors. A
higher investment return on the fund will keep contribution rates
down.
1755
Thus our ministers have agreed that the CPP funds will be
invested in a diversified portfolio of securities in the best
interests of contributors and beneficiaries, much like private
sector plans. The fund will be managed professionally at arm's
length from government by an investment board accountable to both
the public and government through regular reports. The board will
be subject to investment rules similar to other pension plan
funds in Canada. The foreign property limits of the pension funds
will also apply to the CPP fund.
When the provinces now borrow from the CPP, they will pay the
same rate of interest that they do on their market borrowings.
This is a very welcome step.
Let us review some of the changes to the benefits and their
administration I indicated earlier. The formula for adjusting
previous earnings in calculating retirement benefits will be
based on the average of the year's maximum pensionable earnings
over the last five years instead of the three currently, prior to
starting the pension. The amount of the pension will continue to
depend on how much and for how long a person contributes to that
plan.
To be eligible for disability benefits, workers must show
greater attachment to the labour force. They must have made CPP
contributions on earnings over $3,500 in four of the last six
years prior to becoming disabled. Prior to 1987 disabled
coverage was available to those who had contributed for at least
five of the last 10 years.
Retirement pensions for disability beneficiaries will be based
on the maximum pensionable earnings at the time of disability and
then fully price indexed to age 65. This measure is consistent
with how other CPP benefits are calculated and will apply only to
the people not yet over the age of 65.
The death benefit will be equal to six months of retirement
benefits, up to a maximum of $2,500. Currently the maximum is
set at 10%, $3,508 in 1997. The option of eliminating the
benefit was rejected.
Stewardship and accountability was a concern that has been
responded to. To improve stewardship for the CPP and provide for
more accountability so that the sustainability of the CPP will no
longer be at risk has been accomplished as follows.
Federal-provincial reviews will be required every three years
instead of every five. Any future improvements will be fully
funded.
There have been criticisms to which I would like to respond.
Some say these payroll taxes are job killers and why are we
planning on increasing the CPP contributions by almost 70% over
the next six years.
Governing is about making choices and sometimes these choices
are difficult. If the CPP is going to be there for young
generations, we have no choice but to start paying our way for
the CPP now rather than passing on an insupportable burden to our
children. As I pointed out, if we did nothing, CPP contributions
would rise to 14.2% by the year 2030. We have held them to 9.9%.
The increase in the contribution rate is being phased in over six
years to minimize the impact on the labour market.
Unlike the CPP contributions that are a savings toward pensions,
EI premiums are an additional payroll tax that finance current
expenditures. We have also said that we will bring down the EI
premiums as soon as and as fast as it makes sense, and we are
doing that as well.
This legislation represents a significant step forward to
fulfilling our commitment to a secure Canadian retirement income
system. These changes will strengthen our pension system so it
will continue to give Canadians the opportunity to build
sufficient incomes for their retirement.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
party is profoundly disappointed with the lack of vision
demonstrated by the government with Bill C-2.
With Bill C-2 the government had an opportunity to demonstrate
courage and vision for Canadians. The government had an
opportunity to stop taxing, especially payroll taxes which are
killing jobs in Canada. They have been demonstrated around the
world as being the single biggest impediment to the growth of
jobs not just in the Canadian economy, but in the U.S. and the
U.K. economies.
Even the Netherlands in 1983 had an unemployment rate in excess
of 13%. In 1983 the Government of the Netherlands recognized
that high taxes kill jobs. As such the government reduced payroll
taxes, reduced general taxation and reduced regulations on small
business. It has achieved a reduction of 15% to the extent that
now in the Netherlands the unemployment rate is less than 7%.
1800
This demonstrates what vision and leadership can provide to
Canadians and what we need to do to ensure the sustainable growth
of the Canadian economy.
I come from a small business background. Most of my family has
been in small business for the last three generations. One thing
we recognize in small business is when we only have so much
coming in, in terms of general revenue, we can only afford to do
so much with that amount. It is not a limitless pit as the
government might feel.
It stands to reason when payroll taxes are increased small
businesses will not be able to hire as many people as they would
otherwise want to hire.
Subsidies designed by the government to entice people toward
particular actions and to move them in particular directions are
the exact opposite of taxes. This in itself should demonstrate
to the government that reducing payroll taxes would help
stimulate growth in the Canadian economy.
Bill C-2 and the $11 billion tax grab on ordinary Canadians
without reducing employment insurance premiums will create
further impediments to job growth. This is unacceptable to
Canadians, especially to young Canadians.
When I speak to the students with whom I went to university and
hear their stories of graduating with degrees and significant
student loan debts, my heart goes out to them. I feel very badly
for their circumstances. While the government through words says
that it shares this pain and wants to do something about it, when
given the opportunity to act decisively it consistently fails to
demonstrate the vision these young people need.
Trade is a tenet of our party's policy. It is something that we
have been consistent on in terms of supporting the values of free
trade. We have consistently recognized the importance and the
opportunity that trade provides to Canadians. In a country where
trade provides 40% of our GDP we should recognize that when we
overtax Canadian companies and individuals we create a
significant impediment to our ability to help companies to be
competitive internationally. This will create a further
disincentive to the creation of jobs.
We are a trading nation, yet we have higher payroll taxes than
our major trading partners. Perhaps this explains why we in
Canada have over twice the unemployment rate of the U.S. We have
a significantly higher unemployment rate than that of the U.K. We
have three times the unemployment rate of Japan.
How will young Canadians move forward with a government that
continues to hold them back?
Bill C-2 is another example of a government that does not trust
its own people to make decisions with its own money. When
government takes money from people through taxation, it is
essentially saying that it is in a better position to determine
what to do with that money than the individuals. The government
has demonstrated unequivocally that they have not earned the
right to make those decisions.
Consistent with that lack of trust in the Canadian people, the
government continues to fail to give them an opportunity where
they invest their RRSP savings. To limit Canadians opportunities
to invest internationally and to maximize their returns to
provide for their families for their futures is unconscionable.
In this day and age we have an opportunity through history to
learn the lessons of economics, especially the economics over the
last 30 years. It demonstrates without hesitation or
equivocation how taxation or any barrier placed by government on
small and medium size business, especially in a trading
environment, prevents jobs.
1805
This government cannot claim ignorance to these facts. I find
it unacceptable that this government continues to move in this
direction without recognizing this. My constituents and in
particular the small business community have expressed this to
me. I come from Atlantic Canada where many small businesses are
struggling to survive. They would very much like to expand and
hire more people but this government continues to put barriers in
their way to this type of job growth.
Flexibility of the workforce is very important. As we enter the
21st century it is critical that governments understand that
people and businesses need more flexibility in hiring practices
and the transferability of benefits, all the things that
economists agree on. We have not yet been able to convince this
government and instead of listening and responding to the needs
of Canadians and to basic economic truths, it is going to ram
Bill C-2 through this House and continue to force Canadians to
endure longer sustained high unemployment in this country.
We do believe in ensuring a sustainable future for the Canada
pension plan. There are some members of this House who do not
think it is important to protect 225,000 disabled Canadians
through the Canada pension plan. However we recognize that the
Canada pension plan is an important vehicle for those people in
our society who need us to provide a level of support for them
because they cannot provide that for themselves.
For many Canadians the single biggest difficulty that lies in
front of them is a government that refuses to allow them access
to the tools of job growth. Small business, especially a small
business that is involved in international trade, is going to be
and should be the engine of job growth in this country. Why this
government insists on preventing small business people and young
people from taking their rightful place in the international
business community instead of providing them with opportunities
to succeed and to ensure that future generations of Canadians are
successful, we do not understand.
It takes courage sometimes to make the right decision. It takes
vision and it takes a level of understanding and intelligence. We
sincerely hope that the Canadian people in the next election will
try to seek the type of leadership that will provide Canadians
with this type of government.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour and a privilege to rise in this House and speak to an
issue that I believe was of concern to all of the residents of
Thornhill, the young and the old.
As I begin, I would like to tell this House a little bit about
the riding of Thornhill. Thornhill is a newly created riding,
created by redistribution. For the very first time since the
1970s, we see Thornhill put back together again. The provincial
government had divided Thornhill.
If one visits the riding one will find that old Thornhill
straddles both sides of Yonge Street, part of it in the town of
Vaughan and part of it in Markham. Now for the very first time
with the creation of the new federal riding of Thornhill,
Markham, Vaughan, Concord and all of the wonderful communities
within those entities have come together under the name of
Thornhill.
Thornhill is a vibrant riding with many businesses. I have to
say that the businesses are very aware of the need for fixing the
Canada pension plan and the problems that have plagued the Canada
pension plan for many years. Each one who works in a business or
who owns a business understands the importance of the Canada
pension plan to Canadians and to Canadian values.
1810
Within Thornhill is a very young community. As I knocked on
doors and met people from all over the world, one of the things
that was clear was that people in Thornhill are concerned about
whether or not we will have in place in the future programs and
plans like the Canada pension plan to protect them when they get
sick and need disability insurance. Many were aware of the
problems that have existed for some time with Canada pension
plan. Many were aware of the need for the plan to be fixed.
I approached Bill C-2 from the following perspective. The first
question I asked was, is there a problem? The answer to that
question is yes, there is a problem. The problem is not a new
one. It has existed for a long time. We could stand, we could
point fingers and we could say “During the years of the
Conservative government it did nothing to fix the plan”. That
would not be productive, although it would be true.
The response of the government has been that there is a problem.
What did it do about that? It did two things. The first thing
it did was consult Canadians to make them aware of the problem.
The people of Thornhill are very aware that there are problems
with the Canada pension plan. They are aware that if it is left
untouched and unchanged, the plan will implode. It will not be
there for future generations.
I do not think that many of the young people in Thornhill
believed that the Canada pension plan would ever be there for
them. The seniors in Thornhill were very concerned because they
said “How will changes to this plan impact me?”
It is important that these questions be answered. Not only did
the government consult widely with Canadians, it also sat down
with the provinces. While the Canada pension plan is a federal
pension plan in the eyes of the people, the reality is that it is
a federal-provincial plan. Changes can only occur if a majority
of the provinces approve and recognize that a significant
majority of the people of this country approve the changes. In
other words the federal government could not unilaterally make
these changes.
To those constituents in Thornhill who, when I knocked on their
doors, said “Isn't it possible for governments to work
together,” I say to them and to everyone in the House that Bill
C-2 is an example of governments working together.
Was it unanimous? Absolutely not. Did they get a national
consensus? Yes, I believe the governments did. A majority of
the provinces, including Ontario, representing a significant
majority of the population of Canada, have signed an agreement to
make changes to the Canada pension plan that will solve the
problem. The plan will be fixed and I will be able to say to the
next generation, to the young people of Thornhill and to the
young people of Canada, that the Canada pension plan will be
there for them in future generations.
That is the commitment of the government and that is what Bill
C-2 accomplishes. It fixes a problem that has been identified
and it ensures that the plan is viable into the future.
The next test and the next question that I asked on behalf of
the people of Thornhill was “Is this done fairly? Is it done
with accountability to the people who rely on this plan and want
to know that it is there?”
1815
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt
the hon. member but as it is now 6:15 p.m. Pursuant to order
made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the subamendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the
subamendment 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.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 70
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 202
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Karygiannis
|
Manley
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Parrish
| Plamondon
|
Venne
| Wood
|
The Speaker: I declare the subamendment lost.
The next 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:
1855
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 52
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Karygiannis
|
Manley
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Parrish
| Plamondon
|
Venne
| Wood
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. 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 be please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1905
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 202
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 69
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Karygiannis
|
Manley
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Parrish
| Plamondon
|
Venne
| Wood
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee
before second reading of Bill C-4.
The question is on the motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
1915
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 220
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 50
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Karygiannis
|
Manley
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Parrish
| Plamondon
|
Venne
| Wood
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 7.18 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.18 p.m.)