36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 108
CONTENTS
Monday, May 25, 1998
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1130
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1145
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
1150
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1155
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1200
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36—Time Allocation Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
1250
(Division 158)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to.
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1255
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1320
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1325
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1340
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGONGUIN SECONDARY SCHOOL IN NORTH BAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1400
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OLIVER, B.C.
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DR. RUSSELL MCDONALD
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NOTEMAKERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRELAND
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MISSING CHILDREN DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEAD START PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAVID LEVINE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRELAND
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MISSING CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC FLAG
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YARMOUTH FERRY SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREX PLANT
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOMALIA INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAVID LEVINE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Environment and Sustainable Development
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-407. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-408. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1510
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Emergency Personnel
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Prices
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1515
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1520
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1550
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1605
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1700
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 68 and 69
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 70 and 71
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 72 and 73
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 74 and 75
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 76 and 78 to 81 inclusive
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 82, 83 and 84
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 85
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 86, 87 and 88
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 89
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 90
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 91 and 92
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 93
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 94 to 96 inclusive
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 97 to 102 inclusive)
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 103
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 104 to 106 inclusive
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 107
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1835
1845
(Division 159)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1850
(Division 160)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
1855
(Division 161)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7 negatived
|
(Division 162)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 11 negatived
|
(Division 163)
1900
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 55 negatived
|
(Division 164)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 16 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56, 65, 66, 70,
107, 74 and 75 negatived
|
1905
(Division 165)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 67 negatived
|
(Division 166)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 68 negatived
|
1910
(Division 167)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 69 negatived
|
1915
(Division 168)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 72 negatived
|
(Division 169)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 82 negatived
|
(Division 170)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 87 negatived
|
1920
(Division 171)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 89 negatived.
|
(Division 172)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 96 negatived.
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1925
(Division 173)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Third reading
|
(Division 174)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
|
1935
(Division 175)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-247. Second reading
|
1945
(Division 176)
1950
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
2000
(Division 177)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment agreed to
|
2005
(Division 178)
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion as amended agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
2010
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
2015
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance Reform
|
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
2020
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 108
![](/web/20061116191552im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 25, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
discussions have taken place among all parties and the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca concerning the taking of the division on
M-261 scheduled for today at the conclusion of Private Members'
Business and I believe that you will find consent for the
following:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-261, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a
recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the expiry
of the time provided for Government Orders today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1105
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in favour
of Motion No. 261 as proposed by my hon. colleague from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should: (a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a
comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their
first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program
involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the
experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start
Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the
program is implemented by the year 2000.
We in the official opposition are pleased that the motion is
receiving so much support in the House.
The motion clearly states that the federal government should
develop a national head start program along with its provincial
counterparts. This would be a comprehensive program for all
Canadian children in their first eight years of their life.
As a member of parliament I have divided my mandate into four
components of society which I would like to focus on. They are:
youth, senior citizens, families and women. I find this helpful
in my work because, for example, I find that I learn a great deal
about youth when I meet with students at schools.
We should provide a good start in life for our children. Our
federal government tries to help all children through our health
and education programs. The motion simply asks the federal
government to concentrate on our children in the first eight
years of their life, which is a critical stage in a child's
development.
We know that inadequate attention and nurturing for our
youngsters can often lead to subsequent developmental
difficulties. We know that with a poor start the life of a child
is at risk of winding up on the wrong side of the law. Our
federal government should be interested in any opportunities that
result in successful crime prevention. We spend more money
dealing with criminals than on early detection and prevention of
crime. The dollars spent on providing a good head start for our
children will result in the saving of many dollars in the future
that would have been spent dealing with anti-social and criminal
behaviour.
The government has already implemented head start programs for
our aboriginal communities. They have been primarily limited to
reserves, but most aboriginal people living off reserve and
non-aboriginal people also need this kind of program. We should
treat all Canadians equally.
We have head start programs for our aboriginal children. Why
are head start programs not available to other children who are
not living on reserve?
This motion proposes that the government explore models based on
the Perry Preschool Program, among others.
This government's National Crime Prevention Council has been
very of supportive a national head start program. On page 2 of
the executive summary of its 1996 report it states:
1110
There is ample evidence that well-designed social development
programs can prevent crime and be cost-effective. Rigorous
evaluations, mainly American, show that crime prevention through
social development pays handsome dividends.
In almost 30 years of participant follow-up the Perry Preschool
Program in Michigan has been shown to be responsible for very
significantly reducing juvenile and adult crime.
The Secretary of State for Children and Youth has already spoken
to this motion on behalf of the Liberals. She acknowledges the
success of the aboriginal head start program and pointed out that
funding had doubled due to its benefits.
We need to expand our efforts to include the protection of all
children and to assist needy parents to properly nurture and care
for our country's children.
The motion we are debating should be supported by all members of
this House, but especially by Liberals. The motion is not in
conflict with the comments made by the secretary of state.
It is known that healthy babies become healthy children.
Hospitals could screen all new mothers to identify babies and
families who may need extra support and services.
Supporting this motion would pave the way for providing high
risk families with the parenting help needed to avoid child abuse
and neglect.
The official opposition justice critic spoke on this motion
during its second hour of debate. He recounted that during the
justice committee's recent 10-year review of the Young Offenders
Act the committee travelled across the country. It listened to
witnesses. It heard experts, professionals and lay people who
have an interest in the whole area of the development of youth
and the prevention of youth crime. During the hearings experts
told the committee that teachers could detect aberrant and
over-aggressive behaviour in children as early as grades one, two
and three.
The Bloc fears that the motion encroaches into the area of
provincial jurisdiction. As such, it has tied this motion into
the Canadian unity debate. That is unfortunate.
In Quebec the justice committee found programs that are far
ahead of some of the other provinces. That province has done an
excellent job. There are programs in Quebec that ought to be
looked at and perhaps emulated by other provinces if they have a
real concern about dealing with early detection and preventive
programs.
This brings us to the heart of the role of our federal
government. Far from being threatened, Quebec should be anxious
to share its technology and some of its successful programs with
the rest of the country. The Bloc members should also support
this motion.
Our federal government should pursue this motion and pool our
resources to reduce the cost of implementation. Ideas and
successes could be shared. National standards would ensure that
children from all parts of this country receive the necessary
assistance and protection in a national head start program.
Back in August 1996 the former minister of justice commented
about the justice system and how the harm has already been done
by the time people come before the courts. He stated “We must
do more than deal with the symptoms of the problem. We must go
to the source”. Programs, as proposed by this motion, go to the
source.
In 1996 the Child Welfare League of Canada argued the need to
create a comprehensive and permanent universal program across
Canada to address funding for early intervention measures to
assist our children.
I would like to give an example. Sandor Nyerges was a
constituent of mine and a veteran of the two great wars. He was
deaf, mute, 80 years old and lived alone. He became the victim
of a ferocious attack by an assailant who has a long record as a
young offender. My constituent died in the hospital from that
attack.
The alleged assailant was apparently intoxicated, a youth,
possibly on drugs.
1115
The constituents of Surrey Central and I are furious. In Surrey
and elsewhere we hear about such crimes day after day. We have
had another murder in Surrey, a caretaker at the Sikh temple,
another victim of youth.
If our federal government had been acting in a timely fashion in
the direction of the motion we are debating today, maybe Sandor
and many other Canadians might not have been assaulted or
murdered.
At the Princess Margaret Senior Secondary School in Surrey in
March 1998 I met with students shortly after Sandor died. During
my meeting with these students they raised the issue of crime as
a major concern.
This is just another example of how the government continues to
put the rights of the accused first and the safety of Canadians
second. The government does not have a national head start
program.
In closing I would like to say that Canadians are suffering. We
want safer streets and safer communities. We want the Liberal
government to respond to society's justice needs. That is why we
should all support Motion No. 261.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion No. 261
put forward by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The
member continues to demonstrate his commitment to progressive
social policy. I have spoken about this issue previously in the
House and it is with great pride that I do so today.
Good government means providing the vehicle for a prosperous
Canadian economy and also ensuring equality of opportunity in
that prosperous economy.
The best economic system to provide prosperity is the free
market, but the free market is only sustainable if all citizens
have access to the economic levers. I believe that if we were to
implement a national head start program and focus on early
intervention, we would be going a long way in addressing the
equality of opportunity and the access to those levers.
Recently several issues have been debated in the House and
focused on by the Canadian people. One is the Liberal
government's $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund introduced
in Bill C-36 which will be debated later on and which has been
debated quite extensively in the House lately. Another is the
government's new posturing on the Young Offenders Act. Not
surprisingly the Liberals have missed the point on both programs.
Motion No. 261 speaks to a process that is far more admirable,
effective and economical than these government sponsored
programs. Motion No. 261 is an early intervention program that
promotes prevention instead of punishment.
Study after study suggests that one dollar invested in a child
in the formative years, particularly between birth and three
years of age, and some studies say birth and six years of age,
can deliver a six dollar and some say a seven dollar return on a
child during those formative years. Some studies indicate that a
one dollar investment in a child between birth and the age of
three will provide a return of seven dollars to society.
Programs like the head start program in Moncton, New Brunswick
offer this alternative, an economic return already in Canada. Not
all areas are so fortunate.
From personal experience, I grew up on the Hants shore in rural
Nova Scotia. In grade 6 there were 23 students who left grade 6
at the same time I did to go to another school. Only 8 of those
students ever graduated from high school, 8 out of 23. I have
some degree of experience and indeed a very personal empathy for
this issue.
More recently in that community there has been significant
progress by that school. The Dr. Arthur Hines School has become
a leader in Nova Scotia in terms of providing equality of
opportunity in rural Nova Scotia. I commend the principal, Hazel
Dill, for her hard work. I also commend grassroots organizations
such as the Hants Shore Health Clinic that work on these head
start and early intervention programs.
There are other programs in my community, including an adult
literacy program which is being promoted by Patricia Helliwell.
It is achieving significant progress with people who have fallen
through the cracks in the system early on. I commend that adult
literacy program for its commendable work and its effectiveness
in helping provide these people with an opportunity.
I cannot help but think what if we really started to deal with
the roots of the problem.
What if we got to these people earlier, when they were children
and a significant impact could be made. Then someday perhaps we
would not need adult literacy programs in Canada because all
Canadians would have achieved a basic competence in communication
and literacy.
1120
The government has chosen a different more politically palatable
route. It has decided to use the memorial fund for the Prime
Minister. This Canadian millennium scholarship fund will only
benefit 7% of Canadian students who attend university when it is
implemented two years from now. If the government had put this
$2.5 billion toward a national head start program, it would have
provided a better economic return on that money for Canadians.
However the Liberal Party's focus group and polling data have
told it to spend the money on university students, that
post-secondary education is a more politically palatable
initiative than is early intervention. The facts are contrary to
this. Experts on post-secondary education will agree that the
best bang for the buck for the Canadian taxpayer is to invest in
the youngest of Canadians, those Canadians who are most
vulnerable to negative influences and who can benefit most from
positive influences, those between birth and the age of three.
I assume based on focus groups and polling data that the
government has recently decided to get tough with young
offenders. Arguably it is extremely important that the Young
Offenders Act be tightened and that young people be made more
responsible for their actions. Again the Liberals have really
missed the point.
Harsher penalties will not prevent young people from committing
crimes. We must address the flaws in the Young Offenders Act but
what can we do to prevent these young people from turning toward
crime? Why are we not dealing with these issues in a more
holistic manner instead of by knee-jerk reaction and crisis
management? The real answer is early intervention. A national
head start program would go a long way toward addressing that.
A stable and caring environment during a child's formative years
offers the best opportunity to provide a productive and stable
adolescence and ultimately a productive and prosperous adulthood.
Studies have demonstrated that this early intervention is one of
the best social policy approaches.
In the finance committee hearings earlier this month I
questioned Professor David Stager from the University of Toronto.
I asked him how he felt about early intervention. Professor
Stager is an expert on post-secondary education. When I asked him
how he felt about the investment we could potentially make in
early intervention he said that the best bang for the buck would
be before school. There was a splendid synthesis done this past
fall of the research in the area of human capital. It concluded
that early intervention has the greatest pay-off for a number of
reasons.
This man is an expert on post-secondary education and an
advocate for post-secondary education who has spent his life
advocating investment in areas of post-secondary education. He
told the finance committee that the best investment for society
to make is in early intervention before children even get to
elementary school where much damage could have already occurred
if positive environments were not provided earlier.
I commend the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his forward
thinking and his commitment to progressive social policy. His
motion would be very effective in addressing the real needs of
Canadians at a very critical time. We are entering the 21st
century. We have a global knowledge based economy that will
generate the economic growth of the 21st century.
We in this House can make a difference so it is absolutely
imperative that we focus on ensuring that young Canadians have
every opportunity. If we as public policy makers and
parliamentarians can ensure that young Canadians do not just have
as good a chance but that they have a better opportunity than
people in other countries, we will be doing a great deal to
ensure that Canada is on a firm footing and that young Canadians
are poised to participate actively and prosper in the new
economy.
This type of commitment will prevent the necessity of a TAGS
program in the 21st century. It will prevent the necessity of a
lot of the social investment that has been more reactive than
proactive.
1125
As an Atlantic Canadian, I have watched over the years as
successive governments have tried to effectively deal with the
situation in Atlantic Canada frankly by using money on social
spending as opposed to social investment. Unfortunately these
governments in trying to protect Atlantic Canadians from the
risks of the future have prevented them from participating in the
rewards of the future.
That is where aggressive and forward thinking social policy,
such as an early intervention program, would make a difference.
Then we would not have to be engaged in regional economic
development debates in 20 years in this House because we would
have provided the equality of opportunity which is necessary to
allow all Canadians to participate in growth. As an Atlantic
Canadian it is very important to me that we continue to work to
this end.
I would urge every member of this House to consider very
carefully and to support this motion. I think it is very
important for us, when provided with the opportunity, to make the
right decisions, to make decisions that will last much longer
than many of us will be in this House and to provide those types
of benefits. It would be an affront to the people who put us
here not to do so.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House
today on this motion advocating a national head start program for
Canadian children.
I want to applaud the hon. member for his strong support of
early childhood development. The Government of Canada shares his
enthusiasm for early childhood development as a way of positively
influencing the health of children. In fact the government has
made increased knowledge of and action on early childhood
development a top priority.
In the next few minutes I would like to share with the House
some of the things we have learned about early childhood
development and how this knowledge is shaping our approach to
prevention and early intervention initiatives on behalf of
Canada's children.
The most important thing we have learned from a vast body of
research over the last 30 years is that the experiences of
Canadian children especially in their early years profoundly
influence their health and well-being throughout their lives.
We have long known that early negative factors such as low birth
weight, low income, abuse, neglect and poor physical and mental
health are barriers to healthy child development. Government
initiatives such as the community action program for children,
the Canada prenatal nutrition program and aboriginal head start
have achieved considerable success in responding to these
factors.
Nevertheless, research and experience tell us we must do more to
recognize and support positive factors that contribute to healthy
development. These factors range from healthy pregnancies and
birth weights to loving parents, to supportive mentors or role
models, to caring families and communities.
Another key thing we have learned is that developing these
positive factors requires the involvement of many partners across
society. These include parents, who are children's earliest and
most influential teachers, volunteer organizations, health
service providers, schools, neighbourhoods and communities. We
need strong involvement from across society because we all have a
stake in ensuring that Canada's children get off to the best
possible start in life.
As the Minister of Health recently noted in this House,
Canadians and their governments have a moral responsibility to
help improve conditions of childhood for the seven million
children in this country. He went on to say that taking
collective responsibility for children is not just the right
thing to do, it makes good economic and social sense.
How early do we need to focus on childhood development? Research
tells us that we have the best opportunity to make a positive
impact in the very early years of life. This is because 85% of a
child's core brain development occurs by age three.
While negative experiences in these early years can result in
disorganized and underdeveloped brains, positive experiences
often stimulate overall brain development. What are the social
implications of negative versus positive early experiences for
children?
1130
Research shows that negative experiences tend to produce
impulsive, aggressive adults. On the other hand, positive early
life experiences tend to produce more intelligent, caring and
responsible citizens.
Another area where we have made advances is our increased
knowledge of the developmental pathways children pass through on
their way to adulthood. These pathways can be influenced by a
wide variety of negative or positive factors.
Researchers have found that all children pass through critical
periods along their own developmental pathways. During these
periods, there are windows of opportunity where support and
intervention can make a difference in their development. The
period from conception to the age of five or six is seen as the
most critical of these periods.
While families are first and foremost responsible for the
development of their children in this early period, they are not
the only ones that must assume the responsibility. Families need
support. Governments, communities, corporations, employers,
unions, teachers and individual Canadians all have a role to
play. We must work together to help children move along healthy
pathways to adulthood.
With this in mind, I call on fellow members to join me in
encouraging Canadians to make healthy child development a
priority in their own neighbourhoods and communities. By acting
together we can make a world of difference for Canada's children.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion by the Reform Party member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
To begin with, although we support the motion in principle and
the underlying reasoning concerning youth crime, we cannot
support it for the following reasons.
First, family policy is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and
this has always been the case. Second, as far as Quebec is
concerned, it has well established policies in place to reduce
juvenile delinquency, to help young people reintegrate society
and to divert them from a life of crime.
One thing the Reform Party member should understand is that
youth crime will decrease when other Canadian provinces do as
Ontario has done and follow Quebec's example with respect to
youth protection, creating youth centres to help young people
and tracking those at risk throughout their formative years.
I would like to provide some very important, and very revealing,
statistics, which were brought to light by my colleague, the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, a little while ago.
The figures on juvenile delinquency recidivism rates are
eloquent and speak for themselves. Quebec has been active in
this area for 30 years, through its youth centres and through
its youth protection legislation. The result is that it has the
lowest rate of recidivism in Canada.
It has the lowest rate of recidivism for youth crime anywhere in
North America. The number is 195 per 100,000 in Quebec while,
for a province such as Saskatchewan, where the accent has been
much more on punitive measures than on reintegration into
society, the number is 800 per 10,000. That is high.
Four or five years ago, Ontario decided to follow Quebec's
example and model part of its youth protection program on what
is being done in Quebec. The results are very impressive. For
the past five years, the rate of juvenile delinquency in Ontario
has steadily decreased. Right now, it is around 400 or 500 per
10,000, as opposed to 800 per 10,000 for provinces such as
Saskatchewan. These are the two points I wish to make regarding
the motion per se.
As for the fact that this motion is being introduced by the
Reform Party, that I find somewhat confusing, because we no
longer know where Reformers are coming from.
1135
Do they have a common party policy regarding youth protection
and the Criminal Code in general? We have heard all sorts of
things in the past five years. We even heard of a delegation of
Reform members planning to visit a country, whose name I forget,
to look into the benefits of flogging criminals.
Private members' bills were tabled and remarks were made by
members of the Reform Party, which were extremely harsh and made
no mention of reintegration or social rehabilitation, only of
punishment per se.
Now, there is this Reform bill, which is kind of mild compared
to the ones tabled previously. This is somewhat confusing. What
do members of the Reform Party think? Are they in favour of
reintegration?
Recently, Reformers criticized the Minister of Justice for
lowering the age at which children may be tried in adult court
for a serious crime. They argued that lowering the age was not
enough. They wanted provisions included in the legislation
whereby children under the age of 10 who are charged with a
serious crime may be tried in adult court.
During this debate, when the Minister of Justice lowered the age
for transferring young offenders charged with serious crimes,
not once did a Reformer raise the importance of reintegration
and the need to help young offenders re-enter society for its
greater benefit. This is a bit confusing.
Another concern we have is with the fact that, in their remarks
on this motion, Reformers failed to mention that there is a
major reason why youth crime is on the rise, as crime in general
may be, and that is the social and economic conditions people
live in.
Over the last four or five years, the Liberal government has
imposed drastic cuts to social transfers for welfare, health and
provincial funding for higher education.
Such cuts, which total billions of dollars and which will
continue to be made until the year 2003, have an obvious impact
on the economic situation of households, particularly those with
children. Social problems surface whenever the economic
well-being and development opportunities of families are
targeted.
A child whose basic needs are not met because of financial
problems experienced by the parents, or because of psychological
distress also related to reduced federal transfers is more
likely to become a juvenile delinquent.
Let us look at what this government has done regarding
employment insurance since January 1996. The changes it made had
a significant impact on the economic conditions of Canadian
families, thus creating a tendency among children to become
juvenile delinquents.
The statistics on employment insurance are shocking and
revolting. They amount to political and administrative
barbarism. This government has made so many cuts and has
tightened the eligibility criteria for employment insurance so
much that, for the fiscal year 1997-98, only 42% of the
unemployed are eligible for EI benefits, compared to 83% just
nine years ago. In 1989, 83% of the unemployed were entitled to
benefits, compared to only 42% today.
When you tighten eligibility criteria to that extent and when
you triple the number of hours that must be worked, you create
conditions that are conducive to a rise in juvenile delinquency.
You also create conditions which, in the families that suffer
psychological shock and stress as a result of these cuts,
promote delinquency.
1140
In 1989, there were a million unemployed. Now, there are 1.4
million unemployed, but we are paying out $3 billion less in
employment insurance than in 1989. So, there are 400,000 more
unemployed and $3 billion less. This can only cause increased
distress and lead to juvenile delinquency.
For instance, eligibility requirements for parental leave, leave
that is often necessary, have doubled. It now takes 700 hours,
or 20 weeks of 35 hours each.
This is one of the major areas that was tightened up, along with
the way seasonal workers and those on the labour market for the
first time are treated when they are hit by unemployment. The
requirement now to receive employment insurance benefits is 910
hours, whereas before it took 20 weeks at 15 hours per week.
Clearly these cuts, which are pushing families toward welfare,
are increasing the distress of these families and the likelihood
of the children of these families turning to delinquency.
Had the Reform Party taken a coherent and intelligent approach,
it would have supported the Bloc Quebecois in the matter of
provincial transfers for welfare, post-secondary education and
health and it would have supported the Bloc's demands for reform
of employment insurance, which is needed immediately to avoid
psychological and economic distress to the people of Quebec and
Canada.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am rising to
indicate my support of Motion M-261, presented by the hon. member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to draw particular
attention to his proactive action in proposing a preventive
solution to crime.
Motion M-261 is composed of three elements. First, that the
government should develop, along with their provincial
counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for
children in their first eight years of life. Then, that they
should ensure that this integrated program involves both
hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the
Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY
Pre-School Program. Finally, the government should ensure that
the program is implemented by the year 2000.
Motion M-261 is a good idea, because it addresses the fundamental
causes of crime and prevents criminal behaviour in later life.
This government's strategy toward crime involves reacting once a
crime has been committed. We spend millions of dollars on the
criminal justice system processing offenders through the court
and prison systems. This approach to the problem is very costly
in both financial and personal terms. Anyone who has been the
victim of a crime can say that the effects linger long
after the actual incident.
If we are really concerned about victims' rights, we should work
at decreasing the number of crimes and this will decrease the
number of victims.
The purpose of this motion is to address the fundamental needs
of Canadian children at a very early age. The NDP has long
recognized the importance of meeting our children's basic needs
so that they may develop to their full potential with the right
nutrition and the right environment.
In 1989, the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent introduced a motion
aimed at eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. This
motion was adopted by all parties, but now in 1998 the situation
has not improved, in fact it is even more critical. We must
invest in our children in order to ensure a better future, with
less crime.
1145
The program this motion is suggesting is not a new one. Head
start programs were introduced in Michigan, Hawaii and Moncton,
New Brunswick. Hawaii's healthy start program was one of the
first early intervention programs for children. It focussed on
high risk families and on interventions during pregnancy. By
tackling problems such as basic parenting skills, nutrition,
conflict resolution and substance abuse, it was able to reduce
child abuse by 99%.
The PERRY Pre-School Program in Michigan has focused on improving
parenting skills, improving infant health, bettering family
circumstances and promoting cognitive and social development.
Assessments of this program have shown that it has reduced the
adult and juvenile crime rate by almost 50%, decreased the
number of teen pregnancies by 40%, and increased rates of
employment and income. Long-term savings to taxpayers were
substantial and, in all, amounted to six times the initial
investment.
The Head Start Program in Moncton, New Brunswick, provides
children of parents who are socially, emotionally or
educationally disadvantaged with an environment that focuses on
children's and parents' basic needs. For each dollar spent under
the Head Start program, it is estimated that six are saved in
social assistance services.
In addition to saving money, we are preventing the considerable
emotional difficulties suffered by crime victims.
We should set aside political discourse that talks about crime
as though it is inevitable. A proactive approach that invests
in our children not only ensures a future with less crime but it
also ensures a promising future for our young people. I can
think of no better investment.
Motion M-26l should go further. Federal and provincial
governments should urge first nations chiefs to take part in the
program, because we know that the problem of crime among
aboriginals is incredible. By inviting them to join us in our
efforts, I think we will be able to accomplish something.
For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support Motion
M-261. All our children deserve a head start.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have three
minutes left in the debate.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, since the debate is to be
terminated in three minutes and since Government Orders do not
start until noon, I ask for unanimous consent of the House that
we continue until noon to debate this motion.
I also ask that the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London be
allowed five minutes, that the member for Lethbridge be allowed
five minutes, and that I would have a minute to thank everyone.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the suggestion of the hon. member. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the hon. member for putting forward the motion
we are debating today. I remind members of the House that the
motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should (a)
develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a
comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their
first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program
involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the
experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start
Program and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the
program is implemented by the year 2000.
I could speak for some time on the substantive merits of the
proposal. I support the intent of the motion quite strongly. It
has been stated eloquently by members who spoke before me that by
investing in children in the early years of life we get a
tremendous compounding effect of benefits throughout a person's
life. If we invest early we get better literacy rates. If we
invest early we get lower criminal rates. If we invest early we
get better health rates. All social factors are improved by
investing early between the ages of zero and eight.
I certainly hope the member knows that I know that and that I
know the intent.
1150
However, if we had questions and answers I would raise some
concerns over the bill. For the federal government to partner
with the provinces these days is a difficult task. Anyone who
reads the newspapers knows that it is difficult.
Unfortunately in many parts of the country the provinces want
the federal government to write a cheque. Then we would let
provinces go off on their merry way and devise programs. They
would thank Ottawa and take the money, but they do not want the
federal government involved in their jurisdiction.
Quebec would have some opinions on federal government spending
on what traditionally would be seen as a provincial jurisdiction.
That causes me some concern. Other provinces whether out west
or whatever would also have some concerns about the federal
government embarking on a new spending program. I am not sure we
can put a time line of the year 2000. These things would involve
some very difficult negotiations. They would have to be
processed and I do not know whether that can be done by the year
2000.
I do not think the member is suggesting that the federal
government, if it does not have an agreement to bring in a
program by the year 2000, would unilaterally embark on its own
program. I do not read that in the bill so I am not sure what
would happen if the motion passed and the federal government
could not get agreement by the year 2000.
That is not to suggest I do not support the bill. I have some
difficulty with the wording. I ask members when they vote on the
motion not just to vote on the intent of the bill. All members
can see the intent is worth while. It is worth supporting.
However it is not simple and straightforward to embark on new
federal-provincial programs. The federal government is trying to
get a new federal-provincial program on home care. It has on its
agenda that at some point it would like a new federal-provincial
program around a national pharmacare program. This would become
another program that would be added to the agenda.
We saw it on the hepatitis C issue. The government is trying to
work out another agreement with the provinces on how to treat the
people excluded from the original agreement. Those negotiations
are proving to be difficult. I could throw some stones at those
on the other side who are in some respect playing politics.
My main point is that federal-provincial agreements are not as
simple as a simple private member's motion might suggest on first
read. I ask members to think about what they are voting on when
the motion comes before us for a vote. I advise members opposite
that I support the intent of the bill, but I will have to reflect
on whether I will be voting for it.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
members present for allowing us to carry on. It is a pleasure to
rise to speak to Motion No. 261 advising the government to
develop a national head start program.
My colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is someone for whom I
have a great deal of respect. I know many members in the House
have respect for him as well. He has dedicated his life to
helping the injured and the sick. He has had a firsthand
opportunity to witness breakdowns in our health care and
education systems as the two are so closely linked.
I am confident all members of the House will support the motion
because almost all of us are parents and many of us are
grandparents or soon to be. We know that in an ever increasing
competitive global market technological advances make leaps and
bounds but should never come at the expense of our children. The
generations to come will require every head start they can get,
every advantage their health and happiness will allow, giving
them the support and positive reinforcement required to excel in
a competitive world.
As my colleague recently wrote in a note:
—research has clearly demonstrated that events in early
childhood can have a dramatic effect on an individual. Ensuring
that children's basic needs are met (i.e. proper nutrition,
strengthening parent child relationships, good parenting skills,
preventing child abuse, etc.) has proven to have a profound
effect in producing stable, happy children and thereafter, well
functioning adults. Programs that address these needs are not
only effective in their outcome, but also, extremely cost
effective.
I doubt any member of the House would refute that youth crime is
becoming increasingly common and increasingly violent. While
legislative changes can bring about statistical changes in youth
crime, my colleague urges us to consider the motion, to support
it, and to get to the root of youth problems before they start.
1155
The operative word here is prevention. The time has come for
the House to start taking a proactive stance on youth problems
and to stop relying solely on reactionary solutions.
The problem of youth crime may not be the only problem in
society but it is one issue we can try to resolve before it
materializes. If we can implement a national head start program,
children who may have began an early life in crime can be helped
in the right direction through such a program.
The cost of implementing a national head start program will be
returned many times over, as has been previously mentioned, with
every child that is helped. Youth criminals can easily become
serious adult offenders and we all know how expensive our
judicial and penal systems have become.
If we invest the money now we could save the costs associated
with youth criminals and their subsequent adult crime life.
Children do not begin lives in crime out of choice. My colleague
has done a great deal of research on the issue and I urge all
members here today to seriously listen to the facts and act in
the best interest of Canadian children.
The motion before us today will help children, plain and simple.
Regardless of our political affiliation let us put our partisan
politics aside and act in the best interest of our youth.
It is imperative we remember to whom we owe these seats in
parliament: our constituents, the men, women and children who
rely on us to represent their best interest. Today we can prove
to all our constituents that we recognize a good thing when we
see it. Today's motion will only improve the conditions of our
children by addressing basic parenting skills, proper nutrition,
conflict resolution and abuse issues.
The statistics are in and early intervention programs can be
very successful. Members of the House cannot ignore the 50%
decrease in juvenile and adult crime as a result of early
intervention programs. Nor can my colleagues ignore the 40%
reduction in teen pregnancies and the resulting higher rates of
employment and income. The long term savings to Canadians are
enormous.
I do not need to do the math to remind my colleagues about the
huge price tag associated with crime. Costs go up and insurance
premiums rise. Policing expenses, court costs, in addition to
incarceration and counselling are all extremely expensive.
To simplify the decision of whether or not to support the
motion—and my common sense tells me that all in the House will
support a decent and worthwhile initiative such as this one—I
liken the situation to a favourite poem of mine “The Road Not
Taken” by Robert Frost.
In our great country we have and will often come to a
crossroads, two diverging roads that branch off in two different
directions. I see today's motion on the implementation of a
national head start program as exactly that. It is a fork in the
road. Either we take the road that has been travelled many
times, the reactionary road of detention and incarceration, or we
take a new path, a proactive path of crime prevention through
social development.
Every child in Canada deserves the opportunity to develop as a
normal human being. I urge all members here today to support my
colleague's motion.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I would like to stand in debate to move a friendly amendment to
the motion before us. Could I have unanimous consent of the
House to rise in debate to move an amendment to the motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore has requested unanimous consent to be
recognized on debate to move an amendment to the motion.
The reason there is concern is that the House has previously
given unanimous consent for three persons to speak. That is why
it has to be done in this way.
Is there unanimous consent of the House for the member to rise
on debate to present an amendment to the motion?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, if I may just briefly
explain my amendment, it may become clearer. The amendment would
be to insert after “their provincial counterparts” “and the
leaders of the aboriginal communities”. In consultation with
the federal and provincial governments it would include
aboriginal communities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Sackville—Eastern Shore have unanimous consent of the House
to be recognized on debate by the Chair?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, as the member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore and along with my colleague, the member
for Acadie—Bathurst, I would like to move that the motion be
amended by adding after the words “develop, along with their
provincial counterparts,” and before the words “a comprehensive
National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years
of life”:
1200
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Sackville—Eastern Shore would get the amendment to the
table officers we will check it to make sure that it is
appropriate. If it is, then we will bring it to the House.
Although Private Members' Business has now expired, the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been given the assurance of the
House that he will have one minute to wrap up the debate.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank all members of the House today who spoke
in favour of Motion No. 261.
This motion will very clearly demonstrate the leadership of this
House in preventing some of the child abuse, violence and youth
crime which we see in our society today. It will strengthen
co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
It will strengthen parental involvement. It will provide a
brighter future for children.
So far, five provinces and territories have come on side to say
they want to work with the federal government to make a national
head start program a reality.
Again I want to thank all the members who spoke in favour of
this motion today. They are speaking in favour not only of this
motion, but also of the future of the children of our nation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair has been
advised that the amendment is in order. Therefore, the amendment
is before the House, but debate has concluded, so the vote is
deferred.
It being 12.03 p.m. the time provided for Private Members'
Business has expired.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions on the
motion are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is
deemed demanded and deferred at the expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
BILL C-36—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-36, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24,
1998, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to
the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting
day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill
and, and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided
for government business on the day allotted to the consideration
of report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading
stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of
the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
1205
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the
members.
1250
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Cohen
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 131
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 89
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I seek
the unanimous consent of the House to debate and vote on the
following motion:
That this House congratulate the board of the new Ottawa
Hospital on its decision to confirm David Levine in his position
as chief executive officer and reiterate—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from May 13, 1998 consideration of Bill C-36,
an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee; and of Group No. 1.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-36 before us contains various provisions, including one
regarding the millennium scholarships program, which the Prime
Minister would like to impose on and force down the throats of
the provinces, particularly Quebec, whose loans and grants
system is working remarkably well.
Incidentally, last Wednesday, in the City of Lac-Mégantic, I
attended the opening of a new foundation, which does not make
any waves or cause any jurisdictional problems.
The founding president of the Montignac Foundation, Serge
Poulin, who is the vice-principal of the Montignac school,
together with the board, will carry out his duties on a
voluntary basis and will be required to raise up to $1 million
within five years in support of Montignac's high school
graduates.
Unlike the federal government, this foundation does not plan to
spend 5% of its budget on administration costs. Everyone
involved unanimously agreed to work for free, not only in
managing and administering the fund but also in raising funds,
while it is a well known fact that the federal government has
already earmarked $2.5 billion in the 1997-98 budget for
scholarships that will not be granted to students for another
two or three years.
1255
It is a real scandal, and, in addition, it is causing barefaced
duplication. The last time I spoke on this bill, I compared the
duplication to the situation of a farmer with a mixed quota of
processing milk and fluid milk. That means two ministers of
agriculture will be managing the same cow, which belongs to the
same producer.
There will be two levels of government, two heads of government,
two forms for every student to complete to obtain money to
continue studying.
Of course students do not care whether the cheque bears a maple
leaf or a fleur de lys.
We all know that the Government of Quebec will deduct from
bursaries to students any amount it discovers the federal
government has given them.
I would like to congratulate Serge Poulin, the founding
president, and the members of his board of directors along with
the members of the 15 municipalities surrounding the city of
Lac-Mégantic, who will manage the Fondation Montignac. The
region of Lac-Mégantic is very prosperous, with a level of
unemployment no doubt under 6%. However, the average income is
lower than that in the eastern townships. With this sort of
foundation, we will enable dozens and dozens of students to
continue their studies.
In closing, I invite the federal government and the Minister of
Human Resources Development, in particular, to sit down with
Pauline Marois and come to an agreement. It is disastrous when
the government is continually sowing the seeds of discord and
always looking for an argument or a run in with the provinces,
given that education is a provincial matter.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-36, the budget
implementation bill, and to represent my constituents.
I suppose what is most frustrating, though, would be for them to
witness this last vote. The government should be ashamed of
itself. It has just forced closure again, again and again. There
are 107 amendments to this bill. There has been less than one
day to debate these at report stage and what does this government
do? It does like it has in the past from the very first bill,
right back to Bill C-2. It forces closure.
The government pulls every single trick and all the people on
that side of the House get their little marching orders, they
stand up like trained sheep and do what they are told to do. It
is absolutely disgusting and appalling.
I want to talk about Group No. 1. I have not quite figured out
whether this is the Prime Minister's slush fund or if it is the
finance minister's. The Prime Minister has announced a $2.5
billion slush fund which nobody will see until at least the year
2000. We have no idea what direction it is going. He is sort of
burying it in a dark hole. We are not sure if it is being put
away for the finance minister's announcement when he wants to
seek the nomination of this party to sit on this side of the
House. We do not know where it is going.
Imagine if it does go to some of the students. Only 6% of the
entire student population would receive any benefit of this $2.5
billion slush fund belonging to we are not sure who.
I find that very disturbing but even more disturbing is that
this government stands up on that side of the House, gets on its
moral high horse and all of a sudden it is so proud of doing
something for young Canadians, putting something back into
education.
This government has a very short memory. Over the last four
years during the last parliament this government cut $7 billion
in transfer payments to the provinces. What do those go to?
Education.
1300
Students are struggling. Now the government is on its moral high
horse again to announce a slush fund. It does not want to do it
too early in its term. It is going to wait and the fund will
benefit at best 6% of students if it ever gets to them. That is
a disgrace.
I will talk about the budget. The minister was quite upset at
being criticized by the auditor general for his accounting
practices so he sent his cronies to talk to the auditor general.
The message was basically that if you do not like the way we are
keeping our books, we will just change the rules. Who do you
think you are to criticize the government, you are only the
auditor general.
I have to commend the auditor general on his reply. On March 18
the auditor general stated this to the government: “I believe
the change will open the door for governments to influence
reported results by simply announcing intentions in their budgets
and then deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after
the end of the year once preliminary numbers are known”. The
auditor general is trying to very politely tell the government to
quit cooking the books. That is exactly what the government is
doing. I cannot believe the Liberals sit on that side of the
House with their faces buried in their papers. They are not
paying attention.
Look at the facts. Look what those guys did less than a half
hour ago. They stood up like trained sheep and followed their
marching orders. How can they do that? We watched it on
hepatitis C and we watch it on vote after vote. Why do they even
come to Ottawa? They are ordered here. They think they have
some dignity coming to this House and voting like that. I have
been here for one year. Time after time I see closure.
They can crack jokes but this is serious business. The people of
Canada are incredibly frustrated that the Liberals sit on that
side of the House and force closure on bills like this, that they
make a slush fund for the finance minister to dispose of when he
feels it is right for his political advantage while students are
out there struggling. They are struggling all over British
Columbia where I come from.
Canadian students are facing rising tuition costs and expenses
and the government's response to them is we will create a slush
fund but come back and see us in the year 2000 and we will decide
if you qualify. If you buy a young Liberals membership we will
see where you fit in the mix and if you will get some of this
fund. We have not quite decided who will benefit from it.
That is absolutely shameful. Students are looking for help.
They are facing rising tuition costs on account of this
government's massive cutbacks to post-secondary institutions, $7
billion since the Liberals formed government.
That is straight fact. Look at the numbers. Any financial
expert can tell them that. They sit over there and think it is a
big joke. The day of reckoning will come, next election day. How
they can actually stand up and vote to force closure on 107
amendments is incredible. We have had one day of debate.
There was a time when those members sat on this side of the
House. They thought it was appalling to force closure. But how
quickly it changes when they are on that side of the House. Time
and time again we have seen what these members have done. They
get their marching orders from the whip.
I think they call it a triple whip vote. That is what we are
getting again.
1305
How can those guys sit on that side of the House with straight
faces and joke and laugh about something this serious? We are
talking about the budget implementation act and I am specifically
talking about the $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund which
is a nice fancy title for the Prime Minister and his cronies.
If this government had anything to do it would put that $2.5
billion into tax cuts immediately where there would be a tangible
benefit, where jobs could be created for students who will be
getting out of university in the next week or two looking for
jobs. Students are facing dismal prospects right now across the
country due to the government's high taxation on small business.
This government could have done something positive for the
students of this country. Instead it chose to play its political
games, cooking the books, hiding the money and deciding what fits
its political agenda and how it can benefit from this. That is
exactly what the government has done.
I honestly believe that students and all Canadians in the next
election will come back to this. We will make sure they remember
that time after time this government forced closure when it was
convenient, when it suited its own political agenda. There is no
substance in this. It is just hiding $2.5 billion. The
government calls it a scholarship fund but it is not accessible
until the year 2000. Even then it may benefit 6% of the students
of this country.
How can government members sit on that side of the House and be
proud of themselves?
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, about 10 days
ago, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a
resolution asking the federal government to amend its bill on
the millennium scholarship fund, so as to respect Quebec's
unique student loans and grants program.
Over the next few minutes, I will explain why the
representatives of the people of Quebec asked Ottawa to
unconditionally withdraw from this area and to provide full
financial compensation to the Quebec government.
Let me first discuss the federal government's unconditional
withdrawal from education.
Many reasons justify such a measure, but it is always worth
repeating them.
First, under the Constitution, education is an exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. We can never say it too often. The
federal government argued that its initiative is not related to
education, but to the funding of education. Yet, it is clear
that the federal program interferes in the education sector by
evaluating scholarship recipients and asking them for an
activity report.
Second, the issue is even more sensitive in the case of Quebec
which, as you know, is not a province like the others, even
though some refuse to recognize that fact. Again, anything
relating to language, culture and education is vital to Quebec's
national identity.
Finally, the federal government's project is a waste of time,
money and resources. Indeed, the Quebec government has been
administering its own loans and scholarships program for 34
years.
It has the expertise and the necessary infrastructures to ensure
the smooth operation of a new scholarships program. Why create a
new structure, the millennium scholarship foundation, and
provide it with the required staff and mechanisms, when
everything is already in place in Quebec?
Such shameful duplication is condemned so strongly that a
consensus quickly developed in Quebec to have all student
scholarships administered by the Quebec government.
This leads me to discuss the second Quebec claim, that is the
transfer to the Quebec government of the financial resources
reserved for Quebec, so that it can implement an additional
scholarship program if needed.
The main reason for this is the current imbalance between the
federal government's financial resources and those of the
provinces.
1310
In February 1957, ten years before he became Prime Minister of
Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote the following: “The total
wealth at the disposal of the Canadian tax system needs to be
divided between the federal government and the provincial
governments so that each may do as it sees fit with its share”.
In other words, each level of government must have its share of
taxes so that it may meet its constitutional responsibilities.
The present Prime Minister would do well to read what his mentor
had to say on this.
The federal government does, however, have greater powers of
taxation than the provinces.
This problem dates back to the beginnings of Confederation,
worsening as the provinces began to develop programs to meet the
growing needs of their populations in the areas of health,
education and welfare. Instead of splitting tax resources
differently with the provinces, however, the government of
Canada offered to co-finance programs under certain conditions.
Worse yet, the federal government did not settle for controlling
the provinces' exercise of power. Often, solely in order to
raise its profile, it wants to be the one to control a program
in an area of provincial jurisdiction. As we know, very often
it does this by taking advantage of its spending power.
What is the millennium scholarship foundation but just one
more abuse of the federal spending power, despite this
government's promise to limit spending in the aftermath of the
1995 referendum?
The present Prime Minister of Canada is launching unprecedented
assaults on the provinces. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau
supported the Quebec premier in his opposition to the federal
grants to universities in the 1950s. On this he wrote the
following: “If a government has such a superabundance of revenue
that it undertakes to provide part of the common wealth which
does not fall under its jurisdiction—that government is
conspicuously guilty of going against the principle of
proportional taxation”.
Judging by these words from a Quebecker who cannot be labelled a
separatist, the Government of Canada collects too much taxes
compared to the provincial governments. This is no doubt the
reason the Minister of Finance is trying to camouflage his
budget surplus. Every year he has underevaluated his taxation
revenues, overestimated his reserve for contingencies, and as a
result exaggerated the size of the federal deficit.
Today, he is trying to include in the 1998-99 budget expenditures
that would be made over a period of ten years. What will he
invent tomorrow to interfere, once again, in areas under
provincial jurisdiction?
The federal government now has more money than it needs to
fulfil its responsibilities. That money is not the federal
government's money. First of all, it is the money the provinces
should have received through transfers, which were cut by
several billion dollars. It is also the money of the workers,
whose EI contributions were diverted. Finally, it is the money
of taxpayers from Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick and all the
other Canadian provinces where the federal government collects
taxes.
If there is a need for scholarships, the provinces must meet
that need themselves.
The federal government just has to give them part of the fiscal
base so they can collect the necessary taxes directly or, as a
former premier of Quebec used to say, “to give them back their
loot”. But, as we can see, the more things change, the more they
stay the same.
In other words, the federal government should withdraw from the
area of scholarships with full compensation to the provinces, as
demanded unanimously by the members of the National Assembly of
Quebec. As a matter of fact, that is the intent of the
amendments to the bill that were brought forward by my
colleague, the member for Quebec. It is so convenient to attack
the separatists when things are not going well in the Canadian
system.
1315
But if there is a sovereignist movement in Quebec, is it not
primarily because the Canadian federation is not working? If it
is not working, is it not mainly because the federal government
is infringing upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, which is
leading to costly overlap?
To answer these questions, let me remind the House of what the
late political analyst Léon Dion wrote in 1980: “The political
stability of our country relies on Quebec being granted control
over all linguistic and cultural matters as well as the
financial means to develop and implement the programs it would
see fit to promote in these areas as suitable for its own
people.”
Canada is a dysfunctional entity. For the last 50 years,
Canadian federalism has moved away from the model developed by
its founders, since respect for the autonomy of the provinces is
at the heart of the 1867 pact.
The Millennium Scholarship Foundation is but another example of
this distorted federalism. Since negotiations are underway to
allow the Government of Quebec to regain exclusive control over
scholarships, it would be appropriate to suspend the
implementation of the millennium scholarship program.
However, the federal government seems to be too concerned about
its political visibility and not enough about the welfare of the
students to support the amendments put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have some quick facts on the so-called Liberal
millennium fund.
According to human resources development, in Canada 45% of all
new jobs by the year 2000 will require post-secondary education.
This means that for many young people attending university or
college is not an option if they want to find work. Despite this
fact and despite the fact that the Liberals say they are
committed to youth, the Liberals continue to throw barriers in
the way of young people struggling to develop the skills and
talents necessary to get ahead in a cutthroat global economy.
Since 1995 the federal Liberals have cut $1.5 billion from
federal funding for post-secondary education. Since 1980 Liberal
and Conservative governments have cut federal funding from $6.44
for each dollar of student fees to less than $3.
Over the last 10 years tuition fees have climbed by 240%. Last
year alone they rose by almost 12% nationally, increasing at a
rate seven times the rate of inflation. Tuition fees in Canada
have reached a national average of $3,100 which surpasses the
average tuition rate of publicly funded universities in the
United States.
In a 1997 survey of high school students in the maritimes, 40%
of students not going to university said they could not go
because they could not afford it. The average student debt load
is $25,000. That is up $13,000 in 1993 when the Liberals took
power. Bankruptcies for students trying to pay off loans are at
record levels, having increased by 700% since 1989. Currently
130,000 students are in default. The number of bankrupt
graduates is estimated at 37,000. Missing one payment determines
default.
Now some questions for them. By the time the first cheque from
the millennium fund is mailed out the Liberal cuts to the Canada
health and social transfer will have cost colleges and
universities $3 billion. It does nothing to redress rapid
increases in tuition fees for post-secondary education which have
almost tripled since 1990. It would not substantially alter the
huge debt load the university students face upon graduation. Nor
does the scholarship better the situation for students graduating
into unemployment. Less than 1% of unemployed youth will benefit
from the government's program to fight youth unemployment.
To add hypocrisy to the mix, very deep within the budget's small
print is a provision that stops students from filing for
bankruptcy for at least 10 years after they have graduated. The
current policy is two years.
We have heard a lot of discussion about the millennium fund and
whether it will improve the situation for post-secondary
education. Having looked at the document in committee where some
of the discussion has taken place, it is quite clear that
post-secondary education is in a very deep crisis. One of the
reasons that we are facing a crisis with post-secondary education
is the retreat of public funding for our post-secondary
educational facilities.
Although we have heard a lot of talk about the millennium fund,
this grand fund of $2.5 billion, the reality is that this fund
will not even begin until the year 2000 and will only help 7% of
the students.
1320
The auditor general has some questions about the accounting
practices of the millennium fund. Those questions should be
raised with the Minister of Finance as well.
By the time the fund begins in the year 2000 we will have
experienced cuts of around $3 billion. It becomes very clear
that the millennium fund does not even come close to replacing or
compensating for the massive draining cuts we have experienced in
post-secondary education. This is causing enormous concerns not
only in terms of where public policy is going, but also for the
impact it is having on the lives of individual students.
It is because of the retreat of public funding that tuition fees
have skyrocketed. We have seen huge increases over the last 10
years. There is a direct relationship between the pain and debt
load students are facing in the retreat of public funding as a
result of a loss of transfers from the federal government to the
provincial governments. There is absolutely no escaping the fact
that the millennium fund cannot make up and does not make up for
the loss we have experienced.
In addition the other really serious situation that the
millennium fund creates is that it begins to take us down the
slippery slope of privatization. New Democrats are very
concerned that with this foundation, a private foundation being
set up which will have representation from corporations in the
private sector, there will be less and less control of public
administration and public direction of our post-secondary
educational facilities. For that reason alone this fund should be
rejected.
We should go back to the drawing board and say that the real
issue here is to support publicly administered, publicly
accessible post-secondary educational facilities. We have
already seen examples in Canada where the corporate influence on
a board of governors of universities and colleges and now on this
millennium fund is beginning to have an impact on the curriculum,
deregulation of tuition fees and deregulation of programs. All
these things are creating an environment where there is
increasing privatization and corporatization of our
post-secondary educational system.
The NDP believes that we have to have leadership from the
federal government. It needs to be the kind of leadership done
in co-operation and collaboration with provincial jurisdictions
to design a national program of national grants that deals with
different jurisdictions and different provincial contexts where
there is a clear understanding and a principle that accessibility
for all students in Canada is a national standard.
The NDP believes that this is a starting point of ensuring that
our post-secondary educational system is protected and
strengthened and not destroyed as we have seen over the last few
years.
Canada is only one of two OECD countries that do not have a
national grants system. We need to ensure federal funding is
provided in co-operation with provincial governments to establish
a national system of grants.
In the province of British Columbia as well as in the province
of Quebec leadership has been shown in terms of trying to keep
education accessible for students even in the face of massive
cutbacks. British Columbia is now in the third year of a tuition
freeze. This has been very difficult to accomplish, given the
massive cutbacks it has experienced in transfers from the federal
government.
The NDP is calling on the federal government to show the
necessary leadership. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and concern
expressed by government members about the levels of student debt.
There is nothing in this bill that will alleviate the pressure
and the huge debt load now facing students.
We need to go back to the drawing board and state clearly that
this millennium fund is taking us down the wrong road. We need a
national grants system. We need accessibility. Most important
of all, we need restoration of the federal funding for
post-secondary education in Canada.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pride that I contribute to the debate on the merits of
Bill C-36. The question in my mind is, on such a basic issue as
education, a mom and apple pie type issue, what does Reform have
against students? It boggles me.
I consider it a privilege to serve as a member of this
government and as we for the first time in a generation deliver a
balanced budget speak about an education initiative this
government has brought forward. What makes me most proud about
this accomplishment is the fact that it has enabled us to
introduce perhaps the most progressive program every witnessed in
this country, the Canada millennium scholarship program, the
cornerstone of the Canadian opportunities strategy.
This government knows there is no better investment in the
future than future investments in access to post-secondary
education, knowledge and innovation. That is why we are creating
the single largest endowment ever offered by a federal government
to ensure that a post-secondary education is within reach of
anyone who wants it. We are especially targeting those of modest
means for whom post-secondary education would be beyond their
grasp.
1325
This $2.5 billion initiative will change the lives and the
future of Canadians. It will give Canadians access to the
knowledge and skills necessary for jobs of the 21st century. It
will give up to one million Canadians a chance to thrive in a new
economy and in a new millennium.
There can be no debate. As we stand here on the threshold of
the 21st century we must prepare our citizens to think
innovatively and creatively in a world that is transformed into
information and technology. For this very reason increasing
access to post-secondary education must be a national priority.
Yet there are some in this country who suggest it is not the
Government of Canada's business to ensure higher learning and
make sure it is accessible and affordable; this despite the fact
it is now universally recognized that post-secondary education is
a precondition for full participation in a future economy. These
critics overlook the federal government's well established
history in helping Canadians to pursue advanced studies.
In addition to funding post-secondary education through Canada's
health and social transfer we have provided some $4.2 billion in
financial assistance since 1964 to students in provinces that
participate in the Canada student loans program. Since that same
year we have provided $1.4 billion to the two jurisdictions that
do not participate in the program, namely Quebec and the
Northwest Territories.
We have a long tradition of awarding scholarships to students
through various granting councils and programs such as the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the
Medical Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada. If this legislation is
adopted we will add an additional $400 million for the next three
years to the combined budgets of these three councils. This is
pretty impressive.
While similar in spirit, the Canada millennium scholarship fund
is quite unique. This contribution is Canada's way of
celebrating the passage into the new millennium. We are
observing this extraordinary event not by building monuments but
by investing in Canadians and preparing them to be the knowledge
workers in a knowledge economy.
An equally important reason why the millennium scholarship
cannot be considered the same as other federal funding for
post-secondary education is that the endowment fund will be
managed by an independent organization.
The Canada millennium scholarship foundation in consultation
with key stakeholders will decide how to design and deliver
millennium scholarship funds. The fund will be administered by a
board of directors made up of private citizens, at least one of
whom will be a student.
The minister of education as well as the education community
will play a key role in identifying prospective directors and
nominating people who have a pulse on the education community.
Once operational, the foundation will be able to enter into
agreements with provincial governments and post-secondary
institutions on some aspects of scholarship eligibility. In
addition the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation will be
expected to minimize administrative costs and overhead.
Our overriding goal is to significantly increase access to
post-secondary studies everywhere in Canada for low and middle
income students and to do so in a way that avoids duplication
with any province.
The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the
millennium scholarship complements other types of student
assistance programs. Given this flexibility the Government of
Quebec's decision to break off discussions regarding the
millennium fund is both puzzling and very frustrating.
This government is deeply dismayed that Quebec has not put the
interests of young Quebeckers first. Dismayed but not totally
surprised. From the outset the PQ government took a hard line
putting forward a lopsided proposal that left no room for
reconciliation. Despite our repeated efforts to find common
ground, our provincial counterparts remained intransigent.
The position of Mr. Bouchard's government has not changed. Mr.
Bouchard wants to opt out with full compensation. His government
has shown no flexibility whatsoever. It is clear that Mr.
Bouchard had no intention of negotiating so there is no point in
returning to the negotiation table.
Even though Premier Bouchard told the Prime Minister last March
that he recognized the Government of Canada's intention to “make
a significant concrete and modern contribution to the knowledge
through scholarships and” acknowledge that this was “a
legitimate concern”, the Quebec government wants to opt out of
this program with full compensation.
This would seriously weaken and undermine the Canadian millennium
scholarship foundation and the intent for which it is put in
place.
1330
As disappointing as these developments are, we must move forward
without interfering with Quebec's priorities in the areas of
education and without penalizing, most importantly, Quebec
students.
Members on this side of the House are confident that a solution
to outstanding issues relating to implementing a foundation can
be found in the context of the current legislation. As the Prime
Minister has already said in the House “We are satisfied that
the bill gives us the needed flexibility to resolve the situation
in a reasonable manner”. Reasonable words from a reasonable
man.
The fact that the finance committee decided to extend its
consideration for Bill C-36 to hear further witnesses is a
further reflection of that flexibility, but there are practical
limitations which must be factored into the equation. If we want
this program in place by the year 2000 we must adopt the
legislation as quickly as possible.
I hear my colleagues across the floor commenting “Not until the
year 2000”. They speak is if we are in the 1950s or the 1930s.
The year 2000 is merely 18 months away.
It is equally important that we not lose sight of the principal
reason for introducing the millennium scholarships. Canada's
success and competitiveness in the next century will depend on
Canadians being well equipped and well motivated to meet Canada's
challenges in a knowledge based economy.
The Canada millennium scholarships are critical new tools to
help us prepare Canadians for the challenges and opportunities of
the 21st century. As much as they will help equip 100,000
students each year with the knowledge necessary to function in an
information society, they will also inspire other youth who may
be thinking about dropping out or hesitating about going to
college or university.
Perhaps most significant, these scholarships will heighten
public awareness and appreciation that a post-secondary education
is essential in a knowledge based economy. They will help
mobilize the entire population behind a clear and strong
inspiring vision, a collective future in which we all have the
knowledge and skills we need.
The Government of Canada is determined to lead our society
toward a future in which all Canadians are empowered to succeed
in the new economy. That is why it is so critical that we
quickly pass Bill C-36. If Canada is to grow and prosper in the
21st century we must begin by implementing the federal budget
today.
I ask members opposite to read the bill, not the prepared texts
which their staff have put together for them.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, sound
economic policy involves dealing with the challenges facing
Canadians in a holistic way, with consistent economic policies,
not stopgap measures that further complicate, for instance, the
Canadian tax code.
The millennium scholarship fund will only benefit—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is with regret
that the Chair advises the hon. member for Kings—Hants that he
has already spoken in this debate. He cannot speak again,
although that is going to leave a lot of people in the House
terribly disappointed.
We will double-check the blues and if it is determined that the
hon. member has not spoken on this group of motions, then he will
be the first recognized if we make that determination.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
1335
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I had fully expected to have my speech interrupted by
question period. That seems to be my lot in life, to rise just
before the start of QP. However, with this sudden unexpected turn
of events that is not going to happen today and I will speak
earlier than I had originally intended.
There are a couple of fundamental issues which I wish to address
in speaking to Bill C-36, and specifically the amendments put
forward in Group No. 1 by the Bloc Quebecois.
First of all, the very fundamental issue that we are dealing
with in this very shortened debate that we are going to have
today is the issue of time allocation. The Liberals, once again,
have cut off debate for the 41st time since 1994. It is
despicable. I think there is rising resentment across the
country due to the fact that there is no democracy in this
Chamber, the very place that is supposed to be the heart of
democracy.
Perhaps the government has done this because it has decided that
it wants a longer summer break. Perhaps the backbenchers put
pressure on cabinet and on the Prime Minister to ensure they get
a long enough time to flip burgers and go to barbecues in their
ridings. While that is important work for an MP, no doubt, the
fact is that the main thrust should be to debate legislation in
this Chamber.
We have seen this so many times in the past. When the
opposition parties start to really get to this government and
start to hold it accountable on important national issues like
its complete failure to address the reform of the Young Offenders
Act or the issue of compensation for all victims of hepatitis C,
what does this government do? It runs for cover by invoking time
allocation, by bringing down closure to cut off debate. In this
case what we see is the cutting off of debate on a whole long
list of amendments to this very important bill. The Group No. 1
amendments alone constitute over a dozen motions. How can these
types of motions be adequately addressed when debate has been
limited?
Not only do they want to cut off debate, they are heckling and
directing inappropriate comments at opposition speakers who stand
here today wanting to hold this government accountable to the
people of Canada. They direct those comments at us to distract
us from the little time that we are allowed to speak on this
bill.
This group of amendments specifically deals with the millennium
fund. I listened in somewhat stony silence as the hon. member
opposite—
Mr. Paul Bonwick: That is exactly what is between your
ears.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, he had his opportunity to
speak. Now he is heckling me, trying to throw me off track when
I am trying to drive home the message to the viewing public that
there are fallacies contained in his prepared speech that
probably came out of the minister's office or the Prime
Minister's office and was handed to him a few minutes before he
walked into the Chamber.
He stood and read it. If he really wants to debate the
millennium fund and how much support it has, then why do we not
have a debate about that instead of him standing and reading a
prepared speech?
The fact is that the millennium fund is going to be a disgrace.
It is going to be a failure. Why? The reason is simple. We
pointed it out during the budget debate. I am sure the pages
watching this debate today will be interested in this because,
once again, what we see is that the Liberal government wants to
differentiate between Canadians. It wants to set up two classes,
just as it has on the hepatitis C issue. It wants to have two
classes of victims. It will compensate some of the people. The
government says it is a caring government, that it will
compensate the post-1986 victims.
The ones between 1986 and 1990 will be compensated, but the ones
before will not be compensated.
1340
The hon. member across the way who just spoke was bragging about
how the millennium fund will help 100,000 students. Is that not
great? But the fact of the matter is that there 1.6 million
post-secondary students: 400,000 are full time students and the
rest are part time students. Do the math. The students are
doing the math: 100,000 out of 400,000.
Once again this Liberal government wants to differentiate.
Which will be the lucky quarter of the full time students who
will get the scholarships? The government will decide which of
those young students will get the scholarships. If they belong
to the Young Liberals of Canada they might get a scholarship.
Somehow the government is going to differentiate and decide who
gets the scholarships.
That is not totally true. The hon. member who spoke before me
said that there is going to be one student on the board. I am
sure the government can find one Liberal student, but after this
maybe not.
The fact is, there is no budget surplus to help Canadians in a
unified way because of the false accounting practices of this
government. That is the fact. This millennium fund is the
latest example of that. The finance minister has put $2.5
billion into the 1998 budget. He has built it in, but he has not
spent the money yet. The money will be spent down the road.
The auditor general on March 18 responded to a threatening
letter from finance officials by saying “I believe the change
will open the door for governments to influence reporting results
by simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then
deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end
of the year once preliminary numbers are known”.
The facts are very clear. The government is trying to separate
students. It is trying to pit student against student. Very
clearly during the last election campaign, and we are nearing the
first anniversary of this new government since the June 2
election a year ago, we laid out our plan on how we would help
all students. We did not hear anything back then about a
millennium fund. This is something that the government has come
up with to pit student against student. It will help a quarter
of them. What about the other three-quarters who are seeing
tuition costs rising?
The fact is, these students cannot afford huge increases in the
cost of obtaining their education. The Liberal government with
its millennium fund is effectively bringing down a subsidy for
people like Bill Gates because of the huge brain drain of our
brightest young students. They get their education here and end
up going to work for companies like Microsoft. The richest man
in the world is getting a subsidy courtesy of the Liberal
government because it has refused to address fundamental issues
like high taxes that drive our young people away from our country
to seek employment in the United States where taxes are more
reasonable.
That is a fundamental issue that this government is not
addressing and the government refuses to address it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was looking
forward to address this issue, but not under these
circumstances. Shame on the government for moving time
allocation. Why? Because this bill makes no sense and it knows
it. This is obvious in Quebec, where there is a consensus
against the bill.
1345
The federal government has taken a very drastic approach to
reducing the deficit by cutting transfer payments for health,
education and welfare. At the same time, by tightening
eligibility requirements for employment insurance benefits, it
ensured that the employment insurance fund would grow; it will
soon contain $19 billion. This is an extremely harsh and severe
bite.
What is the federal government doing with the bite taken out of
transfer payments to the provinces, now that it has reached zero
deficit?
It has given a $2.5 billion budget to a private sector
foundation responsible for distributing scholarship cheques,
with a little maple leaf in the corner and the Prime Minister's
signature at the bottom I guess.
The truth of the matter is that, in Quebec, these drastic cuts
in education have turned universities into institutions where it
is increasingly difficult to receive quality education, not
because teachers and students are not doing their best, but
rather because the conditions they are facing are increasingly
difficult.
There have been countless wage cuts, job cuts, student-teacher
ratio increases, budget cuts for research, labs, while all of
these are essential to quality education.
What is the point of having $3,000 scholarships after the year
2000, when the system itself has been hurt and impaired? It is
so shameful that there is a consensus in Quebec—which is even
echoed across the country—that the federal government has no
business in this area. This is an ill-conceived project. The
government must give back to Quebec the money earmarked for
education, so that the province can help students pursue their
education through its own loans and scholarships program.
The federal initiative makes no sense. It is despicable and
shameful, as well as wasteful. In this day and age, it is
unacceptable to waste money in education just to satisfy the
Prime Minister's vanity.
Why am I so convinced that it is a waste? For a reason that I
will try to make clear.
Under the legislation, scholarships will be awarded based on
merit to help the best students, not those who most need the
money so they can become successful, but those who are the best
students and are also in need.
This is not the policy that was developed in Quebec over the
years. It is not even the policy that was developed in the other
provinces and applied by the federal government, but this is
another issue.
In Quebec, we chose a system that help students in need who, of
course, also make the grade. What does a needs-based system mean?
It means that a completely different structure will have to be
built. Criteria will have to be set for each subject, to
determine who are the best students, how many there are and how
to go about it.
A burdensome bureaucracy will have to be put in place. Even
though it is a private foundation, it will be burdensome and
bureaucratic, because there is no other way to determine who are
the best students. Even the system currently in place in Quebec
would become a lot more burdensome and would have to undergo
major changes if it were to use criteria based on merit, in
addition to those based on needs.
1350
The system is not designed for that, nor are the universities or
the student loan system. This is wasteful. It means that
every dollar of the $2.5 billion, and of the portion to which
Quebec is entitled but has no certainty of getting anyway, will
not go to student aid. This is totally scandalous.
The Liberals, who made such slashes to welfare, health and
education, and have padded the employment insurance fund, are
patting themselves on the back that this hard earned money will
go, not to education, but to stroke the ego of the Prime
Minister of Canada.
This Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation is unacceptable
in every way.
What an image it gives of federalism. A few days before the
referendum, our Prime Minister said he would take Quebec's needs
into account. What an image. What discouragement about today's
federalism, if the division of power under the Constitution
makes it so hard for the central government to perform its
functions that it must also assume the functions of the
provinces.
It is not content with the way things are, not satisfied, so it
decides to see that the provinces' educational systems follow
the line it sets. Come now, this makes no sense because when it
comes to getting the best use of funds, each level of government
has its responsibilities and must exercise them. In other
words, I repeat, it would require one more bureaucracy—and this
is already happening, as people have been hired.
What recourse will students or universities have? None at all.
How will Quebec be sure of having its share? It will not.
Public money and officials will be administered by a private
foundation under criteria that it will set for itself according
to the very broad principles in the law.
We are concerned, I note in passing, about the following in the
bill: “The appointment of directors shall be made so as to
ensure that (a) the Board is knowledgeable about post-secondary
education”, that should go without saying, “and learning in
Canada and the needs of the Canadian economy; and (b) the
directors are drawn from the various regions of Canada.”
University scholarships awarded on the basis of merit must not
be given out according to the state of the Canadian economy, but
according to the needs of the individual societies.
Why did we in Quebec choose to have an assistance plan based on
need and to ensure access to university to just about everyone
with the ability? Because we think merit is encouraged by the
conditions of use and not because scholarships are given out on
the basis of merit. I think that the results indicate that we
in Quebec made the right choice.
Now the federal government is dismantling and derailing a system
that worked well. It is doing so in two ways. First it
dangerously underfunded it and now it has just introduced new
factors for which it will be spending money that would be
infinitely better spent where it should rightly go. That is, to
the educational system, to assistance and as loans and
scholarships to needy students.
1355
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it
brought down its budget last February, the government once again
demonstrated its lack of respect for the institutions and
mechanisms developed by the people of Quebec during the quiet
revolution.
By creating millennium scholarships, the Liberal government is
once again poking its nose into a jurisdiction that belongs
exclusively to Quebec, in this case education.
It is rather ironic to see the Prime Minister of Canada trying
to sell the Canadian Constitution to Quebeckers and to
Canadians, when his own government is not even able to respect
it.
Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes Quebec's
exclusive jurisdiction over education, and the millennium fund
is an unprecedented intrusion into this area of provincial
jurisdiction.
In 1964, the government of Lester B. Pearson suggested making
interest-free loans available to Canadian students. When this
federal education subsidy was opposed by Jean Lesage, a Liberal,
the Pearson government then wisely declared that, if a province
preferred to stick with its own loans program, it would be
entitled to equivalent compensation. So said a Liberal. The
government of the day had tried unsuccessfully to interfere in
the area of education. The right to opt out of student
financial assistance programs with compensation has existed
since 1964.
Will the Liberal government be as fair a player in 1998?
Knowing that paragraphs 29(1) and 25(2) of Bill C-36 are designed
to block the transfer to the Government of Quebec of its fair
share for opting out of the millennium fund, one could have
one's doubts. In order to have access to the program, Quebec
will have to embark on a series of long and pointless
negotiations in a field where it has already proven itself.
Worse yet, in order to deny Quebec its right to opt out with
compensation, the federal government has decided to create a
foundation outside regular federal programs. The federal
government's imperialist attitude is beyond all understanding.
Why interfere in Quebec's loans and bursaries program when it is
the most advanced in Canada? Quebec has built up an effective
and vigorous loans and bursaries program that is the envy of
students in other provinces.
Why, just when the federal government has reduced its deficit to
zero, is the Minister of Finance rushing to create additional
federal-provincial duplication and again wasting taxpayers'
money? Now that it again has money to spend, the federal
government is spending it in provincial jurisdictions.
The Speaker: My colleague, you will have more than six minutes
to conclude your speech, but it being almost 2 p.m., the House
will now proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
ALGONGUIN SECONDARY SCHOOL IN NORTH BAY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the 30th anniversary of Algonquin secondary school in
North Bay, my alma mater.
During the Victoria Day weekend, or the Fête de Dollard weekend
depending on one's point of view, an organizing committee
masterfully directed by Carole Laperrière, née Martineau,
managed to bring together hundreds of Algonquin graduates from
across the country.
This secondary school, which was originally called the bilingual
school, was one of the first schools of its kind to be
established in Ontario following the adoption of Bill 168,
introduced by the then Minister of Education, the hon. Bill
Davis.
This school has an important role to play in preserving and
promoting the French language and culture in that part of
Ontario.
Long live Algonquin secondary school, its students, its staff
and its alumni.
* * *
1400
[English]
OLIVER, B.C.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the riding of West Kootenay—Okanagan is one of the most
scenic and beautiful in Canada. One of the jewels of the riding
is the town of Oliver in the Okanagan Valley. Oliver recently
made the news under the caption “the hate capital of Canada”.
This was the result of one inappropriate remark by an individual
concerned about the racist content of an Internet service in
Oliver which has since shut down.
In actual fact the remark is about as far from the truth as
possible. Oliver is a warm and friendly blend of just about
every racial origin imaginable. Population groups include
aboriginal people, Portuguese and East Indian with lesser numbers
of other European, Asian and Latin American people.
From June 19 to 21 Oliver will be holding its sunshine festival.
This year will feature a multicultural celebration. I invite all
Canadians to visit Oliver this summer, especially during the
festival. Visitors will find orchards, vineyards, warm beaches
and some of the finest wineries in Canada or abroad. Even more
important, they will find a warm and friendly local population
that will go out of its way to make sure visitors have a
wonderful and memorable stay.
* * *
DR. RUSSELL MCDONALD
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my good friend Dr. Russell McDonald of Oxford county
on his being named an honorary director for life of the royal
agricultural winter fair. Dr. McDonald, or Rusty as he is better
known, has served as a member of the board of directors for the
winter fair for the past 20 years. A veterinarian by profession,
Rusty served on the board as a representative of the artificial
insemination industry. He is one of the founders and a former
general manager of the Western Ontario Breeders Association. His
appointment as an honorary lifetime director recognizes his
achievements and contribution to agricultural and to the royal
over many years.
I am happy to say that I know Rusty and his wife Helen well.
This honour is well deserved. I am sure the royal agricultural
winter fair will benefit from his knowledge and experience for
years to come. Well done, Rusty.
* * *
APEC
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Finance Minister of Canada hosted a conference for 21 APEC
finance ministers from May 22 to May 24 in Kananaskis, Alberta.
They discussed a global financial strategy for coping with the
Asian crisis. With vision and leadership, the Minister of
Finance made a proposal for a global mechanism to monitor the
financial and banking system of the world. The G-8 leaders have
recently endorsed such a plan. Again, our government is taking
leadership in providing a solution for a global crisis.
* * *
NOTEMAKERS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
notemakers, a pilot initiative of Industry Canada's SchoolNet
program, employs youth to help colleges and universities meet the
challenge of the information highway. Funded by the Canada youth
employment strategy, this initiative combines the Internet skills
of young Canadians with the knowledge and experience of
university and college educators to produce high quality
post-secondary learnware.
Notemakers helps our youth gain marketable work experience that
they can transfer to jobs in Canada's emerging knowledge economy.
I saw this firsthand when the University of Prince Edward Island
participated in the last competition. Three full time positions
were created as a result of the notemakers program. Universities
and colleges benefit and Canada benefits as a whole.
Success from the first competition has led this government to
open a second competition. Interested universities and colleges
have until June 2, 1998 to submit their proposals. I encourage
them to take advantage of notemakers and build for tomorrow.
* * *
IRELAND
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday the people of Ireland took a brave step toward a future
of peace and away from their violent past. By voting to endorse
the Good Friday agreement in overwhelming numbers, both Unionists
and Nationalists of the north together with the citizens of the
Irish Republic have said no more to the men of violence. They
have chosen instead to develop democratic institutions where
people from both sides of the sectarian divide can work together
in civility and where their still profound differences can be
resolved by ballots and not bombs.
Let us not be misled that this is the beginning and not the end
of the peace process. Millions of Canadians like me are either
descendants or immigrants from Ireland.
On behalf of all Canadians we join them in praying that last
Friday's agreement may be the beginning of a lasting peace in
Ireland.
* * *
1405
ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour and a privilege to welcome to our capital city
His All Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew the
First, spiritual leader of all Orthodox Christians worldwide.
This is indeed an historic visit for it is the first time in the
history of Christianity that an Ecumenical Patriarch visits
Canada.
His All Holiness is the 270th successor to the Apostle Andrew.
Since his ascending to the ecumenical throne on November 2, 1991,
he has tirelessly pursued the vision of his enthronement message
which is spiritual renewal, orthodox unity, Christian
reconciliation, interfaith tolerance and co-existence, protection
of the environment and a world united in peace, justice,
solidarity and love.
Known to Europe as the Green Patriarch, His All Holiness has
taken the lead among all religious leaders in his concerns for
the environment. We here in Canada not only applaud but support
this endeavour wholeheartedly.
Time does not permit me to go on in great detail about his
achievements but let me just say in closing we welcome him to
Canada and I am sure his stay will be a memorable one.
* * *
[Translation]
MISSING CHILDREN DAY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Missing Children Day.
This special day is an opportunity to educate Canadians about
what they can do to protect their children from becoming the
victims of crime.
It is also an opportunity for all Canadians to recognize the
outstanding work of law enforcement agencies and other partners
in finding missing children.
[English]
Under our missing children's program, the RCMP's missing
children's registry in partnership with Revenue Canada's
international project return, the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade and the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration has helped to search for, locate and return missing
children.
In 1997 alone customs and immigration assisted in the safe
recovery of 111 children at the border, a 28% increase from 1996.
A key element of this government's public safety mandate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
* * *
HEAD START PROGRAM
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, programs from Moncton to Hawaii to Michigan all
demonstrate that early intervention programs improve parenting
skills, healthy babies, and reduce substance abuse and crime.
They have shown a reduction of 50% in crime, 40% in teen
pregnancies, less dependence on welfare and a much more
productive life for these individuals.
Today we are going to vote on Motion No. 261, a motion which
calls for a national head start program.
If we are to win the battle against crime, teen pregnancies,
fetal alcohol syndrome and provide our children with the tools to
become functional members in an increasingly hostile world, a
head start program will do just that. It will give parents the
tools to enable their children to grow up in an environment free
of rancour and abuse.
So far five provinces and territories are on side. I implore
the House to vote for Motion No. 261 to work together with the
provinces and build a stronger, secure and safe environment for
all our children.
* * *
[Translation]
DAVID LEVINE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister of Canada has been unworthy of his functions again.
Instead of condemning without reservation the intolerant
reaction against the appointment of David Levine as head of the
Ottawa Hospital, he launched an attack against the Quebec
government which he accuses of all evils.
In the Levine case, the Prime Minister should have reminded
Canadians that freedom of opinion is a fundamental right for
everybody. Instead of doing his duty, he preferred to engage in
partisan politics and to contribute directly to the climate of
intolerance that has developed in the Canadian capital.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that in the future the Prime Minister
will state clearly that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms applies to all without discrimination.
* * *
[English]
IRELAND
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, May 22 the people of Ireland opened the door to peace in
their beautiful island.
Both in the north and south the Irish people voted decisively to
end the tragic era of brutal violence and sectarian hatred and to
move forward in peace. Both in the Republic of Ireland and in
Northern Ireland the results of the voting demonstrate clearly
that people of good will in Ireland are united in their desire
for peace, equality and justice for all.
1410
As Canadians we can understand very well the compromise that was
necessary in Ireland to reach a peace accord which has been so
overwhelmingly endorsed by the Irish people.
As Canadians we are proud of the good work being done by General
John De Chastelaine. We join with peace loving people everywhere
in applauding the historic breakthrough just achieved in Ireland.
We pray that this historic and courageous first step will succeed
in creating an enduring peace throughout all of Ireland.
* * *
MISSING CHILDREN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 19
years ago this morning a six-year old boy left home to catch a
school bus and disappeared. His name was Etan Patz. He is still
missing but he has not been forgotten. In 1986 the Canadian
Government declared May 25 national missing children's day in
commemoration of Etan and the thousands of children like him who
have disappeared without a trace.
To honour and remember those children and their families still
grieving over their loss, the Missing Children Society of
Canada asks all Canadians to participate in the third annual
light the way home campaign. The society asks all Canadians to
turn on their porch lights this evening as a sign of solidarity.
Through this simple act we show the families of the missing that
they are not forgotten. We shine the lights, expressing our hope
that some of these children will find their way home.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 125 years ago this month the House of Commons adopted a
law that created the North-West Mounted Police, the forerunner to
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Originally the RCMP was established as a frontier police force
which went west to prepare the way for a peaceful development of
the prairies. As the country grew in population and its
communities became more established, the RCMP adapted and
expanded its jurisdiction.
Today the Mounties and their proud record of service are
recognized throughout the world.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all
those men and women who have dedicated their whole life with
honour and pride to the protection of their fellow Canadians.
I am sure all members in the House will join me in
congratulating the RCMP for having reached this turning point in
the history of this country and in wishing its members all the
best in keeping their commitment to the security of all
Canadians.
Congratulations to all members of the RCMP.
* * *
QUEBEC FLAG
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in Quebec, thousands of people marked the 50th
anniversary of the Quebec flag.
Adopted in 1948 by the government, the flag was well received by
the people. The Gazette even pointed out that the Fleur de Lys
“takes heraldic data into account and is an emblem of
exceptional beauty”.
At the beginning of the quiet revolution, the Fleur de Lys
became the symbol of Quebec's distinctiveness and desire to
achieve self-determination. Today, Quebeckers of all political
stripes feel that their flag is the symbol of a pluralist
community open to the world and that continues, as the Council
of Europe pointed out, to be an example to follow in the
treatment of minorities.
Since respect for one another is the rule in Quebec, the Bloc
Quebecois is confident that the Fleur de Lys will remain for all
Quebeckers a symbol of rallying and tolerance and a guarantee of
the freedom of speech and opinion.
* * *
[English]
YARMOUTH FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on May 28
the Yarmouth tourism officials along with local businesses will
celebrate the beginning a new high speed ferry service between
Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, Maine.
Bay Ferries Ltd., led by President Mitch McLean, has taken over
the services previously provided by Marine Atlantic, replacing
the old Bluenose ferry with a high speed catamaran capable of
carrying 900 passengers and 250 vehicles.
This new ferry is capable of reaching speeds of 90 kilometres
per hour, reducing the length of the crossing from 6 hours to 2.5
hours, making West Nova a much more attractive destination area
for our U.S. neighbours. It is anticipated that this new service
will create 400 tourism related jobs and generate $15 million in
direct economic spinoffs.
As May is officially designated national tourism month, I take
this opportunity to wish Bay Ferries Ltd. every success with its
huge endeavour and at the same time welcome all members of this
House to vacation in my beautiful constituency of West Nova.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREX PLANT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
May 20 marked the opening of the FOREX plant, a major wood panel
plant in the municipality of Bois-Franc, in the Haute-Gatineau
region.
This project will create 325 jobs for plant and forestry workers
and give a boost to the whole region that I represent.
I am proud that the Canadian government has contributed $1.2
million to this project for manpower training programs.
1415
The FOREX plant will require a $120 million investment, which
will make it one of the most important in the world for the
production of oriented strand panels.
This is another issue that shows that our government is
committed to help Quebec regions and to ensure the development
of such a strategic area in terms of the exploitation and
processing of our natural resources.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has insulted all the victims with hepatitis C from
tainted blood by comparing them to people who contracted
hepatitis C from dirty needles. Hepatitis C from dirty needles is
off the street and hepatitis C from tainted blood is actually
from government approved blood.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologize today to those victims
with hepatitis C from tainted blood?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has raised an interesting question. The
important thing to note is that there is a working group of
officials from all the provinces and the federal government
looking at options in this matter. They are working to develop
fair solutions. We should allow them to do their work. We
invite the co-operation of all Canadians with this working group.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister does not get it and I guess the Deputy Prime Minister
does not get it. This blood was tainted. It is quite different
from getting hepatitis C from dirty needles.
I again ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will apologize to
these victims of hepatitis C who did absolutely nothing wrong.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know by now the commitment of this government
to look after the interests of those with any disease and
particularly hepatitis C. As a result of the initiative of this
government there is an offer of assistance that has been made to
those who received tainted blood between 1986 and 1990 when those
responsible could have acted to prevent it and did not.
All provinces at present are taking part in the working group
looking at options to take other steps.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
just like a broken record. However this is a new issue. The
Prime Minister insulted all these victims. He said that if we
compensate those victims we are going to have to compensate those
who got hepatitis C from dirty needles. This is not about
heroin. This is not about crack. This is not about a dirty
alley. This is about people who did nothing wrong. Will they
apologize now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I have the exact transcript of
what the Prime Minister said. He did not insult hepatitis C
victims. He did not intend to insult them. He was merely
talking about some factors that deserved to be considered. That
is all he did and the hon. member should recognize that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what the Prime Minister did was insult hepatitis C victims
regardless of any comments he may or may not have made.
Before the Prime Minister left on this latest junket of his, he
could not bring himself to admit that he was wrong regarding
compensation for hepatitis C victims.
I would like to ask the following question of the government. Is
it not true that the Prime Minister gave one instruction and one
instruction only for the health minister when he left on this
latest junket which was to scuttle the deal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was this government that put the deal in place. It was this
government that involved the provincial and territorial
governments in making the deal. Until the Prime Minister and this
government initiated the process every health minister in the
country was refusing to talk about compensating those with
hepatitis C.
The instructions of the Prime Minister and the position of this
government are that the interests of the hepatitis C victims
should be taken into account and compensation to be offered on
proper principles. That is exactly what we have done.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is some line from the health minister who said the file is
closed.
The Prime Minister wrote to Premier Mike Harris stating the
following “I note your recent decision to move beyond this
principled initiative to play a role in those areas where no
government responsibility has been identified”.
1420
I would like to ask the health minister on behalf of his Prime
Minister, when is the Prime Minister going to become principled,
admit that he was wrong and compensate all hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was principles that led us to persuade the provinces to join
with us in the agreement to offer assistance to 22,000 people who
contracted hepatitis C through the blood system.
We have now organized a working group to look anew at all the
options for dealing with those with hepatitis C as a result of
the fact that at least two of the provinces have changed their
positions from the original agreement.
If the member would let that working group get its job done, let
ministers and governments examine the options, she would be a lot
farther ahead.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to an internal memo from the Department of Human
Resources Development obtained through access to information,
72% of the $6 billion in surplus generated by successive
employment insurance reforms was the result of government
cutbacks.
Will the minister admit that, out of the $6 billion saved in the
EI plan in 1996, $4.3 billion was saved through repeated cuts
made on the backs of the unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in working on this employment
insurance reform, we have tried to strike a balance in the best
interest of all Canadians. We believe that this balance has
improved the situation of Canadians with respect to job market.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: For instance, as a result of the EI
reform, we are more focused on a number of active measures.
Members across the way never discuss the reform as a whole or
other initiatives which help Canadians get back to work instead
of staying on EI.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
us talk about balance and improved situation. In 1990, 72.5% of
unemployed youth received UI benefits, while in 1997, only 26%
did.
Does the minister realize that, while making fine-sounding
speeches on youth, he is excluding three young persons out of
four from his so-called employment insurance plan?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have stated repeatedly in the
House that we are concerned about the participation rate of the
unemployed in our employment insurance system, and we have asked
Statistics Canada to determine why this is so.
I would appreciate it if the Bloc Quebecois also paid attention
to the numerous youth programs we have developed. Instead of
forcing them unto employment insurance, we provide them with
internship and community work opportunities to help them get
into the workforce. That is what we are doing for our young
people, and I think this is much more helpful.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Young people
are not the only ones suffering because of the minister's
so-called reform. Women too, the very people the minister kept
telling everyone would benefit greatly from the reform, are also
among the victims.
If he truly wished to help advance the cause of women, what is
the minister waiting for to end the discrimination to which they
are subject and give them maternity leave benefits under the
same conditions as other workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our reform has substantially
improved women's access to maternity leave.
An hon. member: Wrong.
An hon. member: Liar.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Up until now, the number of women on
leave and women who worked part time—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the minister should get
with it and look at the facts—
The Speaker: I apologize. I thought the hon. minister had
finished. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development has
the floor.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, what I was attempting to
say, when I was interrupted by opposition members, who are
unable to face up to the facts of this EI reform, is that
500,000 part-time workers, largely women therefore, were not
covered under the system the Bloc Quebecois keeps wanting to
bring back.
1425
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
should get with it and look squarely at the facts instead of
trying to hide his lack of compassion for women behind a cloud
of fine words.
How does the minister explain that, with the birthrate down by
1% in 1997, maternity leave benefits were down by 6%?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the member also continually
fails to mention is that women who were not covered in the past
are covered now.
Women who were on maternity leave or who decided to raise a
family now have access to active measures and training to which
they did not have access before, once they have raised their
families and decide to re-enter the job market.
Our reform seeks to strike a balance. Once women have raised
their families, they are now entitled to assistance in
re-entering the job market because of EI reform and they are glad
of it.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
unlicensed albumin blood product is being used on Canadians.
Health officials say “Don't worry, no problem. It has been
approved in the U.S.” The truth is that this blood product
manufacturer has been hauled into the courts for extensive safety
violations.
The health minister has a responsibility to protect the blood
supply. Can the minister honestly assure Canadians that this
blood product is safe?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as recently as an hour ago I asked that very question of
officials. I was assured that the product in question meets
safety standards not only in the United States but also in
Canada.
Last week we invited the caucus colleague of the leader of the
NDP to meet with officials in my department. She was given a
full explanation of what is going on. The member now knows
because officials told her that as a result of a shortage under
the special access program we have imported albumin into this
country at the request of physicians. It meets standards of
safety both here and in the United States.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, they
are laxed out standards to try to evade the fact that this
minister is not attending to his responsibilities.
Judge Krever recommended that the federal government “retain
the duty and authority to make decisions about products to be
distributed in Canada”. Yet this government has gutted the
health protection branch to the point where the safety of blood
products for Canadians can no longer be assured. Has the minister
learned nothing from the hepatitis C tragedy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think we are going to have them over to the department again
and take them through the facts one more time.
The reality is that for the first time, Health Canada under this
government is requiring all foreign blood product manufacturers
to sell their product through a licensed Canadian importer. We
put new and stringent requirements in place. The product referred
to by the member meets health and safety standards both in the
United States and in Canada.
* * *
SOMALIA INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, any communication between a lawyer and a client is
privileged information, yet the Minister of Justice's own
officials gave a confidential letter dated May 4 received from
the chairman of the Somalia inquiry to the defence department.
The inquiry's findings of course were reviewed by the federal
court and further litigation is pending.
The minister's own government shut down the Somalia inquiry
early. Can she now explain why she would violate solicitor-client
privilege in further undermining this important public inquiry?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the letter in question was not
impressed with solicitor-client privilege. Neither Mr. Justice
Létourneau nor the functus commission were the client in this
case. It is the Government of Canada that is being sued.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it would appear that this government is leaking like
a sieve.
The minister's own justice officials gave a confidential letter
that was dated May 4 to the department of defence. On April 28,
Justice Barbara Reed threw out some of the findings of the
Somalia inquiry because the inquiry's representatives from the
Department of Justice did not file adequate affidavits. The
department has an obligation to represent the client with
diligence.
Is the justice minister prepared to fully defend the client, the
Somalia inquiry, and to announce that she will be appealing the
commission's findings?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because in fact this
government is in the process of making a decision as to whether
we are going to appeal the decision of Madam Justice Barbara
Reed, I will not comment on the specific case.
Let me assure the hon. member that the client in this case is
not Mr. Justice Létourneau.
The client is not the Somalia commission. In fact the hon.
member as a lawyer should know that the commission is functus.
The client in this case is the Government of Canada.
* * *
1430
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yet another terrible mess is coming to light in the
defence department. Not only do women and men in the military
suffer appalling living conditions and subsistence wages. It has
now been revealed that the government has been sitting by while
military officials regularly cover up cases of rape and physical
abuse.
Why is the Liberal government condoning such abuses by its years
of inaction?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say unequivocally that the
government will not tolerate matters of sexual abuse or sexual
harassment in the Canadian forces.
The government is taking action. We have established harassment
advisers in each of the units across the country to help us deal
with these issues. We have established the national
investigation service which provides for military police
independent of the operational chain of command to be able to
investigate these matters.
Very soon I will be announcing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister thinks a little high flown rhetoric will
cover up the Liberal government's complicity and the suffering
and humiliation of victims in our military.
Is it not true that the minister is more interested in political
damage control than in any real control of abuse in the military?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We want justice to
prevail in these cases. We want to fully integrate men and women
into the Canadian forces. We want them to be able to work side
by side in a harassment free and an abusive free environment.
We have put new training procedures into effect. We will do
whatever is needed to make sure in future the message is clear
that there will be no such discrimination in the Canadian forces.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Human Resources
Development keeps trying to defend the indefensible, while he is
trying to convince the unemployed who cannot collect benefits
that the reform is good for them, the surplus in the employment
insurance fund continues to grow. Between the beginning and the
end of oral question period, the surplus will have increased by
$700,000.
Will the minister admit that, if the surplus increases at the
incredible rate of $700,000 per hour, it is, among other
reasons, because there are 500,000 more people than before who
are contributing to the fund, even though they have little
chance of ever collecting benefits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
we took office, there was a $6 billion deficit in the employment
insurance fund. We had to eliminate this deficit and that is
what we did.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: Yes, we did. I am very pleased to say that
there is now a surplus, a reserve in the employment insurance
fund. This is our guarantee against an increase in premiums.
An hon. member: Another liar.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of chatting endlessly with technocrats
in the comfort of their offices, why do the ministers not
undertake to meet tomorrow morning the unemployed coming to
Ottawa to tell us about the disastrous consequences of the
government's reform?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel
across the country, to meet with Canadians and discuss the
impact of our reforms with them.
Before I left and upon my return, I noticed that members of the
opposition promised to put to us in this House any question they
may have. They were very active last week and we will be pleased
to hear what they have to say.
The unemployed know full well that the purpose of the
transitional job fund, along with the active measures, is to get
them back to work as quickly as possible and to help them once
they are back in the labour force.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
When some female soldiers in the Canadian forces complained of
being sexually harassed, they were ushered out of the military
and given what was called a trauma based disability pension.
Is it not true that this trauma based disability pension is just
another way of saying to some sexual harassment victims “If you
leave without making a fuss, we will pay you some hush money?”
1435
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, but according to the
defence critic of the Reform Party the problem is having women in
the military to start with.
He is suggesting, so it seems, that what we should do is get rid
of the victims. What the government is suggesting is that we
should get rid of the perpetrators.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what some of these pensions are: a way for the
top brass in the Canadian military to sweep these problems under
the rug.
Not only are these victims being told to go away quietly, but
the perpetrators of these offences are being allowed to go free,
to continue working for the Canadian forces.
Why is the minister turning a blind eye to this problem instead
of bringing these offenders to justice?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. Again their
research is faulty.
Many of these people have been brought to justice. Many of them
have been convicted and in fact have been put out of the Canadian
forces.
We intend to continue to get to the heart of these matters. We
intend to deal with matters that are past, present and future in
a just way.
* * *
[Translation]
DAVID LEVINE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this weekend
the Prime Minister found that the hue and cry over David Levine
was, and I quote “rather artificial and unacceptable”.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister not acknowledge that the Levine affair
is first and foremost a political attack against freedom of
opinion and that the last time this fundamental right was abused
in Canada was during the October crisis, when the Trudeau
government arrested 500 Quebeckers without grounds?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people attached to their country and fearing its loss
because of the secessionist threat posed by the leaders of the
Bloc and the PQ allowed their fear to find expression in a
deplorable reaction.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so now what is
happening to Mr. Levine is our fault. Really, I have seen it
all.
Today the Prime Minister laid it on a little thick saying that,
if the sovereignist question were resolved—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I am sure all members want to hear
the question and the answer. The hon. member for Roberval has
the floor.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand
that it hurts them to be reminded of their past and of what is
currently happening to francophones and to Quebeckers.
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is waxing
eloquent, the Prime Minister said as he did that, if the problem
of independence were resolved, there would be no more problem in
the Levine matter. In the minister's opinion, will the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms not apply to sovereignists so
long as we exist?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think most Canadians, including Quebeckers, will consider the
attempt by the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois to promote
separatism by using the Levine affair deplorable. It is totally
deplorable.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
from day one the Minister of National Defence said that he would
not tolerate issues of sexual harassment in the military, but
Canadians also recall the government saying that the Somalia
inquiry would be allowed to do its work. Instead, what Canadians
saw was the delay of documents delivered to the inquiry of
commission and the eventual silence of the inquiry by shutting it
down early.
Now we see that Justice Létourneau, the chairman of the Somalia
inquiry, has accused the government of conspiracy to undermine
the inquiry.
Given the government's track record, how can the defence
minister expect any member of the Canadian Armed Forces—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
1440
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the
government had staunchly defended the findings of the commission.
We did so in the case referred to here this afternoon. We will
continue to defend the Government of Canada which is the client
in this case.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's record on investigations in the military is
absolutely tragic. The government has shredded documents, lied
to military police and undermined the Somalia inquiry.
Canadians cannot rely on the government to investigate the
dozens of sexual harassment allegations with its past record. How
can the members of the Canadian Armed Forces trust the government
when all the minister cares about is cover-ups of the government
and not protecting their interests?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that the
Somalia commission got three extensions, went on three times as
long as it originally indicated it would.
Lo and behold when it did make its recommendations, 83% of them
were fully agreed to by the government and are presently being
implemented as is gender integration and our policy of not
allowing sexual abuse, getting to the bottom of all these issues
and making sure that men and women can work together in a
harassment free atmosphere.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all
political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, and the
education coalition headed by Rector Bernard Shapiro of McGill
University, are unanimous in calling for the federal government
to amend its bill on the millennium scholarships.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that
his refusal to do so until now reveals his true intentions and
proves he never had a mandate to negotiate, as well as how
obvious it is that he never intended to honour Quebec's request
to opt out with compensation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to
point out that the Government of Quebec was the one that broke
off negotiations 10 days ago. It even cancelled the schedule of
the two days of negotiations that were planned.
The hon. opposition member has just confirmed what we have been
saying here in the government since the start, which is that
their only desire was to have the right to withdraw with full
compensation. Quebec has no intention to negotiate. There was
no desire whatsoever to commit to anything that could have lead
to an arrangement between the two governments.
I believe the hon. member has just given absolutely clear proof
of this. He is saying the exact same thing, while the Prime
Minister had already stated that this was not open to
negotiation.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.
One of the challenges facing aboriginal people is access to
employment and training opportunities. Could the minister tell
the House what action is being taken to address the serious issue
of high unemployment among aboriginal people?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that
there are many exciting and promising initiatives being
undertaken by Human Resources Development Canada.
To begin with, HRDC is developing a five year aboriginal human
resources development strategy and is in the process of
establishing an aboriginal human resources development sector
council to improve aboriginal people's access to training and
employment in many different sectors of the Canadian economy.
This is an important part of the government's response to a key
recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
This strategy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
tourists are back on Parliament Hill. Of course I am referring
to the 15 Liberal backbenchers who returned from their junket to
Italy, otherwise known as the taking care of favours tour. Now
Canadians would like to ask a few questions about it.
Will the Prime Minister and the MPs have a slide show so that we
can all benefit collectively from their experience? Will they be
throwing their souvenirs from the gallery right after question
period? Did they serve Canadian ice wine from Pillitteri Estates
at all the official functions?
Most important, just how much did this taking care of favours
tour actually cost taxpayers, or are we even allowed to know?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians would like to know why the Reform Party does
not want Canada to strengthen trade relations with the seventh
biggest economy in the world.
1445
Canadians would like to know why the advantages of having 1.5
million fellow citizens of Italian origin should not be used to
promote that trade. It just shows how off base the Reform Party
is when it comes to recognizing the strengths of Canadian
diversity.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my,
my, my, are we not a bit sensitive about this trip?
I understand that among Liberal MPs there are a few hurt
feelings about this. People are upset. I understand that the
Liberal MPs who went said they were upset because they were left
in Rome while the actual business took place in Milan.
A Canadian diplomat said he was a little upset. He said a
junket is a junket. It is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Taxpayers are upset. They had to foot the bill for this.
Could the Prime Minister explain why he once criticized Brian
Mulroney so much for his travel, but now it is all right for him
to take his backbenchers on this taking-care-of-favours tour?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about being left behind. The
Reform Party, through his words, confirms it was left behind
years ago when it comes to recognizing the value of Canadian
diversity, especially the contribution of Italian Canadians, the
1.5 million who are represented in this House but not by his
party, and they never will be if he keeps talking like that.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence.
There are now widespread reports of sexual harassment and rape in
the armed services and the minister has called this poor
behaviour.
Can the minister indicate if there is a policy of zero tolerance
in the armed forces? If there is not, why not? If there is,
when will he appoint an independent inquiry to find out why this
policy has gone so wrong?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes there is zero tolerance. We have
zero tolerance for this kind of incident of sexual abuse. We do
not want those people who are the perpetrators of sexual abuse to
be a part of the Canadian forces.
We have, in fact, taken a number of measures to create better
training. We have a new program called the SHARP training
program on harassment prevention. We have harassment advisers.
We have the new national investigation service that operates
independently of the operational chain of command, and soon we
will appoint an ombudsman. We are taking every measure that is
necessary to put that policy into effect.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that his department has
no statistics on sexual harassment cases. As I said, he called
this behaviour poor performance. How does he expect the armed
forces to take anything like this seriously when all he does is
call it poor performance? Does he not know it is more than that,
that it is appalling performance?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also used words like disgusting. I
used words like unacceptable, in addition to all of those words.
We simply are not going to tolerate it. We are dealing with the
matter and will continue to deal with the matter.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
understood that the Minister of Health has had trouble with the
concept of compensation for all hepatitis C victims.
It is reported, and I stress the word reported, that the health
minister has frozen all new funding for breast cancer research
and AIDS treatment. He is saying that he is doing this pending
the outcome of the hepatitis C compensation package.
I want some clarification. Is this in fact the minister's
position? If it is not his position, what is his position?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
those reports are absolutely false. Health Canada continues to
do business as always. Last December 1, for example, we
announced the renewal of the AIDS strategy, phase three. We had
long planned to announce later this week particulars of the
allocation of that money.
Our work continues in preparing the breast cancer initiative.
Health Canada continues to serve the people of Canada properly by
putting programs in place for their health.
1450
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to hear that and I appreciate that coming from the minister.
The question today, and we have been pounding away on this for
weeks and weeks, concerns compensation for those hepatitis C
victims before and after the years 1986 to 1990.
I ask the minister, where are those negotiations leading? Has
the minister accepted the fact that all victims should be
compensated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada continues to believe that it is in the
interests of all of those who contracted hepatitis C through the
blood system that there be a national approach to this issue.
That is why we are taking part in and leading a working group
which is already under way, looking at options available to
governments to deal with the interests of all of those who got
hepatitis C through the blood system.
As soon as that work is concluded and governments have a
position I shall report it to the House.
* * *
SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
research and development is vital to a healthy and prosperous
economy.
Would the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development please tell the House what the government is doing to
foster world class scientific research in western Canada?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, science, research and development continue to be
priorities of the Western Economic Diversification.
There have been a number of important announcements, the most
recent in Winnipeg, Manitoba on Friday, where it was announced
that $2.1 million will be provided to fund a centre on expertise
for the aging. It will be at the forefront of research in this
area. It will address certain diseases such as Alzheimer and
certain cardiovascular problems associated with aging.
The best news of all is, not only will it be at the forefront in
the world, it will create 100 good jobs for western Canadians.
* * *
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how is
this for a job buying fiasco? In October last year human
resources development spent a cool $1 million of taxpayers' money
from the transitional jobs fund for BPS Imaging, a call centre in
Newfoundland. Now, a mere seven months later, BPS has closed its
doors and 124 people are out of work.
Why did the minister not secure the funds with BPS assets or put
the money into job training that actually works?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will look into the
particular case that the opposition member is raising.
However, what I can tell him is that on every project involving
the transitional jobs fund there is a lot of consultation with
the provincial governments. We look at every one of them in a
very serious fashion.
With $300 million the government has created thousands of very
good jobs in Newfoundland and in the rest of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
day after day, we hear stories of women in the Canadian armed
forces who were raped, sexually mistreated or sexually harassed.
The response of the Minister of National Defence is as follows,
and I quote “I have no statistical information that would
indicate that the problem is more serious in the armed forces
than in the rest of Canadian society”.
Are we to understand from this irresponsible statement that the
minister views rape, sexual mistreatment and sexual harassment
in the armed forces as acceptable, as long as they stay within
the national average?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I had no statistical
information which would indicate that it is any worse than in
Canadian society.
I would also say that it runs against the core values of
Canadians and of the vast majority of the men and women in our
Canadian forces.
What the hon. member does not seem to have heard is that I also
said that what I read in those articles with respect to that kind
of conduct, behaviour and attitude is disgusting. That kind of
behaviour is not going to be allowed in the Canadian forces. We
have taken action and will continue to take action.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I want to say that we welcome the important steps taken by the
minister to save B.C.'s endangered coho salmon last week.
Will the minister tell the House what new steps he is taking to
get a treaty that stops Alaskans from fishing our coho while B.C.
fishers stand by?
When will the minister respond to the important recommendations
of the Copes commission on fisheries renewal and saving our
threatened small boat fleet and coastal communities?
1455
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the question of the discussions with
the Government of Alaska and the Government of the United States
of America, last Thursday I requested that the Canadian
negotiator, Dr. Donald McRae, get in touch with his American
counterpart to pass on the information with respect to the coho
conservation plans of Canada.
On Friday I had a discussion with the governor of Alaska. We
agreed that we would resume the negotiations between the United
States and Canada this week, and I believe that will be on
Thursday in Juneau.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, for
weeks, not to say months, the opposition has been urging the
Minister of Health to compensate all hepatitis C victims.
The minister has even said that compensating all victims fairly
would lead to the collapse of Canada's health system.
How can he say such a thing when the exact number of hepatitis C
victims is not even known right now? What is he doing to find a
solution for these victims, when their numbers and the
associated compensation figures are not even known?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these
are the very questions now before the task force set up ten days
ago by the federal and provincial governments.
The task force has already begun its work. We expect results to
be available shortly. I advise the hon. member to wait for the
results of the task force's work, at which time its conclusions
can be examined.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
There has been a great deal of suffering felt by thousands in
Asia as a result of the recent economic crisis. This weekend
Canada hosted the Asia-Pacific finance ministers. Can the
minister tell us what action will be taken to address the human
and social impact of this crisis?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in situations of economic crisis such as occurred in
Indonesia and other Asian countries the IMF must move very
quickly in order to recreate confidence in capital markets.
The hon. member is very justified in pointing out that the real
cost is borne by individual populations, by women and by children
who are forced to drop out of school. As a result of that Canada
took a very strong position at the APEC meeting that the World
Bank must move in parallel with the IMF in order to directly
alleviate the suffering that is being felt.
I am glad to say that the president of the World Bank was there.
He also spoke to the same position. The vast majority of finance
ministers supported it. I take the hon. member's question as
support from this House for that position.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government has failed the people of B.C. during the last
five years by its inability to resolve the Pacific salmon
dispute. Unless the minister is ready to put some teeth into
this we will never get it resolved.
Is the minister prepared to take some actions against the U.S.
fishermen and prevent U.S. fishing vessels from crossing into
Canadian waters until this dispute is resolved?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has
been these last few months.
We will be resuming negotiations with the Americans. This
follows the offer of the Alaskan government to communicate,
co-operate and collaborate on the issue of coho preservation.
We have had discussions with the American federal government.
We expect that there will be negotiations taking place in Juneau
on Thursday of this week. In addition, the governor and I have
agreed that we will meet together sometime in the next two weeks.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
I would like to remind the minister that there are women who
have had to abandon their career in the Canadian armed forces,
and that others are afraid to enlist.
What action does the minister propose to take, aside from making
ridiculous and irresponsible statements, to bring an end to the
problem of harassment?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chief of defence staff has made it
quite clear that our policies are to be adhered to with respect
to a harassment-free atmosphere. That is going right down the
chain of command.
In addition, we have put in place harassment advisors. There is
the national investigative service that I mentioned before. As
well, good training programs have been put into effect over the
last couple of years.
1500
We will continue in this way to ensure that men and women can
work together in an harassment free atmosphere.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Ibrahim Ferradaz, Minister for
Foreign Investments and Economic Collaboration, Cuba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in today's question period I said that Italy had the
seventh biggest economy. Actually it has the fifth biggest
economy. Canada has the seventh. I appreciate the opportunity
to make this correction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I heard a member use what I believe to be
unparliamentary language.
I heard the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot call the Minister of
Human Resources Development a liar not once but twice. I ask
that he withdraw his insulting and unparliamentary comments.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I too heard the word “liar” during
question period, but I could not tell who had uttered it. The
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is saying it was the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
He is not in the House at the moment, therefore I shall wait for
his return. We can then discuss the matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in
Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
1505
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report
of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development on the subject of the enforcement of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act ant the pollution provisions of the
Fisheries Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to the report within
150 days.
* * *
[English]
BANK ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Bank Act (bank mergers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make it a
requirement, unless there is an insolvency where a bank is going
down, that before any merger can take place there must be a vote
in the House of Commons so every member of the House can have a
chance to vote on whether it is a good idea. This would not
leave the decision solely in the hands of the Minister of Finance
which is the status quo. It is a way of democratizing this place
and making our roles more meaningful on a very important issue
that will face the Canadian population in the fall.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(wearing of war decorations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private
member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the
wearing of military decorations of order for military services.
The bill provides that relatives of deceased veterans may wear,
without facing criminal sanctions on Remembrance Day, at a public
function or ceremony commemorating veterans, or in a circumstance
prescribed by cabinet, any order, decoration or medal listed in
the Canadian orders, decorations and medals directive of October
25, 1990.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition from members of my riding of Bruce—Grey, in particular
those around the Owen Sound area. They ask that parliament
define marriage in the Canadian statutes as a union between an
unmarried male and an unmarried female.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is
from Mr. Bud Boomer and June Boomer from my constituency. They
pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the
Marriage Act to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into by a single male and a single female.
JUSTICE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from Mr. Ted Turner who asks
parliament to enact legislation to repeal the Young Offenders Act
and at the same time to implement prevention programs such as a
head start program to address the root causes of crime.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the
House a petition from 83 concerned citizens from my riding of
Cambridge and surrounding areas. The petitioners draw the
attention of the House to their concern for all Canadians who
contracted hepatitis C from the federally regulated blood system
through no fault of their own.
1510
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada
show compassion and fairness by acting on the recommendations of
the Krever report calling for compensation to all those infected,
as was done for those who contracted AIDS.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table a petition from
the citizens of Guysborough county in eastern Nova Scotia
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition calls on parliament to revisit the issue of
enterprise allocation of shrimp quota in eastern Canada with
respect to a proposal made by Seafreez and ACS, respectively, of
Canso and Mulgrave. The petitioners are very concerned about
this allocation. They feel it is essential to the survival of
the community in question and is consistent with the efforts to
Canadianize the fisheries.
It gives me great pleasure to table this petition on their
behalf. Hundreds of citizens have signed this petition and call
on the government to give this urgent attention.
KOSOVO
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I present to this House a petition signed by 114 of my
constituents of Serbian descent petitioning this government to
take action in reaching a peaceful solution to the Kosovo crisis.
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today signed by a number of Canadians,
including from my riding of Mississauga South.
In the first the petitioners draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they execute their duties and
that employment benefits often do not provide sufficient
compensation to the families of those who are killed in the line
of duty.
The public mourns the loss of these police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty. Therefore the
petitioners call on parliament to establish a public safety
officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public
safety officers killed in the line of duty.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition deals with the family and the petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home
and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners also agree with the national forum on health
which reported that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool
children.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to eliminate tax
discrimination against families that choose to provide care in
the home to preschool children.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by a good number of petitioners from my
riding. These petitioners are condemning the unwarranted
increases in gasoline prices brought about by the pricing
policies of major oil companies operating in Canada.
The petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to adopt
legislation which would require gasoline companies to give 30
days written notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of an
impending significant increase in the price of gasoline and that
such a notice should also contain the reason or reasons for the
increase and when it will take effect.
MARRIAGE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present
this petition on behalf of my constituents from Wardsville,
Newbury and Bothwell area of my riding.
The petitioners call on parliament to support private member's
Bill C-225 which would define marriage as a union between a
single male and a single female.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I also have
the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. I
know that if I had asked the petitioners they would have
supported the previous petition regarding high gas prices, but
this is not about high gas prices.
This petition is concerned about the unfair tax system Canada
has. The petitioners point out a number of reasons why they
think certain working people are being punished and unfairly
treated by the tax system and they are calling for total tax
reform.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
second the petitioners are concerned about some of the changes in
the present legislation Bill C-36 in terms of tinkering with the
pension system. The petitioners believe it may reveal that the
government is planning a major overhaul of the pension system and
they are simply pointing out that a complete public information
process ought to be launched before any changes are contemplated.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the third
deals with the multilateral agreement on investment. The
petitioners point out that while it is set aside for the next six
months they continue to be opposed to it as they understand it.
They call on parliament not to sign the multilateral agreement on
investment ever.
1515
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from almost 100 people in the
Peterborough area who are concerned about the multilateral
agreement on investment.
They ask parliament to impose a moratorium on ratification of
the MAI until full public hearings are held across the country so
that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their
opinions.
I notice that the signatures include representatives of the
Peterborough Diocese, Development and Peace, the King/Rubidge
Community Kitchen, the Peterborough Presbytery, the United Church
of Canada, the Peterborough Coalition for Social Justice, the
Peterborough Ten Days for Global Justice and The Kiros Prayer
Group in Peterborough.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 38, 67 and 93.
.[Text]
Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to the procurement of new maritime helicopters for
the Department of National Defence, (a) how much will it cost
to procure replacement helicopters for both the shipborne Sea
King helicopters and the Labrador search and rescue helicopters;
(b) what is the total cost of maintaining the Labrador and Sea
king helicopters an extra six to ten years beyond the time they
were to have been replaced under the EH-101 contract; (c) what
was the total compensation paid to suppliers of the EH-101; and
(d) what was the cost to the department of National Defence to
operate the project management office for the procurement of the
EH-101 helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
(a) The total project budget for the Canadian search and rescue
helicopter, Labrador replacement, includes: a maximum of $593
million to E.H. Industries; plus approximately $200 million in
government costs for project management, training, spare parts,
integrated logistics support, and a small contingency allowance.
The estimated cost for the replacement of the Sea Kings will not
be known until the government approves a Sea King replacement
project. The final cost will be known when the government
announces its decision.
(b) The annual steady state cost of supporting the Labradors is
$36.4 M, current year 1997-98 dollars, and the cost of supporting
the Sea Kings is $79.4 M, current year 1997-98 dollars. These
costs include personnel, spares, modifications and engineering
but not infrastructure costs such as base facilities and
services. It should be noted that new helicopters will also
have an annual steady state support cost. The delivery delay
between the first delivery of a search and rescue SAR configured
helicopter from the cancelled new shipborne aircraft new search
and rescue helicopter project, and the first delivery of a
helicopter from the current Canadian SAR helicopter project is
approximately 12 months. The delay associated with the delivery
of the new maritime helicopter is unknown since the project has
not been approved.
(c) The total compensation paid to suppliers of the EH-101 is
detailed in the Public Works and Government Services Canada and
E.H. Industries Limited joint news released dated January 23,
1996 which follows.
(d) The cost to the Department of National Defence to operate
the project management office during the implementation phase for
the procurement of the EH-101 helicopters was $15.5M in 1993-94
dollars.
NEWS RELEASE
Public Works and
Government Services Canada and
E.H. Industries Ltd.
For immediate release
Date: January 23, 1996.
Settlement reached with E.H. Industries for EH-101 helicopter
program.
Ottawa—The Government of Canada and E.H. Industries Ltd., a
company jointly, owned by Westland Helicopters Ltd. and Agusta Spa, have
negotiated a settlement agreement for E.H. Industries' claim
arising from the cancellation of the $5.8 billion EH-101
helicopter program.
The details of the agreement, reached in October 1995, were
announced jointly today by the Honourable David Dingwall, Minister
of Public Works and Government Services and Enrico Striano,
Managing Director, E.H. Industries Ltd.
“Negotiating this settlement has been a long process and I am
pleased that the Crown and E.H. Industries have reached this
mutually satisfactory agreement,” the Minister said. “It is
fair to say that the Government of Canada has closed the books on
the EH-101 helicopter program.”
The announcement of this agreement was delayed pending the
conclusion of negotiations between E.H. Industries and its
subcontractors.
Following a promise outlined in the Government's Red Book, the
contract with E.H. Industries for the supply of helicopters,
valued at $1.45 billion (1992 dollars) was terminated in November
1993.
The settlement agreement with E.H. Industries totals $157.8
million. This includes $136.6 million for the cost of work
completed prior to termination and work in progress at the time
of termination, and $21.2 million for termination costs.
The total termination costs include a $68 million settlement
reached earlier with Loral, the project's other prime contractor
and the $21.2 million settlement with E.H. Industries.
The Government allocated $250 million in 1994-95 Main Estimates
for termination costs of which only $89.2 million has been
required.
To ensure that the approach to settlement was undertaken in a
fair and reasonable manner and to provide an independent and
commercial perspective on various issues, the Crown enlisted the
services of an independent consulting firm, Lindquist, Avey,
Macdonald, Baskerville Inc.
Funding for this consulting contract was provided in the
February 1995 federal budget and is therefore built into the
existing fiscal framework.
Mr. Striano, expressing satisfaction with the final settlement
stated, “Although we regret the loss of this contract, I am
pleased we have been able to close the matter with the Crown to
our mutual satisfaction and now look forward to future
opportunities for our products in Canada.”
Information:
Franca Gatto
Communications
Public Works and
Government Services Canada
(819) 997-5421
Andy Moorhead
Deputy Managing Director
E.H. Industries
011 44 125 238 6404
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release
Date: January 23, 1996
Erratum:
The english version of the news release issued by PWGSC this
morning concerning the settlement with E.H. Industries did not
include a paragraph that was included in the French version.
“The total termination costs include a $68 million settlement
reached earlier with Loral, the project's other prime contractor,
and the $21.2 million settlement with E.H. Industries.”
The following information provides further clarification:
EH-101 total project costs
Work related on the project that included project definition,
research and development and project implementation:
$154.6 million
Costs of work completed prior to termination and work in
progress at the time of termination. These monies were paid out
prior to termination of the contract in November 1993:
E.H. Idustries—$136.6 million
Loral—$98.4 million
Cost of contract termination:
E.H. Industries—$21.2 million (announced today)
Loral—$67.5 million (announced March 31, 1996)
Total—$478.3 million
PWGSC regrets the inconvenience and any confusion this may have
caused. The English and French releases will be re-issued.
Mr. John Duncan:
Since the 1985 Pacific salmon treaty was signed what have been
the Canadian and American catches of salmon on the Taku and
Stikine Rivers and specifically (a) the total catch by year;
(b) the catch for each country by year; and (c) the catch by
salmon species by year?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Canadian and American catches of salmon on the Taku and the
Stikine Rivers in individual units are outlined in the tables
attached.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Can the Minister of Finance specify for each year starting in
1990: (a) how may requests for surplus refunds has the OSFI,
Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions, received
from sponsors of terminated workplace pension plans in the
federal jurisdiction; (b) what was the total amount requested;
(c) how many requests did the OSFI approve each year; and (d)
how much money was involved?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): According to the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The questions as listed by the parliamentary
secretary have been answered. Are the remaining questions
allowed to stand?
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, again reluctantly I rise of a point of order.
Question No. 21 is absolutely languishing on the order paper.
Months and months have gone by. The clock continues to tick.
The question remains outstanding. When might we expect the
answer?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I point out that as of
today we have replied to almost 70% of the almost 1,000 petitions
presented.
With regard to the question the member is referring to—and I
know he has particularly Question No. 21 in mind—we are in the
range of a 75% response rate, which I do not think is bad.
I assure the member we have been working specifically on
Question No. 21 during the constituency break. I assure him that
I will be tabling the reply very soon.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions then
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 24, 1998, as reported (with amendment) by the
committee, and of Group No. 1.
The Deputy Speaker: Because of the interruption for Oral
Question Period, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau has six
minutes left to speak.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
January 1994 throne speech, the federal government, which was
faced with an unprecedented deficit, committed to clarifying the
role of the federal government with respect to the other levels
of government in order to eliminate duplication and overlap.
Why not make better use of proven education structures within
the provinces rather than creating more? As Minister Landry told
Le Devoir last February 25, Quebec “will again be
penalized... by endless discussions and mechanisms of all
kinds....
This is not the way a system that respects the various levels of
government operates”.
Has the government forgotten that, in the February 1996 throne
speech, in response to the referendum, it made the promise to no
longer make use of the federal government's spending power to
create programs in areas under provincial jurisdiction?
Does the federal government not acknowledge all of Quebec's
accomplishments in education over the past 30 years?
Quebec is a leader in the area of education in Canada. To the
people of Quebec, education represents a vital tool for
cultural, economic and social development. What is more,
education is the cornerstone of any society.
Thanks to its lack of political logic, and the creation of the
millennium fund, the federal government has managed to create
consensus in Quebec. All those consulted, who are involved in
the education field, are opposed to Bill C-36.
1520
The federal government will have once again shown its complete
ignorance of the Quebec reality. It is not the first time a
consensus is achieved in Quebec against any federal interference
in education.
We will recall that, in May 1991, in a motion passed in the
National Assembly, Liberal and PQ members unanimously condemned
the federal government's unacceptable urge to interfere further
in education.
The Prime Minister of Canada is doing his best to and will go
down in history as the first government leader to so bluntly and
obviously interfere in the provincial jurisdiction that is
education.
However, the Government of Quebec has made itself quite clear:
any additional funding for education must be directed to the
Government of Quebec, which will redistribute it according to
its own priorities. Any other form of funding will be considered
as interference.
The Prime Minister will be known as the founding father of the
millennium scholarships: a fine waste of public funds and a
rather unoriginal way for the current government to send
students in Quebec cheques with the Canadian maple leaf on them.
There is no logical and rational reason to create yet another
scholarship system in Canada. Instead, the government should
improve the system already in place in Quebec. It seems obvious
to us that Ottawa's only motivation for establishing the
millennium scholarships is to raise its profile.
In fact, the purpose of these scholarships is visibility at the
expense of efficiency.
The Prime Minister has said so himself. These scholarships run
counter to Quebec's practice of entitling all students desiring
to further their studies to financial assistance.
According to their criteria, the millennium scholarships will
help only about a third of low and middle income students. In
addition, they are only a medium term solution, as they will
become available only in the year 2000. It will therefore be of
absolutely no assistance to those currently completing their
studies with a significant debt.
It is unacceptable that the millennium scholarships will be
given out not only according to need but also on the basis of
merit. Linking the subsistence of disadvantaged students to
their academic performance is unconscionable.
The scholarships fall short of the expectations of student
associations because assistance is not based solely on need.
Even if the millennium fund focused its assistance on the most
needy students, the Government of Quebec also administers merit
scholarships. Regardless of the name given these scholarships,
Quebec will no doubt most effectively manage the new money.
Allow me to quote Premier Bouchard in a letter to his Canadian
counterpart: “Quebec will not be told what approach to take with
respect to financial aid to students, an area that is under its
jurisdiction”.
In conclusion, the millennium scholarship has given rise to a
veritable outcry of protest, not only from sovereignists, as the
Prime Minister of Canada had hoped, but also from all those with
any sort of interest in Quebec's education system.
With one voice all those involved in education in Quebec have
told the federal government that while C-36 is good for Canada
it is not good for Quebec.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place between all parties and I believe you would find consent
for the following order:
That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the conclusion of
government orders take place in the following order:
all necessary questions to dispose of report stage of C-36.
the motion for third reading of C-19.
M-75.
the motion for second reading of C-247.
and all questions to dispose of M-261.
1525
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent that the deputy government whip may propose this motion
to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I did not really grasp the
procedure and what the hon. member proposed. We are debating
Bill C-36. Could it be repeated, please.
The Deputy Speaker: I will repeat the motions moved by the hon.
member: “That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the
conclusion of government orders take place in the following
order: all necessary questions to dispose of report stage of
Bill C-36; the motion for third reading of Bill C-19; Motion M-75;
the motion for second reading of Bill C-247; and all questions
necessary to dispose of Motion M-261.”
Is it clear to the hon. member?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 24, 1998, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee; and of Group No. 1.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every Canadian needs and deserves an equal chance to
live up to his or her full potential. I am in favour of the
legislation establishing the millennium scholarship foundation
because it will help Canadians reach their goals. In so doing it
will also play a part in helping our country live up to its full
potential.
No nation can rely solely on its resources in the ground for
economic growth. In today's global economy and in the growing
knowledge economy of the future the key to economic success is
the development of our human resources.
Quite simply we need to have a highly skilled, highly adaptable
and highly motivated workforce if we are to continue to prosper
into the next century and beyond. The new reality for every
Canadian is that getting and keeping a job in the growing
knowledge economy demands ever higher levels of learning.
As we all know the result is that not everyone has the financial
means to take advantage of the learning opportunities that are
out there. It is certainly true that the Canada student loans
program and provincial student programs have helped millions of
young people over the years including myself. Indeed without
these essential supports many thousands of low and middle income
young people would not have been able to participate at all.
Even so, today far too many people are facing enormous student
debt burden upon graduation. Too many others are simply not
going on to post-secondary institutions because the costs are
just too high. We all recognize that the problem has become
progressively worse and that there is a need to act.
Last November a national all stakeholders working session on
Canada student loans brought students, teachers, administrators,
federal and provincial governments, lenders, colleges and
universities together to reach consensus on student assistance
reform.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities undertook an extensive study
of the issue. It consulted Canadians across the country and the
report it tabled last December made 16 specific recommendations
for change. At its meeting last December the Prime Minister and
the premiers made a commitment to work together to reduce student
debt.
As hon. members know, in response to these recommendations and
discussions the Minister of Finance outlined the Canadian
opportunities strategy in the budget of last February, a strategy
that directly reflects the sentiments and the directions offered
by many Canadians.
1530
It is a seven-part strategy that puts the following measures
into place: to help graduates manage growing debt; to give
Canadians access to the financing required to upgrade their
skills throughout their careers; to help families pay for their
children's education; to help graduate and post-graduate students
continue to develop their skills and carry out research that
benefits the whole country; to help young people make the
transition from school to work; to help connect Canadians to the
information age technology; and to greatly improve access to
learning by helping students in financial need cope with the
increasing cost of education.
In the time remaining I would like to concentrate my remarks on
the last point, in particular the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation. The endowment that the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation will manage is the largest single investment ever made
by the federal government in support of access to post-secondary
education for all Canadians.
I agree with what the Prime Minister said in the House when he
announced this initiative last fall. There can be no greater
millennium project for Canada and no better role for government
than to help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based
society of the next century.
The 10 year endowment of $2.5 billion will provide over 100,000
scholarships to low and middle income students every year for the
next decade. The scholarships will be available to young and
old, to full time and part time students. Students in
universities as well as students in community colleges,
technology institutes and other post-secondary education systems
will all be eligible. That is over one million new scholarships.
We believe that a million new scholarships devoted to equalizing
access to learning is a fitting way to commemorate the next
millennium, a millennium in which all societies will look more
and more to the knowledge, skills and creative intelligence of
their people for growth and prosperity. Contrary to the
assertions of some people, the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation does not intrude into a provincial area of
jurisdiction. Quite the opposite. It will help more people
benefit from the educational opportunities provided by provincial
governments.
Hon. members can understand our deep disappointment when the
Government of Quebec chose to break off the discussions on the
Canada millennium scholarships. Our government demonstrated much
flexibility during negotiations with the Government of Quebec to
ensure the alignment of a new foundation with the Quebec system.
There is nothing new in our desire to help people help
themselves. Since Confederation the federal government has
helped people improve their education. Following the second
world war for example, thousands of returning soldiers benefited
from grants to help them upgrade their skills and rejoin the
peacetime economy.
Today, in addition to the Canada student loans, several billion
dollars each year are transferred to the provincial governments
in Canada health and social transfers to help fund post-secondary
education, social assistance and health care.
We believe as do most Canadians that all governments have a role
to play in providing everyone with an opportunity to improve
themselves, an opportunity for a better life for themselves and
for their families.
If the Government of Quebec would accept the principle of the
millennium scholarships for what it really is, namely an ad hoc
and unique contribution to help young people access opportunities
in the new economy, it would be proud to be associated with this
initiative.
The Quebec government can rest assured that the foundation will
be able to build on the existing needs assessment processes and
complement provincial efforts to provide accessible, affordable
post-secondary education to all its citizens.
The foundation will have nothing at all to do with determining
curricula, setting tuition levels or managing educational
institutions. Those are questions for the provincial governments
and the institutions themselves. That has been clear from the
very beginning.
As the Prime Minister has said in the House, we are satisfied
that this bill gives us the needed flexibility to resolve the
situation in a reasonable manner.
An independent foundation will manage the fund. It will not be
run by government but by private citizens. Among other things,
this fund will also facilitate a greater degree of student
mobility, allowing students the opportunity to complete all or
part of their studies in different parts of Canada.
1535
With it we are marking a unique event in the history of our
country, a passage into the new millennium. At the same time we
are also improving the prospects of all Canadian students by
giving them a better chance at starting the next millennium with
the skills and knowledge they will need to become full and
contributing members of this economy.
Again, I believe that every Canadian deserves the chance to live
up to his or her full potential. I believe that this legislation
will help them do just that. I sincerely hope that all hon.
members of the House will give it their enthusiastic support.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to take part in the debate
on the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-36, the budget
implementation act.
I am sure Canadians will be pleased to know that once again we
are being pushed to limit the debate on this important topic by
the time allocation motion that the government has introduced to
the House. Many speakers who were planning to take part in this
debate will now be prevented from doing so.
I was happy to speak on this bill at second reading. At that
time the millennium scholarship foundation was one of the hottest
issues of the budget. It has now been three months since the
federal government announced its budget and the $2 billion legacy
to our current Prime Minister, also known as the millennium
scholarship fund, is still a hotly debated issue particularly in
the provinces.
From day one the government was criticized for entering into an
area of provincial jurisdiction, especially by the province of
Quebec. The government was strongly criticized not only by
members of the official opposition but by parliament's watchdog,
the auditor general, whose job is to keep an eye on the
government's questionable accounting methods.
I would like to spend some time on this issue because this is an
important issue which needs to have some emphasis. As a member
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I am well aware of
the work of the auditor general. As I have stated on several
occasions not only in committee but here in this place as well, I
hold the Office of the Auditor General in the highest esteem for
the integrity, perseverance and determination to see that value
is received from every dollar that the government spends. It is
largely because of the work of the Office of the Auditor General
that the government has worked toward cleaning up its act in the
spending of the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. I am sorry
to say there is still a long way to go in this.
This government has shown Canadians all too frequently that if
given the opportunity it loves to tax Canadians to the very hilt
while providing them with useless programs having little if any
tangible benefit. As I speak on this issue I am reminded of the
distribution of $15 million to $20 million worth of flags. I
would like to know what tangible benefit that had to the economic
well-being of Canadians. Some of these programs do not provide
Canadians with good value for their money, something on which as
a member of the public accounts committee, as a member of
parliament and perhaps most of all, as a Canadian taxpayer I work
to hold the government accountable.
The auditor general has criticized the finance minister for his
accounting practices in previous budgets and has gone so far as
to offer a qualified opinion on last year's budget. It is
obvious by this qualified opinion that the government is not
producing a transparent picture of the nation's finances. The
year before, the auditor general also questioned the manner in
which the government crafted its budget.
Canadians need to know and have a right to know and have a clear
picture of the financial situation of this government, how it
intends to spend the money and not have those numbers fudged by
moving figures from one year to another.
1540
The finance minister has responded by saying that the government
has to evolve and change as events change. However as the
auditor general has reminded the government time and again, the
finance minister does not have the liberty to make the rules up
as he goes along for his own political purposes. The federal
government blatantly ignored standard budget guidelines and tried
to brush off legitimate criticism by changing the rules for its
own political purposes.
We have heard the same line of reasoning in the hepatitis C
debate that this government is doing what is best and right. We
all know how the general Canadian public feels about the
government's idea of what is best and right in the hepatitis C
debate. Here also in the budget what is best and right falls far
short of the standards set up in the general rules of accounting.
Group No. 1 deals largely with the millennium scholarship fund.
I am happy to support many of the amendments in this group. I
would like to spend some of my time talking about the amendments
proposed.
The motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois delete all the
clauses which establish the millennium scholarship foundation. As
I mentioned earlier, those in Quebec have made it perfectly clear
to the federal government that they do not want the federal
government intruding in matters of provincial jurisdiction. The
Quebec government is also worried that this will detrimentally
affect its system of grants and loans. I can sympathize with
Quebec's complaint.
I can also assure the government that there is a growing chorus
of dissatisfaction from British Columbians. This growing chorus
must not be ignored.
Every province has experienced similar problems. As the
government has waged its war on the deficit, it did not cut out
inefficiencies in many government departments and eliminate
needless grants and programs; rather it cut transfer payments to
the provinces. Now that the federal government is continuing to
meddle in provincial affairs instead of restoring transfers,
after the millennium fund is spent many students will not benefit
from it. The provinces however will still be responsible for all
these students, even though they lack the money that should be
theirs to fulfil this responsibility.
Cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces over the past few
years were brutal and swift. That was money the provinces needed
and counted on to ensure that their people would receive adequate
programming in areas such as health and education. We have
clearly seen the effects of the federal government's approach to
balancing the books in the province of British Columbia.
Services have been dramatically reduced due to the reduction of
these federal payments.
Motion No. 67 speaks specifically to the provinces being able to
opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and to enter into an
agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that
would have been spent in a particular province allowing the
province to use these funds for their own purposes. This would
help the provinces make up for some of the lost funds from the
cuts to these transfer payments.
Before my time is finished, I would like to touch on several
other motions which touch on the accountability issues
surrounding this initiative.
Motion No. 66 from the fifth political party, the Progressive
Conservatives, would make the millennium scholarship foundation
subject to the Access to Information Act. This would be a great
idea.
Canadians demand that the government provide them with value for
their money. Having federal departments and programs subject to
Canadians having access to information explaining how each
department spends its tax dollars in essence makes it more
accountable to the public.
I would like to comment on several of the amendments put forth
by the Progressive Conservative Party which deal with the
appointment of an auditor for the foundation. Motion No. 56 would
have the auditor general be that auditor of the foundation,
something which I wholeheartedly support.
1545
As I mentioned earlier, the office of the auditor general has
done a splendid job in evaluating how various departments and
programs operate and, in cases where value for money is not
achieved, the office of the auditor general can present that
program or department with several options on how to improve its
operations. That evaluation would surely benefit the operation
and spending of the millennium scholarship foundation.
Government Motions Nos. 55, 57 and 58 are a different story.
They give all the power of appointing and terminating the auditor
of the foundation to the government. Motion No. 55 allows the
government to appoint the auditor of the foundation.
The difficulties we have with Bill C-36 are headlined in the
last Hill Times. The headline reads “The decline of the
Canadian Parliament and the escalating deterioration of public
information and debate in Canada's Parliament”. This is a
serious issue that cuts through this debate and the bill that is
presented here.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have spoken on
Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.
Today, we are primarily dealing with the motions relating to the
millennium scholarships. More than 40 of these motions were
tabled by the hon. member for Québec and their overall objective
is to eliminate the millennium scholarship foundation from Bill
C-36.
In so doing, the Bloc Quebecois is echoing the consensus reached
among all the Quebec stakeholders who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Finance and who unanimously condemned
these scholarships and asked for withdrawal with full
compensation.
It is rather difficult to understand the policies of this
government. After adopting a resolution recognizing the distinct
character of Quebec society, the Chrétien government is now
trying to get involved in education, which is a vital component
in the development of a people.
As for us in the Bloc Quebecois, we know that the flexibility of
Canadian federalism is nothing but a myth and that what the
government gives with one hand, it takes back with the other
hand.
The millennium scholarships show the true face of federalism as
a centralizing, if not levelling, force.
The Chrétien government really does not understand anything
about Quebeckers' aspirations.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows she
must refer to members by using their titles, not their names. I
hope she will comply with the standing orders in this regard.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Liberal members from Quebec either do
not have the Prime Minister's attention or are insensitive to
their constituents' needs.
Need I remind my colleagues opposite that all the witnesses from
Quebec who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance
were in favour of a withdrawal with full compensation?
Some 14 groups and individuals from the education community came
to express their disagreement with the Prime Minister's idea.
To put in perspective the outcry caused by this Liberal
initiative, it is interesting to note that 41% of the witnesses
who appeared before the standing parliamentary committee to
express their views on the millennium scholarships were from
Quebec.
1550
And yet, the federal government continues to turn a deaf ear and
is not proposing any amendments to Bill C-36. The comments made
by those witnesses from Quebec were very clear to those who
understand French, one of the two official languages of this
great country that is Canada.
For example, the Coalition des ex-leaders étudiants québécois
eloquently said that with its millennium scholarships, the
federal government is proving its ignorance and its incompetence
in the area of education.
As for the president of the Fédération des cégeps, he said just
as eloquently that Bill C-36 does not take into account what
Quebec has accomplished over the last 30 years in the area of
financial assistance to students.
One has to wonder if the government that concocted these
infamous scholarships lives on the same planet as we do. How
many times, since Quebec joined the federation, have Quebeckers
of all parties condemned duplication and overlap between federal
and provincial programs? Today, with the millennium
scholarships, the federal government is trying once again to
invade Quebec's education system by competing directly with the
province's loans and scholarships program. Has the federal
government even looked at the needs of Quebeckers in this area?
Certainly not.
After making drastic cuts in transfers to the provinces and
threatening the balance in Quebec's education system, the
federal government comes up with a wall to wall solution that
simply does not suit Quebec.
In 1997 the task force on funding for Quebec universities
concluded that previous cuts were the main reason for the
increase in the number of students per classroom and in
lecturers' workload and for the decrease in the number of
teaching assistants. These choices led to a decrease in the
overall supervision of students, which is directly related to
the quality of education.
The opinion of Mrs. Boileau, of the Fédération nationale des
enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec, a member of the CSN,
is totally in sync with the suggestion of the Bloc Quebecois to
opt out of part I of Bill C-36. She said that the only way out is
for the federal government to give back to the provinces what it
has cut from the transfers, not to hand out millennium
scholarships.
As several people said before, Quebec has proven its ability in
the loans and scholarships area. The way it manages its program
is quite innovative.
More needs to be done in order to ensure equal access to
university studies for young Quebeckers. However, the
implementation of a parallel system will not help to improve the
system we now have in Quebec, especially since eligibility for
the millennium scholarships will be based on an elitist
approach.
By contrast, Quebec's loans and scholarships program focuses on
the needs of students, to promote greater accessibility and
equal opportunities.
We need to enhance our current system, not create more
duplication that would only further distort the Quebec loans and
scholarships program. I therefore urge my colleagues in this
House to listen to the 1.2 million Quebecers who, through their
associations, expressed their views on the millennium
scholarships to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Just like them, and on their behalf, we ask members for nothing
less than the right to opt out with full financial compensation,
so that we can spend the money according to the needs and
realities of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to discuss this bill which will
actually implement some of the items that were announced in the
budget.
1555
I listened to members opposite earlier today, in particular
those of the Reform Party, as they ranted about the fact that the
government passed time allocation to get some of these items
through. Yet time allocation has been used three months almost
to the day after the budget was introduced. The budget was
brought down by our finance minister on February 24. Here we are
on May 25 dealing with this bill that will implement the policies
that were announced.
Members opposite shake their heads as if they do not understand.
Why do they think we have to bring in time allocation? This bill
is part of the government's policy and program. If they had
their way they would simply delay and obstruct. They would
simply be negative. I do not hear anything positive coming from
over there.
I do not understand what members opposite have against a
scholarship fund being established to help students go to school.
Explain that to me. What do they have against students and
higher education? What do they have against allowing all
Canadians to have continuing education?
The NDP members chirping from left wing would wipe out all
tuition. They would say that everything is free, that life is
just a bowl of cherries. They have their heads in the clouds.
They have no idea of the fiscal realities.
This bill shows that for the first time in over 40 years we have
a government that is fiscally responsible. We have a government
that has balanced the books in spite of the ranting from the
left. We have a government that has eliminated the deficit and
has finally put this country on the route to financial
prosperity.
One of the things that will help to build a prosperous Canada is
access to education. Yet I hear members talk against greater
access to education.
I know about opposition politics. I spent five years opposing
an NDP government in Ontario. I understand that it is
fundamentally the opposition's job to be negative. It is
difficult to get up every morning, to look in the mirror and to
ask “How can I be negative today?” But they do it. It is
their job. Although I did hear the member for Burnaby—Douglas
congratulate our fisheries minister in question period today for
his latest decision on coho salmon. It took a lot of courage for
him to do that and I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas
for his courage to stand and make a positive statement. In the
one year I have been in this place that is the first time I have
heard an opposition member make a positive, constructive
statement about something.
They cannot tell me that every bill and policy that this
government or any government proposes is without merit. It is
simply not possible.
An hon. member: The millennium fund.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: They go on about the millennium fund.
Should it come as a surprise? Let us take a look at our
electoral system.
The Canadian electorate sent a majority government here. They
said “Fundamentally we like what you stand for. We like the
proposals on how the budget will be balanced and on how the
surplus will be dealt with. We think it makes sense”. They
sent us here. So we introduced a budget. We introduced a
historic millennium scholarship fund of $2.5 billion to help
young people. On average it will mean $3,000 per year per
student. It will not only be based on merit, it will be based on
need.
We recognized that these young people needed help so we
introduced measures to help with debt repayment which are
unprecedented. There will be tax relief for interest on all
student loans.
Why would you be opposed to that? It is unbelievable. It is
unthinkable. It is outrageous. Phone your constituents. Members
of the Reform Party always say they are to vote this way unless
their constituents call and tell them to vote a different way.
Phone them on this one. I think you will find by and large, they
will support it. Check with them. Maybe just maybe, you might
change your position.
1600
Interest relief extended to more graduates. We are not talking
about holus-bolus elimination of all tuition as the NDP in its
somewhat myopic and naive view of the world would do. “Just
wipe out the cost. Taxpayers will take care of everything. There
is nothing to worry about. It is okay”. In the world of
socialism, they are totally out to lunch on that.
Then on the other extreme, an extended repayment period for
those who need it. Imagine that the Reform Party is against that.
Of course the Reform Party's solution and the right wing
solution to all of this is simply to reduce taxes. They have no
concern whatsoever for those young people who are struggling
through school whose last concern is how much they are paying in
taxes. Their concern is how they can afford their post-secondary
education.
We believe very strongly that the millennium scholarship fund
will not solve all the problems but it will sure go a long way
toward helping people have better access, more affordable access
to post-secondary education.
There are lots of examples in the world. The Republic of
Ireland is one of the most dynamic successful economies in Europe
with much of it coming I would admit from EU financing. Why are
people interested in investing in the Republic of Ireland? It is
not only because of the historic peace agreement but they have
been doing it for years in the Republic of Ireland because of the
quality of the training and the education of the young people in
that country. It actually is a model we should look at.
It is interesting to hear members from the Bloc stand up and say
that we are interfering in provincial jurisdiction. They are the
same people who stand up and whine and complain because the
government will not give them more money, will not give them more
authority, will not give them more autonomy, will not allow them
to separate and destroy this country. They got that right. We
are not going to let them do that.
What this plan does is it allows for co-operation with the
provincial governments. It allows for co-operation. It actually
allows for money from the $2.5 billion to be invested and to grow
and the interest to be used. It allows for endowments to come
from the private sector and that can increase the amount of money
available. There would be a lot of interest in that.
I think of the agreements the University of Waterloo has entered
into in the Kitchener—Waterloo community. Members opposite
should look at how the university community works well with the
private sector. Why? Because it has an interest. It wants to
turn out good quality graduates.
Members opposite really should take a serious look at the future
and the need to help our young people increase their education.
An hon. member: We are doing it.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: You are doing it because you want to
give it away in the NDP. They want to jack up the prices, cut
the taxes, help the wealthy. That is all they want. They are
absolutely off base.
This is balanced. This is good government policy. It is
receiptable and it is going to help build a great dynamic country
for your children and mine.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank you for rescuing the member opposite who, near as I can
tell, did not take a breath for almost 10 minutes. It was an
impressive sight. It is like the old saying when a preacher
dropped his notes and someone said when you are unsure of what
you are saying, just speak louder and maybe someone will believe
it.
I think the hon. member opposite was probably a case in point.
Lots of volume, lots of rhetoric, no facts and I am not sure he
is even convinced of his position.
1605
On the budget implementation act it is a shame we cannot
question one another during this period. It would be so much fun
to debate with a member who relies so much on rhetoric and so
little on facts.
For example, why has the bill taken so long to come to the House
of Commons? And why now is there time allocation? Every single
bill that is brought into the House is brought in by the
government as it sees fit. If it does not want to bring the bill
in until June, then it will run shy of time before the summer
holidays. It has had three months in which to run the bill,
every day since the budget announcement if it had wanted to.
This bill and the budget have been botched in several ways right
from the word go. On the grouping we are talking about on the
millennium fund the minister appointed the person in charge of
the millennium fund before the legislation was passed in the
House of Commons.
Imagine something this big. As the member opposite has said,
this thing is practically as big as sliced bread. It is almost
as miraculous as getting the milk inside the Caramilk bar. It is
so huge it is practically a memorial fund for the Prime Minister
in years to come. It is such a big thing you would think the
legislation would come before the House to be debated. Once it
was debated the minister would move ahead and enact the
legislation as it was passed. But no, the Minister of Finance
chose to appoint the person in charge of the millennium fund
before parliament had a look at it.
Reform raised that in the House. We have this funny little
quirk on this side of the House. We think that perhaps democracy
in parliament should have a say in things, not just ministerial
departments. The member set an alarming trend on behalf of the
government and an alarming tendency to ignore parliament to
legislatively put the cart before the horse. That was the first
mistake on this.
The second mistake is in the budget itself in its entirety. The
focus of the budget was that the government could probably
continue to tax Canadians at this rate. Canadians are long
suffering and fairly patient. They are not prone to dementia.
Perhaps the government could continue to tax Canadians at a rate
that would make most sane people cringe and business people cry
and they will just put up with it.
That is exactly what happened. The budget continued the time
honoured tradition of Liberal parliamentarians that the only good
taxpayer is a well taxed taxpayer. With this bill we continue to
have the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.
Today during question period there was a little bit of a
kerfuffle and a point of order to straighten out the facts by the
Deputy Prime Minister who was trying to decide whether Italy was
the fifth biggest economy in the world and Canada was seventh, or
was it the other way around. What he did not get into regardless
of which way it was, and of course Canada is the seventh, is that
we have the distinction of being number one when it comes to
personal tax levels in the G-7. We get taxed higher than anybody
else, including Italy and the Americans. That side of the House
just cannot seem to understand that it affects people's business
decisions.
I just heard talk a minute ago about Ireland and some other
bright spots in the world for investment. Business people look
at the education levels. They look at the political stability.
They look at lots of things. One of the factors they also look
at is the tax rate in the economy they are going to build their
business in.
You only have to come out to British Columbia. Even within a
small jurisdiction like Canada we can see with a high tax rate
like that in British Columbia, which is a provincial problem,
that the people in British Columbia are voting with their feet
and are moving to Alberta to start up new businesses there. I
can tell a litany of sad business stories of people from my
riding, including people in the farming community who have given
up on the high taxes in British Columbia and have moved to
Alberta where there are the lowest taxes overall in Canada.
There is no PST and Alberta has the lowest income taxes.
1610
Taxes were botched right from the start. The attitude was that
there was no tax relief needed for Canadians because after all,
they can take it. They have not revolted. There is no rioting
in the streets, so let them get by on what they are getting by on
and we will just continue to spend the money.
It has long been my belief and the belief of the Reform Party
that what taxation means at the federal level is the government
takes our money, deducts 50% for handling and then gives it back
to us in services we never asked for and it generally goes to the
people who did not deserve it or want it to begin with. But the
government makes sure that everyone is taxed. It is almost
biblical in nature in that all must go to be taxed. It has been
going on for a long time. The Liberal government has perfected
it. The Liberals never met a taxpayer they did not like. They
make sure that taxpayers are well fleeced so that they feel as
lucky as any other Canadian I guess because they are treated
equally that way.
That is unfortunate because dollars left in the hands of people
in the community, in the hands of homemakers, in the hands of
business people and students now and in the future are dollars
that are more likely to be well spent than when the government
gets its sticky little fingers on it.
In a previous speech about the tax system in Canada I mentioned
the long chain of books that the tax collector, the hon. Minister
of Finance has lying out behind him, the long catalogue of
thousands of pages of tax laws, income tax increments and the
broken promises of Christmas past, present and future. It kind
of streams out behind him like a dead weight on the economy and
forever must be pulled around like a chain while saying “Woe is
me and woe is you because this thing is going to drag us down”.
Imagine if some of the tax burden was relieved from people.
Imagine if some of that weight was taken off their shoulders.
Imagine as we discuss this millennium fund if students had the
prospect that as they earned money they would be able to keep
more of it.
Canadians do not have to make a lot of money to start paying a
lot of taxes in this country. I met with someone on Sunday who
goes to the same church as I do. This fellow is in his
mid-fifties, has been on and off social assistance and has held
down a steady job for the last couple of years. He is working at
a machine shop doing clean up and basic chores around the place.
He makes $17,000 a year which is his total income. He said
“What is it about our tax system that I have to send $3,000 a
year to Ottawa? What gives in a system that taxes me, a $17,000
a year guy, and asks me to send money to Ottawa so they can take
it, deduct 50% for handling and give it out to other people who
get the services and are just a selected few?” I did not have an
answer for him.
We could point out the following. On the millennium fund, who
does not want to see our children educated? My goodness sake, I
have four of them at college age. I would love to see them all
educated with somebody else's tax dollars.
Why is it this millennium fund is going to affect 7 out of 100
students? And this is going to turn the world on its ear. A
student who happens to be one of the seven blessed, a student who
happens to be chosen will be a happy camper. But for the other 93
students, what are their prospects? Their prospects are to
continue to pay GST, continue to pay income tax, continue to pay
road taxes, tariffs, fees, customs duties, hidden user fees.
Those students will continue to pay all of that and the
government will take their money and give it to the 7 out of the
100 who will receive a benefit. The other 93 will pay and the 7
will receive a benefit.
I do not think that is the way it should be. There would be a
lot more students with a lot more smiles on their faces, 93 at
least, saying “Thank you, Mr. Minister, for reducing my taxes.
Thank you for reducing my debt load. Thank you for giving me some
prospect for hope for the future”.
1615
I think that is the way we could get general support for any
kind of millennium fund or scholarship fund because that would
benefit all Canadians equally.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many
members spoke to Bill C-36, a bill aimed at setting up a $2.5
billion millennium scholarship fund to help students.
A lot has been said about this bill. As far as I am concerned it
clearly shows that Canada is a failure as a country because,
with Bill C-36, the government is trying once again to interfere
in education, which comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Canada's history proves that education is critical to Quebec's
survival. It is at the heart of Quebec's plan for the future. If
Canada had learned to respect Quebec, the federal government
would not be pushing pieces of legislation such as Bill C-36.
Since Duplessis and Lesage, Quebec premiers have been fighting
to preserve the integrity of Quebec's jurisdiction over
education. It is essential that Canada recognize the importance
of education for Quebec.
We know that throughout history one of the ways Canada has been
trying to assimilate francophones has been to attack the
education system. This is what every province outside Quebec has
done. They challenged the use and teaching of French, thus
speeding up assimilation. This is one of the reasons why today
the assimilation rate is 40% in Ontario and up to 70 % in the
western provinces.
As a matter of fact, just out of respect for Quebec, proposed
legislation like Bill C-36, which interferes in a field as
important to Quebec's future as education, should not even be
introduced.
One can see, once again, from this bill, that motions that are
moved in the House to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness are not
respected. A motion was moved shortly after the last referendum
to have Quebec's distinctiveness recognized and it was passed in
the House. But the government introduced Bill C-36, which ignores
Quebec's uniqueness or distinctiveness yet again. It is to be
expected that the Calgary declaration will not change much
either.
Indeed, as long as the government introduces legislation such as
Bill C-36, which heaps scorn on something that is central to what
Quebec represents, this will only be a further gesture, somewhat
like what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did in 1982 with the
constitution in an attempt, which succeeded, to reduce the
powers of Quebec's national assembly in the area of education.
It is since the Constitution Act of 1982 was passed that we have
experienced so many constitutional problems in Canada. Since
1982, we have had a great number of commissions and some
referendums in Canada to talk about national unity, and English
Canada did not learn its lesson.
The government comes back, once again, with Bill C-36, which is a
small copy, so to speak, of the bad gesture made by Mr. Trudeau
at the time. However, the current Prime Minister probably wants
to make the same kind of gesture, that is compromise the
integrity of Quebec's powers in the area of education. In fact,
this is what is being done.
1620
No one is against better education in Canada. We heard the
hogwash of Liberal members who told the House that a stand
against Bill C-36 is a stand against better education.
Naturally, that is sheer nonsense.
We want students to benefit from this $2.5 billion. Of course we
do, but we would rather have the funds paid directly to the
provinces, which would administer them. Our loans and grants
system in Quebec is one of the best if not the best system in
Canada today. The debt load of students in Quebec is one of the
smallest in the country.
We do not need another federally appointed agency to come to
solve problems we do not have in Quebec. We want Quebec to get
back its share of the $2.5 billion, but not this way, not funds
managed by individuals appointed by the Prime Minister, no doubt
friends of the party, 12 directors who will sit in private,
behind closed doors, manage the funds and distribute them as
they see fit, without being accountable in any way.
Basically, the federal government will be putting money in the
hands of a private agency that will not be accountable to
elected representatives. That is contrary to democratic
principles. After all, why appoint 12 commissioners or board
members to manage these funds when each province in Canada
already has a ministry of education managing education funds?
Not only does this bill dismiss the existing system in Quebec,
but it shows once again that Canada does not understand a thing
about the problems in Quebec and Canada. Once again, the
Constitution is flouted. We know full well that this private
agency appointed by the Liberal government will be duplicating
services currently provided by the ministry of education in
Quebec and the other provinces. This is a blatant case of
duplication, which entails extra costs of course.
Take for example the millennium office to be set up in Ottawa in
preparation for the year 2000 celebrations. It is estimated that
the administration costs for managing the $166 million earmarked
for celebrating Canada and the millennium in the year 2000 will
amount to 10% of the total budget.
What does this mean, with respect to the $2.5 billion budget for
the millennium scholarships?
Does it mean that $250 million will be spent on managing these
scholarships and not on those who should benefit from it, the
students? Does it mean that new jobs will be created for the
friends of the Liberal government? Are we creating a $250
million slush fund for the friends of the government?
We have the right to wonder, because there is no real need for
these millennium scholarships. They will not necessarily help
the students, because if we really wanted to help our students,
we would give the money directly to the provinces, which would
be a good thing. It would reduce the administration costs.
Who benefits from these millennium scholarships? It is pretty
obvious that the Prime Minister of Canada is trying to create
something to be remembered by, and in a rather arrogant way,
too.
1625
This scholarships program is to remind Canadians how much he
cares about our youth, when, in fact, his primary goal is only
to give his Liberal government more visibility at a very high
cost.
Bill C-36 is another fine illustration of the fact that Canada is
a failure.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill-36, the Budget Implementation
Act, which is a culmination of the Minister of Finance's budget
that he tabled back in February.
There are a couple of issues about the budget which I would like
to discuss. Number one, of course, is that the minister
announced a balanced budget. However, there was actually a
surplus of $2.5 billion, because the minister charged $2.5
billion to this fiscal year to set up his millennium scholarship
fund.
I take exception to the way he has been doing his accounting.
The auditor general pointed out the previous year that the
finance minister had made an $800 million charge for an
expenditure that had not been made. I would have thought the
Minister of Finance would have listened to the Auditor General of
Canada who is the watchdog for all Canadians. He ensures that
the books of the Government of Canada are clear and prepared in a
manner consistent with normal accounting practices and that they
do not contain misleading information.
The Minister of Finance has unilaterally decided to change the
accounting policies of the Government of Canada to allow him to
make a charge when he decides to make an announcement regarding a
new program, and in this particular case $2.5 billion for the
millennium scholarship fund.
That means that we have taken $2.5 billion out of the books for
the year ending March 31, 1998 and have set the money aside. We
have not spent the money. We have not even set it aside at this
point in time. But the Minister of Finance has made this
expenditure or charge on the financial statements with the idea
that after the turn of the millennium, which is closer to the
next election, the government is going to have $2.5 billion to
spread around to young people in our country who will benefit by
having assistance with tuition and education expenses.
We Reformers have never had a problem helping kids to get their
education, but we do have a problem with this sleight of hand
type of accounting that is being proposed by the Minister of
Finance and being condemned by the Auditor General of Canada who
says this cannot be the way.
I think that for the second time in a row the Minister of
Finance should listen to the auditor general, rather than
thumbing his nose at the auditor general, because we need to have
integrity in our financial statements. We need to have integrity
in our government. Surely, if there is no integrity in the
financial statements being prepared by the government, then the
government loses its integrity, and that is not in anybody's best
interest.
I hope the Minister of Finance will take the auditor general's
serious criticisms to heart, that he will recognize the error of
his ways and will ensure that our financial statements are
prepared in a manner that is acceptable to the Auditor General of
Canada. That way not only Canadians but international investors
can have faith in our financial statements.
While we have a balanced budget, we must remember that we still
have a debt of almost $600 billion, which is $20,000 for every
man, woman and child in Canada. That debt is being funded and
financed by overseas investors, bankers and so on who look at our
financial statement and if they find that it is qualified by the
auditor general then we may end up having to pay higher interest
rates on that debt. That is also not to anybody's benefit.
1630
I have to laud the government for achieving a balanced budget.
With prodding by the Reform Party it has finally got itself
there. We take exception to the fact, however, that it got there
by increasing revenues from taxation rather than by cutting
expenditures and bringing the government down to a more
appropriate size.
The employment insurance fund now has a surplus of almost $20
billion, which is far in excess of any surplus it has ever had
before. It is ten times larger than any surplus it ever had
before. The government has taxed employment and jobs to balance
the budget rather than cut the size of government. Taxing jobs
seems to be a backward way of trying to achieve economic growth
so that the government can get its finances in order while
everybody else has to pay through the nose and find out that
their personal budgets are being squeezed to pay for extra taxes
to the government.
That tax revenue comes with a potential price. We have now had
seven years of economic expansion. We know economic expansions
come to an end. When that happens, government expenditures go up
by increased unemployment insurance premiums, reduced taxation
revenues, additional welfare costs and all other government
costs. Since we have relied on increased revenues to balance the
budget, we run the risk of slipping back into a deficit if
economic activity slows down.
Last weekend the Minister of Finance was in Kananaskis, Alberta,
to enjoy the fine scenery and accommodation of my part of the
world. He was at the APEC conference, the Asia Pacific Economic
Council, dealing with economic issues in the far east. Things are
not as rosy over there as perhaps they could be or even should
be.
We are glad to see the resignation of President Suharto. However
we have some doubts about his successor who may follow in the
same vein. There is an economic crisis there that is already
impacting on the province of British Columbia. Alan Greenspan,
the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, said over the weekend
that the impact of the economic slowdown in Asia could have a
small but not negligible impact on North American economies.
I read in the Financial Post today that the Bank of Tokyo
Mitsubishi reported a loss of $10 billion. When banks start to
lose $10 billion we should begin to take a look at what is going
on in financial markets. Therefore I point out to the Minister
of Finance and to all Liberals that although they may have a
balanced budget today, it may not be as rosy as it could be or
should be if they had taken this opportune time to cut government
when the economy was chugging along quite nicely. When the
economy turns downward is no time to squeeze Canadians with fewer
and fewer services.
The government should be very cautious and careful about
spending any money it has or any surpluses it has. It should
still be vigorous in its efforts to root out waste. I publish a
waste report periodically. I brought one out last week with all
the different grants. For example, we gave some money to
somebody to study dress in 19th century Istanbul. I wonder what
benefit that is to Canadians.
1635
The auditor general pointed out that in one of our embassies we
had spent $3,500 a month to store furniture, but when we looked
at the furniture being stored we found it was only worth $1,000.
We have idiotic expenditures right across government. We have
waste, mismanagement and incompetence in many areas. It requires
accountability. It requires to be rooted out, and that is what
the government has failed to do.
When we next see a Budget Implementation Act for which the
government is asking the approval of the House to implement the
recommendations of the Minister of Finance, I would find it very
difficult to do so based on the fact that they have not put their
own fiscal house in order.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Charlotte, hepatitis C; the hon. member for
Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, employment insurance reform.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
unfortunate, but I am not delighted to rise today in this House
to speak to Bill C-36.
It implements certain provisions in the latest budget of the
Minister of Finance including the Canada Millennium Scholarship
Foundation. I will return to this a little later in my speech.
Perhaps you would allow me right off to put all the nonsense in
the latest budget into perspective. The government opposite is
continuously heaping praise on the Minister of Finance for his
work in balancing the budget.
Let us get things clear from the start. There is no question of
congratulating a government so irresponsible about the job it
has to do as to have others do it, namely the provinces. This,
in my opinion and that of the Bloc, makes the entire budget
operation totally unacceptable. The federal government achieved
its zero deficit by scandalously dumping its financial
obligations and responsibilities into the yards of the
provinces.
To eliminate its deficit, the Liberal government has cut
annually, since 1994, $7.2 billion in transfers to the
provinces, which represents 52% of all the federal government's
spending cuts. In its two terms, the government opposite will
literally have chopped $42 billion in social transfer payments
to the provinces.
In 1995, the federal government promised, through its finance
minister, to cut departmental expenditures by 19% over three
years.
Once again, it did not do its homework, since it cut only 9%,
proving yet again that nearly all efforts to improve government
finances came from elsewhere.
What this year's budget neglects to say, and the public must be
aware of this, is that there will be an additional $30 billion
in cuts by 2003 to the health, education and social assistance
sectors.
To give an idea of the size of the cuts, for Quebec alone,
between 1993 and 2003, a cumulative total of $13 billion will be
cut from the budget for transfers to Quebec. It is not for
nothing that the Quebec minister of state for the economy and
finance, Bernard Landry, told the federal government that its
federalism was “predatory and abusive”.
I will add “irresponsible, centralizing and creating poverty” to
that.
If we examine the effects of these cuts in the daily lives of
people in Quebec and Canada, we will see they are totally
devastating. We must keep in mind that, when the Liberals took
office in 1993, 61% of the unemployed were eligible for
employment insurance benefits. Now, five years later, fewer
than 40% of them are.
The latest employment insurance report states in black and white
that young workers are the age group most affected by this drop
in eligibility.
1640
But what is most objectionable about the employment insurance
situation is the surplus accumulated in the fund, which is up to
about $14 billion at this point. It is expected to hit $25
billion by the year 2000. Imagine what could be done with all
that dormant money.
Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been shouting itself hoarse
about the budget cuts being made at the expense of the
disadvantaged in our society, and here is proof of it. I would
describe these budget practices as fraudulent and a real theft.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore attuned to the problems of the
population, unlike the government over there, which keeps its
head buried in the sand.
Proof of this is the number of occasions we have begged the
federal government to stop using the employment insurance fund
to balance its books. The Bloc has always maintained that these
funds are there to support the unemployed and to help get them
back into the work force.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois, with the backing of the labour
movement, businessmen and the general public, has fought
constantly to get the federal government to substantially cut
workers' and employers' EI contribution rates, which are
currently far too high and hamper job creation.
The Bloc Quebecois has picked up on the signals coming from the
public by proposing concrete and practical measures including a
$3 billion overall reduction in contributions, which represents
an additional cut of about 35 cents in the contribution rate.
Compared to the present rate of $2.70, the planned drop to $2.60
by the year 2000, or a mere 10 cents, will have no significant
impact on job creation.
In spite of the unprecedented room to manoeuvre it has in the
current budget, the government opposite chose to do nothing to
stimulate job creation. No tax reform geared to job creation, no
special budget measure to improve the fate of thousands of
unemployed Quebeckers and Canadians.
In short, when it comes to job creation this budget is a
failure. And yet the unemployment rate is stuck at around 9%.
Instead of creating jobs, the government prefers to create new
programs resulting in more duplication and interference in areas
of provincial jurisdiction, such as the Canada Millennium
Scholarship Foundation, and keeps on doing what it knows best,
namely how to spend somebody else's money.
A case in point is the hasty purchase of submarines to the tune
of $750 million, a real bargain. After cutting billions of
dollars from social transfer in the areas of health, education
and welfare, the federal government is investing in youth and
job creation by purchasing armament. These are the real
priorities of this government.
Imagine what we could do with the $750 million it sunk into
ships.
I am asking the members opposite: Why not invest this money to
feed the 1.4 million poor children we have in Canada?
This is one child out of five. Imagine all this money to help
the five million Canadians who are living below the poverty
line, which is 17.4% of this country's population. These are the
priorities of the government across the way.
Another reason people in Quebec and Canada have been getting
poorer since this government came to power is probably the $30
billion more they have to pay in taxes to the federal
government.
In order to help stop this hemorrhage, the Bloc Quebecois asked
the finance minister and other ministers to stop creating new
programs.
But of course, he did not listen and set up new programs
including the millennium scholarships, a cornerstone of Bill
C-36. This $2.5 billion fund, which will only come into force in
the year 2000, is an unprecedented and blatant intrusion into an
area of provincial jurisdiction, education.
1645
The Prime Minister of Canada knows very well that, for over 30
years, we have had in Quebec the most comprehensive loans and
scholarships plan in Canada.
Federalists, sovereignists and the education circles in Quebec
have voiced strong opposition to this federal visibility
campaign. This program does not in any way meet the needs of
Quebec and its quite distinct education system. That is why
Quebec rejects this program and wants to opt out with full
financial compensation.
This is not a whimsical demand. It is part of a rational effort
aimed specifically at meeting the immediate needs of the
education system in Quebec and compensating for the $10 billion
in federal cuts to transfers for education, with Quebec's share
of these cuts amounting to $3 billion between 1993 and 2003.
This is outright hypocrisy. But students and the general public
in Quebec will not be fooled. They know very well that these
scholarships are a blatant effort to win the support of students
in Quebec and in Canada. But sooner or later, the government
will pay for these serious mistakes. Quebekers will understand
once and for all that the only way out of this federal quagmire
is Quebec sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-36.
I begin by expressing my regret that debate on this bill has
been limited by the government's time allocation motion. I
understand this is the fourth time in this parliament alone that
closure or time allocation has been implemented. It was done on
Bill C-2 regarding the Canada pension plan, on Bill C-4 with
respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, on Bill C-19, the Canadian
Labour Code amendments which we dealt with before parliament
broke, and now twice on Bill C-36.
This is not a new trend. The Liberal government, the very same
party when it was on this side of the House criticized the
Mulroney government for its habit of invoking closure and time
allocation, has done so 41 times since 1994.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have a particular concern for
parliamentary reform and helped chair a committee dealing with
reforms to ensure that the closure and time allocation powers of
government were not abused as they were in parliaments previous
to 1993. It is regretful, and I say this as a new member, that
the government has failed to restrain its excessive use of what
really should be a very rare lever to limit debate in this place.
This is parliament. The purpose of this place is to deliberate
on legislation brought forward by the government. It is not to
rubber stamp legislation brought forward by the bureaucracy or
the executive branch. It is to deliberate, to debate, to amend,
to consider, to ensure that those who pay the bills for the
legislation we pass have their concerns fully and exhaustively
expressed with respect to every single piece of legislation,
particularly pieces of legislation like Bill C-36 which have such
an enormous impact on the fiscal and economic condition of
Canadians.
I came to this place expecting frustration as a member, knowing
this parliamentary system is dysfunctional, knowing the way it
has been abused by successive governments, that serious
substantive debate and deliberation on legislation of this nature
happens all too rarely. Even my low expectations as a close
observer of this place and a keen observer of parliamentary
history have not been met. My low expectations for democratic
deliberation have been exceeded by the government's autocratic
abuse of the sledge hammer of debate known as time allocation and
closure.
1650
I turn my comments to the substance of the bill. The part we
are dealing with today deals with the establishment of the Canada
millennium scholarship foundation. It is a quaint convention in
democratic countries such as Canada that governments seek consent
from the voters in an election before they embark on major new
program initiatives. That is what the concept of a democratic
mandate is all about.
When I review the election literature distributed by candidates
of the Liberal Party in the federal election conducted a year ago
I fail to find any mention of the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation. There are all the usual bromides in that election
literature about how the government is committed the future of
young people, to education and so forth, but nowhere did I find
this commitment to spend billions of tax dollars which would
otherwise be used for tax relief and debt reduction on what
amounts to a huge political advertisement project for this
outgoing Prime Minister.
By invoking closure with this bill not only has the government
run roughshod over democratic conventions of parliament by
failing to seek a mandate from voters, not only has it
disrespected a longstanding convention in our system that one
needs a democratic mandate to proceed with major spending
programs, it has also run roughshod over the principles of sound,
transparent public accounting as articulated by the auditor
general.
Let us be clear. Bill C-36, by establishing the Canada
millennium scholarship fund in this year for a public expenditure
which will not be made for at least two fiscal years into the
future, breaks every single rule and convention of clear,
transparent and principled public accounting. That is not my
view as a member of the opposition. It is not the view of
partisans. It is the view of the non-partisan authority
appointed by this place to review and comment on the accuracy of
the public accounts.
The auditor general in talking about the change in reporting the
millennium fund in the current fiscal year as opposed to the year
in which it will actually be expended said: “I believe the
change will open the door for governments to influence reported
results by simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then
deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end
of the year once preliminary numbers are known”.
He went on to say in a letter: “Indeed it is not possible to
use the contingency reserve for new policy initiatives unless
parliament has approved them and the amount is included in the
main or supplementary estimates. In effect, unless parliament has
voiced its approval neither a program nor an expenditure can
exist”.
It is absolutely clear what the auditor general told parliament
and told this government. It does not have the legislative
authority to expend the money in two years but to book it on this
year's budget. As somebody who has watched public finances very
closely for a very long time, this is probably the most notorious
instance of a government's cooking the books and misleading the
public about how public money is actually being spent that I have
ever witnessed.
Provincial governments over the past several years have made
great strides in improving the transparency of their public
accounts. I refer to the Government of Alberta which conducted
an exhaustive review of what had become very problematic public
accounts in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
In 1993 Premier Ralph Klein commissioned an independent review
of the entire public accounts and budgetary practices by a panel
of experts. That government adopted almost every single
recommendation of the independent panel, almost every
recommendation of its auditor general, and every recommendation
of the chartered accountants of Alberta to reform the way the
public accounts are presented and to bring them into compliance
with generally accepted public sector accounting practices.
1655
Even the Government of B.C., famous for its shell games with
public finances, had an independent commission on public
accounts. But the federal government really seems to believe
that it can just design the books any way it wants and
essentially mislead the Canadian public about how its money is
being spent. That is shameful.
What are the Liberals doing with this $2.5 billion? They are
creating the Prime Minister's millennium memorial fund. They have
decided, in a country with 17% youth unemployment, to say we will
help as a federal government to further subsidize your higher
education but we are not going to give you an environment where
you can work.
For instance, my brother went to a Canadian law school with a
subsidized post-secondary program. It would be further subsidized
by the Canadian millennium scholarship fund. Because of the taxes
imposed by this and previous governments, he and tens of
thousands of other talented Canadian trained young people have
gone abroad where they can find better economic opportunities
afforded by lower tax regimes.
We will vote against this bill to stand up for democracy. We
will vote against time allocation, as we did this morning, and we
will vote for tax relief to give younger Canadians the real
economic opportunities they need and deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to this important bill and to the group of motions we
have introduced, which consist essentially in deleting any
reference to the existence of millennium scholarships.
Why are we introducing this group of motions? Our reason is a
good one. We are doing so because, with these millennium
scholarships, the federal government is poking its nose into
other people's business. During the three weeks of hearings
held by the Standing Committee on Finance, 14 Quebec
organizations appeared, all saying the same thing, which was
that the federal government has no business interfering in an
area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
According to the very Constitution that these people claim to be
defending, the federal government does not have the right to
interfere and the organizations are asking for the right to opt
out with full compensation for Quebec.
Those who appeared before the committee did so on behalf of
organizations as important as the FTQ, the CSN, and university
and college student groups. A group of former student movement
leaders who presided over the reform in the education sector
over the last eleven years came to deliver essentially seven
messages to the committee, and more particularly to the federal
government. The first of these messages is that, with these
millennium scholarships, the federal government is revealing its
complete lack of familiarity with Quebec's reality.
Once again, the government is demonstrating its bad faith. If
it had wanted to do the right thing, it would have amended the
Canada Student Loans Act.
We know that all that was needed was to add the scholarships to
that legislation and it would have possible to opt out with full
compensation.
My first point is this government's bad faith. My second is
this. The negotiations under way could have been given a
chance, without this rush to pass a bill that, as we know, does
not give the foundation authority to allow a province to opt out
with full compensation if it so wishes.
Why? It is obvious, the Prime Minister said so himself, that
the government needed to be visible. It therefore introduced a
bill that does not allow opting out with full compensation.
The board of directors will not have the power to delegate to
the provinces.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois will be speaking to Bill C-36
today, and it is not in favour because the millennium
scholarships do not reflect the reality of Quebec and of
Quebeckers.
If there had not been pressure from the Government of Quebec, if
there had not been pressure from the coalition in favour of
Quebec opting out with full compensation, we would never have
had the opportunity to speak on behalf of Quebec.
1700
Forty one per cent of the witnesses heard. This means the
committee heard 1.2 million people through their associations.
It means 80,000 owners of small and medium size businesses.
As we know, the business world, including the Conseil du
patronat du Québec, the Quebec chamber of commerce and the
Quebec and Canadian association of manufacturers et exporters
came and told the committee that Quebec should be allowed to
manage its education sector, and that opting out with full
compensation should be allowed, so that the money could be used
based on Quebec's needs and realities. This is very
disappointing.
Several student associations from outside Quebec came to tell
the government to listen to Quebec. They said the federal
government should, for once, listen to Quebec's demands.
I attended a few meetings with various representatives,
associations officials and witnesses, and I can tell you that
several witnesses realized that the government was acting in bad
faith on this issue.
The consensus in Quebec included stakeholders from the education
sector and union representatives, but polls were also conducted.
In one of them, 71% of the respondents were more supportive of
the Canada social transfer. People said it had been very
difficult for them to go through the period of austerity created
by the cuts, and they felt that, perhaps, the surpluses were not
being managed properly, since the government was giving $2.5
billion to a private foundation which, as we know, will have a
rather wide mandate. I do not think we should expect a great
deal of transparency from that foundation, and I am very
disappointed.
Therefore, I ask the consent of this House to postpone
consideration of this bill until we have seen the outcome of the
negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa.
Why not defer consideration of the bill? Mr. Speaker, I am
urging you to ask if the House would agree to defer
consideration of this legislation.
The government is acting in bad faith. We sovereignists know
that many Quebeckers are not acting in bad faith, because they
still had hopes that the federal system would undergo a reform.
The millennium foundation, because it arrogantly encroaches on
the rights of the provinces, has shown the true colours of the
federal government. We hope that many Quebeckers who did not yet
realize it will now understand that federalism—regardless of
which party is in office—cannot be reformed. This government
showed incredible contempt for Quebeckers when it thought that
this would go through smoothly and that Quebeckers would quietly
put up with it, because it is a monetary issue.
Just to top it all off, two weeks ago the three main employer
associations in Quebec, the Conseil du patronat, the Quebec
chamber of commerce and the Association des manufacturiers et
des exportateurs du Québec testified before the committee.
These are not exactly sovereignist people. The representatives
of these three associations came to tell the government to stop
the study of the bill until negotiations were complete. If an
agreement is reached, it will be included in the law. If none
is reached, the government will assume its responsibility and
the opposition its. But there will be no pretence of democracy
as is being imposed on us today.
This is why the Bloc has presented motions to eliminate
everything to do with the foundation from this bill.
Quebec will never allow the government to tromp all over a
system it has developed, which is the best in the world. We
will never let it happen. We will ensure it does it by gagging
us at every stage, otherwise this bill will never be passed.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege again to be able to make some remarks
on Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, and specifically on
the amendment with respect to the millennium scholarship fund.
There are four problems the government has created for itself,
to a large degree, with the bill. Canadians need to know about
these problems and need to recognize that the government has not
handled the issue well at all.
1705
These are the problems. The first problem is the whole business
of the design of the fund. Not only was it designed in such a
way that it contravenes a lot of the jurisdictional realties of
our country but it also causes some heightened interprovincial
tensions quite unnecessarily. The second problem is with the
accounting that was used to fund this initiative. The third
problem was the trouble we ran into with the legislation and then
closure being put into place to cut off debate and ramming the
legislation through, which is a typical Liberal tactic that is
becoming more typical as time goes on. The fourth problem is that
the legislation does not go very far in addressing the problems
of students.
I would just like to touch on each of these problems a bit. With
respect to the design of the fund, the government after it took
office slashed funding by 35% to 40% to the provinces for
programs like post-secondary education. It wasted the money that
was to go to the provinces to keep post-secondary education
services available to our citizens. That was the first act in
this drama.
The second act in the drama began in February with the budget.
The 1995 budget was the family budget, the child poverty budget.
Liberals like to have a theme or a cause. They like to be able
to say they care about something. The theme of the last budget
before this one was poor children. There was much violin playing
about poor children, mostly poor because of the terrible fiscal
policies of the government.
The theme of the last budget was education. Students were to be
helped. If we listened to government speakers we could hear them
going on and on about the value of education and how wonderful it
was that we looked after our children and their training, et
cetera. There was no mention of the fact that the Liberals had
slashed education funding just shortly before this wonderful
education budget. That was all forgotten, but this budget was to
do something for students.
There are over one million students in the country, many of whom
are in retraining or upgrading because the economy is changing.
Yet this so-called program only helps 7% of all people who are
trying desperately to gain the educational and training skills
they need to compete in the emergent economy.
Further, the millennium scholarship fund has all the earmarks of
a grand gesture by the Prime Minister. This was the Prime
Minister's legacy. This was a memorial to the Prime Minister's
generosity toward students and concern for youth. The fact of
the matter was that the concern was kind of newborn. It came
after the slashing of funding to post-secondary education. Now
we are to wear education on our heart and the Prime Minister is
to have a millennium scholarship fund for only 7% of our
students.
Those 7% who get scholarships will find it taxed. They will
give part of it back to the federal government. Their families
may actually give a whole lot more back to the federal government
if the student who qualifies for a scholarship loses dependant
status in the context of the family tax structure. Here we have
a few students getting a scholarship who will be taxed on the
scholarship which may rearrange the family tax status.
Who are the students to be given the gift of a scholarship by
the federal government? If the track record of the Liberal
government holds true, the scholarships will be largely targeted
as rewards to good and faithful Liberals and Liberal supporters
and those who the Liberals want to court.
1710
I do not think it is too unkind to say that this is how the
Liberals have operated in a whole range of areas and how they are
very likely to continue to operate. It will be a nice slush fund
for Liberals to be able to help other good and deserving Liberals
for political purposes. That is a genuine concern of the
opposition in this whole matter. It also disrespects provincial
jurisdiction in the area of education.
The constitution says that the provinces have control over the
delivery of post-secondary education services, but the federal
government as usual feels it knows best. Did the federal
government go to the education minister of Manitoba? Did it go
to the education minister of New Brunswick and say that due to
thrift and good management, and maybe due to heavier taxation, it
has some extra money to spend on education? Did it ask how
someone responsible for delivering educational services in the
provinces on the post-secondary level feel the money should be
spent? Did the government do that?
The answer is no. There was not a word said to the provincial
ministers responsible for these services. The federal government
just decided it would spend $2.5 billion on this grand gesture to
show that the Prime Minister was a fine fellow who cares about
youth and students. That was the flavour of the day. The
government must have done some polling to show that people were
worried about education.
Another aspect of the millennium scholarship fund was the way it
was put on the government books. The government said it was to
spend the money and therefore deduct it right now from its cash
flow. It was not to be spent until the year 2000 but it was to
be deducted from cash on hand, from the revenue stream right now.
Let us think about this point for a minute. Suppose a farmer in
Saskatchewan says his tractor is getting worn out but thinks it
will do for a couple of more seasons. In the spring of 2000 he
plans to buy a new tractor but he wants to deduct that capital
expense now because he has already made up his mind that he will
spend the money. What happens if he tries to count it as an
expenditure in 1998?
Let us think of the response of Revenue Canada to the farmer who
intends to spend the money in the year 2000 and would like to use
it a capital expense today. The farmer would get a horse laugh
from the government or the revenue department.
What about a business person who intends to upgrade facilities
or any person who intends to make a tax deductible expense in the
future and tries to claim it today? That would never be allowed,
but the government thinks it is not subject to those reasonable
rules of accounting and is cooking the books to hide a surplus so
that at the end of the day it can make even more spending
announcements close to an election.
I see you are cutting me off, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so since
my time is up. The government uses closure and cutting off
debate so that these badly designed measures can be rammed
through. It is a shame. It is a disrespect of parliament. I
ask the House not to support the measures the government is
trying to push through.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
member of the Bloc Quebecois for the riding of Manicouagan, I am
pleased to rise today to express my party's opposition to one
particular element of Bill C-36, namely the creation of the
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
That part of the bill provides for a $2.5 billion endowment. We
are opposed to this unspeakable intrusion of the federal
government in an area that is exclusively under Quebec's and the
other provinces' jurisdiction.
It must be noted that the bill contains two clauses that make it
impossible for the Quebec government to get its fair share of
the money.
1715
Had the Liberal government wanted to show some goodwill, it
would have respected Quebec's jurisdiction in the area of
education by amending the Canada Student Loans Act to include
scholarships. This would have allowed Quebec to exercise its
right to withdraw with full compensation, as it is currently
entitled to do under the Canada Student Loans Act.
This bill is specifically designed not to allow a province to
withdraw with full compensation.
Ottawa puts its need for visibility before the needs expressed
unanimously by Quebec.
For more than 30 years, Quebec has had its own loans and
scholarships system that is infinitely more sophisticated than
that of any other province. The entire education community in
Quebec is opposed to this plan. The only way to avoid
duplication is to recognize the consensus that exists in Quebec
and give the Quebec government the right to withdraw with full
compensation.
Let us look at history since it shows clearly the federal
government's bad habit of wanting to interfere in the area of
education. In 1953, the Liberal federal government of Louis
Saint-Laurent tried to subsidize Canadian universities through
the National Conference of Canadian Universities.
The Quebec government of Maurice Duplessis killed the federal
plan.
It opposed the federal government, which wanted to replace with
federal subsidies some financial powers that were essential to
provinces and, thus, intrude into education, which was an area
of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
In January 1957, in L'Action nationale, Mr. Trudeau wrote, on
page 438, and I quote: “Consequently, if a government has such
an overabundance of revenues that it undertakes to provide for a
part of the common good which is not in its jurisdiction, one
can assume that this government has taken more than its share of
taxable capacity”.
Today, we can say that the Liberal government has done worse
than taking more than its taxable share. It has found room to
manoeuver at the expense of the sick, schools and the poor and
by forcing provinces to do the dirty work.
The Liberal government intrudes into Quebec's jurisdiction and
refuses to take its responsibilities by compensating all
hepatitis C victims.
In 1964, the federal government led by Mr. Pearson proposed to
offer loans to students and to repay the interest for them. Jean
Lesage opposed the proposal because that repayment was a direct
grant by the federal government to education.
In the statement he made at the end of the federal provincial
conference held in Quebec, from March 31 to April 2 1964, the
man whose election campaign slogan was “Maîtres chez nous”, Jean
Lesage, declared: “As a matter of fact, we will have to go to
court to ensure the constitutional rights of the province are
respected, if they do not act on the comments we made”.
On April 16 1964, in a telegram to Jean Lesage, Mr. Pearson
said: “The federal government intends to propose arrangements
according to which guaranteed bank loans would be made to
university students. If a province prefers to go on with its own
loan program, it will be eligible to equivalent compensation”.
1720
In short, the federal government made several unsuccessful
attempts in the past to invade the education system, and neither
the PQ nor the BQ were there to oppose this.
According to the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, Bill C-36
illustrates the Canadian government's ignorance of the Quebec
loans and grants system and of its priorities in the area of
education.
According to the president of the Fédération des cégeps, which
comprises 48 colleges, Bill C-36 totally ignores what Quebec has
understood in the past 30 years with regard to student financial
assistance.
The millennium scholarships are only an excuse. The federal
government is using the establishment of the fund to encroach on
the area of education, which comes under Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction.
In doing so, it is not helping Quebec reduce student debt or
fund universities and post-secondary educational institutions. It
is just after additional visibility.
There are two major reasons why we strongly oppose the
establishment of this fund. Politically, the Bloc Quebecois
feels that the millennium fund is an unspeakable intrusion in a
Quebec exclusive jurisdiction.
Moreover, the government has come up with such a confusing
formula in order to deny Quebec the right to opt out with full
compensation that its fund does not achieve the objectives that
were set. It will only create inequity and confusion, while the
problems of students and post-secondary institutions will remain
intact.
Even though the federal government recognizes the tough
financial situation of students, the solutions it puts forward
ignore the source of the problem, that is the massive cuts in
transfer payments. In addition, in the case of Quebec, the
proposals put forward are ineffective, they overlap the measures
put in place by the Quebec government and they are undoubtedly
an intrusion in an area that comes under Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction.
Given the societal choices that Quebec has made over the years,
the federal strategy is penalizing it.
Indeed, the budget penalizes Quebec, which over the years has
made major efforts to keep tuition fees and student debt at
reasonable levels.
In Quebec, tuition fees average about $1,700 a year whereas in
the rest of Canada they average about $3,200. Likewise, the
average student debt in Quebec is $11,000, whereas students in
the rest of Canada owe between $17,000 and $25,000.
The government of Quebec suggested that its needs in the
education area lie elsewhere and are not the same as those
identified by the federal government.
The Quebec share of the millennium fund could be better used if
the Quebec government were at liberty to invest this money where
the needs in the Quebec education system are more pressing.
The government of Quebec is clear about that: any extra funding
for education, whatever the means used, must be directed to the
Quebec government which will redistribute it according to its
own priorities. The right to opt out with full compensation has
existed since 1964 in the area of financial help for students.
Quebec has built itself an effective and efficient system of
scholarships that is the envy of students in the other
provinces. The government says it is creating this fund to
address the problem of student debt.
In conclusion, I must point out that it would be up to the
foundation, which, under Bill C-36, has not even the mandate to
negotiate with a province, to determine Quebec's fair share.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to debate Bill C-36 although what is not such a
pleasure is the time allocation aspect of this.
I want to explain the problems with time allocation from where I
sit. A lot of people who are watching and listening do not
understand it.
1725
Time allocation is when the government says “We are no longer
interested in hearing what you have to say in opposition. We are
going to limit the number of days and amount of time you have to
speak on this issue”. In a democratic world that is probably as
far away from democracy as we can get when time is allocated on
such an important issue as the budget.
There is another thing I want to address before I specifically
talk about Bill C-36. It is bad enough we have limited time to
speak to this but when there are a limited number of people on
the other side listening it makes it even worse. I have a good
mind to call quorum but I will not. The real problem here is
where is the audience? It is pretty sad indeed.
Some hon. members: Three Liberals.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, three. If they cannot stand the
heat, get out of the Commons I would say.
One has to wonder why this government would call time allocation
on a budget. Let us think about that for a minute. According to
the parliamentary calendar we sit until June 23. We can extend
days and so on and so forth. The legislation that is of priority
to this government is now down to approximately three bills, not
enough probably for five days work. We have to question why on
earth the government would move time allocation when it has
perhaps three priority bills and well over a month to debate them
and get them in.
The answer to that lies in what has happened in this House in
the last six months. Look at the Minister of Health and his
hepatitis boondoggle and how this government mismanaged that
whole issue. Look at the Minister of Justice who said that they
are going to fix the Young Offenders Act but really it could take
another two years when the government has already had five years
and the media has now picked up on that. The heat is getting on
the government which basically has no agenda.
The government is trying to get out of the House early by
calling time allocation. I wish Canadians watching this truly
understood what this is all about. It is not just about someone
standing up here for 10 minutes and going on about an issue.
This is really about the fundamental basis of democracy itself.
It is too bad we live in these times when governments can
essentially still do this to the opposition parties.
Let me get on to Bill C-36, budget implementation, and the
implementation of what the Liberals proudly call the millennium
fund. This millennium fund supposedly has approximately $2.5
billion so that we can provide scholarships to students. There is
nothing about bursaries. I do not think the government knows the
difference between a scholarship and a bursary but I will explain
that in a few minutes.
The real question is where does the money come from. It came
from the 1997-98 budget. The government said we have a balanced
budget and charged to that budget was $2.5 billion. The fact is
that the money will not be used until the year 2000 yet the
government has charged it to the 1997-98 budget rather than the
year 1999-2000.
To one of the three members opposite in the House—and for
anyone out there watching, the government virtually has no one
hear listening to this—it is pretty sick when the government
says it can justify that. As an accountant, a CMA, a member of
the Society of Management Accountants, I fully understand what
the general accepted principles are in accounting.
1730
Basically in government accounting one does not charge an
expenditure in a year in which it is not expended. The fact is
that the government should have charged the $2.5 billion to the
millennium fund in the year in which the costs are to be incurred
and that is the year 2000.
Why am I saying that? The fact of the matter is, the government
said it had balanced the books. The real fact of the matter is,
it would have had a $2.5 billion surplus, but it chose to second
that money so it would not have to give the taxpayer a break and
the public would not be able to ask why it did not write down the
debt or lower taxes. The government said it had no money, that
it had balanced the books to zero. The fact is, there was a
surplus and the government chose to hide that surplus by
seconding $2.5 billion into something called a millennium fund
for which the dollars will not even be used until the year 2000.
Out of 175 government members, there are three in the House. It
is really disgusting. I guess I will talk to my colleagues. Not
only do they understand it a little better, there are more of
them in the House.
It is not just the millennium fund show that the government is
putting on here. It is not just the show that the justice
minister put on with respect to the changes to the Young
Offenders Act. It is not just the show that government members
are playing out for hepatitis C victims. The fact is that the
government's agenda is just show. There is no depth to it. It
is a mile wide and an inch deep.
An hon. member: Where is the beef?
Mr. Randy White: Where is the beef, my colleague says.
Where is the meat in all of this?
The justice minister the other day commented on the $32 million
in the budget that the government is planning to spend on
preventive measures for young offenders. There is not a red cent
anywhere. The provinces do not even know about it, yet
government members go to the media and say “Guess what we are
spending on preventive measures for young offenders? We are
spending $32 million”. They have not spent a red cent. They
have not even planned to spend it. It is just amazing when
people fall into that kind of lunacy, that kind of deceptive
measure.
Now we are down to two. Since the Speaker is not listening to
this I might as well say the number of Reform members we have in
the House. This is really sick. I have a good mind to call for
a quorum and get some of these people in here to listen for a
change.
It is amazing. We have a multibillion dollar budget and the
government has not reduced anything. It has not really spent
anything on anything meaningful. It really has not done much at
all, except that when a little bit of heat gets put on a whole
bunch of issues it calls time allocation so nobody can really
speak in detail to the bill.
I think that speaks very loudly to the concern of average
Canadians. The Liberal government not only has a very weak
agenda, but it actually does not have programs that are
substantive and valuable to most Canadians.
Finally, since I only have a minute and there are only two
members opposite, I might as well tell them this—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that it
is improper to refer to the absence of members in the House. I
know he may have been trying to cover it by that age-old
tradition of referring to the presence of a few, but I, myself,
have tried that technique and it has been ruled out of order. I
know the hon. member would agree with the previous ruling.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will no longer say that
there are only two Liberals in the House.
1735
In summary, the issue of the budget and the issue of crime fall
on deaf ears in this country because this is a government of
press releases. This is a government of rumour, of show, but it
is not a government of substantive issues. Meanwhile we are
still waiting for a national victims bill of rights, for a young
offenders act, for a real millennium fund. So those two members
opposite ought to get with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
considering Bill C-36. Bill C-36 has a big problem, which is
called the millennium scholarships.
The scholarships are for the students. In principle, everybody
will agree that we must help our students complete their
education while maintaining their debt level as low as possible.
Therefore again, at first sight, the scholarships are a good
idea. I will explain in a moment that ideas that are good for
some people are sometimes bad for others.
I would also like to talk of the term “millennium”. Why the
millennium scholarships?
Because we will soon be in the year 2000 and our Prime Minister
thought it would be a nice way to go down in history as the
driving force behind these scholarships to be awarded starting
in the year 2000.
You will agree with me that if Canadian students need
scholarships, they need them now and not in the year 2000 and
after, although they will still need them then. It is remarkable
how the finance minister has deducted from this year's budget
the $2.5 billion which he intends to spend on this scholarship
fund in the year 2000. But between now and the year 2000, not
one Canadian student will see as much as a penny.
I have said earlier that the scholarships are a good idea for
some but a bad one for others. They are a good idea for Canadian
students outside Quebec but a bad one for Quebec students. Why?
A bursary program has been in existence in Quebec for more than
30 years, since Jean Lesage was premier. We care for our
students and we help them financially through bursaries and
loans. It is a system that works well for Quebec.
Elsewhere in Canada, such a program will not come into existence
until the year 2000. The provinces are admittedly a few years
behind Quebec. In fact, they are more than 30 years behind
Quebec. Now, the federal government decides to directly infringe
upon a provincial area of jurisdiction and offer these
bursaries.
Although, on the one hand, I am happy for the students in
Canada, on the other hand, I should point out that Quebec's
money is being used to provide a service we already have.
In other words, we are paying twice for the same thing.
Quebec, with its 30-year-old bursary system, is pursuing some very
precise objectives. For 30 years, higher education at college or
university level has been far less expensive in Quebec than in
the other provinces. Why? Because we in Quebec decided—and this
is a societal choice based on Quebeckers' values—to make higher
education more accessible to everyone. Moreover, the number of
college and university graduates in Quebec is much higher than
anywhere else in Canada. In this regard, Quebec is a much richer
country than Canada.
1740
Let us come back to the scholarship fund. Quebec has its own
scholarship system where money is given according to the needs
of the students. Those in need may apply for and receive a
scholarship.
What the Prime Minister proposes in Bill C-36 is to give
scholarships on the basis of merit instead of need. The better
the grades, the more chances of receiving a millennium
scholarship.
Good grades are important for sure, but today, we need not only
excellent but also decent students.
Successful students all need financial support. It is not only
the top students, the elite, that need financial support.
Companies do not need only the students with the best marks. Of
course, that is important and it is a very good thing, but
companies also need adequate students.
In Quebec, students have access to scholarships according to
their needs but this will not be the case in Canada. Canada may
decide to award scholarships on the basis of merit rather than
need. However, I cannot accept the fact that someone using
Quebec money will try to impose on Quebec a system that is
contrary to its convictions and its values, contrary to what
Quebec has been doing for more than 30 years.
Do you know how much money Quebec will be forced to put into
that foundation? In Quebec, everybody is against this
millennium scholarship system.
So how much more will be stolen away—pardon the expression—by this
millennium fund? Just a bit over $600 million. That is a lot
of money.
Six hundred million dollars is almost twice what the province of
Quebec has been forced to hand over to the municipalities
because the federal government has cut transfer payments. Those
$600 million would solve a lot of health problems.
Six hundred million dollars is the amount that the people of
Quebec will be forced to pay to fund these millennium
scholarships which we do not need because we already have our
own system. We end up paying twice.
Once again, here we are with a totally unacceptable duplication
of effort.
This is a total intrusion by the federal government into our
affairs, forcing us into taking on something far less attractive
than what we already have in place.
Such an attitude can only reinforce two feelings in me: first
pride in being a Quebecker and in sharing these values that have
been in place for 30 years or more, of encouraging our students
through a scholarship system when Canada does not even have one
of its own yet, not until the year 2000. I am proud to be a
Quebecker because we are more advanced in a number of areas,
this being one of them.
At the same time, I am proud to be a sovereignist, because
sovereignty will be the only way to stop a federal government, a
federal system that wants to use our money, my money, the money
of all Quebeckers, for something we have no need of.
Six hundred million dollars is a fortune.
The interest on that amount would pay for about $3,000 in
scholarship money to some 250 Quebec students. But there is
more to it than that. In Quebec, our bursary system is working
fine, and so is our loan system. What we do need is money to put
back into our cegeps, into our universities, so that they can
provide students with the best quality education possible.
What is the point of having scholarship money in your pocket if
your educational institution cannot afford to give you a
top-flight education?
1745
In recent years, the federal government has slashed transfer
payments for post-secondary education and, as a result, our
universities and colleges have to make do with smaller budgets.
After slashing our institutions' ability to deliver very high
quality education, it now wants to give money directly to
students to enrol in educational institutions that are not as
good as they should be.
Quebec's request, which is supported by the Bloc Quebecois, is
quite simple: the federal government should give Quebec its $600
million and let it invest in high quality education. We can
continue to look after our students as we have been doing so
successfully for more than 30 years.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-36.
What we are talking about here is the so-called millennium fund,
about $2.5 billion set up for scholarships. I have to question
this. No doubt many of us here in the House remember quite well,
as it was not that long ago, when this same government decided to
rip the provinces off to the tune of $7 billion right out of
health and education. Now it turns around and says it will give
back $2.5 billion in a millennium fund. That is like ripping your
arm off and giving you back the finger. This government is very
good at it.
I have news for the government. It is not its money. It is
taxpayers' money. We are the most heavily taxed nation in the
G-7. It is our money. It is not the government's money. When I
see something like this put in place, I know for a fact it has
nothing at all to do with education.
It has to do with trying to make the Prime Minister look good.
It has to do with the members on the opposite side, the so-called
government of this country, able to pat themselves on the back
and say look what we have done for you, the people. We rip it
out of your education fund. We rip it out of your health fund.
But we will give you back peanuts. We will give you back enough
that maybe one in seven of your children might qualify for it,
and if they do we will tax it back off them.
That is what this government is so proud of. That is why this
government has decided all of a sudden that it will put time
allocation on this bill, a budget bill.
It was not that long ago when I felt sorry for the Liberals when
they were in opposition and the Conservatives decided to put time
allocation, closure, on everything. I can well remember the
pleading and the whining and the crying from the Liberal caucus
of the day. Not any more. These people well learned the fine
art of dictatorship. It did not take a trip over to Cuba to
learn that, I am quite sure.
We look at what is going on. I mentioned taxes. I would like
to give a brief outline of where Canada sits now. Canada has the
highest tax burden of all the G-7 countries. Our total tax
burden is 28% higher than the G-7 average and 48% higher than our
neighbour next door, the United States.
This government has a habit of standing up in this House and
saying we are the greatest country in the world to live in. We
are the sharing, caring country of the world. I have news for
the government. It is killing everything in this country. It is
running the entrepreneurs out of this country. It is forcing
unemployment. Unemployment today is at an all time high. We
have bankruptcies at record levels.
1750
We have people who are truly suffering. What is the
government's answer to this? A $2.5 billion millennium fund so
it and the Prime Minister can feel good in case there is an
election within a year after that. Shame on them.
I see from some of the people nodding on the other side that I
must be hitting a soft spot. They know it is true. The people
out there know it is true. They know they are being taxed to
death to supply nothing. The auditor general has raised grave
concerns about what is going on with this fund. What does the
government do? Nothing. It pays no attention to the auditor
general. It does not even address his concerns about how this is
being funded, about the discrepancy and about the argument on how
the bookkeeping has taken place in order to create this so-called
fund.
I would say these boys make the James boys look like kids in the
candy store. They know full well how to rip off the Canadian
taxpayer and get away with it. They have had years of
experience.
Let us have another look at what is going on. In 1993 when the
Liberals took office the tax revenue totalled $116.5 billion or
approximately $8,951 per working Canadian. This year this
government will collect $160 billion or $11,335 per working
Canadian. That is an increase of 26% in five years. I know many
stock promoters who would love to have that kind of increase. I
know many people who hold investments would love to have that
kind of increase in their portfolio. That is what this
government is doing, 26% in five years.
To put it into perspective, the overall result according to
Statistics Canada is that any improved family earnings acquired
largely to the government between 1989 and 1995, the real after
tax income of the average Canadian family fell by $3,461. Are
they not proud of that? It fell from $41,084 to $37,623. Are
they ever doing a wonderful job over there. They are for
themselves but certainly not for the law-abiding taxpaying
citizens of this country.
This is a continuing process. It goes on. In 1977 in the midst
of the Trudeau years the government collected $7,044 from every
working Canadian. By 1986, two years after Mulroney, the take
was $14,593. By 1996 after this government took over, it reached
$22,792. That is a really a record to be proud of. It takes from
the poor. It takes from anybody it can, it keeps on taking and
it gives back a so-called millennium fund. Then it has the gall
to say it is going to help our students.
Our students want jobs. They want to be able to work in this
country. They want a better education. They do not like being
taxed to death when they finally have it. They do not like the
debt they owe when they get out. They have just cause to be
worried about that. It is about time the government started to
worry about what is going on and what is there for these kids
when they get out. An education is fine, maybe one of the finest
things there is. But if there is nothing out here when they come
out it is of no use to anybody. We well know that. Maybe it is
time this government started to realize that.
This is a total farce. It is a farce on Canadian taxpayers. It
is a farce on the people who were elected to come back here and
have a say when we have a government that decides you will keep
your mouth shut, sit here and just be quiet.
1755
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to add my voice in
praise of the visionary budget tabled in this House on February
24. On that date Canadians found a reason to have hope and faith
in a better future. From that day forward we have begun to
rebuild Canada from a blueprint based on opportunities.
Of all the remarkable achievements outlined in the budget, the
Canadian opportunities strategy stands out as the hallmark of
this government's plan for Canada in the 21st century.
The 1998 budget builds on progress achieved in previous budgets
to provide Canadians with greater opportunities to acquire the
knowledge and the skills needed for jobs both now and in the
future.
[Translation]
Under the Canadian opportunities strategy, this government
introduced and promoted measures to help Canadians make the
transition from school to work, pay off their student loans,
return to school to upgrade their skills or contribute to the
education savings plan on behalf of the next generation of
workers. This strategy takes comprehensive and co-ordinated
action on seven fronts.
Arising from a commitment made by the first ministers to
implement an action plan for youth employment, the Canadian
opportunities strategy makes knowledge and skills more readily
accessible and affordable.
[English]
The foundation of the strategy is the Canada millennium
scholarship fund which will provide more than 100,000 low and
middle income students with scholarships averaging $3,000 a year
for each year of the first decade in the new millennium.
Individuals can receive up to $15,000, reducing the debtload many
recipients would otherwise incur by over half.
Up to 50,000 more students with children or other dependants
will be able to take advantage of Canada study grants to help
them cope with rising costs. These grants will help people who
are in financial need to continue with their education,
increasing their own and their children's prospects for
prosperity.
The study grants, in addition to the increased child care tax
credit that all Canadians now enjoy, will help young parents get
their children off to a good start in life.
[Translation]
Our government is particularly proud of the measures announced
in this budget that will help our students gain the knowledge
they need through strategic investments in science and
technology, which are the driving force of the new economy and
can be most attractive to young inquisitive minds. These
investments are crucial to the competitiveness of our country.
The Canadian opportunities strategy will provide additional
funding for advanced research for our graduate students as well
as for the three granting councils in Canada, the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research
Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council.
The combined budget of these three granting councils will be
increased by $400 million over the next three years.
[English]
Equally important, this budget increases funding for the
Canadian network for advancement of research in industry and
education as well as SchoolNet and the community access program
to bring the benefits of information technology into more
classrooms and more communities across Canada.
Another area of crucial importance to young people is helping
graduates manage their student debtloads. Witnesses appearing
before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities were unanimous in their
position that to ensure access to post-secondary education a
positive system of student financial assistance is paramount.
1800
The Canadian opportunities strategy provides tax relief on
student loan interest payments as well as an education credit and
child care expense deduction for part time students.
About one million Canadians will benefit from the improvements
to the Canada student loan program which will help graduates
better manage the debt they incur and which will direct grants to
those in greatest need.
Countless more of today's children will be able to attend
colleges, vocational schools or universities because their
parents can now take advantage of federal incentives under the
Canada education savings grants program.
These government grants will encourage families to start setting
aside money early for their children's post-secondary education
under the registered education savings plan.
[Translation]
The opportunity for Canadians to withdraw tax free from their
registered retirement savings plan to enrol in full time
education and training is another well thought out innovation
that will help to ensure that Canadians have easier access to
professional development. Canadians already in the workforce
will be able to benefit from this continuous learning process
throughout their careers.
Together, these measures will help Canada to develop a highly
skilled and competitive workforce for the new world economy
based on knowledge.
Whatever satisfaction I might get from these remarkable reforms,
I am also very proud of the fact that our government will do
everything it can to ensure that no one is forgotten. The
preservation of social peace implies that everyone must have
equal opportunity to benefit from what our society has to offer.
[English]
In addition to the Canadian opportunities strategy, the February
budget strengthened other progressive programs which will help
Canada's children and youth to succeed in the 21st century.
A major infusion of new moneys will support youth employment and
participation in society. The government has doubled its funding
for youth at risk, principally those who have not completed high
school and who lack basic education and job skills. Through
partnerships with employers, organizations and non-profit groups
the new funds will be used for on the job training, career
counselling, mentoring and literacy upgrading.
Governments have a role to play in tackling the issue of youth
unemployment but clearly we cannot solve the problem alone. Many
private sector employers are responding to this challenge by
providing opportunities for young Canadians.
[Translation]
This government has taken measures to encourage a larger number
of employers to create new jobs for workers. We will give these
employers an employment insurance premium holiday for young
people hired in the years 1999 and 2000. This means that, each
year, employers will make savings of about $100 million in their
payroll expenditures.
[English]
The 1998 budget speaks to Canadians' profound belief that we can
build a strong economy by building a secure society. The two are
flip sides of the same coin.
[Translation]
The balanced approach on which this legislation is based will
result in sustainable dividends that will benefit Canadians now
and for decades to come. This is the way to go for Canada, on
the eve of the new millennium, to have the opportunity to live
in a more prosperous society that cares about the well-being of
all its members.
When Bill C-36 becomes law, it will be a moment of great pride,
not only in the life of parliamentarians but of all Canadians.
1805
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to speak today, because it is probably the last time.
I have only ten minutes, but I could talk for an hour.
Naturally, you will understand that, on the subject of Bill C-36,
I will be talking about the millennium scholarships. In this
bill, there is some pretty strong language, I must say.
My colleagues have spoken at length today on various matters
concerning the bill on the millennium scholarship fund.
Canadians ask us what Quebeckers want. It is so simple.
As part of its values, Quebec decided to establish a loans and
bursaries system—not a perfect one, I admit—but one that met
the expectations of many young Quebeckers. It has been
operating for years, and a number of students have told me that
it is one of the most effective systems in Canada.
When I say that Quebeckers have values, I mean their values. We
have never tried to impose these values on the rest of Canada.
If another province wants to do what it wants with its loans and
bursaries system, that is fine with me.
At one point, faced with a growing demand probably from the
rest of Canada, the Prime Minister decided, saying he wanted to
do his share, to make a bequest.
He is attacking the problem of student debt. A very commendable
thing to do. I have no complaint up to this point. Except that
where things start to get serious, we have to make sure they are
done responsibly and efficiently.
Creating the millennium scholarship foundation means creating
duplication. There will be a system of loans and bursaries in
Quebec City and another in Ottawa. This spells a loss of
efficiency right off, in my opinion.
In addition, I recall asking the Prime Minister at one point if
there was not a certain element of visibility involved. I think
the federal government is looking for ways to leave its mark on
the cheques. I must say I have no problem with that. It can
leave its mark everywhere, so long as the students get help.
The Prime Minister answered my question by saying that
visibility was indeed involved.
He could have pretended he wanted to help students without
mentioning he wanted visibility, but no, he acknowledged it in
the House of Commons. I could not believe my ears.
There are many points I could talk about. I will discuss some
which have not been mentioned as often as they should. The
Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be managed by a board of
directors. This arm's length body will not be accountable to the
people. It is as if we, the democratically elected members of
Parliament, were to say that we are not responsible enough to be
entrusted with managing such a huge amount of money, that we had
better bring in people from the private sector who will
undoubtedly do a much better job than us. But if people do not
agree with this concept, they cannot go through their MPs, the
very persons they elected. I have a moral problem with this.
Another point. Not only are we delegating our authority to a
board of directors, but we do not know who they all are. I feel
like I am signing a blank cheque. I have serious reservations
about that.
Another point, the issue of equal opportunity. This bill is
attacking some very basic principles our society is founded
upon.
1810
It is said these scholarship will not necessarily be based
entirely on need, but also on merit. Today I sat on the
committee studying the bill. I found it ridiculous for the
committee to review a bill which is not even complete. Today, a
lot was said against the fact that part of these scholarships
would be decided on merit and part on need. But what will the
proportion be? Is it 10%, 50% or 90% of these scholarships
which will go to the best students?
I have several friends who are going to university and who do
not have much money and have to work. It is tough to work and go
to university at the same time.
Of course, working lowers a student's academic performance, but
it is the last resort.
Students whose academic performance suffers because they have to
work need more money, but our very good government came up with
a plan to help only the best students. But the new reality is
that our young people need to work to pursue their education.
We do not know what proportion of these scholarships will be
based on merit and what proportion will be based on need. The
government could have said in committee that, for example, 10%
of the scholarships will be awarded to the elite, to the best
students. It could have said that it chose to help the best
students and to encourage them to go as far as they can so they
can become the future leaders of our society. We could at least
have debated this, but we cannot. Why?
Because we do not know what proportion of these scholarships
will be based on merit and what proportion will be based on
need.
I have serious questions about our work here today, and that
also goes for the members opposite. After all, as democratically
elected representatives of the people, we are saying that it is
not our responsibility to make societal choices, but the
responsibility of a private board of directors. And we do not
even know who is going to be on that board. Moreover, we do not
know the essence and the intent of this plan. We can certainly
change a few commas and make insignificant revisions but,
overall, what is this leading to? And there is also the students
of Quebec who, in the end, will see a reduction in the
assistance they receive.
I met students from Alberta. Their system of loans and
scholarships is not as good or perhaps not as generous as
Quebec's system.
They see that the federal government will intervene and they are
very happy. If it wants to proceed in this way, I have no
problem with that. But I do not want it to intrude into my
values, in Quebec's values. Then people wonder why we want our
own country. It seems quite obvious to me.
How would it have bothered the rest of Canada if Parliament had
said “It is true that in Quebec you have a consensus and
different values. We do not want to disturb you with that. We
think this may not be bad in itself. We are giving you the money
and you may use it as you wish”? But instead the government is
imposing its rules. Then it wonders why there are sovereignists
in Ottawa. It seems so simple to me. Then it asks “What does
Quebec want?”
This is incredible. When I talk about Quebec's values, I do not
talk about a political party that took a stand, but about a
consensus among students and university associations and
presidents. In short, everyone in Quebec opposes this measure,
even the national assembly. The Liberal Party of Quebec said
“No, this is not a good thing”. All this for the sake of the
federal government's visibility. This disappoints me, because
education is the future.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant
to the order adopted earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of report
stage of the bill now before the House.
1815
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I seek consent for the following
motion. I move:
That all motions at report stage of Bill C-36, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 24, 1998, be deemed moved, seconded and read, and
that a recorded division be deemed requested for each such
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Medicine Hat
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 25
and 26 on page 24 with the following:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 59, be amended by adding after line 17
on page 26 the following:
“(9) Notwithstanding subsection (8), the council shall provide
the Minister with copy of every by-law that is made under this
Division, including a by-law that amends a by-law.
(10) The Minister shall maintain a list of every by-law provided
to the Minister under subsection (9).”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 26 the
following new clause:
“59.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax
under this Division, the council shall maintain books of account
and other records in respect of all such taxes that have been
collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.
(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each
fiscal year, prepare an annual report in respect of the taxes
referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in
that year which shall include
(a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;
(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;
(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and
(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation.
(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made
public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance.
59.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon
as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit
of the books of account and records required to be kept by the
council under subsection 59.1(1).
(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister's
department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 18
to 25 on page 26 with the following:
“60. Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under
this Division,”
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing line 11 on
page 28 with the following:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 64, be amended by adding after line 32
on page 28 the following:
“(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), the council shall provide
the Minister with a copy of every by-law that is made under this
Part, including a by-law that amends a by-law.
(6) The Minister shall maintain a list of every by-law provided
to the Minister under subsection (5).”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 29
on page 29 the following:
“45.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax
under this Part, the council shall maintain books of account and
other records in respect of all such taxes that have been
collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.
(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each
fiscal year, prepare an annual report in respect of the taxes
referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in
that year which shall include
(a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;
(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;
(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and
(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation.
(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made
public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance.
45.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon
as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit
of the books of account and records required to be kept by the
council under subsection 45.1(1).
(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister
department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 25
on page 31 the following:
“53.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax
under this Part, the council shall maintain books of account and
other records in respect of all such taxes that have been
collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.
(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each
fiscal year, prepare an annual report in respect of the taxes
referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in
that year which shall include
(a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;
(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;
(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and
(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation.
(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made
public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance.
53.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon
as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit
of the books of account and records required to be kept by the
council under subsection 53.1(1).
(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister
department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).”
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 25
on page 31 the following:
“(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the council shall provide
the Minister with a copy of every by-law that is made under this
Part, including a by-law that amends a by-law.
(5) The Minister shall maintain a list of every by-law provided
to the Minister under subsection (4).”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 81, be amended, in the English version
only, by replacing line 6 on page 38 with the following:
“Prince Edward Island who purchases the cigarettes or tobacco
sticks for consumption by the”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 81, be amended, in the English version
only, by replacing line 19 on page 38 with the following:
“Province of Prince Edward Island who purchases the cigarettes
or tobacco sticks for con-”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing line 11 on
page 39 with the following:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 82, be amended by replacing line 26 on
page 39 with the following:
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 44 with the following:
“Supplementary Child Tax Benefit”
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 16
to 23 on page 49 with the following:
“100. Paragraph 15(l) of the Act is replaced”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 19
and 20 on page 49 with the following:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended
“(8.2) With respect to 1999, the Minister shall refund, in the
prescribed manner, to designated persons the prescribed portion
of the amount determined by the following formula if that amount
is more than $1:
(E2-E1) x P1999
where
E1 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1998 by the
employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of
employees who were 18 years of age or older but younger than 25
at any time during 1998;
E2 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1999 by the
employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of
employees who were 18 years of age or older but younger than 25
at any time during 1999; and P1999 is 1.4 times the premium rate
for 1999.
(8.21) For the purposes of subsection (8.2), designated persons
means persons who have paid the employee's premium or the
employer's premium in 1999.”
“(9) If at any time during a year for which a refund is sought
two or more employers are associated, as defined by the
regulations, they shall be considered a single employer for the
purposes of subsections (6) to (8.3) and any refund shall be
allocated to them in the prescribed manner.”
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 4
to 23 on page 51 and lines 1 to 40 on page 52 with the following:
“(8.2) With respect to 1999 and 2000, the Minister shall refund
to the employer the amount by which the total of all amounts paid
by the employer as the employer's premium during each of these
years exceeds 2.8% of the total insurable earnings paid by the
employer to his employees for each of these years.
(8.3) With respect to 1999 and 2000, the Minister shall refund
to each employee the amount by which the total of all amounts
paid by the employee as the employee's premium for each of these
years exceeds 2% of the total of all insurable earnings received
by the employee for each of these years.
(8.4) The refunds provided for in this section are payable by
the Minister within three months after the end of the year for
which the premiums were deducted or payable.”
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 12
to 23 on page 51 and lines 1 to 40 on page 52 with the following:
“(8.3) With respect to 2000, the Minister shall, in the
prescribed manner, refund to designated persons the prescribed
portion of the amount determined by the following formula if that
amount is more than $1:
(E2-E1) x P2000
where
E1 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 1998 by the
employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of
employees who were 18 years of age or older but younger than 25
at any time during 1998;
E2 is the total of all insurable earnings paid in 2000 by the
employer, for which premiums were deductible, in respect of
employees who were 18 years of age or older but younger than 25
at any time during 2000; and P2000 is 1.4 times the premium rate
for 2000.
(8.31) For the purposes of subsection (8.3), designated persons
means persons who have paid the employee's premium or the
employer's premium in 2000.
(9) If at any time during a year for which a refund is sought
two or more employers are associated, as defined by the
regulations, they shall be considered a single employer for the
purposes of subsections (6) to (8.3) and any refund shall be
allocated to them in the prescribed manner.”
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 10
to 13 on page 52 with the following:
“payable to the employer, the employer shall pay to the
Minister by way of penalty, an amount equal to twice the amount
of the refund that was applied for or received, as the case may
be, by the employer.
(8.41) An amount required to be paid by way of penalty by an
employer under subsection (8.4) and any interest thereon
constitutes a debt to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be
recovered as such in any count of competent jurisdiction.”
That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by deleting lines 14
to 20 on page 52.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medecine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by adding after line
40 on page 52 the following:
“(11) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, where
the total amount of monies expended in a year to pay benefits is
less than fifty per cent of the total amount of monies paid in
that year by any of premiums, the Minister shall, in the next
year, reduce the premium rate by the amount of unexpended monies
that exceeds the amount of those monies that is equal to the
amount of monies expended to pay those benefits. The Minister
shall, by regulation, carry out such calculations as the Minister
deems necessary to effect the reduction.”
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 105, be amended by deleting lines 4 to
26 on page 53.
That Bill C-36, in Clause 108, be amended by deleting lines 5 to
13 on page 56.
That Bill C-36, in Clause 109, be amended by deleting lines 36
to 45 on page 56. Group No. 9
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 130, be amended by replacing line 17
on page 78 with the following:
“Monetary Fund arrangement;
(a.1) the foreign state has either human rights record that is
acceptable to the Canadian government or if it does not have such
a record, is making substantial progress towards improving its
human rights record so that it will be acceptable to the Canadian
government;
(a.2) the foreign state has ratified or signed the Convention on
the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer
of anti-personnel mines and their destruction; and”
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved:
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-36, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 80 with the following:
“133. (1) Sections 2 to 46 shall not come into force unless, on
a day following the day this Act receives royal assent, the
amount referred to in section 46 is, in accordance with objective
accounting standards recommended by the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants, credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund
as a liability for the fiscal year 1998-99, in which case those
sections shall come into force on the day that amount is so
credited.
(2) Sections 127 to 132 come into force”
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the several deferred recorded divisions at the report
stage of this bill. Call in the members.
1835
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: Order, please. We are to have a series of
votes tonight.
We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on
Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.
A vote on Motion No. 1 also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 6, 8 to
10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 to 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54 and 59 to
64.
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
1845
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 102
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
– 154
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
[Translation]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 to 6, 8 to 10, 14, 15, 17,
18, 20 to 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54, and 59 to 64 lost.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: Motion No. 88 and Motion No. 90.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, included in subsequent
votes I would ask you to include the member for Nanaimo—Alberni
and the member for Vancouver Island North. After the initial
vote they will be included in our total. On those votes I will
be voting with my Reform colleagues.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I believe the motion was that the vote
taken on the first one applied in its entirety. We all voted the
same way on all of them. The Reform Party will vote yes to this
one.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 159]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 88 and 90 defeated.
1850
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find that the House would agree to the proposal that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Before I ask if there is agreement to
proceed, just so we keep everything in order I want members to
know that the question is on Motion No. 2 and a negative vote on
Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 3.
Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote no, with the exception of the hon. member for Lévis, who
had to leave.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members in
the House today vote no to this motion except for the member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar who votes yes to this motion only.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote
yea.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I will support this motion which
extends the millennium scholarship fund to private institutions.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 60
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 3.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just
taken to the following items: Motions Nos. 3, 12, 13 and 19.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we agree on that
particular recommendation with the notice that the member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar will vote with the NDP on this
motion, which is no, and on the other motions as well.
The Speaker: I address myself to the whip of the New
Democratic Party. Are we to understand that the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar votes yea on the previous vote and
nay on these votes? Is that correct?
Mr. John Solomon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: It will be recorded.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 160]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 3, 12, 13 and 19
defeated.
1855
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motions
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote nay to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will vote
nay.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would grant
scholarships to reflect the relative population size of each
province. On behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I
would support this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 191
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 defeated.
The next question is Motion No. 11. A negative vote on Motion
No. 11 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 12.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will vote
yea.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote yes to this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Solomon
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 34
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams – 223
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: Motions Nos. 55, 57, 58, 97 and 103.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Perhaps I could clarify my votes on these matters.
On Motions Nos. 55, 97 and 103 I will vote yea.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 162]
Mr. John Nunziata: On Motions Nos. 57 and 58 I will vote
nay.
The Speaker: That will be recorded.
(The House divided on Motion No. 57, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne – 33
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 224
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
1900
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 55, 57, 58, 97 and
103 defeated. I also declare Motions Nos. 98 to 102 and Motions
Nos. 104 to 106 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would
agree, I would propose you seek unanimous consent that the
members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will vote
yea.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would require
board members to be skilled in the management of investments and
I would vote yea.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 79
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 178
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: Motions Nos. 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52,
56, 65, 66, 70 and 107.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 164]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 42, 45, 46, 48, 50,
51, 52, 56, 65, 66, 70, 74 75 and 107 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 67.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, this is a good motion.
The Reform Party will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, my opinion is different, and
we will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of my party will be
voting nay.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion allows the
provinces to opt out, take the cash and run and I would vote no
to the motion.
1905
(The House divided on Motion No. 67, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lunn
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
– 45
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 67 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 68.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 71 as well.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 165]
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 71 defeated.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The results of that would also defeat Motion No. 68.
The Speaker: Motion No. 68 will be voted upon separately.
The question then will be on Motion No. 68.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that the
members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present are voting nay unless they indicate otherwise.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting
Motion No. 68.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members
of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yea to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yea
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I would vote yes to this worthy motion from the hon.
member for Kamloops.
(The House divided on Motion No. 68, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
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
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
– 72
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 185
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 68 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 69. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 73 and 76.
1910
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 69 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois agree with this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yea
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of
this motion.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I note that the
Deputy Prime Minister has left and should not be recorded as
having voted on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 69, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 116
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 140
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 69 defeated. I also
declare Motions Nos. 73 and 76 defeated.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: Motions Nos. 78, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 94 and 95.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 167]
The Speaker: Therefore I declare Motions Nos. 78, 79, 84, 85,
86, 91, 92, 94 and 95 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 72.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would
agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that
members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois disagree to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote in favour
of this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of
this motion.
1915
(The House divided on Motion No. 72, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Solomon
| Stoffer
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 21
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams – 235
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 72 defeated. The next
question is on Motions Nos. 80 and 81.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find
consent in the House to apply the results of the vote just taken
to the following: Motions Nos. 80 and 81.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 168]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 80 and 81 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 82.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would
agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that
members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members
voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion would delete
the word Canada from the name of the Canada child tax benefit act
and I would vote no.
(The House divided Motion No. 82, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
– 37
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 219
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 82 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 83.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 83.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 169.]
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 83 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 87.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I
believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who
voted on the previous motion be deemed to have voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yea to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I would vote no to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 87, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 57
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 199
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 87 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 89.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that
you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
1920
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston, I would vote in favour of this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 89, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 59
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 89 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 93.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that
you seek consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motion No. 93.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 171]
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 93 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 96.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that
you seek the unanimous consent of the House that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberals voting no.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party
members present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yea
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston, I would support this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 96, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
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
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
– 71
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 185
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 96 defeated.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I
believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who
voted on the previous motion be deemed to have voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we do not think the budget
is that good and this is the 41st time for time allocation. We
are very disappointed. We are going to have to vote no on both
accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members feel compelled
to vote no as well.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this budget
does not delete the GST but as far as Liberal budgets are
concerned, it is not bad and I will vote in favour.
1925
(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
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
– 141
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 115
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and
the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-19.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House would
agree I would propose that you seek consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes to
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote nay
to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this left wing piece of
legislation deserves to be defeated and I will vote no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 160
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MACKENZIE-PAPINEAU BATTALION
The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 12,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on Motion No. M-75 under Private Members'
Business.
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of
the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be
called in the same order.
The question is on the motion.
1935
Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my
name to those supporting the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Caccia
|
Canuel
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Jennings
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams – 171
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic
manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 12,
1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-247 under Private Members'
Business.
We will follow the same voting pattern as we did the last time.
1945
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Assadourian
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Steckle
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Telegdi
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 134
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Graham
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Leung
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Pagtakhan
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 101
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
1950
NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
divisions on Motion No. 261.
The vote is on the amendment.
2000
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 170
|
NAYS
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Morrison
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
– 44
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the motion as amended.
2005
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed
to on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 186
|
NAYS
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
– 35
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bennett
| Collenette
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Finestone
| Gallaway
| Guimond
|
Lebel
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Perron
| Proud
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
2010
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased that I will have a little time tonight to continue my
crusade on the hepatitis C story. I do not have to remind the
House that it is a very heart wrenching story. Many thousands of
Canadians are waiting to find out whether they are going to be
compensated. The only compensation package the federal
government has agreed to is for the innocent victims between the
years 1986 and 1990.
We on this side of the House and some of the members from the
Liberal caucus believe that all victims of hepatitis C should be
compensated. A group of people who through no fault of their own
were infected by tainted blood prior to 1986. They will receive
no compensation. There are also victims on the other side of that
date. We often talk about the pre-1986 victims but there are
also victims who were infected through no fault of their own
after 1990. A constituent of mine has been reminding me of that.
We often talk in this House of the pre-1986 victims but there are
many victims who were infected after 1990.
We are talking about fairness in the compensation package.
Canada has been selected by the United Nations as the number one
country in the world. I think Canada is more generous than that
in terms of what the government is offering. We have the
capacity and the financial wherewithal to compensate all victims
of hepatitis C. I remind the government that we have to do
something for those victims.
When we look at what we have been reading lately in the
newspapers, many of us are still pretty distressed by what we are
hearing from the government. I was pleased today when I asked
that question of the health minister. He is not going to tie
assistance and research monies into other areas of legitimate
health concern in this country as was reported by one of our
national television networks over the weekend. It reported that
the government might withhold funding for breast cancer research
and funding for the AIDS strategy. That is not the case at all.
The health minister told me today there will be no change in the
funding of those two areas and other areas.
We are looking for more generosity on the part of the Minister
of Health. We have gone after him pretty rigorously in the House
and we have to continue to keep the heat on the minister. We
know there has been some progress on behalf of some of the
provinces. We are looking for a compensation package for all
those victims outside the prescribed area of 1986 to 1990. We
want victims before and after compensated.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when the
ministers of health made the announcement on March 27 on how the
various governments of Canada would be approaching the issue of
hepatitis C, they did so together sitting at the same table with
one another and with people who are affected by the virus.
They did so knowing that some people would not be happy. They
sat across from these people, faced them and answered their
questions.
2015
The public wants governments to listen to what peoples' thoughts
are on these issues and has asked that we take responsibility for
the blood system problems of the past. We have done so. It
wants governments to work together and we did so. The Canadian
public prefers that any assistance provided by governments be
distributed according to need. This is what we proposed this
past March 27.
On May 14 health ministers met with representatives from the
Hepatitis C Society of Canada. They met and listened to the
Canadian Hemophilia Society. Health Canada officials have been
speaking directly to affected members of the public who have
called into Health Canada to tell us about their daily lives, the
problems they face and what they want governments to do.
The federal government has consistently shown that it wants to
work with all involved but that not everybody involved wants to
work toward a real solution. We continue to do so.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has launched a large
scale offensive to bring the federal government to review the
Employment Insurance Act. We have known for a while that only 41
per cent of the unemployed receive benefits.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois released a black book on the
employment insurance reform. This book, based on Statistics
Canada's figures, confirms that only 26 per cent of unemployed
young people receive benefits. This is totally unacceptable. The
government must do something about this.
This black book on employment insurance also shows that, in
1996, out of $6 billion in cuts, $4.3 billion was due to
restrictions in the program, while the remaining $1.7 billion
was attributable to labour market activity. The $4.3 billion was
due to restraints in eligibility, the duration of benefits and
the amounts paid.
How did we get there? The problem is that, in their latest
attempt to overhaul the EI system, the Liberals were obsessed
with fighting the deficit. All the government wanted to do was
find ways to accumulate as much money as possible at the expense
of society's most disadvantaged, the people who struggle to make
ends meet.
The government must go back and abolish the intensity rule,
which penalizes seasonal workers. It must reduce the number of
hours required in a first job.
We must ensure that we have all the information needed to
correct this reform, which creates social iniquity and also has
the unfortunate effect of lagging behind society and the labour
market.
The government has not yet decided what to do about independent
workers. It does not know exactly how to adapt to the new
conditions of precarious employment. It is forcing everyone to
pay contributions from the first hour, but the end result is
that many people, 74% of young people, are contributing, but not
getting the benefits.
When will the federal government finally decide to review the
Employment Insurance Act and give it back its true purpose of
ensuring a decent income between jobs for people who are
unemployed?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
employment insurance system is about supporting individuals who
have an attachment to the labour force and who need temporary
assistance before getting back into the workforce.
Despite the member's claims that he has made in the past and
again tonight, the fact is that we do not want individuals moving
from EI to social assistance. We want them to move from EI into
the workforce.
Let us set the record straight. Since March 1997 social
assistance case loads have declined in all provinces. In the
member's province of Quebec the most recent figures show 436,200
households were on social assistance, the lowest number of cases
since January 1993.
The fact is that a portion of social assistance recipients has
always been persons who either did not qualify or who exhausted
their EI benefits. Contrary to the hon. member's statement, our
last EI reform was precisely about trying to help these
unemployed individuals back into the workforce.
2020
The employment insurance reform brought forth by the government
included a number of bold new measures to modernize the system
and to ensure it could better help Canadians face the challenges
of our changing economy and help them find and keep jobs.
Rather than making Canadians dependent on passive income support
for as long as possible as the member and his party would like,
we choose to invest EI dollars in new measures to help Canadians
return to work as quickly as possible.
What is so innovative is that we have broadened eligibility for
these employment measures so that all Canadians who received EI
or UI in the last three years can benefit from them as can people
who collected maternity or parental benefits during the last five
years.
To further build on this innovation, the Government of Canada
has negotiated labour market development agreements with nearly
all provincial and territorial governments for the delivery of
these active measures.
The Government of Quebec will receive $2.7 billion over five
years—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt the parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.20 p.m.)