36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 163
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 1, 1998
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Grandparents' Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Euthanasia
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Property Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1010
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Merchant Navy Veterans
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Social Programs
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1020
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1025
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1030
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1035
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1040
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1055
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1110
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1125
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1140
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1155
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1200
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1215
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1230
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1300
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1315
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1340
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1355
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE DULCE HUSCROFT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLVO ENVIRONMENTAL PRIZE
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1400
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD AIDS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2010 WINTER OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATURAL RESOURCES
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD AIDS DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
1435
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTICULTURALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIDS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1510
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAMING OF MEMBER
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1515
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1525
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1530
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1535
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1540
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1545
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Request for Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted day—Social Programs
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1610
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1625
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1640
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1655
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1710
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1715
1750
(Division 278)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1800
(Division 279)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Supplementary Estimates (B)
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion in concurrence
|
1810
(Division 280)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-60. First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-60. Second reading
|
1820
(Division 281)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to.
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1825
1830
1835
1840
1845
1850
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
1910
(Division 282)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third Reading
|
1920
(Division 283)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-42. Third reading
|
1930
(Division 284)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-48. Second reading
|
1940
(Division 285)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1950
(Division 286)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading
|
2000
(Division 287)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
2005
(Division 288)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-35. Report stage
|
2015
(Division 289)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
2025
(Division 290)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
2035
(Division 291)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 agreed to
|
2040
(Division 292)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4 negatived
|
2045
(Division 293)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5 negatived
|
2055
(Division 294)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7 negatived
|
2100
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
2110
(Division 295)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXTRADITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-40. Third reading
|
2115
(Division 296)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-41. Third reading
|
2125
(Division 297)
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
2130
![V](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 163
![](/web/20061116194444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 1, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, copies of One Year
Later: The Ottawa Convention is Making a Difference.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the 19th report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts regarding Chapter 18 of the September 1998
auditor general's report.
[English]
The report deals with the financial information strategy of
government basically moving to a full accrual system and asks
that the government move quickly in that area and keep parliament
informed.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 47th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some standing committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I should like to move
concurrence at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many of my constituents.
The petitioners are calling on parliament to amend the Divorce
Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding
the right of grandparents to have access to or custody of their
grandchildren.
TAXATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour to present the following petition signed by 32 concerned
Canadians.
The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the government
to consider increasing its level of support for a “Tobin tax”
by promoting the concept among other G-7 countries.
The goal of this global currency transaction tax would be to
prevent currency speculation.
EUTHANASIA
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from members of my constituency, from the communities of
Vulcan and Champion, calling on the government to not go down the
road of euthanasia. I agree with the petition.
The Deputy Speaker: I hate to think that I heard the hon.
member express agreement or disagreement with the petition
because he knows that is against the rules and I am sure he would
not have done it.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present.
The first one is signed by 25 people from my riding of Red Deer.
These constituents request parliament to support Bill C-304 which
would strengthen the protection of property rights in the
Canadian bill of rights.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): The second petition, Mr.
Speaker, signed by 85 people, asks that parliament review and
change relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that
men take responsibility for their violent behaviour toward women.
1010
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present this petition signed by a number of
Canadians, including Canadians from my riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that human rights violations continue in many countries
around the world, including countries such as Indonesia. They
also point out that Canada continues to be internationally
respected for its defence of international human rights.
The petitioners on this 50th anniversary of the UN declaration
on universal human rights call on parliament to continue its
efforts to speak out against countries which tolerate violations
of human rights and to do whatever is possible to bring to
justice those who are responsible for such abuse.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition to present concerning the multilateral
agreement on investment. As we know, talks on the agreement
collapsed in Paris this fall.
Nevertheless, these petitioners, who were opposed to the MAI,
call upon parliament to recognize the fact that Canadians reject
the MAI approach to globalization and they instruct the
government to seek an entirely different kind of agreement by
which the world might achieve a rules based global economy which
protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments
to act in the public interest.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by over 100 people in the Peterborough region.
The petitioners point out that merchant navy veterans did not
receive post-war veterans benefits, that all of them served under
full military command, that many of them served under the most
anxious circumstances, and that casualties in the merchant navy
were often worse than in other theatres of war.
They call upon parliament to act now to compensate merchant navy
veterans for their service and hardship after serving on Canadian
and allied ships during World War II and in the Korean war.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from people concerned about the threat of
nuclear war.
The petitioners point out that there are over 30,000 nuclear
weapons in existence. They pray and request that parliament
support the goal of the abolition of nuclear weapons on our
earth, that Canada advocate the immediate de-alerting of all
nuclear devices, that Canada join the nations of the New Agenda
Coalition, that Canada advocate within NATO that nuclear weapons
have no militarily useful role, and that additional financial
support be allocated to Russia to ensure safe and secure
disarmament of its nuclear arsenal.
[Translation]
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): I wish to
present four petitions calling on parliament to amend the
Divorce Act and to support Bill C-343, so that parents and
grandparents may have access to their children and
grandchildren.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to
return to motions.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent
to revert to motions in Routine Proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 47th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House on this occasion to present
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 150 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 150—Mr. Mark Muise:
Did the Minister of Canadian Heritage, or anyone in the Ministry
of Canadian Heritage, hold consultations with the National
Association of Japanese Canadians prior to deciding to make the
changes to the mandate and reporting structure of the Canadian
Race Relations Foundation that are proposed in Bill C-44, The
Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures)
Act, and if so, what were the results of those consultations?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (parliamentary secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): The Department of Canadian Heritage
did not hold consultations with the National Association of
Japanese Canadians prior to deciding to make the changes to the
mandate and reporting structure of the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation proposed in Bill C-44, The Administrative Tribunals
(Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act. However, when the
amendments to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act were
first introduced in June 1996 in Bill C-49, The Administrative
Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act, now Bill
C-44, the honourable Hedy Fry, Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), informed stakeholders,
including the National Association of Japanese Canadians, NAJC,
that the government intends to maintain a lead role in race
relations policy and programming and that amendments are
necessary to avoid overlap and duplication of efforts.
The amendments to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act are
in keeping with the government's commitment to streamline federal
boards, agencies and corporations and to make them more
accountable to the Canadian public. The amendments will also
clarify the mandate of the foundation to ensure that it will be
able to achieve its objectives and that it will efficiently and effectively
complement the activities of the Government of Canada.
In addition, the changes to the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation Act will make it easier for the Canadian Race
Relations Foundation to be a significant factor in the resolution
of race relations issues in Canada. The proposed amendments do
not alter our vision of the key role the foundation will play.
It will be a centre of excellence, a national resource to serve
the information and research needs of governments, public and
private institutions, researchers, communities and the general
public.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.)
moved:
That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with
the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998, and
based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed to
last August 7th at Saskatoon, to strengthen the partnership
between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in
order to secure Canada's social programs for the future.
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day
for the supply period ending December 10, 1998, the House will go
through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the
supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill
be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. During the course of today's debate members of the Reform
Party will be dividing their time.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in
support of the supply day motion before the House.
This motion, as members will note, calls for the government to
conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to
the end of the year and to establish a stronger partnership for
the provision of essential social services such as health care,
education and social assistance. It calls for that agreement to
be based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed
at Saskatoon last August 7.
In other words, the motion calls for a positive, timely,
proactive response by the federal parliament to the demands of
all provinces for a better and stronger social union. I do not
need to tell the House that such a response to the social union
proposals from the premiers is long overdue and even more urgent
in light of the provincial election results in Quebec last night.
As a democrat who accepts and respects the results of elections,
I want to extend congratulations to all those members of the
Quebec Assembly who were elected yesterday.
[Translation]
I wish to congratulate Mr. Bouchard's government on its
re-election. Congratulations as well to Mr. Dumont and Action
démocratique du Québec, which offered Quebeckers a third option
between sovereigntists and traditional federalists.
[English]
I also want to congratulate Mr. Charest for fighting a valiant
campaign with one hand tied behind the his back, a hand tied by
the actions or more correctly by the inactions of the Prime
Minister and the federal government.
I believe it is imperative that the federal government and
parliament send a clear message to all the provinces including
Quebec that the reform of the federation is essential and a
national priority.
However, over the past 12 months the federal government has had
at least three opportunities to send that message and has failed
to do so. On November 25, 1997 the official opposition put
forward a motion endorsing the efforts of the premiers to
initiate reform of the federation through the Calgary
declaration, including the seventh point of that declaration
which pertained to the reform of the social union.
That motion specifically called for the federal government to
communicate the Calgary declaration to the people of Quebec and
to consult them on its contents. The government supported the
motion but failed to act on it, missing a golden opportunity to
communicate to Quebecers the demand for reform of the federation
in other parts of the country.
Then on August 7 of this year, after intense negotiation among
the provinces themselves in which Premier Bouchard also took
part, the 10 premiers and 2 territorial leaders endorsed
resolutions calling for a new partnership between the two orders
of government for the provision of social services including the
refinancing of health care.
However, the Prime Minister reacted negatively in the press to
these proposals and his officials have resisted action on several
of the main points. Thus there was still no concrete, tangible
progress to report on reform of the federation when the Quebec
election was called on October 28. Yet another missed
opportunity.
At the outset of the Quebec election there was the Prime
Minister's infamous interview with La Presse in which he
implied again that fundamental reform of the federation, in
particular relations between federal and provincial governments,
was not an option or a priority. In other words, the tired old
song that federalism is good enough as it is, precisely the wrong
message to send to Quebec at the beginning of a provincial
election.
1020
Three golden opportunities over a 12 month period to send a
clear message to all provinces including Quebec that reform of
the federation is a viable option and national priority were all
missed by the government.
Yet the sun still shines on Canada. Here we find ourselves on
the day after the Quebec election with yet another opportunity to
send a message to the people of all the provinces that parliament
is prepared to respond positively today to the demand for reform
of the way this federation delivers and finances social services.
I remind all hon. members that in the final analysis this social
union is not a constitutional measure. Nor is it merely some
subject for academic debate about federal-provincial relations or
the administration of government programs. The social union is
about health, education and support for people in need.
At this point in time when federal transfers to the provinces
have been cut by $7 billion, when hospitals are closing, when
1,400 doctors have left the country in the last two years, when
nurses are striking in British Columbia, and when almost 200,000
people are on waiting lists, the social union is particularly
about health care.
When the premiers call for joint action between themselves and
the federal government to repair the health care system, when the
electors of Quebec support joint action to repair the health care
system, and when our motion today calls for joint action to
repair the health care system, we are asking the federal
government to respond to the health care needs of real
people—somebody's mother, somebody's father, somebody's child,
somebody's friend—waiting for the government to act.
The motion is asking the federal government to conclude an
agreement with the provinces this month that will make a
difference as to how health care is provided and financed in the
country next year and in the years ahead.
We know from the representations of all the premiers and the
polls that there is demand in every province for social services
reform, even if there is still some disagreement about the
details. I urge NDP members of the House to support the efforts
of Premier Romanow and Premier Clark on this issue, to support
the motion in principle and then argue for their particular
perspective on the details of the social union at a later time. I
also urge PC members of the House to support the efforts of
Premiers Klein, Filmon, Harris and Binns on this issue to do
likewise.
We also know from the Angus Reid poll of November 24, conducted
for Radio Canada in Quebec, that 73% of respondents said that if
Premier Bouchard were re-elected his priority should be to
attempt to improve the position of Quebec within Confederation,
while only 24% said he should commence to gather winning
conditions for a referendum on sovereignty.
[Translation]
I sincerely hope that Bloc Quebecois members will see in this
motion the major features of the social union motions they
themselves introduced on October 5 and November 19. I sincerely
hope, as well, that Bloc Quebecois members will support this
motion, because it reflects the wish expressed by Quebec voters
for immediate priority to be given to social service reforms.
[English]
Finally, I appeal to government members, indeed to all members
of the House, not to miss yet another opportunity to provide some
positive leadership on the issue of social union.
[Translation]
This parliament's job in the coming months will be to create
winning conditions for all Canadians as we enter the 21st
century.
[English]
As we enter the 21st century there should be winning conditions
for taxpayers, winning conditions for jobs, winning conditions
for health care, winning conditions for all our people regardless
of their language, culture, ethnicity, station in life or where
they live in the country.
I urge all members to support the motion as a positive step
toward creating winning conditions for the new Canada of the 21st
century.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. leader of the Reform
Party. It concerns the deadline of December 31, 1998. I wonder
why this particular deadline.
1025
It seems that it has made the motion much more problematic than
it needed to be. My understanding is that the premiers would not
be happy with a motion passed by the House which required that
they and the federal government arrive at an agreement by the end
of this month, given what month it is. It seems hard to believe
the motion was put forward with any kind of realistic expectation
that this could happen, or put forward for that matter
constructively, knowing how difficult it would be to meet such a
deadline.
Those of us who approach this issue constructively are somewhat
mystified at why this deadline would be put in the motion. It is
not just in respect of the difficulty of meeting the deadline but
also because of the difficulty of having any due process between
now and then.
I remember the hon. member and his party castigating the rest of
us for lack of public consultation when it comes to these kinds
of things. Does the member really think that between now and
December 31, 1998 there could be some meaningful public
consultation, or has he converted to executive federalism?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I will respond in two ways. First, there is a
reason for the deadline. Our understanding is that the premiers
want this concluded by the end of the year. The premiers have
referred to the end of December as a deadline that must be met.
They are asking for the federal government to respond
conclusively to the resolutions they passed in August. They are
not saying that the legislation, if there is a requirement for
legislation, has to be in place. They want a definitive response
from the federal government by the end of the year to proposals
which have been on the table for months and months and months.
That is the reason for the December 31 deadline.
On the member's second point, of course we see a place for
public process but there has to be public process with respect to
some agreement that is in place. Until we know the federal
government's response to the premiers' resolutions, what would we
discuss with the public in a public discussion at this stage? It
would be the various options the federal government may pursue.
We see all sorts of room for process after there has been some
definitive agreement between the federal and provincial
governments. In fact we would insist on that.
I urge hon. members not to let the time factor be a restraint
from voting against the motion. The House has to put some
pressure on the government, which has been dragging its heels for
years on this subject, to come to some kind of conclusion now on
matters that have been before it for months.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about how important it is to invest in our
health care system for the benefit of all. The member doth
protest too much.
This is the member whose party supports a two tier health care
system, one for the rich and the leftovers for the rest of
Canadians. He is also the leader of the party that wants to
scrap the Canada Health Act which provides the foundation for the
quality of health care in Canada.
Will the member reverse his position on two tiered health care
and on eliminating the Canada Health Act?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the member shows a
gross and I would suggest a deliberate misunderstanding and
misrepresentation of the position of the official opposition. Our
position has always been that health care should be available to
all Canadians regardless of ability to pay and we do not support
an American style of health care. We never have and never will.
We are open to amendments to the Canada Health Act. Coming out
of the social union discussion we may require amendments to the
health act. If the member is concerned about the health care
act, he should be concerned about the violations of it today. One
of the five criteria of the Canada Health Act which the
government swears is its number one priority is accessibility to
the system.
Accessibility means being able to get health care when one needs
it. With 188,000 people on waiting lists, that one criterion of
the Canada Health Act is being violated tens of thousands of
times per day. It is violated not by anything the official
opposition has done but by the inaction of the federal
government.
1030
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the motion of
the Leader of the Opposition about the social union.
I want to reiterate some of the comments that he made regarding
the need for the federal government to show leadership and to
acknowledge to Canadians that there is room for reform in the
federation.
I would like to take a moment to explain what the social union
is. As the premiers stated in Saskatoon in August, “it is about
governments working together within their constitutional
responsibilities to ensure strong and sustainable health,
education and social services for all Canadians. It is not about
more power for one order of government or another”.
To put it quite simply, the social union would mean better
health care for all Canadians by ensuring that the funding
arrangements between the federal government and the provinces is
reformed on the basis of transparency, consistency and
sufficiency.
It was at Saskatoon that the premiers unanimously endorsed the
social union. That does not mean that there was not some heated
debate. There were concerns expressed by all the provinces. Some
provinces may have more difficulty with some areas than others,
but they compromised and they agreed to set a parameter of an
agreement.
The social union has the support of four Progressive
Conservative premiers. It has the support of three Liberal
premiers. It has the support of two New Democratic Party
premiers. And it has the support of the Parti Quebecois premier.
It crosses all party lines.
When the social union was debated in October, it had the support
of all the opposition parties. The federal Liberals stand alone
in their opposition to the social union. One has to question why
that is.
As Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan put it, “the Canadian social
union has been challenged in recent years by the unilateral
actions of the federal government”. It is time for the federal
Liberals to accept the evolving relationship between Ottawa and
the provinces.
The re-election of the Parti Quebecois yesterday has assured
Canadians that the social union issue will not go away. We are
faced with the paradox of the position of Premier Bouchard who on
the one hand is talking about strengthening the social union
while on the other hand he is intent on creating the winning
conditions for a referendum to take Quebec out of the federation.
[Translation]
It is clear that Quebeckers have decided to re-elect the Parti
Quebecois because they believe it to be the party that is best
able to govern and represent their interests.
It is also quite clear from the polls that what the large
majority of Quebeckers want is reform within the Canadian
federation, with increased control of their personal affairs.
This is what the Reform Party offers, not only to the Province
of Quebec, but also to all Canadians from all the provinces and
territories. Together, we must work to meet the winning
conditions for the creation of a new Canada.
[English]
While this motion should not be seen as a response to
yesterday's election, it is clear that the federal government has
allowed Premier Bouchard to gain the momentum.
With this motion, federalists can once again reclaim the
initiative that was started by the premiers. It is with this
opportunity of supporting this motion that the federalist forces
in this country can reclaim the position of leading toward a new
direction in the federation.
We can show all Canadians that by strengthening the partnership
between the two orders of government, by strengthening the social
union we can improve the federation.
1035
The premiers' agreement was not outrageous. It can in no way be
construed as an attack on the federal government or federal
powers.
For example, the premiers asked for collaborative arrangements
on federal spending in areas of provincial-territorial
jurisdiction. This means that before the federal government
starts spending money in an area of provincial jurisdiction, the
federal government should collaborate with the provinces. How
can this be construed as an attack on the federation?
I asked my constituents about this in my latest householder. The
question was: Do you agree that the federal government should be
prevented from spending money in provincial jurisdictions without
the approval of the majority of the provinces? With over 1,800
responses to date, over 80% of these respondents said yes. The
federal government should be prevented from spending money in
areas of provincial jurisdiction without the agreement of the
provinces.
The premiers also asked for a new dispute resolution mechanism
that would prevent disputes and resolve them fairly when they
arose. How does this challenge federal powers?
The provinces also asked for an opt out provision that would
allow provinces to opt out of any new or modified Canada-wide
program with full compensation provided that the province carries
on a program that addresses the priority areas of the Canada-wide
program.
The premiers claim that this is an essential dimension of the
provincial-territorial consensus negotiating position. The
premiers are being realistic with this position. Because our
country is so diverse, one cannot always impose a one size fits
all solution.
The social union has the unanimous support of the provinces.
Polls just prior to the Quebec election indicated that 73% of
Quebecers did not want separation but rather a renewed Canadian
federation. With this motion, the Reform Party is offering that
renewed Canadian federation, an opportunity to create the winning
conditions for a new and stronger Canada.
However, I do wish to put forth the following amendment. I
move:
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has been very involved on
behalf of the official opposition in endeavouring to ascertain
the positions of the various provincial governments with respect
to the social union.
She is also a representative from the province of British
Columbia. Would she care to comment on the importance of the
social union proposals to that great province? That province
will be the second largest province in Canada some time in the
21st century. Would she care to share a bit of her knowledge and
experience on that subject?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
The province of British Columbia, probably more than many, feels
very disconnected from the federation, from the central
government in Ottawa. Often we find ourselves on the other side
of a situation.
1040
It is very important for the federal government to recognize
that British Columbia is a growing province and is most likely to
be the second largest province in the next century. The federal
government must recognize that all the provinces have grown up.
It is time for this federal government to recognize that in 1867
the jurisdictions of health, education and social services were
given to the provinces. The provinces are ready to assume
responsibility. The provinces are asking the federal government
to acknowledge that they are capable of assuming that
responsibility and agreeing to the social union. It clearly
establishes some rules for this new partnership, with the
recognition from the federal government of the provinces' ability
to deliver services, and this new partnership will be confirmed
with the agreement of the social union. Because there is a set
process and regulations to be followed, this will enable the
provinces to do what they can do best, which is to deliver
services to their people who would receive the best services
because they are done by the government closest to them.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the member, is what we are really talking about
here not just a warmed over Charlottetown accord which is going
to give more power to the provinces, weaken the federal
government and play directly into the hands of separatist Premier
Lucien Bouchard? Is that not what they are proposing on the
other side?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. There is
no reason that the federal government would be less strong. All
we are talking about is an open relationship between the federal
government and the provinces recognizing the vision the founding
fathers had of confederation in 1867. There is no way this would
weaken the federal government any more than it already is by
telling Canadians that they are not prepared to look at the
country evolving from 1867, that they are not prepared to look at
change, that they are not prepared to work with the provinces to
provide better health care, education, and social services to the
people of Canada.
There is no way that this agreement can be considered the same
as the Charlottetown accord. I would suggest that with this
debate and the debate we had on the supply day motion a week ago,
we are trying to get this government to open up the debate so
Canadians will have an understanding of what it is we are talking
about. This House is a good place to start the debate. It is
important for all of us to continue this debate out in the public
and include Canadians in the decision making.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there seems to be one essential question that must be
asked first of all: Why do we have a federation?
My suggestion, the suggestion of the Government of Canada, is
that we have a federation in order to ensure that we are able to
pursue common objectives within our diversity of experiences.
Unitary countries can set common objectives, but cannot draw
upon the wealth of diversity of experience as a federation can.
Ten self-centred republics to the north of the United States
could have the diversity of experience, but not the same
capacity to set common objectives and benefit from each other's
support.
I say this because it is natural for provincial governments to
be concerned primarily by the diversity of experiences, or in
other words their own autonomy, while still keeping in mind the
necessity for common objectives. It is equally natural for the
federal government to be concerned primarily with common
objectives, while still keeping in mind the diversity of the
country. This is exactly what is happening with the
negotiations for social union, an issue of extreme importance
for all Canadians.
At the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada, primarily, as
well as the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister and the
premiers, along with the territorial leaders, reached agreement
on December 12 to try to improve the Canadian social union.
1045
The provinces set out to work together, coming up with a common
approach only on June 18. I cannot blame them for taking six
months; this is a complicated matter.
The Government of Canada took a month, until July 16, to react.
The Quebec premier really joined the discussion only on August
7, and without the leadership of a government in Quebec with a
belief in Canada, things became more complicated and progress
slower. Since then, we have been discussing these two
propositions together: one from the provinces and one from the
federal government. Both are under examination.
The aim is not to reach an awkward compromise between the two;
the aim is to draw out of the two the best possible social
policy, the best possible framework for a decision so Canadians
may have the social policies they are entitled to.
This is no easy achievement, because it is an important issue.
It involves health and the social safety of people in Canada and
because, what is more, we already have a good social union and
it is always hard to improve on something good. I hope that the
opposition parties will not try to diminish Canada's
achievements for political gain.
Canada has achieved something good in its social union, without
a doubt, as it has in the Canadian federation in general. It is
a success, when you look at what is going on elsewhere in the
world. It is not a work in progress.
And so it is difficult, and it is not just the Government of
Canada saying this.
[English]
A study released by the national bureau of economic research of
Harvard University about the quality of governments compared 150
governments according to their capacities to deliver good
services to citizens while respecting their freedom.
Canada ranked 5th of 150 governments. It is not so bad. We
have to improve something that already is good. We need to work
together, especially at this time following a lot of cuts and
difficulties. Governments have been able to put their fiscal
houses in order. Now together we have to choose good policies.
It may take time but it is necessary in order to succeed.
[Translation]
Now I would like to link this debate and the unity of our
country, Canadian unity. There is, in our opinion, a bad way to
pose the problem and a good way.
The bad way to pose it is to react as if in a panic under the
pressure of a separatist threat and as if we were trying to
appease them with a policy that could be a poor one, but simply
to placate them—this is what may be called loot politics.
Separation blackmail and loot politics have no hold on the
Government of Canada and never will, so long as the government
is Liberal.
[English]
Another way to badly describe it is to call it a power grab.
The federal and provincial governments both explain that is not
what is under negotiation.
Our difficulty arises when the Prime Minister is misquoted,
especially by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister
never said he does not want to improve the federation, to put
forward concrete changes. He said that constitutional change now
is not the best way to achieve it. The Leader of the Opposition
has said the same thing.
Why invent difficulties where there are none? I would
understand the Leader of the Opposition putting pressure on us
the way he is if the provinces were complaining that the federal
government is not negotiating completely in good faith.
I quote what Premier Romanow, chairman of the premiers
conference, said yesterday: “The first order of business is the
social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under
artificial deadlines or timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing
it with determination”.
The Prime Minister wants to do it. His ministers want to do it.
The premiers want to do it. Premier Bouchard signed on in
Saskatoon in August.
The bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial
governments is what the premiers did. They set out several
positions we would like to see implemented in the social union.
It is a bargaining position. It is a give and take. There is
compromise, flexibility and no artificial deadlines. I could not
agree more.
I have other quotes from premiers saying the same thing.
1050
I will now explain why the motion of the Leader of the
Opposition is unacceptable to the government and I will suggest a
motion that I hope will be acceptable to all parties.
The motion is that this House strongly urge the government to
conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to
December 31, artificial deadline. We do not need to rush. We
need to work cautiously and seriously, based on the unanimous
resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon August 7. I
am not sure what that means. Does that mean that if the Leader
of the Opposition were the Prime Minister of Canada he would sign
exactly what the provinces are suggesting?
If that is the case he and his party should say that very
clearly to Canadians. If it is to negotiate in good faith to see
if we can improve both federal and provincial proposals we would
agree, but this is too vague too support.
To strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial
and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social
programs for the future, why do we only want to secure social
programs? Do we not want to also improve our social programs?
Therefore I would move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “conclude” and substituting the following therefor:
“The best possible agreement with the provinces and territories
and based on the commitment of first ministers in December 1997
and affirmed by the provinces at Saskatoon last August 7, to
strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and
territorial governments in order to secure and improve Canada's
social programs for the future”.
[Translation]
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move this
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Since there already is an amendment before
the House, I think it is clear that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs cannot move another amendment right
now.
Is there unanimous consent to
allow the minister to move this amendment now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. The
amendment is therefore not in order.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot express strongly enough my disappointment
in the minister's speech.
It was just a litany of reasons for delay. It reminds me of
Lincoln's comment on people in his day who said they were in
favour of the abolition of slavery but could not do it on this
day, not on that day, not by this way and not by that way. At
the end of the day, of course, they really were opposed to the
change that was being recommended.
I would like to ask the minister a practical question. What is
it in the proposals put forward by the premiers that is the great
obstacle to bringing this to a successful conclusion?
Is it the opt out clause, is it the dispute settling mechanism?
What are the practical things that the federal government simply
cannot solve in its relations with the provinces that prevent
this social union agreement from moving ahead?
1055
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I find the comparison
irresponsible. It does not make sense. We will forget it.
We are speaking about something very important. It is not time
to suggest bad purposes to others. We are working to improve
health care, social policies for the people.
It is something important but it seems like the Leader of the
Opposition considers that a power grab from one government to
another.
What I know is we need to improve our capacity to work together,
the provincial and federal governments. We are looking at it
very responsibly. The provinces ask us to do the same. No one
speaks now about the deadline of December 31. This is not
responsible.
We will go ahead to have a good federation. We will improve
both the capacity to work together to our shared objectives and
the capacity for the provinces to experiment in the diversity of
their own solutions. It will be a win-win solution for federal
and provincial governments and above all for all Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have to ask the minister a question again, and I will do it very
slowly, because what I heard from him were a couple of notes
jotted down on a sheet. There was no forethought, there was no
organization in that. I suggest he read Hansard tomorrow
to see how little sense that speech actually made.
The member for Calgary Southwest asked him in good faith what is
the problem, what is the hang-up with the federal government, and
again more blather.
The minister knows how serious this issue is. The government
can talk about the fact that everything is great in Quebec and in
every other province. But the government did precious little to
help the federalist side in the election last night and then the
minister stands up today as if everything is terrific. It is not.
We have a separatist government again in Quebec.
I would like him to stand up and say exactly what it is with his
government that is the hang-up to seeing through this social
union that every premier in the country wants.
We do not need a lecture on unity this morning. We need the
minister to stand up and say what he will do to make sure the
social union goes through with every premier in the country and
what his hang-up is. Name it, please.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the central answer to
the question is we want something even better than what the
provinces have suggested for all Canadians. The provinces agree
that their current proposal is for negotiation. It is not
something they want us to sign as it is. They want to look at it
with us as we may improve it.
So where is the problem to try to improve something so
important? As the hon. member was starting to say in the
question, if we have a social union why do we have so much
poverty and unemployment and so on? It is true we have a lot of
things to improve in the federation and we will not succeed if we
do not invent good solutions for Canadians.
I will tell the House what we need for that. We need
imagination and faith in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
off, I would like to congratulate Lucien Bouchard and the Parti
Quebecois, in whom the people of Quebec put their trust
yesterday. They will form the next government in Quebec.
1100
I also want to congratulate Jean Charest and the Liberal Party,
Mario Dumont and the Parti de l'action démocratique, and all
those who participated in this election, whether or not they got
elected, illustrating what democracy is all about and how much
courage is required to take on this task.
I should point out that the government Quebeckers elected
yesterday is a good government. This was not a referendum. We
sovereignists never said it would be. The federalists in Quebec
were the ones who held it would be a referendum election. They
will have to live with that now.
We never made any such assertion. We are asserting, however,
that it is indeed a sovereignist government that the people of
Quebec elected yesterday, confirming the decision they had made
in the 1994 provincial election and in federal elections, first
in 1993 and again in 1997, with more than 60% of the members
from Quebec in this House being sovereignists.
That said, today, we must realize that, from across Canada and
also from Quebec yesterday everywhere, a clear message has been
sent to Ottawa. It concerns social union. This has been a
traditional demand of Quebec's for over 50 years. That is why I
was somewhat amazed to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs state that the motion before us was a panic reaction.
This is an issue that has been debated for 50 years, and we are
told this morning that it is a panic reaction.
I am also a little surprised to hear him tell us that this was
an artificial deadline. It is strange that this government
insisted so much on Quebec taking part in these negotiations,
considering that, since 1994, the PQ government was present at
the negotiation table 89% of the time, while from 1990 to 1994,
the provincial Liberals were present only 23% of the time. This
is the reality.
The federal government kept telling the PQ government to take
part in the negotiations, because it was important to settle the
issue. That was before the election. Now, less than 24 hours
after the results came in, this government says “This is not
urgent. Why all the fuss?”
I did hear Roy Romanow yesterday and I am very disappointed by
the attitude of the NDP today, because there are NDP
governments—I can think of Mr. Clark and Mr. Romanow—that
insisted on Quebec taking part in these negotiations, and that
saw how important it was to settle this issue.
The issue goes back a long time. I said 50 years, which includes
not only Maurice Duplessis, but also Jean Lesage, René Lévesque
and Robert Bourassa. These people were from various backgrounds
and represented different parties. However, they all shared the
same view on this issue.
I would like to quote Jean Lesage who, in 1960, said the
following and certainly not because he was panic-stricken:
This full financial compensation with the right to opt out
should take the form of additional taxation rights, specifically
reserved for the provincial governments, and of corresponding
equalization payments. Each province would be free to dispose of
these revenues as it pleases, within its own jurisdictions.
Daniel Johnson senior added the following in 1966:
Quebec hopes that it will be understood once and for all that,
for socio-cultural reasons, it insists wholly and absolutely on
its constitutional areas of jurisdiction being respected and
accepts no federal interference in those areas, whether direct
or indirect.
In 1970, Robert Bourassa, who can most certainly not be
suspected of any sovereignist leanings, said:
Quebec continues to believe that this federal spending power in
areas that come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction ought
quite simply not to exist, and the federal government would do
well to quite simply renounce it totally.
This was not panic speaking, it was a clear judgement by Robert
Bourassa. In 1978, René Lévesque added:
Quebec believes that federal spending powers ought to be
restricted only to those areas listed as exclusive or joint
federal responsibilities.
This is what Quebec has been saying clearly for 50 years. Today
in Quebec this is a view that is held not only by the Parti
Quebecois, which will form the next government as a result of
yesterday's election, but is also shared by Mr. Charest of the
Liberal Party and Mr. Dumont.
1105
This strategy of the sovereignists, along with that of the
federalists, and indeed of all leaders of political parties in
Quebec, all those who are politically active in Quebec, with the
exception of the federal Liberal Party and the members of that
party from Quebec who sit in this House, such as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, shows that we have the interests of
Quebec at heart. What is being practiced here is not the
politics of the worst case scenario, which is the worst kind of
politics. We are acting in defence of Quebeckers' rights.
Nor are we engaged in a kind of blackmail, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said earlier. Good heavens,
sovereignist policy has never had anything to do with holding a
knife to anyone's throat.
It was first expressed by Léon Dion, the father of the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs, and in pretty clear terms. Today,
they are trying to convince us that it was the sovereignists who
did so. We must get back a bit closer to the truth.
I believe the minister does not appreciate being confronted with
reality, but that is what was said, and history will prove it.
The sovereignists have never applied this policy. We were
clear. We are here to defend our interests.
Yes, we believe in sovereignty, and it is our right to do so,
just as others have the right to believe in federalism.
That is not what we are debating today because, for once,
federalists and sovereigntists are in agreement, the parties
here—I hope that the NDP will rethink its position—because Mr.
Clark is a New Democrat, Mr. Romanow is a New Democrat, Mr.
Harris, Mr. Klein and Mr. Filmon are Progressive Conservatives,
the Reform Party, the Progressive Conservative Party here, Jean
Charest, Mario Dumont, Lucien Bouchard, almost everyone except,
once again, the Liberals.
Who but this government is preventing the provinces and the
federal government from changing for the benefit of all
Quebeckers and Canadians? It sings the same old song at every
referendum, makes up all sorts of stories before a federal
election, and then, the morning after, tells us there is no rush
to resolve the situation.
For months, we heard quite the opposite. Now they tell us no
action is necessary. We say something has to be done and done
fast. As the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out,
we are not talking about a constitutional amendment. We are
talking about an administrative agreement.
Why is this urgent? Because there is a budget in the offing.
Because there are surpluses: $10.4 billion that the government
has built up over the first six months by dipping into the
pockets of the unemployed, by helping itself to money that
should go to the provinces for post-secondary education, welfare
and health, particularly health.
When the budget is brought down and if we do not reach an
agreement making it possible to opt out with full compensation,
we will see this government again launch into a spiral of
reckless spending that will saddle us with new deficits, again
interfering in provincial jurisdiction, having slashed health
care funding throughout Canada with dangerous results, and
swooping in to rescue us at the last minute, with assurances
that Ottawa knows best.
We have had it. We are fed up. That is the long and the short
of it. And that was the message sent by Quebeckers yesterday.
And it is the message being sent by the 10 premiers. And I hope
it is the message of all opposition parties worthy of the name
in this House.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I gather from the remarks of the Bloc Quebecois leader
that he welcomes the motion of the Reform Party. I presume it
fits perfectly into the sovereignist agenda of the Bloc
Quebecois. Is that not so?
Is the Bloc Quebecois not supporting the motion because the Bloc
Quebecois is on the same wavelength as the Reform Party and the
Reform Party is on the same wavelength as the Bloc Quebecois? It
is sovereignty and it is separation that the Reform Party is
supporting here. We can see this clearly.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion for
one main reason. It is because almost everybody in Canada is
supporting the motion and also in Quebec. All provinces are
supporting the motion. The only people in Canada who are not
supporting the motion are sitting on that side of the House, and
they are on a one-way to a dead end.
1110
That is why they are not supporting us. That is why they are
acting like father knows best, like Ottawa knows best. That is
the problem we have been facing for many years with the Liberals.
They are denying reality not only in Canada but mainly in Quebec
and are telling stories and tales to the people. That is why
Canadians do not understand what has gone on in Quebec. They had
a lesson another time and that is why not only Quebec but all the
provinces are supporting the motion of the Reform Party today.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I did not mean my rising to cause a mass exodus on the part of
the Bloc, but while the member who asked the last question is
still in the House I want to begin by saying that it is a
profound mistake to caricature this debate as one between
separatists and federalists, or between those who somehow support
the agenda of the Bloc and those who do not. There is a degree
of support within a variety of federalists in the country for the
whole notion of a social union.
It would be profoundly cheap in the political sense or
intellectually vacant to try to caricature the debate as somehow
having to do with who supports the separatists and who does not.
There may be a convergence of views among the Reform, the Bloc
and others, but I do not think this is the appropriate way to
portray the debate on this matter.
We have a convergence of a number of things. We have the
convergence of the view of the Reform Party which has always been
for a more decentralized Canada, a Canada in which the federal
spending power is much more restricted than it has traditionally
been, and the view of the Bloc which is a traditional Quebec
position whether or not one is a separatist.
The reality is that the Liberal government, far from the
provinces being the ones who have destroyed or are destroying the
power of the strong central government, has systematically
weakened and destroyed the power of the federal government in the
federation by acting unilaterally and unfairly, by withdrawing
from various programs and by acting in a way to weaken its power.
It does not make any sense to demonize the provinces. It is the
federal government that has been destroying its own status and
its own power in the country by way of withdrawing from the
partnerships it established, particularly with respect to
medicare and in a variety of other ways.
We have a convergence of what I would say is the Bloc and Reform
views of a more decentralized federation and a weakened federal
government, with the reality being that the federal government is
systematically weakening itself and converging with the reality
that the provinces have to deal with the federal withdrawal from
medicare, et cetera.
Provinces are saying they need some other way of dealing with
this matter. They cannot continue to imagine that they are in
some kind of idealistic partnership when in fact they are in no
partnership at all. They are constantly subject to the
unilateral actions of a federal government which does not
collaborate with them. It does not co-operate with them. It
does not endeavour to set up ways of dealing with these problems.
They want a less conflictual federation, the kind of conflict we
see all the time.
The minister thrives on this kind of conflict. I do not think
he is particularly helpful in the way he deals with it. He could
have answered the questions asked of him in a much more helpful
way than giving us the usual Liberal diatribe.
The social union, as I understand it, comes out of two things.
It comes out of the anxiety of the premiers after the referendum
of 1995 that there was no federal leadership. They needed to do
at least what they could do to provide a context in which
Quebecers who want to make the country work could see that others
in the country wanted to make the country work.
The anxiety about lack of federal leadership continues to this
day.
1115
There is still a paucity of federal leadership when it comes to
this file. On top of that is the fact that the federal
government in its budget of 1995 virtually withdrew from the
partnership it had established over the years with the provinces.
So we have these two factors which I think put the premiers on
the road to Saskatoon last August. I think there is great merit
in their proposals and great merit in trying to build a less
conflictual confederation.
I do not think the federal government has the authority any more
to unilaterally set standards in health care if it is not going
to pay the tune. If the federal government is only paying 6
cents or 15 cents on the dollar, or whatever it is, depending on
whose figures we believe, it just does not have it any more.
I wish the government would put the money back in, speak with
authority and go back to the old system. But if the government
is not going to put the money back in it cannot do it. It means
that it has to sit down with the provinces and work something out
instead of belabouring this with all of its tired, old rhetoric.
We have some concerns about the social union and about the
motion. We still think the December 31, 1998 deadline is not
helpful and not something which the chairman of the premiers
supports. But we also have concerns with the Saskatoon agreement
itself and I want to put those on the record. They are not
insurmountable things. They are things that could disappear in
the course of the negotiations between the provinces and the
federal government. I hope they would.
Our particular concern is with respect to the language of opting
out, with compensation, out of new or modified Canada-wide
programs. There is nothing new about new. “New programs” was
in Meech. “New programs” was in Charlottetown. But modified
Canada-wide programs would open up the door to a situation in
which at some point there could be changes to the Canada Health
Act or changes to something else with respect to medicare that
could allow some provinces to argue that medicare was now a
modified program and, therefore, they had the right to opt out of
it.
I can say, in spite of our desire to be agreeable and
constructive and to see the merits of the social union and the
merits of the provincial arguments on this score, that the
federal NDP will never agree to a social union which opens the
door to opting out of medicare by provinces.
On the other hand, it is important to get the social union so
that we do not have a situation in which provinces might decide
to opt out anyway. Because at some point, if it is only 6 cents
or 15 cents on the dollar, why would some provinces which feel
they could afford it not say that they might as well go it alone?
Then they would not have to put up with all of the rules from
these guys.
This is the danger, this is the precipice that this Liberal
government has led us to with respect to medicare and other
programs. By so weakening the federal presence in the existing
social union we now have these proposals before us which, in many
ways, we would not have if we had significant, real and inspired
leadership from the federal government on the unity file and in
respect of maintaining a decent federal presence in these social
programs. But we do not have that and so we have the situation
which is before us.
Another concern that we have has to do with the status of
aboriginal people in respect of the social union. There is a
concern on the part of the aboriginal leadership that the
fiduciary responsibility which the federal government has for
aboriginal people is not dealt with in any of the social union
documents that have come forward so far.
It certainly seems to me that this is something which has to be
addressed in some way or another if we are to conclude an
agreement at some time. At the moment the provinces and the
federal government do not take this into account at all.
I asked the leader of the Reform Party why he wanted an
agreement by December 31, 1998 and he said that he wanted a
federal response. The motion does not say “Let us have a
federal response by December 31, 1998”, it says “conclude an
agreement”. That is not just a federal response, it is an
agreement between the federal government and the provincial
governments. That is why that continues to be such an
unrealistic proposal.
1120
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I share many of the points of view that have been
expressed by the hon. member, except for the usual debate we have
about the role of the Liberal government. He knows what we will
answer to his critiques. We will say, as is the case, that if we
take into account the tax points, the federal government cut much
more from its own programs than it did in transfers to the
provinces. If we had not done that, our social union would be in
pretty bad shape today. We would have a huge deficit, no
economic growth and so on. But I do not think this is the matter
of debate today.
Today's debate is on how to improve the federation in terms of
aspects that are so important to Canadians, social policies and
health. As the member has said, the answer is to invent ways for
governments to work together, in partnership, in a more efficient
way. This needs imagination and faith. We must stop demonizing
the provinces and the federal government, as well as the games of
the separatists and so on. We must stop unilateral action and we
must work together as much as possible. That is why we invented
the CHST and that is why we have said that we will not
unilaterally decide on new programs like home care or pharmacare.
My question for the hon. member is the same as the question I
asked the Leader of Opposition, who did not answer it. Would he
sign the proposal of the provinces as it is, or would he consider
it, as the provinces are asking us to do, as a base for
negotiation in order to improve the social union?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister was
speaking to his parliamentary secretary while I was speaking. I
made it quite clear that the NDP would not sign the Saskatoon
agreement as it now stands. I went into great detail about how
we objected to the language of new or modified Canada-wide social
programs. The first dumb question of the day. I just explained
why we would not sign the Saskatoon agreement.
The minister said that they brought in the CHST in order to
solve these problems. I am saying that the CHST is a form of the
very unilateralism that the social union, in its best intention,
is designed to overcome. We have had one unilateral action after
the other, going back to the MacEachen budget of 1982, which was
the first time the EPF transfers were cut unilaterally by a
Liberal government. The Tories said that they would never do
such a thing. Then they were elected in 1984 and the first thing
Jake Epp did was unilaterally cut the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but I am
going to unilaterally cut the member off because we have two
minutes for questions and comments.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his talk. I
would ask him not to get too hung up on the deadline, mainly in
light of the minister's response.
The hon. member sees the resistance on the part of the
government to moving forward on this at all. Our reason for
putting the deadline was to try to create pressure.
The member suggested that maybe we should ask for a federal
response. I know what the member is getting at, but he has seen
the federal response. It is pure mush. It does not drive to a
conclusion. I would ask the member to reconsider that.
The premiers added a modifying clause to the opt out clause.
They added: “provided that the province or territory carries on
a program or initiative that addresses the priority areas of the
Canada-wide program”. The member is aware of that proviso. Did
that help him at all in his objection?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was not saying that the
motion would be better if it asked for a federal response. I was
saying that when I asked the member a question about the
deadline, he talked about a federal response instead of talking
about the language that is actually in the motion, which is to
conclude an agreement. I was not asking for a federal response;
it was the member himself in responding to my question.
The modified opt out clause is not good enough for us when it
comes to medicare. We entertain no notion by which it would be
possible for provinces to opt out of medicare. We can see the
possibility for new programs, et cetera, but we consider medicare
to be beyond reproach and beyond the reach of any new
arrangements with respect to the social union.
1125
We would like to see the federal government do what we think it
should do, which is to re-establish its credibility and its moral
authority in this area by putting back at least $2.5 billion into
the federal transfers and not the piddling $1 billion that may be
called for by the finance committee. This is something that the
government should do if it wants to bargain in good faith and
show Canadians that it really means it when it talks about—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the
time for questions and comments has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, once
again the opposition parties are the ones raising the issue of
social union in this House. It is very difficult to advance this
issue federally.
Members will probably recall that the Bloc Quebecois introduced
a similar but more detailed motion whose intent was the same: to
spur the federal government to action. Between the Bloc
Quebecois motion and today's Reform motion, a meeting chaired by
the Minister of Justice was held in Edmonton, if I am not
mistaken, with the intergovernmental affairs ministers of all
the provinces. It seems to have helped provide both sides with a
clearer understanding but nothing has come of it.
That is unfortunate.
This morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs alluded
to a federal government proposal. Which proposal? I would like
the minister to give us an example or two. I would like to know
the status of the federal government's proposal.
An hon. member: He should table it.
Mr. André Bachand: I cannot force him to table it; he has not
put it on the record yet. If he agrees to do so, then House
rules will apply and the minister will introduce his proposal in
the House.
I wish the minister and the government would provide more
details. There is no substance; this is an empty proposal. There
are numerous concerns and the government does not seem to
understand how important social union is.
It is a two-way street.
Our NDP colleague who just spoke was quite reticent. He does
not really understand what a social union is either.
During the Quebec election campaign, we saw that the Premier of
Quebec also perhaps interpreted what he signed in his own way.
He quoted only one or two paragraphs of the agreement.
I would like to hear about the famous right to opt out and have
the minister read the federal proposal on opting out. What
Quebec, with Premier Bouchard, understands is that opting out
includes full compensation, but not obligation. The Saskatoon
agreement does not say that, however. There is no automatic,
universal and unquestioned right to opt out. Absolutely not.
The rules are set when a new program is created or an old one
modified, and the government says to the provinces—I said this
in October on the subject of the Bloc motion, and I say it
again—there is the right to opt out of the administration of a
program, but there is an obligation to change or establish a
program in line with what was negotiated.
A system of national standards is set up, in the end. Some in
Quebec will react angrily to that, naturally, but this is what
is to be found in the document on social union. We can agree
with that or not. However, could we have the minister's position
and a quote from his document on opting out—an important
element in the respect of jurisdictions and the administrative
capabilities of the provinces and regions? Could we have a bit
of information?
The other element is the matter of the veto, which is not a
veto.
That is in the document as well, and it requires consent. If
there is no consent, a veto applies. After the veto comes the
right to compensation. But what is that? Could we hear from
the government on that? Could we make progress on the matter of
the social union?
Could we not involve the parliamentarians in this House? Would
the government not agree to strike a committee comprising all
parties? We could agree, first, to explain what is meant by
social union and see whether we agree on the definitions. We
could quickly set up an all party committee. Perhaps we have
some good ideas on both sides of the House to move things
forward a bit.
1130
The minister could surely propose good ideas and be open to the
good ideas of the opposition, and we would know what is going
on.
People in every riding ask us “What is this social union?” We
try to get into the specifics. We tell them “It is a document
that was prepared by the provinces”. This morning, the minister
told us that there is also a federal document, a federal
proposal. Does such a document actually exist? Is this just
rhetoric or is there really a written document? If there is such
a document, could it be distributed among parliamentarians? That
would be important.
As for the wording of the Reform motion, it goes without saying
that we cannot disagree with the notion of social union. The
Conservative Party has been discussing this issue for two years,
but our approach is much more comprehensive. We talk about a
social and economic union, about what we call the Canada pact.
Again, we have been discussing this issue for a long time. It
was an integral part of the Conservative Party's platform during
the 1997 election campaign. We would like things to move forward
a little. They do at the provincial level and they should at the
federal level.
The Reform Party's motion stems from yesterday's election in
Quebec. Yesterday, the Reform Party was preparing for action. It
sent an opposition motion and then changed it. The Reform Party
changed its mind. It prepared another motion on a different
issue. All this is not very serious. It lacks credibility.
Social union is so important.
This is part of the everyday lives of Quebeckers and of
Canadians. Credibility and seriousness are required.
As for the December 31 deadline, unfortunately, I have my
Christmas shopping to do, and I am not alone in that. It is
December now. A government has just been elected in Quebec .
Some outcomes will be contested, which will not change much, but
still. Before a new cabinet is sworn in at Quebec City, weeks
will go by. Is it not a bit irresponsible on the part of the
Reform Party to propose this?
But I understand the idea. Mr. Bouchard spoke about a December
31 deadline. I understand the other provinces, but would we in
this House have any credibility—at least on this side—if we said
“We will put in the dates that work best”?
I feel this is important.
December 31 is all very fine. The Leader of the Official
Opposition told my NDP colleague “there is no point getting all
caught up in dates”. Even without getting all caught up in
dates, it is still important. When legislation comes into
effect, like Bill C-68 on firearms, it is important. A date is a
date.
I have problems with the matter of a date. I have a lot of
problems as well with what possessed the Reform Party to bring
into this House a less detailed proposal than that made by our
Bloc Quebecois colleagues in October.
Being more detailed, ours forced the government to address
matters in greater detail, as we are trying to do again this
morning, and to get some answers, to find out what is going on:
Is the general store open or closed? Can customers enter or
not? What is going on?
We do not really know what is happening with social union. What
we hear from the government is “We shall see, there is no hurry,
negotiations are under way”.
Today's motion by the Reform Party is like the feel-good Barney
song “I love you, you love me”. But we cannot get any details
on it. I feel we could have pushed a bit harder on this.
I have great difficulty with the December 31 date. It is not
credible. It could have been signed in September or perhaps in
October.
There was nothing from the federal government, but now it is
right before the holidays, a new government has just been
elected in Quebec. Give it some time. Will Mr. Facal still be
Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs? I think he
will. Mr. Facal himself said he had had a good meeting in
Edmonton. Could the government not demonstrate a bit more
credibility?
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment.
It will perhaps not be along the lines of what the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs suggested this morning, but it will
reflect the New Democrats' concerns.
1135
I think the Reform Party is prepared to accept this amendment.
Again, it is a question of credibility, because the Parliament
of Canada should not be telling the provinces to work everything
out before December 31.
I seek unanimous consent to move the following amendment,
seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I move:
That the words “prior to December 31, 1998” be deleted and
replaced with “prior to the next federal budget”.
This is important.
The provinces are worried about the next federal budget and the
next throne speech. I am asking that, prior to the next federal
budget, prior to the next throne speech and prior to the next
cabinet shuffle, the federal government, the Minister of
Finance, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime
Minister reach an agreement with the provinces that would then
be reflected in the federal budget.
It is a minor amendment and takes nothing away from social
union, the Reform Party or any other party, or the government.
What we are saying is that, with the prospect of a budget of
over $140 billion that refers to transfer payments and
federal-provincial relations, and a throne speech in which new
programs will be announced, would it be possible to have an
agreement prior to the next federal budget and throne speech?
What we are proposing is some credibility, some responsibility
and some action, and we are seeking the unanimous consent of the
House.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member rightly pointed out that the December
31 deadline was totally unrealistic.
Indeed, it must be remembered that it was on December 12, 1997
that the Prime Minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan
convinced their counterparts to go ahead with improving the
social union. The provinces came up with their own proposals in
mid-June. The federal government replied in mid-July. The Premier
of Quebec only got on board in early August. Without the
leadership of the Premier of Quebec, things are much more
complicated. Since then, an election was called in Quebec, and
that also slowed things down.
We are negotiating rather intensely.
I remind the hon. member that his party was in office for eight
or nine years and never proposed such measures. They tried the
Meech Lake accord, but I would remind him that in the throne
speech of February 1996, the federal government agreed to make a
move and to improve the use of its spending power more
significantly than under the Meech Lake accord. We are already
in the post-Meech era.
As for getting parliament involved, I quite agree, but again
this is a matter of stages. Right now, negotiations are taking
place between governments. There is not a single provincial
government that would agree to discuss these negotiations in
committee in its own legislature. Again, this is simply a matter
of going step by step.
I must also point out that the provinces' proposal was not made
public by the provinces, but was leaked to the media, which is
very different.
Finally, I have a question for the hon. member. It is the same
question I put, in vain, to the leader of the official
opposition, who did not answer, and the same one I put to the
NDP member, who did reply. If they were in office today, would
the Progressive Conservative leader, Mr. Clark, and his party
sign the provinces' proposal as it stands?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to
reread the Progressive Conservative Party's 1997 election
platform. It is very clear. In our opinion, the proposal on
social union must go much further. We are also thinking about
the economic union. If the federal government were open, we
could talk of social union and resolve it and talk of economic
union as well.
Matters go even further. The social union under consideration
also requires a number of federal departments to move. I remind
you that the ministers of finance of all the provinces asked the
federal government in May and June in the negotiations on social
union for money and a five-year commitment.
What we are saying is that we agree with the social union as
proposed.
However, it must include a financial commitment from the
Minister of Finance, as proposed at the time of the agreement in
May and June, and must, in our opinion, also deal with the
matter of economic union.
1140
At the moment, Mr. Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party
have no problem with social union. It is a document that
warrants being translated into law, into regulations, but it
suits us fine.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the member of the Conservative Party to clarify the time
frame contemplated with respect to social union.
The motion clearly states an agreement must be reached prior to
December 31, 1998, and its purpose is to ensure that the next
federal budget will not contain, as last year's budget did,
initiatives like the millennium scholarships, which are not in
keeping with the Saskatoon declaration.
This is the time of year when the federal budget is being
prepared. The longer the time frame is, the more likely the
government is to hide behind the fact that the budget is
prepared ahead of time.
I would like to understand the member's position with respect to
the time frame, while at the same time hoping that an agreement
can be reached by the end of December. I would also like to know
whether he wants the next federal budget to be in keeping with
the spirit of the Saskatoon declaration, so the government does
not pull another stunt like the millennium scholarships, but
this time around with new initiatives in health care or in other
fields.
I would like to determine whether he is making it clear to the
government that it better not make another mistake like the
millennium scholarships in other provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his question.
We are indeed going further. Far from being closed, the matter
of the millennium scholarships is in fact on the table, as part
of the negotiations on social union. In our opinion, the
millennium scholarships are not in keeping with the agreement
signed by Pearson and Lesage in the 1960s.
Everyone should keep the issue of social union in mind and
remember that the millennium scholarships will have to be
reconsidered in light of the agreement with Quebec.
Regarding the December 31 deadline, to suggest such a date
before the next budget has been described as a cynical move. If
an agreement is reached before the next budget, I think
including it will not be a problem. If the government is
committed to reaching an agreement before the next budget, it
will have a potential agreement in mind while preparing its
budget, as we will see in the throne speech.
The throne speech may very well do a great deal of damage.
Notwithstanding all this, I agree with my colleague that the
next budget must respect, if not the letter, at least the spirit
of social union, the spirit of the Canadian pact.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to express my support for the opposition motion before us. I
will read the motion, to make sure it is well understood:
That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement
with the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998,
and based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed
to last August 7th at Saskatoon, to strengthen the partnership
between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in
order to secure Canada's social programs for the future.
On November 25, 1997, the official opposition moved a motion
supporting the efforts made by the provincial premiers to reform
the federation with the Calgary declaration, including the
seventh point of that declaration, dealing with a reform of the
social union.
That motion specifically asked the federal government to promote
public awareness of the Calgary declaration in Quebec and to
hold consultations on this issue. I personally questioned the
Prime Minister on several occasions regarding his plans to
consult Quebeckers, but he did not reply and he did not take any
measures to that effect.
The government supported the motion, but did not take the
necessary measures, thus missing a golden opportunity to make
Quebeckers aware of the fact that other Canadians want to reform
our federation.
Then, on August 7, after intense negotiations between the
provinces, in which Lucien Bouchard took part, the ten premiers
and the two territorial leaders supported the resolutions for a
new partnership between the two levels of government regarding
the delivery of social services, including the refinancing of
health care services.
1145
The Prime Minister did, however, react negatively to these
proposals, and his colleagues refused to act on a number of the
most important points. There was not yet any concrete and
tangible progress toward reform of the federation when the
Quebec election was called on October 28.
In an Angus Reid poll on November 24, conducted in Quebec for
Radio-Canada, 73% of respondents said that if Premier Bouchard
were re-elected, his priority should be to attempt to improve the
position of Quebec within Confederation, while only 24% said he
should commence to gather “winning conditions” for a referendum
on sovereignty.
[English]
I would like to remind the government and all members of the
House that we have a great opportunity to put partisan politics
aside and to put Canada first.
Our motion outlines exactly what we would like the government to
do, to give a response to the premiers of all the provinces that
want a response before the end of the year as to whether or not
the conditions outlined in the Saskatoon agreement are in line
with what the government believes should be reformed in the
federation for the future. It is a simple request on behalf of
the official opposition. I believe that all members of the House
see the value of this simple request.
In effect, when we see what happened last night in the province
of Quebec, when we see the feelings that exist right across the
country with regard to the way the federation functions in its
current state, especially with regard to the relationship between
the provincial governments and the federal government, there is a
real need and desire for positive change.
The premiers have done this on two occasions, first with the
Calgary declaration and now with their meeting in Saskatoon. They
are urging the federal government as are we in the official
opposition to either concur or give some sort of response whether
or not the federal government agrees with this initiative.
We in the official opposition have said that we believe this is
a positive start. These are exactly the ideas that need to be
talked about when it comes to the balance of power in the country
and the way relationships exist between the federal government
and the provincial governments. It is obvious that sort of
sentiment exists right across the country, not just in Quebec
where again we see people are not happy with the status quo as we
saw last night with the election results.
[Translation]
Finally, I would appeal to the government members, indeed all
members, not to miss yet another opportunity to provide some
positive leadership on the issue of the social union.
The task of this Parliament in the months ahead is to create
winning conditions for all Canadians as we enter the 21st
century, winning conditions for taxpayers, winning conditions
for jobs, winning conditions for health care, winning conditions
for all our people regardless of their language, culture,
ethnicity, station in life, or where they live in the country.
I urge all hon. members to see support of this motion as a
positive step toward creating winning conditions for the new
Canada of the 21st century.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as you will hear from all my hon. colleagues, we
are happy to put forward the motion. As the Leader of the
Opposition has said, despite the timeline that we put within the
motion and which has also been outlined by the premiers, we feel
that it is very important that the government finally take some
leadership on the issue. It must put forward a response to give
some encouragement to the premiers for the hard work they have
done in trying to reform the federation to help us take it into
the 21st century.
1150
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given what the member has said, does he agree that the
federal government and the provinces should certainly negotiate
and try to come up with a more effective social union, but would
he not agree that it should not be at the price of weakening the
federal government's influence in the lives of Canadians? We
have to keep the federal government strong. Would he not agree
with that?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to entertain
the hon. member's question, but because the federal government
has remained so strong and many people feel that it has neglected
especially the regional issues and concerns in this country, the
answer is not to continue strengthening only the federal
government. As the official opposition and the premiers are
putting forward, it is time to look at rebalancing the powers
that exist between the federal government and the provincial
governments.
This might mean that we would not only just strengthen the areas
of provincial jurisdiction, but at the same time strengthen the
areas of jurisdiction which are solely federal. It is not just
unilaterally looking at the federal government and saying we
should have a strong federal government and neglect the provinces
as this government has done, but looking at the way to strengthen
the balance of power that exists between the provincial
governments and the federal government.
We have outlined that in our new Canada act. The premiers have
outlined how to do that in their deliberations. I would
encourage the hon. member not just to look at it as unilaterally
strengthening the federal government, but to look at how to
balance that relationship as the whole country is calling out
for.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member and other members in his party use health care as an
example of one of the areas in which they want to balance the
federation.
I have to ask again whether the member supports his party in its
position that there should be the option to have a two tier
health care system where the rich could pay for the health
services that they want and whatever is left over, the residuals,
would be left for the rest of Canadians.
Is this what he calls rebalancing the federation, by allowing
the dismantling of the Canada Health Act and allowing a two tier
health system, or does he have some other explanation of how he
is going to balance that?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon.
Leader of the Opposition attempted to answer this question
earlier in the debate and I am happy to do so once again.
It is clear that we currently have a problem in our health care
system. The only ones in the House who do not want to face up to
that fact are the members opposite. They have cut billions of
dollars out of the transfers in health care. The only thing the
official opposition has ever said with regard to health care, and
I know the Leader of the Opposition reiterated it, is that we
want to have access to health care for everyone within our
Canadian system. We want to strengthen that. It might mean that
we have to allow some flexibility under the current system.
It is just not acceptable when 1,400 doctors are going south and
there are over 188,000 people on waiting lists. Obviously there
is a problem. The government has neglected its commitment on
transfers to health care and it is leaving no other options for
the provinces to deal with that situation.
Our commitment is to a national health care system. There is no
doubt about it. We should look at that system and see how we can
provide health care much more effectively. If that means
flexibility to some extent with the Canada Health Act, then so be
it. But we need to be able to provide the same standards to
everyone across the country.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand the Reform Party in this motion, it is that the House
of Commons of Canada should accept, without question and without
any attempt to negotiate, the position of all the provinces. Is
that truly the position it is putting forward?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
read the motion as it stands, it says that we urge the government
to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior
to December 31, 1998. That does not mean to accept it in its
current form. Even we as the official opposition have some
concerns with the current agreement but we feel it is a positive
initiative. We feel it should be entertained in this House.
1155
As the premiers have asked, we should be giving the response to
them by the deadline they have outlined. The government has
known about this agreement for a number of months now. We cannot
continue to wait. We have to act. That is what the official
opposition motion deals with.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise this afternoon to speak on a topic that is important to all
of us, national unity. National unity takes on a special
significance today given the results of yesterday's election in
which a party dedicated to the break-up of our country was
re-elected in the province of Quebec.
Although the Government of Quebec will attempt to say that it
has been given a mandate to hold a referendum and begin the
departure from Canada, I beg to differ. I believe Quebecers have
made a choice of good governance and not separation. Poll after
poll indicates that Quebecers do not want another referendum.
The premier of Quebec is looking for what he calls the winning
conditions for separation. We must ensure that the only winning
condition which exists is that of Canada. It is time that we all
rise to this challenge and create the climate for winning
conditions for Canada. All Canadians must work together to
ensure that there is not another referendum.
The solution is a political one and parliament has a very
important role to play. We must give all Quebecers and all
Canadians a reason to believe in our country. We must show them
that Canada can work. This is a wake-up call for the Government
of Canada. It is time for it to be proactive. A Liberal
government cannot take the stance it took in the last referendum.
Today in Canada there are options and ideas on the table. The
official opposition has already presented the new Canada act.
Today's motion contains a framework for Canada as we enter into
the 21st century.
The official opposition is committed to ensure that every
attempt is made to avoid the break-up of the country that we love
so much. Canadians from coast to coast share the same view. We
have seen the Calgary declaration garner support from almost all
provinces. We have also seen the provinces make tremendous
progress on the issue of the social union.
We have a rare opportunity for co-operation between provinces.
We must seize this golden opportunity for a new era of
federal-provincial co-operation that will benefit all Canadians.
I also feel that the Calgary declaration and the social union
will give Quebecers a reason to believe in this country. The
time for rhetoric and feel good statements is over. It is time
for this government to act.
Let us consider what we are discussing today. The social union
negotiations which are currently taking place between the federal
government and its provincial counterparts are a tremendous step.
First, we have seen a unanimous provincial consent on the issue
of the social union. This is significant given the ideological
and partisan differences which exist among our provinces. Second,
the social union will afford the provinces the right to create
programs tailored to their individual needs.
When we talk of social union, what exactly are we referring to?
We are referring to a new system where the provinces would have
greater freedom to design social programs to fit their individual
character. There needs to be more federal-provincial
consultation in the design of social programs and a collaborative
approach to the use of federal spending powers.
Provinces should be given the ability to opt out of programs and
receive compensation as long as they implement a program which
addresses the specific needs. It is clear that in certain areas
national standards are needed, but national standards do not
necessarily mean federal standards. They need to be developed
jointly with the provinces.
When disagreements do occur, a dispute settlement process is
needed which is not dominated by one side. Perhaps more
important, a social union is needed so that the federal
government cannot unilaterally dictate standards, cut funding,
and then expect the provinces to maintain these standards.
1200
The provinces need to know that sufficient funds will be made
available by the federal government so that programs can be
effectively implemented. The social union is essential because
our country is large and diverse. A central parliament cannot
hope to effectively address the needs of diverse regions.
My one and a half years as an MP have reinforced my view that
decentralization in key areas is the best method of dealing with
our diversity. It is time that the federal government realize
this and stop playing with the future of our country. The federal
government has done an effective job of convincing Canadians that
any sharing of powers is detrimental the well-being of our
nation. We have reached a point when we must re-evaluate the
manner in which we approach our deteriorating social net.
Let me draw the attention of members to what is happening in my
home province of Alberta. In Alberta today we receive $578
million less than we did in 1994 for health care. At the same
time, Alberta's health care spending has risen by $400 million
largely due to an aging and increasing population and high costs
of medical technology and drugs. Overall Alberta has gone from a
50:50 cost sharing arrangement with the federal government to a
situation where the federal government now funds approximately
14% and the province of Alberta spends about 86% for health,
education and social assistance.
Lacking predictable funding, provinces like Alberta have been
scrambling to address the long term issues that have risen in our
social assistance program. Provinces now share all future risks
due to rising costs, aging population and lifelong learning.
As the government assumes a lesser role in the area of social
care, this void is being filled by families, individuals and
communities. There are over 700 community organizations and
literally thousands of dedicated volunteers delivering social
services in the city of Calgary. However, despite the best
efforts of these fine people there are simply not enough
resources set aside for social programs.
In my home town of Calgary there is an estimated 1,000 homeless
people requiring shelter. A recent attempt to provide shelter
for 150 of Calgary's downtown homeless population failed largely
due to costs and red tape. Many people find themselves on the
outside looking in. This is not acceptable. Hence we see the
desire of the provinces to create programs for their specific
needs.
Again, the federal government is taking its usual slow time to
respond. Therefore our motion is calling for a deadline. The
Leader of the Opposition has asked the government what
is the hold up. The government is not answering.
[Translation]
Ladies and gentlemen, it is high time we took this
responsibility seriously.
[English]
Therefore I call on all members of the House to cast aside
partisan politics and help create the winning conditions for
federalism.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker I
will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
We are given an opportunity for debating today a concept-social
union. It is important to note that it is not tabula rasa. It
is not a new concept. It was first used in continental Europe in
the 1970s. Members can find it applied in a practical sense in
countries like West Germany. One should draw a lesson from that
that the attainment of a social union, which is a pragmatic term,
requires institutional changes and adjustments in many levels of
government. In the European case it involved bringing in three
levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and some
consequential constitutional changes. It is not something that
can be legislated overnight by a wave of a magic wand.
1205
In Canada we have had some experience, not all of it necessarily
successful, with varying conceptions of the locations of social
policy making, sometimes helped by court decisions and sometimes
hindered.
What I am saying is that the issue is complex and cannot be
resolved in a quick snap debate and knee-jerk reaction to events
in other places.
The motion before us is an official opposition motion and a very
specific motion. It sets an artificial deadline of December 31,
1998. Why? It urges the conclusion of an agreement with
provinces, to legislate in other words. It is also predicated on
what is stated to be a unanimous resolution of provinces,
although we have already had suggestions from the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona intervening in this debate that while there
was a consensus there was not an identity of views on all
subjects.
The motion strikes one as perhaps something that was put forward
in good faith by people who stayed up too late watching
television and television events but could have benefited perhaps
by more examination of the problem area. What we are dealing
with is a process of ongoing negotiations between heads of
government. It is not for strangers in the process to intervene
without carefully considering what is already there.
In fact, constitutions change, federal systems can change by
constitutional amendments and by great acts of legislation. But
the experience is of course that those are rare events and rarely
come to successful fruition unless in periods of national
euphoria, the experience of other countries after a great
revolution or military victory or something similar.
What worries me in this motion is that it ignores the fact that
there is an ongoing process involving heads of government talking
to each other in good faith and basing themselves on a reality
that since the 1982 Constitution Act it is very difficult to
change our Constitution by a formal amendment. To make
legislation or an amendment or an agreement which presumably
would have to be legislated, the be all and end all, one puts
aside the very effective and pragmatic opportunities and
processes for changing a federal Constitution.
What we are seeing in action is executive diplomacy being
exercised between heads of government.
If one listened to the debate this morning one would see that
while everybody approaches with enthusiasm the general notion of
doing something new in social policy, there are wide divergencies
in what should be done and how it could be done.
One heard from the leader of the third party a very strong call
for constitutional changes involving the federal spending power.
We heard from the member for Winnipeg—Transcona who was, I
think, reflecting the views of his provincial government, not as
a spokesman but simply because he is aware of them, a strong
opposition by his province to opting out.
These are the crucial details, the crucial elements of a new
agreement on a social union that would have to be worked out and
before any formal agreement could be made. They are being worked
out. There is a give and take in executive diplomacy and that is
what it is all about.
That is why I come back to the basic issue that we have an
ongoing process. If there is consensus at the end it can lend
itself to administrative structural changes in the system of
government without the need for a constitutional amendment. With
a constitutional amendment if an agreement can be reached but
without it with the elements of flexibility built in to
accommodate different provincial positions.
We have models for that in the Pepin-Robarts report which I
think the leader of the third party commented on and which was
helped considerably by the intervention of Léon Dion.
1210
Those particular agreements build in the possibility of a
pluralistic federalism that allows different arrangements for
different provinces. Would this be the conclusion of the process
of discussion and negotiation on the social union now taking
place? I cannot foresee that result until the negotiations come
to an end.
To put it into an a priori agreement now, here are the
blueprints, how are they outlined, I think would fetter and
confine a process of adjustment, a process of give and take that
is the lifeblood of any dynamic federal system.
My statement to this motion would be that it is premature, it
interrupts an ongoing process and may hurt or delay its
successful completion. I think in particular the deadline is
something that puts an unnecessary time limit on it.
What I would urge this House to do is accept the spirit of the
motion that we are committed in Canada, as we have been ever
since 1867, to a concept of a constitution as a living tree, the
words of Lord Sankey uttered much later, that a constitution is
continually evolving, that executive diplomacy, the give and take
of negotiations between heads of government is part of that. It
introduces a degree of flexibility and an ability to meet special
conditions in one province or region rather than another that
formal constitutional amendments do not do.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the points of debate raised by my colleague
opposite.
In the social policy renewal initiative began in August 1995 by
the premiers. There is a long series of initiatives and steps of
progress that has been made in the process of social policy
renewal by the provinces and territories since that time. I will
not go through that. Given the hon. member's erudition he is well
familiar with these.
From August 1995 to December 1998 the premiers have been
beavering away in sensible, logical, well thought out steps on
social policy renewal. I would like to ask the hon. member what
the federal government has done to assist and to influence this
process and how long the hon. member believes would be reasonable
before the federal government actually comes to some conclusion
in this whole process which has now been going on since at least
August 1995.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for a very thoughtful question. It should be remembered that the
federal government is only one player in this process and in the
spirit of pluralistic federalism we do not seek to impose our
will on the other players. We seek consensus.
One of the realities we face when we look at the provinces is
personnel change. Provincial elections change, governments change
their own attitudes. On this issue we could say we will adopt
the Pepin-Robarts report. We will apply this sort of formula.
We would like, however, the provinces to help us on this issue.
For example opting out, is this something that all provinces
would accept? If it is not, why not? Is it something that some
would accept and not others?
As federal players we are not seeking to impose our will. We
are part of a process and we recognize that the delays, which we
would regret as much as anybody, occur from the necessary
democratic point of obtaining a consensus.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that
answer but it does puzzle me. First of all, the member says the
federal government is only one player. I remind the member again
that the provinces, the other players, have been playing. They
have been playing vigorously. They have been kicking the ball
toward the goal post for over three years.
What has the federal government been doing? What has it been
doing to play in the game? Yes, it is only one player, but as
far as I have seen it has not been doing much to play.
1215
The member says that the provincial players keep changing. If
that is a reason for not getting an agreement, we will never have
an agreement because the players keep changing in any government.
Surely the people of the country deserve the players that are on
the field at the time to move toward a goal.
Given whoever is playing at a particular time, what is a
reasonable timeframe for social policy renewal to reach some kind
of conclusion?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the supplementary question. It is not simply that provincial
players change. It is that attitudes within provinces change.
At this time, for example, we are getting strong representations
from the third level of government on issues of this sort and
they are obviously part of the general negotiation. If what is
involved may eventually be a constitutional amendment, it is part
of the process of incorporating those views, seeing whether they
are accepted or rejected.
As I say again, the federal government could develop an ideal
type of what we think should be the social union, but we want to
be sure the consensus is there. This debate has made very clear
that as between even the parties in opposition there is no
consensus as to what they mean by the social union. I will not
say it is a chameleon word, but it is a word, as Dewey said,
whose truth is determined operationally. When they finally get
together and say we agree on this, this is the give and take.
Then we can move.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party is urging the government to conclude an
agreement on social union with the provinces and territories
before December 31.
I am glad that the Reform Party is taking such an active
interest in our social union, but I cannot support the motion.
Such an important issue takes time to address. Imposing
arbitrary time lines serves no one's best interest.
The government is committed to a few simple principles. We want
to continue to build a stronger, more compassionate and
prosperous Canada. We want to improve the quality of life for
all Canadians. Also we as parliamentarians want to leave a
legacy for our children and our youth.
There is no magic formula to accomplish this. There are no
simple solutions. Anyone who says that there are is either naive
in my opinion or trying to pull a fast one.
Positive change requires concerted effort on a wide variety of
fronts. It demands the good will and co-operation of all levels
of government as well as the citizens of the country. Perhaps
most of all it requires the right attitude. We need to focus on
what we can accomplish together. We need to be willing to share
our strengths and help each other to overcome our weaknesses.
That is the kind of attitude the government brings to policy
making. That is the kind of attitude that will help launch
Canada confidently into the 21st century.
The Government of Canada has worked very hard over the last five
years to renew federalism. It will continue to do so in the
months and years to come, because no healthy system is ever
static. We have a vibrant democracy and robust institutions. It
is only natural that they would grow and develop over time.
The Reform Party's motion raises some issues that are dear to
Canadians. In many respects our social programs reflect the
heart of the country. They speak to what we stand for as
Canadians. As Canada changes, they need to evolve, but this
evolution must follow a reasoned and positive direction. We are
talking about programs and institutions that are crucial to the
citizens of the country and crucial to our children and
grandchildren.
I do not know why the Reform Party seems to be so anxious to
rush forward. Negotiations are still under way. While the
government is confident that a good framework will be developed,
we recognize that these things take time. If we were to support
the motion, I believe the House would not be acting responsibly
and in the best interest of Canadians.
These negotiations give a good indication of the type of
activity we are seeing throughout the government these days.
There is a great deal of positive work being done to reform the
federation and build a better Canada. I relish the opportunity
to discuss this issue.
1220
[Translation]
There is a multitude of reasons why the Canadian federation
works. I could list the federal programs and initiatives that
have served Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia as well other
parts of the country. Every federal government department would
be on the list, and the lives of all Canadians and Quebeckers
like me would be affected by the activities listed.
Substantial progress has been made on a number of issues. We are
withdrawing from mining, logging and tourism.
We have launched measures to stimulate job creation through the
Canada infrastructure works program. And work will continue as
part of the national children's agenda.
There are members of this House who will no doubt continue to
maintain that Canada does not work. They claim that the Canadian
federation lacks flexibility and that the true aspirations of
the provinces can never be achieved in such a restrictive
system. If a framework agreement on social union is not signed
within a month, they will say it is further proof of the fact
that Canada does not work.
I do not share that opinion. I think that the majority of
Canadians do not share it either. Therefore, I cannot support
this motion. I find it rather ironic that the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois stand on the same side of this issue with
respect to this motion.
[English]
Certainly the rest of the world is trying to figure out the
secret of our prosperity. Other countries are looking at Canada
and asking themselves how they can achieve that level of success.
I will spend some time talking about that reaction. There is a
great deal we take for granted in the country. We sometimes
forget just what we have accomplished together. That is not
despite our differences but rather because of our differences.
They have forced us to become creative and conciliatory. Our
willingness to embrace both French and English, to celebrate our
aboriginal heritage and to welcome cultures from around the world
have made Canada the success story it is today.
I should like to talk a little about the government's agenda. We
hear about the need for change. There has been change, something
that the opposition neglects, and a lot of it. Perhaps it is
time Canadians knew about it.
My colleagues have already addressed the economic successes we
have seen recently. I will not delve too deeply into that area.
Suffice to say we have a budget surplus of $3.5 billion, the
first surplus in more than a generation. That is a remarkable
$45.5 billion swing in just four years from the $42 billion
deficit we inherited from our predecessors in 1993.
The finance minister's balanced fiscal and economic plan has
created a Canadian economic foundation that is among the most
fundamentally strong and dynamic in the world.
I will now turn to the social policy side of the government's
accomplishments. What has the government done in the last five
years, Canadians may ask themselves.
[Translation]
Our social safety net is a source of great pride in Canada. It
is the essence of the values we share. Guaranteeing the
continuance of our health and social programs is the priority of
Canadians and of their governments. Our health care system and
other elements of our social safety net are the envy of the
world. They point very simply to the principles of mutual help
and common interest underlying our federation and our social
union. They testify to Canadians' commitment to a shared sense
of responsibility for each other and toward the common good.
There are voices saying it is perhaps time to begin dismantling
the system or, better yet, to privatize everything.
I think that the federal government and its provincial partners
must continue to work together on this and find new ways to meet
the needs of Canadians.
[English]
There have been several initiatives recently which illustrate
what I am talking about. The national child benefit was
introduced to reduce and prevent child poverty and to assist
parents of low income families in either moving from welfare to
work or staying employed.
1225
There is also the community action program for children which
recognizes that communities are best positioned to address the
needs of young Canadians. It builds on community strength by
funding neighbourhood groups that deliver services to children at
risk.
There are nearly 400 CAPC projects in over 300 urban, rural and
remote communities across Canada. Every week almost 29,000
children and 27,000 parents and caregivers visit these projects.
I would like to think those are 29,000 children whose lives are
just a little better.
A variety of health related activities have been developed over
the past few years. Health Canada, for example, provides funding
for five centres of excellence for women's health in Halifax,
Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. These centres are
dedicated to improving the health of Canadian women by enhancing
the health system's understanding of and responsiveness to
women's health issues. In a similar vein the government is
funding a variety of research initiatives. In June the federal
government announced its renewed support for breast cancer
research.
The government is confident that we will negotiate a framework
agreement that is good for all Canadians. Such an agreement
would promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians wherever
they live or move in the country. It would also strengthen the
partnership among governments in order to serve Canadians better.
Is this not the legacy we want to leave our children and our
youth?
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be hedging on the
fact that it supports this agreement in principle or that it
supports the concept of social union. When does the government
see itself as coming to some conclusion with respect to the talks
with the premiers?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition
member we will not set an artificial deadline for negotiations.
Negotiations are ongoing. We have shown flexibility and
openness.
We intend to work in collaboration with the provinces to arrive
at a social union that is the best social union in the world, as
we have worked toward assuring Canada is the best country in the
world. We will not put an artificial deadline on such important
negotiations.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of questions for the hon. member. The member said
in her response that Canada was a great country. She said the
usual Liberal things: feel happy, feel good and everything is
going great.
A United Nations committee came here and blasted us on child
poverty. In my speech I said that there are over 1,000 homeless
people in Calgary. StatsCan said today that taxes were so high
the disposable income of Canadians is getting lower and lower.
How can she talk about a feel good approach with everything that
is going on? Does she not read all these things? What would be
her response to that?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the
occasion to repeat what I said in my speech about the different
initiatives undertaken by the government, but I will not repeat
it because I am sure most Canadians listened to what I said.
In terms of the United Nations index, the member may not know
that for five years in a row Canada has been chosen as the best
country in the world. No one is saying that we have no poverty.
No one is saying that there are not problems. However, the
difference between this side of the House and the other side of
the House is that we look for solutions to problems. We do not
criticize; we look for solutions. We have proven that we have
given solutions to Canadians. We have proven that we have
solutions to address most of the problems of the world.
The United Nations human development index indicated that the
Australians, the Americans and the French regard Canada as the
country they would most like to live in. I am very proud of the
government's record and I see a legacy for our children. We look
for solutions that are in collaboration and in consultation with
our provincial and territorial partners.
1230
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to address today's motion.
[Translation]
This motion calls for a social union with co-operation between
the Government of Canada and the provinces. There is unanimity
in this area—with the provinces, with the territories, with
medical groups, with nurses' groups and with the opposition.
Unanimity is not easily achieved in a country like Canada. It
is hard to find unanimity.
In matters of health care, unanimity is necessary and possible.
[English]
I would like to approach the motion in as positive and
constructive fashion as I can. The social union the provinces
have called for relates strictly to the reason I came to the
House of Commons, and that is for a health care system that is
better than the one we had when I left my practice.
I would like to summarize why the provinces are so vociferous on
this issue. This is not being done in a critical sense but in a
factual sense.
In 1993 the federal government spent $18.7 billion on social
transfers directed to the provinces. For reasons that most
Canadians understand, it decided to drop those transfer payments
to $11.1 billion, a drop of $7.6 billion. The government did it
unilaterally. There was no consultation, no agreement. That
action on the most important social program in Canada
precipitated a series of events which has led us to the point
where the provinces from every political stripe are all united in
calling for a social union that will never allow that to happen
again.
There could never be a unilateral action of that kind if a
social union were entered into. I have listened over and over
again to my Liberal colleagues say that there is in fact a very
important program, health care, and they are bound and determined
to support it. This would be a mechanism where they could do
more than just talk.
There is another thing that has made the provinces so unanimous
on this issue. I will give an example that does not relate to
health care but is about welfare in British Columbia. B.C. set up
some residency requirements after the cuts for social assistance
took place. The federal response was to fine the B.C.
government. It took away transfer payments, even more for social
assistance. There was no dispute mechanism, no interchange of
information. The federal fist was slammed down and that was the
end of the discussion.
That is the reason today there is unanimous provincial agreement
for a social union. It is hard to imagine how the provinces
could be more unanimous. Who else is unanimous on these issues?
Medical colleagues throughout the country are unanimous. Why?
Some of our best nurses are leaving their profession. They are
not just leaving the country but they are leaving the profession
because they cannot stand the workload they now have. The cuts
have gone through the system so deeply that they cannot stand the
workload they have.
An hon. member: You asked for it.
Mr. Grant Hill: I hear from across the way
that is a provincial responsibility. It is selective
vision.
There is outdated equipment. We have 1.1 MRI per 100,000 people
in Canada. Germany has 3.4 MRI per 100,000 people. Why should
two countries that are so similar in terms of economic
capabilities have such a difference? There is outdated equipment
due to those cutbacks.
1235
[Translation]
There has been a drop in the level of confidence in Canada. In
1993, 55% of Canadians considered the health care system
excellent or very good. Today, in 1998, only 29% of Canadians
find the system excellent or very good. Why? Waiting lists are
an obvious problem for doctors, for patients and for nurses.
What a shame.
According to a study done for the CMA by the Angus Reid group
for the past three years, Canadians feel access to certain
health care services has become more restricted.
[English]
Why would the federal government care about that? Why would the
Liberal members care about that? It is because they themselves
will get ill. They themselves will find themselves on waiting
lists. They themselves will have grandparents or children left
in the cold.
The provinces are asking for something that is fairly
straightforward and fairly simple. They are asking for the
federal government to never ever take funds from health care
unilaterally. If there is a disagreement on the Canada Health
Act, if there is a disagreement in the way the Canada Health Act
is being implemented, they are asking that there be a dispute
settlement mechanism, that there be a tribunal that would sit
down and say “Here is one perspective. Here is another. What
is good for the patient?”
I always try to put comments about health care in a personal
vein and I will do that today. A patient wrote a letter to me
not so long ago, a woman from Ontario who was diagnosed with
breast cancer. She was told that she needed to have a procedure
very quickly and then chemotherapy to follow. She was sent to the
specialist. He did a biopsy and sure enough the cancer was worse
than it was originally thought. The procedure needed to be done
quickly. She was booked for surgery in two weeks and that was
considered to be quite reasonable and normal. When the date came
the surgery had to be put off. There were not enough nurses for
the surgery. It was put off for another two weeks. When that day
came, the surgery was done. Then her chemotherapy, which should
have been started almost immediately, had to be put off for three
months.
The fear, the concern, the worry. That is what the provinces
are asking for. It is not for some political juggling match. It
is simply to provide the care for that most important social
program to that woman with breast cancer who had needs that were
not met here in Canada.
I hear the comment about having the Reform Party admit that it
wants two tier medicine. The Reform Party does not want two tier
medicine. What we want is care for patients that is timely, that
is available, that is modern and which keeps people healthy.
All throughout the world people are grappling with these
problems. Most countries seem to put health care as the highest
priority, not just in terms of hyperbole, not just in terms of
rhetoric, but in terms of practicality.
The social union is moving positively toward that end. Does it
have to happen in 30 days? I have listened to my colleagues say
that is too quick. Then I say, set a Liberal date. Do not
listen to a Reform date. Set a Liberal date. We will be happy
to be able to say there is progress being made. But as of now
the provinces are asking where the progress is. We will push
hard for that progress to be made for one reason, for health care
for Canadians, for the patients.
1240
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member from the
Reform Party.
The member says the deadline is December 31. Let us assume that
everybody agrees on the deadline and we pass the motion. What
happens if we do not meet the deadline? Are we going to come
back on January 1 and ask for a deadline of January 31 and so on
and so forth for the next year? These deadlines are artificial.
We do our best and they do their best to make sure the country
works. A deadline does not work. If it is not complied with or
the agreement is not reached by the deadline, then a second
deadline is necessary and there could be no end in sight.
Commitments should be made and we have to work together to
improve the federation. That is the commitment we should make
rather than to stick to a deadline which is not realistic.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member
might be hesitant to face a deadline and that is a valid point
Our question is what is the Liberal timeframe? We have seen very
little progress on this issue.
The perfect time to have entered into a social union surely
would have been prior to the Quebec election. What a powerful
tool. What a baseball bat to have driven separatist thoughts
lower on the agenda. There may be good reasons for not meeting
that deadline. I am perfectly willing to listen to a Liberal
timetable. This is trying to drive the agenda toward completion.
If December 31 is too quick, I am listening and would like to
know, when?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we are relatively favourable to today's Reform Party motion. It
is similar, if not identical, in purpose to the motion we moved
in October, urging the federal government to speed up
negotiations on social union, given that the premiers had come
out with a statement in August in this regard.
What we get out of the Reform Party motion is that more haste is
required. As our leader reiterated this morning, this is an
issue that has been around for a long time. Reformers have
rarely mentioned it.
For 50 years now, Quebec has been calling on the federal
government to respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction set
out in the Constitution, such as health and the social sector,
but to no avail. The federal government has used its spending
authority to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and, in
recent years, in order to eliminate its own deficit, it has
slashed transfer payments to the provinces, with the results
mentioned by the member.
Would the Reform Party member agree with Quebec's demand that
there should be a right to opt out of new programs in this
sector with full financial compensation?
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, for me it is not a partisan issue
but an issue that concerns all Canadians.
I want unanimity for social programs in Canada and, in the case
of health care, an agreement is necessary for all Canadians.
Personally, I do not like the Bloc Quebecois proposals, but the
social union is not a political issue, it is an issue that
concerns all Canadians. This is why I am presenting my position
in the House today.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Reform supply day
motion. It has an essential role to articulate to the people of
Quebec and the rest of Canada what we plan on doing to strengthen
this country, to strengthen social programs for all Canadians.
I compliment the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for
her leadership on this issue.
1245
[Translation]
The Canadian federation is not only based on constitutional
principles. Indeed, our country primarily strives to help those
who are less fortunate and to provide them with the necessary
support.
The federal government definitely has the financial resources to
ease the plight of the poor. We all remember how Canadians got
together to help their Quebec friends when they had to deal with
floods, in the past.
This definitely shows that, when some real disaster occurs, we
Canadians help each other. Canadians are once again displaying
their fundamental qualities to promote the social union.
[English]
The social union is integral for the future of Canada and for
the future of Canadians. As my colleague for Macleod just
mentioned, it speaks to a stronger partnership which Canadians
hold dear to their hearts and which is critically important for
the health and welfare of Canadians. It speaks to the saving of
our social programs, in particular health care, education and
welfare.
The Government of Canada has a fiduciary responsibility to work
with the provinces in these areas, and yet what we have seen is
the destruction of these programs. These programs have been
gutted from within. As a result, people who work in these areas
are hanging on by their fingernails. Indeed, the Canadians who
are supposed to benefit from these programs, particularly health
care and education, are suffering. As we all know, health care
and education are being destroyed.
If the government wants to hide behind the Canada Health Act and
say that Canadians are receiving health care when they need it,
it is either not telling the truth or it has its head stuck far
into the sand. The cold hard reality is that Canadians are not
getting health care when they need it. The Canada Health Act is
being violated in four of its five principles. As a result,
Canadians needing treatment for cancer, or urgent medical care
for heart operations, down to the most mundane operations, are
waiting. While they wait they suffer and their families suffer.
For the last few years the government has been content to sit on
its hands and say that the status quo is acceptable. It
acknowledges that there is a problem, but it has not put forth
any constructive solution. Instead it has pointed its finger at
us in a derogatory way, saying that we want to destroy these
ideals. If we wanted to do that we would not have put forth this
motion to save our social programs: health care, education and
the supplemental income required by people who lose their jobs
through no fault of their own.
Reform wants to save these social programs and put them on sound
fiscal footing within the resources we have available to us. We
have to speak practically about this. We are willing to
introduce in this House a solution that involves asking the
federal government and the provinces to work together to ensure
that the feds do what the feds do best and the provinces do what
the provinces do best. Is there agreement on this? Indeed there
is.
The vast majority of premiers have asked, have pleaded, have
begged the federal government to engage in a discussion with them
so that in the 21st century we will have social programs that
will benefit all Canadians, that will be there for all Canadians
in their time of need and will be on sound fiscal footing.
That is the essence of this motion.
1250
We also do it from the point of cost. Having the provinces and
the federal government doing the same thing is patently idiotic.
It is duplication. The left hand does know what the right hand
is doing and it is a waste of taxpayers' money. Why do we not
let the feds do what the feds do best and let the provinces do
what the provinces do best?
It would also benefit national unity because we would then see a
willingness on the part of the Government of Canada to work with
all of the provinces, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, and
the territories to ensure that these social programs are
sustainable.
Let us look at Quebec the day after the election. The Quebec
people have clearly said that at this point in time they do not
want a referendum. They want strong social programs, a strong
economy, lower taxes and a better future for themselves and their
children. That is what Canadians from coast to coast want.
Despite the best efforts of everybody inside and outside this
House, the federalist message does not get to the people of
Quebec outside of those in Montreal. Les gens du Québec outside
Montreal, in Chibougamau and other cities, do not hear the
federalist message because the issue of national unity has taken
place between the political and intellectual elites of this
country. This message does not penetrate the barriers that exist
within the francophone, separatist-leaning media in Quebec and
does not get to the French-speaking people of Quebec.
One only has to travel outside Montreal to see that the people
live in an information vacuum when it comes to federalist
solutions. They live in a bubble into which the rhetoric of
separatist politicians is continually introduced.
The truth of what the federalists are proposing, the love that
Canadians have for Quebec under the umbrella of equality for all,
does not get through. Because that message does not get through
the people of Quebec are left with a biased and warped view of
what happens outside Canada. I would also argue that what
happens within Quebec is not as well known as it should be
outside its borders.
If we are going to keep this country together we have to engage
in communication between the people of Quebec and the rest of
Canada, between the rank and file people in the trenches, on the
ground and in their homes, people to people, not between
politicians or intellectuals in university.
While the message in yesterday's election says that Quebecers do
not want a referendum at this point in time, it clearly did not
say they do not want a referendum at all. I would argue that
what is going to happen is that the people of Quebec are going to
wait until their health and welfare is improved through the
Government of Quebec and when they are on stable footing then
they will look for a referendum.
We have a narrow window of opportunity. The federal government
must meet with the people of Quebec in the trenches, eyeball to
eyeball.
There was a large meeting in Montreal of Canadians from coast to
coast asking the people of Quebec to vote no in the last
referendum. Why did the French-speaking separatist politicians
hate that so much? Because it bypassed their power and their
control. It got a strong federalist message directly to the
people.
Some may argue that is what tipped the balance in favour of the
no vote. That is possible. Therein lies a lesson. With back
and forth communication between people we will have a chance to
keep this country together. If we fail to do that we will
certainly be looking at another referendum, again putting Canada
at the precipice of a breakup.
1255
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, traditionally
the people in the territories, who are the poorest and most
vulnerable in this country, have depended on a strong federal
presence to equalize their standard of living and their place in
the country.
I am really concerned about the member's motion because it has
excluded the first nations people of this country from
participating in a social union. I would like to know why the
member did that because, as far as being vulnerable goes, these
people are the most vulnerable. The first nations people are the
poorest, they have the highest health risks and the poorest
housing conditions. I would like the member to explain that
exclusion.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further
from the truth. This motion explicitly asks for Canadians from
coast to coast to be involved. The last time I checked, the
aboriginal people of Canada are Canadians.
I draw the attention of the hon. member to the work of the
members for Skeena, Wild Rose and others in the Reform Party who
have been asking for input from aboriginal people. In fact,
these members have held meetings with aboriginal people, asking
them what we can do to help. Over 100 aboriginal people have
attended each of these meetings.
For the first time, many of these grassroots aboriginals—not
the chiefs, not their political leaders, but grassroots
aboriginals—are saying thank you to the Reform Party for helping
them to get their message out in the House of Commons.
The grassroots aboriginal people have not been heard on this
issue. As the member acknowledged, and I know she has worked
very hard on this issue, they suffer the worst possible
socio-economic conditions in this country. Members of my party
have been working very hard to ensure that their message is heard
loud and clear.
Over $8 billion is put into aboriginal affairs. However, it has
been argued that only $1 out of every $20 gets to the people on
the ground. That is appalling. There have been accusations by
aboriginal people of the misappropriation of funds by aboriginal
leaders. However, when they ask questions, they get the cold
shoulder. The first nations are abused, not only by the system
which non-aboriginals created, but also by their own people.
I would argue that what the government needs to do and what the
minister of Indian affairs needs to do is listen to the
grassroots aboriginal people.
The minister came to my riding. Aboriginal people from the
Pacheenaht reserve, Becher Bay and elsewhere have been asking the
minister for years for answers on where the moneys are going and
expressing their concerns about abuses on the reserve. The
minister met with the political leaders, but did not speak to the
people putting forth the accusations, one of whom was the
hereditary chief of a band. It was embarrassing.
I plead with the minister to listen to these aboriginal people
and not to wave off what they are saying because of what she has
heard from their leaders. The minister should work with the
aboriginals to solve their appalling conditions. The first
nations should be given the tools they need to provide for
themselves.
The aboriginal people do not want separation. The grassroots
people do not want the political nirvana of separate statehood or
nationhood, but they do want health care, jobs, education and a
safer future for themselves and their children.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a doctor and
a member of parliament. I think it is correct that about $80
billion is being spent on health care from various sources across
the country and about $250 million is being spent on medical
research.
How much stress would the hon. member put on increasing
assistance to medical research to help the health care system
generally?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon.
secretary of state has done a tremendous amount of work in
providing constructive solutions to the health care field. He
has written some very eloquent articles on this issue which many
of us have read with great admiration.
I think that we have to proportion our resources in research on
the basis of mortality, morbidity and the effect on the patient
and their families. I compliment the government for putting more
money into research in the last budget. It is something that is
long overdue and the government needs to be commended for that.
However, I think there are some novel ways in which we can get
more money into the research areas.
Perhaps one way of doing that is to ensure tax exemptions and tax
cuts for people who wish to invest in research facilities. They
can use that as a tax write-off. But also moneys can be used
within the system to do more research into prevention. What we
tend to focus on is dealing with the problems. I draw the
attention of the House to the head start motion that was passed
in the House in May 1998, my private member's motion, that dealt
with prevention in crime and with the basics of children in the
first eight years. If we adopted that motion and dealt with
those solutions we could save a lot of people's lives and a lot
of money across the country.
1300
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
I am pleased to rise on this very important issue but puzzled
as to how we have arrived at this moment in our history where we
are debating a motion that would arbitrarily and artificially
impose a deadline on negotiations that are currently going on
across the country.
I listened to the previous speaker and I have listened to him on
many occasions and heard thoughtful comments in this place from
that member of the Reform Party. I see the member for Calgary
East who I know does not always agree with his party's positions,
particularly some of the more extreme ones. I heard the member
for Macleod, the health critic, talk in terms of his party's not
wanting two tier health care and various other things he was
denouncing.
It has occurred to me as I listen to this debate that this whole
thing is about double standards. I want to share with the House
a couple of comments, and this is a direct quote, which would
seem to run in the face of the comments by the member for Macleod
when he said the Reform Party is not advocating a two tier health
system. This relates very clearly to the social union
negotiations that were going on.
The leader of the Reform Party to the Saskatoon Business
Association on April 2, 1995 said: “We want to amend those
sections of the act”, the Canada Health Act, “that deny the
provinces the flexibility to require some Canadians to pay at
least a portion of their own health care costs”.
How would members interpret that in any way other than two tier
health care? I find it a complete contradiction in terms, a
denial of his own leader's recorded statements, when the health
critic for the Reform Party stands here urging the government to
move ahead unilaterally on an issue that would clearly impact the
delivery of health care and he is denying his leader actually
said this by claiming that the Reform Party is not in support of
dismantling the Canada Health Act and establishing a two tier
health system.
On February 23, 1998 the member for Vancouver North said: “I
had to go into a hospital in Florida. It really put a shame to
what happens in my riding in North Vancouver with socialist
medicine. I do not think there is any harm in having some
competition”.
Once again it is a matter quite clearly of the words not
matching the music, of saying one thing and believing another. I
see that the health critic is here and I want him to know that I
believe he cares about Canadians' health. He is a medical
doctor. I believe he has serious concerns. But I do not
understand how he reconciles the difference between the
statements made.
How he reconciles these double standards is a problem that the
Reform Party in my view must wrestle with in its caucus meetings.
It must be fascinating to be a fly on the wall to listen to “on
the one hand we want to do it this way, but on the other hand we
think we can sell it better if we announce it another way”.
1305
Frankly, that is what we are seeing here with the issue of
putting some kind of arbitrary deadline. All members in this
place want to see a deal done on behalf of all Canadians that
makes Canada work.
I believe even members of the Reform Party believe that all
members who were sent here as federal politicians, anyone who
comes here with a federal interest in making this federation
work, want to see some kind of a deal structure. There may be
exceptions with Bloc Quebecois members obviously who were sent
here more as regional or provincial politicians.
I recall very clearly that I was unable to go to Montreal when
the big rally took place at the last minute during the
referendum. My wife, a member of council, and a number of her
colleagues went on a bus and a number of people from my riding
went.
They told me what an incredibly moving experience that was. Yet
the Reform Party, instead of joining hands with Canadians in
Montreal, worked against not only us but against this entire
nation. It ran a deficit in its own budget. It went over its
own budget. It spent money it did not have which again points
out a double standard to try to destroy the Charlottetown accord.
I think it succeeded in doing that.
During one of the parliamentary recesses, when we are getting
messages from around the world about the financial stability of
this country, we saw the leader of the Reform Party at a speech
somewhere in Asia totally tearing down the social and economic
fabric of Canada. This is someone who would purport to be a
prime minister. This is outrageous.
I want to share with members a couple of quotes that came about
as a result of the events last evening in the province of Quebec.
We all know what we saw in the province of Quebec last night was
a clear message. It was a message from the people of Quebec to
the separatists that they do not want a referendum.
I say that to my colleagues in the Bloc. It is a clear message.
They do not want a referendum. I did not see anybody strutting
around. I watched the news. I did not see great yelling and
cheering at the supposed victory parties.
In fact, what I saw was puzzlement from the separatists who said
“We thought Quebecers really wanted a referendum and they really
wanted to separate. Maybe the don't”. What they really want is
government to get on with the job. In a vast majority, if
someone looks at the numbers, 55% of the people in the province
of Quebec last evening voted against the PQ. That is a pretty
clear message.
I want to share a couple of quotes. The first one I want to
share is a quote from the provincial premier who happens to be
the chair of the provincial premiers as they meet this year. It
is interesting that next year's chair will be newly elected,
re-elected Premier Bouchard.
This year's chair, Premier Roy Romanow, said in talking about
the election:
I think what it means is that the task ahead of us is to, if I
may use a little bit of play on Premier Bouchard's campaign
slogan, winning conditions for referendum, for me the focus now
is winning conditions for Canada. And the first order of
business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we
can. Not under any artificial deadlines or timetables. Doing it
with dispatch, doing it with determination. The Prime Minister
wants to do it, his ministers want to do it. The premiers want
to do it. Premier Bouchard signed on, here in Saskatoon in
August, to the bargaining position. I underline those words, the
bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial
governments.
What we've had here is the people of the province of Quebec
engage in election and elect their government for the next four
years. We haven't had tonight, based on this result, in my mind,
something more than that. On the question of social union, and
the negotiation that's ongoing, I think that's something that
we'll get back to early in the new year without artificial
deadlines.
1310
Why would we wind up today in the House of Commons with
a resolution? The opposition is continually hammering the
government for, in its words, being heavy handed. Should we
ignore the negotiations that are going on very well at the table
as we speak and impose some artificial deadline whether it is a
Reform one or, as the member for Macleod says, a Liberal one? That
is absolute nonsense and it is not the way to negotiate a social
union contract for the betterment of the country.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Liberal colleague
if there is a commitment by his government to actually bring this
discussion, this initiative by the premiers, to some conclusion.
It has been ongoing for a year. There has been no real indication
from the federal government that it will reach a conclusion.
Is there a commitment from the Liberal government to actually
sign a document at some time down the road?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question and a responsible position to take. I would hope there
is a commitment that our government is negotiating. I know the
Prime Minister is interested in seeing a deal done. The House
has heard the quotes I shared from Premier Romanow and from
Premier Tobin. I know there is a serious desire to see a social
union contract put in place which protects medicare, which
ensures that proper transfer payments flow and at the same time
protects a strong position for the federal government to have a
role in leading policy.
We will not be neutered the way the Reform Party would see us
neutered. We will stand strong as nationally elected politicians
in this place and for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's compilation of yesterday's election results is
a rather odd one.
In discussing social union, he referred to the Meech Lake
Accord. As a Quebecker, I remember that the present Prime
Minister, then leader of the Liberal Party but without a seat in
the House, played a very specific role in the failure of Meech,
with the complicity of then Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells.
Today he gets all worked up about those who were responsible for
the failure of Meech. He ought to look back at that.
Returning to social union, these
are demands that go back 50 years, in Quebec and in the other
provinces as well. It is also in part the outcome of the
federal government's cuts to transfer payments to the provinces,
of its brutal cuts to health care. They are what has triggered
this discussion, since the other provinces were forced to make
cuts to health care, to the hospitals. That is what they have
been pushed to.
I hope the federal government understands the urgency for
remedying the situation by restoring transfer payments as
promptly as possible, in the next budget, for health care in
particular, but also for education and social assistance.
I would like to know my hon. colleague's opinion on this matter,
that is on the money the federal government has cut from the
provinces in these areas.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I on behalf of my
constituents in Mississauga West, a primarily anglophone
community but officially bilingual and we try our best even
though I am not quite there yet, I want to say to the people of
Quebec thank you for sending a clear message to the separatists
both in this place and in Quebec City.
I thank the people for giving the clear strong message that we
want to get on with the next four years of governing.
1315
Yes, we want to negotiate a social union contract. Yes, we need
to deal with transfer payments that impact on health care in the
province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario and right across
the land. Yes, the government has a clear responsibility to
ensure that we redistribute the income and wealth in Canada so
the provinces which have traditionally been called have not
provinces will not suffer.
With the economic strength in provinces like Quebec, Ontario,
Alberta and B.C. we can help our brothers and sisters everywhere
else in Canada which also has its own individual economic
strengths and benefits.
It is all about building a team, a team called Canada. I
believe we can do it. After last night I believe we can do it
with Quebec as part of Canada.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the current negotiations on the social
union. This is a very important issue. These negotiations give
us the opportunity to improve Canada's social and health
policies.
Discussions are presently being undertaken at all levels of
government in Canada in the hopes of making improvements to the
social union for our country. These governments are attempting
to find the best way for governments to help and serve Canadians.
While there are elements of the motion that are difficult to
understand and certainly impossible to support, the motion
provides us with a valuable opportunity to debate important new
initiatives started by our government to strengthen federalism
and to make the country work more efficiently for the benefit of
all Canadians.
These negotiations are an important opportunity for Canada to
improve the social and health policies that mean so much to all
Canadians wherever they may live. All governments in Canada are
currently involved in negotiations on how to improve Canada's
social union. They are trying to design the best approach for
helping governments to help Canadians.
What we call the social union most Canadians know through their
direct experiences in their communities. Over the years we have
learned to take for granted that wherever we live in Canada
quality health care is available when we get sick. Young people
can count on first rate education. Those who have lost their
jobs or who have been hit by bad times are able to get the help
they need. Pensions and benefits are available to secure quality
of life in old age. These programs and services are the social
union.
[Translation]
The concept of social union focuses on the Canada-wide nature of
these programs and services, as well as the importance of
providing all Canadians regardless of where they live in the
country, or where they travel to, an equal opportunity to
benefit from the programs that meet their fundamental needs.
[English]
Perhaps more important, the concept of social union captures our
commitment to one another, our understanding that we are stronger
together and that as Canadians we help each other wherever the
need may be. We are always willing to help.
The current negotiations are tackling some difficult issues, but
it is important to keep in mind that we already have one of the
best social systems in the world. It is to ensure we can improve
this quality of life that all governments are committed to
succeeding in the negotiations.
The negotiations were launched by the Prime Minister and
Canada's premiers at the first ministers' meeting on December 11
and December 12, 1997. At that time first ministers agreed that
each jurisdiction would appoint a minister to negotiate a new
social partnership to help improve decision making and delivery
of social and health policies. While this may seem like a long
process these issues are important for Canada and for all
Canadians. We must take the time necessary to get it right and
the time necessary to succeed.
We have tried not to allow the process to become political. That
is why all governments have agreed not to negotiate through the
media where too often positions become rigid and exaggerated and
the focus is on power and conflict. These negotiations are and
must be focused on what is right for Canadians.
I will provide the House with a sense of our current social
union, with a sense of why the government believes we must
improve it, and with a sense of what we are trying to achieve
through those negotiations.
Most of us take for granted the advantages we receive from the
social programs put in place throughout the country. The network
of social benefits that permits us to have our high level of
living is relatively new. It was established only after the
second world war when the depression was still fresh in our
collective minds.
1320
Old age pension plans, employment insurance, student loans and
health insurance were all founded within the last 50 years with
the collaboration of all levels of government in Canada through
debate, dialogue, disagreement and ultimately compromise.
The history of the social union is a remarkable story of
creativity and mutual respect. It is a story of the commitment
of generations of Canadians to caring for one another and to
accommodating our differences as we pursue our common purpose.
Most impressive has been our ability simultaneously to achieve
Canada-wide initiatives while enhancing the freedom of provinces
to act for their residents.
The commitment to improve is particularly important now because
Canada like all countries in the world faces tremendous
challenges. As the baby boomers begin to enter the retirement
years our aging population will put real strains on our pension,
health care and social systems. Within 20 years the number of
Canadians over 65 will increase by 50%. With no change in the
system in almost 30 years fully one-third of the federal budget
will be needed to be spent on seniors pensions.
Federal and provincial governments after consultations with
Canadians have already taken steps to ensure the Canada pension
plan. With globalization and the emerging information economy we
will need more than ever a literate technologically skilled and
mobile labour force. Our social programs must adapt to the
changing labour market and new directions in the nature and
organization of work. Our youth are entering a labour market
that is very difficult and different from the one we knew. We
must equip them with skills and information they require and
need, and the freedom to pursue opportunities wherever they
arise.
We must ensure for all Canadians access to learning and
unfettered mobility. We have more to do for Canadian children to
ensure that they are ready to learn and have the fair start
necessary to participate fully in Canada's economic and social
opportunities. Each Canadian must have access to the
opportunities afforded them by all for all of Canada.
All governments have had to take tough measures to balance their
budgets and thereby increase our flexibility for the future and
our resiliency in the face of global forces. This has put a
premium on efficiency and on making sure that governments do not
duplicate one another. We share risks and resources and we learn
from one another. We can and we must work together and make it
better for Canadians.
Given the value we attach to our social and health programs,
given our contribution to our quality of life and given the
challenges before us, governments are working together to set out
the basis for an even stronger partnership, a new social union
framework. The negotiations on the new framework provide an
opportunity to strengthen our co-operation for the benefit of all
Canadians. To do this we must be consistent with the core values
and principles of our Canadian federation.
The first we must note is that the Constitution must be
respected. Respect of the Constitution and constitutional power
and competencies is essential to maintain the effectiveness of
public policy and the mutual respect that is a basis of this
partnership. The foundations of this social union must respect
the Constitution.
Second, we must show greater co-operation to meet the needs of
Canadians. Governments are now co-ordinating their work on
behalf of children, youth and persons with disabilities through
recent initiatives. That should carry on.
Third, the ability of governments to act must be preserved.
Greater co-operation should not and cannot mean that governments
cannot do anything without asking permission of each other. We
can strengthen our partnership without hindering our capacity to
act. We can avoid what the Europeans call the joint decision
trap. The framework must preserve the capacity to act and to
adapt to change as required and as needed.
The fourth idea I present is the principle that the federation
must be flexible. We are learning how to reconcile joint action
with enhanced flexibility for the provinces. We have seen this
in the recent labour market agreements which allowed provinces to
choose the approach most suited to their labour market. We have
seen this in the national child benefit in which provinces were
able to invest as appropriate to the challenges they faced. A
new framework must ensure that flexibility.
The fifth notion is that the federation must be fair. Canada
has lead the G-7 in bringing down its deficit and gaining fiscal
control.
It has achieved this with relatively less conflict and friction
than what might rightfully be expected but not without
consequences. Canadians are worried about the adequacy of funding
for core programs. With the prospect of a fiscal dividend the
federal government is conscious of the challenges facing the
provinces, and we need to act accordingly.
1325
We must keep each other informed. That too is important and
fundamental to the framework. We must also enhance
accountability for Canadians and to Canadians. That too is part
and parcel of this union. It is very important that we have the
opportunity to establish this new partnership and a new balance
to manage the interdependence of services for all Canadians. It
will prevent the elimination of the doubling of cost and it will
lead to a much better federation.
The test of our efforts is simple. Are Canadians better served?
Are governments more transparent and accountable to Canadians?
Are we in a better position to improve our health and social
policies and to promote the well-being of Canadians in all parts
of Canada? Have we improved mobility for Canadians? Above all,
have we achieved greater equality for opportunity in Canada?
The answer is that we will do that in the best interest of all
Canadians. While the motion before us appears reasonable enough
on the surface, it cannot and shall not be supported. We need to
carry on in a way that is in keeping with the values,
institutions and the symbols that define us a people and unite us
as a nation.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my
colleague across the way. He outlined five points and because of
the shortage of time I would like to ask him questions on two of
them.
The first issue was that the Constitution must be respected in
all cases. How is it that the Constitution can be respected when
the federal government is interloping on provincial jurisdictions
as given to them in the 1867 Constitution?
The second question deals with his fifth point. He said that
the federation must be fair and that the federal government must
be allowed to do the job it feels it is there to do. Is it fair
when the federal government goes into a medicare program with a
promise of 50% funding and years later is only providing 11%
funding?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the questions.
Certainly we on the government side need always to be cognizant,
as do all Canadians, of the importance of respecting the
Constitution in all these matters. That is fundamental not only
to all Canadians but to all of us in this place. To present the
Constitution in a fair manner is important. It is also important
to provide a social union framework and context which enable us
as Canadians to promote and preserve those things that we hold
dear and which need protection and promotion in a fair and
equitable fashion.
It is very important that we on the government side continue to
do that. We have traditionally and historically been a party and
a government of nation building. We intend not to tear down but
rather to build in a manner consistent with the kinds of values
and ideals all Canadians want us to use. It is important to
continue on that vein and do so in the best interest of all
Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion. The Reform
Party believes very strongly it is time that Canada endorsed the
social union put forward by the provinces and territories. We are
urging the government to do exactly that.
I have listened to some of the pabulum coming from across the
way. My colleague from Surrey asked a very straightforward
question of the hon. member about the government's commitment to
health care. When the Canada Health Act first came into place
the federal government made a commitment to fund health care to
the tune of 50%.
1330
What did the government do? Now it funds it at 11%. She asked
a very straight question of the member and we got back this
pabulum about the government believes in fairness, that it wants
to build up and not tear down. That does not mean anything. That
is not a commitment. It is just rhetoric from the government.
Mr. Speaker, excuse me if I accuse the members of the government
of being disingenuous with respect to the answers I have heard
from them today regarding their commitment to signing and
enacting the social union. We think it is extraordinarily
important to do this. It is important for the well-being of
Canadians who depend on these social programs, but it is just as
important for the unity of the country.
Every time we raise specific questions we get empty answers. It
is unbelievable that in the House of Commons when we are debating
something that is incredibly important to Canadians, that is all
we get from the government.
The member for Mississauga West said that the government
believes in the social union. That is great. Then why does the
government not sign it? This has been before governments for a
long time. Many of these proposals have been before Liberal
governments for a long, long time.
I think the answer is that the government does not want to give
up its powers. It does not believe in national standards. It
believes in federal standards. It believes in standards that it
alone sets even though all these areas that we are talking about
fall under provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution. The
gentleman who just spoke said that we must respect the
Constitution. The very fact that the federal government is using
its spending power to intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction
shows that its commitment to the Constitution is at best tenuous.
The provinces and the official opposition recognize that the
federal government can and should have a role to play in some of
these services, but let us enter into them on a co-operative
basis. Unfortunately, the government often is not prepared to do
that.
We have a situation where the provinces and the territories,
many of which are represented by Liberal premiers, are calling on
the government to take this initiative seriously. The government
has had a chance to regard it since August and it has still done
absolutely nothing. We say that the real test of whether or not
a government is committed to these things is not whether it says
it believes in the principles of them in some debate, but it is
whether it is prepared to sign onto them.
There was an election in Quebec yesterday. We know that people
in Quebec do want Canada to work. They made that very clear in
the way they voted yesterday. We know that the premier of Quebec
has signed onto this social union. He wants to make this work.
My question is which party is it that is standing in the way of
Canadian unity? It is the federal government that is standing in
the way. The Prime Minister indicated before the election how
much he was going to stand in the way of this by saying that we
are not going to have the flexibility that is necessary to make
Canada work as a confederation, as a co-operative movement, a
movement that recognizes that not all the ideas have to come from
the federal government. Some of them can come from provincial
governments or from the private sector.
In Canada most of the time the good things that we do are done
through co-operative means. Every day in the private sector
people get together co-operatively and exchange goods and
services, money and all kinds of things. They do it on a
co-operative basis. It creates all kinds of good. It creates
prosperity, wealth and a lot of good will.
We also know in this case that the provinces and the territories
got together and said “We are going to work co-operatively. We
are going to try to get together because this is in the best
interests of all of our respective constituents”. That is what
they did. They got together and brought forward this social
union.
We recently saw securities regulators across the country get
together and co-operatively work out a new system whereby they
would establish standards that would apply across the country. I
point out that the finance minister tried to do this awhile ago
and completely and utterly failed. We know that a previous
Conservative government tried to do the same thing and completely
and utterly failed.
1335
We now know that the securities regulators, driven by the
interests of private individuals who need to have economic
organization in order to make it easier to invest across the
country, got together and said that they could do it
co-operatively. In other words, they established national
standards without being bound by federal standards.
That seems to be the whole problem here. We have a government
that is so stubborn, which is really characterized by the Prime
Minister, that it simply refuses to sign onto anything that it
did not create even though it is operating in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
It is time for the government to set aside that pride, that
vanity and to come to the realization that good ideas which
benefit all Canadians do come from lower levels of government.
That is exactly what we are talking about here.
I do not know anybody who thinks that the social union is a bad
idea, except for the federal government. If it does not think it
is a bad idea—and I know it will protest when I say that—then
why does it not sign onto it? The government has had months and
months to do it. There was the prospect of a Quebec election in
front of it and the government still did nothing. In fact, in
the face of it, it seemed as if the Prime Minister was trying to
derail the whole thing.
Instead of suggesting that somehow this motion is not helpful
when obviously it is and is bringing before the House of Commons
one of the most important initiatives in the country today, why
do members across the way not start thinking about ways to
endorse it? Why not look for ways to get behind this instead of
fighting it at every step? Unfortunately that is not the way the
government operates.
One thing strikes me when we talk about issues like health care.
The hon. member who spoke just a minute ago talked about how the
government wants to build. That is very laudable and those are
nice words. However, I want to review what has happened in the
last five years in Canada with respect to health care. I think
this really does put the lie to some of the words we have heard
from across the way where the government was saying that it
believed that we need to work together.
Health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Did the
provinces have the benefit of being consulted by the federal
government when the federal government decided to essentially
eviscerate health care in Canada, when it cut $7 billion from
health care, when it drove 188,000 people onto waiting lists in
Canada? Is that the government's co-operative approach? I do not
think so. That is not co-operative.
Here is an area of provincial jurisdiction and what did the
government do? It marched in and said it was not going to cut
the size of government or pare down its own departments. It was
going to cut health care by 35%. I would argue that is much of
the reason the provinces finally said they had to get together,
irrespective of their own differences, to fight the federal
government because it was standing in the way of giving Canadians
proper health care.
The government goes ahead and guts health care because it thinks
it is more important to find savings gutting health care than to
gut for instance subsidies to big business.
Although the words we have heard from the other side sound very
nice and warm, they are completely insincere. We do not buy it
for a minute. We think the real test of the government's
commitment to a social union is action, not more warm words, not
more discussions.
We urge members across the way to join with the Reform Party and
with other opposition parties today and to vote in favour of what
is being proposed so that we can truly unite Canada.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest
to the member across the way.
The word co-operation came up an awful lot. It really is hard
to sit in my seat and listen to this when I think back to the
1997 election campaign where the Reform Party made signs that
said it did not want to have a premier or a prime minister from
Quebec.
Now I ask, does that sound like the Reform Party wants
co-operation with Quebec?
1340
It really is hollow when we listen to words like those from the
opposition. The Reform Party would have been very happy to have
had a crisis in Quebec. The vote last night was very solid. It
does say that Quebecers indeed do want to be a part of Canada.
Thank goodness that the people of Quebec have not listened to the
Reform Party. The Reform Party's rhetoric, its meanness of
spirit, its not wanting to have Quebecers as a part of Canada is
awful.
Could the hon. member across the way explain to me how he and
and his party could make this statement, that they would never
want a prime minister from Quebec?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think what we really
meant to say was that we do not want this Prime Minister who
happens to be from Quebec. The real answer is that the Reform
Party did not say those things.
The Reform Party wants to see the aspirations of all regions of
the country represented when it comes to constitutional
discussions. That is one of the reasons this social union is
very supportable by the Reform Party. It does represent the
aspirations of all the provinces. That is why we are very
supportive of it.
I wish the government across the way would be equally
supportive. The government turns around and guts health care in
Canada. It cut $7 billion in expenditures to the provinces for
health care. Then the government stands in this place and says
that it believes very strongly in working with the provinces so
that we can have national standards for health care.
The government's actions speak louder than its words. I am not
surprised that given the government's past actions, it cannot
support this motion today.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to follow up on the question.
With respect to that ad, the member explained what the ad was
about but there is one point I would like to make. I had a lot
of constituents say to me that Jean Charest was incensed that we
would label him as nothing but a Quebec politician, but the fact
that he jumped and tried to become the premier of Quebec proves
that portion of what we were saying about Jean Charest.
Has the hon. member for Medicine Hat heard similar things?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that
Canadians want to see their views represented from all across the
country. The very fact that the Reform Party has brought forward
a list of ways that we can accommodate not only Quebec but all
the provinces through the new Canada act demonstrates that our
commitment to this country goes far beyond anything we have seen
from the government.
The government is committed to staying in power. The Reform
Party is committed to making Canada work. The government will do
anything it can can to hang on to power, including gutting health
care so that it can balance the budget and at the same time
protect the bureaucracy behind it. The government will do
anything it can.
If the government were really and truly concerned about
Canadians, it would reverse that process. Instead of gutting
health care it would gut some of its vested interests, who have
been the hangers on in this country for so long and one of the
reasons people are so cynical about government in Canada today.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party has brought forward this motion today
which calls on the federal parliament to build a stronger
federation by building a stronger partnership with provincial and
territorial governments.
The motion calls on the federal parliament to strengthen the
social fabric of the country by responding to the demands of all
the provinces and territories. All the provinces and territories
have put forward a framework of proposals and the federal
government has not responded substantively to them. This motion
calls for the government to do that.
1345
The motion recognizes that federalism can be a dynamic and a
flexible system, able to renew and reform itself in response to
the aspirations and the needs of Canadians. This motion provides
an opportunity for federal parliamentarians to show the positive
leadership needed as we approach the 21st century.
Reformers have long believed that reform of the federation is
essential and a national priority. The provinces and territories
clearly agree. Reformers have long advocated a more balanced
federation, decentralizing the delivery of government services,
allowing the provinces and municipalities the flexibility to
better meet their own social, cultural, linguistic and economic
circumstances.
In November 1997, about a year ago, the official opposition put
forward a motion in the House calling on the federal government
to communicate the Calgary declaration, which talked about a
framework for renewing the federation, to the people of Quebec
and to consult with them on its contents. The government failed
to act. We saw the results yesterday. When there is no option
put forward by strong federal leadership, then we have the kind
of result which we saw yesterday.
The provincial premiers and all of the opposition parties have
endorsed the framework agreement on Canada's social union. Only
the federal government refuses to show some imagination and
courage and to enter into negotiations to accommodate the
legitimate aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast.
The premiers have pointed out clearly, as have many experts, the
difficulties with the present arrangements. The current
arrangements for the delivery of social programs in this country
have led to federal meddling in important areas of provincial
constitutional jurisdiction. They have led to the duplication of
effort and expense. They have led to inefficiency in the
delivery of the services that Canadians desperately need and they
have added unnecessary, burdensome cost to the delivery of the
social programs which are so important to Canadians.
An example is the millennium scholarship fund. The federal
government slashed support for post-secondary education. Then it
set up its own brand of scholarships, which will go to less than
10% of Canadian students, with absolutely no notice to or
consultation with the provinces. Government members just said
“Hey, we are going to do this. We will slash what you do. We
will slash the delivery of services by the provinces, and then we
will gain a medal for spending $2.5 billion in your area of
jurisdiction”.
Another example is the Canadian foundation for innovation.
Again, there was no consultation with the provinces. The
provinces had to scramble to bring together their side of the
equation so that research and development could continue to work
in the provinces.
There is one example of where federal-provincial co-operation
did work, and that is the national child benefit. In this one
anomaly the federal government decided to do it right. It
actually talked to the provinces. It gave them notice. It
consulted with them. It made some co-operative arrangements to
help our families in this country. The program is working.
What could be more clear for the federal government than to say:
“This is not working. Stop doing it. The way to go is with
consultation and co-operation”? That is the way to help people
in this country. That is what we have to do in the federal
parliament.
We have a situation which the federal parliament needs to deal
with. In August 1995 the premiers held their annual conference.
At that time they said: “Social policy reform is one of the
most significant challenges facing the nation”. Every province
and every territory was saying that social policy reform was the
most significant challenge. They formed a ministerial council on
social policy and renewal.
This was not a big secret. The premiers did not do this in a
closet. It was very open and above board. They were forming a
council to deal with the issue of social policy renewal. Where
was the federal government in all of this? Nowhere. The
federal government did not say “This is an important initiative.
Social security and the delivery of social services to the people
of this country is critical. We care about it too. Let us work
with you on this important initiative”. There was nothing like
that.
1350
In August 1995 the premiers go it alone. The same year this
council, moving with commendable expediency, reported principles
to guide social policy reform and renewal. The very same year
this council had results. Again, what did the federal government
do? Did it say: “Let us examine these principles. There are
some things we could add. We could assist with this. This could
work well because we will bring a national perspective to it”?
Again the federal government was nowhere to be found in the
process.
Then in August 1996, a year after the process started, the
premiers adopted a paper called “Issues Paper on Social Policy
Reform and Renewal: Next Steps”, and established a
provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal to design
options to ensure national standards and principles and to deal
with unilateralism on the part of the federal government. Again,
where was the federal government in this important initiative?
Nowhere.
In April 1997 the council presented its option paper.
In August 1997 the premiers said “Let us negotiate with the
federal government”. That was over a year and a half ago. The
premiers agreed to continue to work on the framework agreement.
In September they adopted a framework agreement called the
Calgary declaration and agreed on guidelines for social policy
renewal.
In October 1997 there was a further meeting of this council,
which stressed urgency, again pointing to the framework
agreement.
In December 1997 the premiers met again and endorsed the
framework agreement.
In March 1998 the council met to launch negotiations and for the
first time in this whole process, nearly three years from the
time it started, the federal government finally decided that
maybe it should get involved. It appointed the justice minister
to work with the premiers and the territorial leaders on this
initiative.
What happened after March? In June the group met. Guess what?
The meetings were described as tense. They were reported to be
an “apparent failure”. The justice minister, the federal
representative who had finally come along on the train, said “We
need more time to consider these proposals”, never mind that
they had been out there for two years or more.
In August the premiers met again. They issued a major news
release concerning the framework agreement and said again how
urgent it was.
What happened in September? The Prime Minister finally said
something. Here is what he said in an interview with Southam
News: “If they don't want to take what I am offering, they take
nothing. That is an alternative too”.
The government, after all of the work done by all the premiers
and the territorial leaders, simply says “It is my way or the
highway”. That is not what is called leadership.
What we are asking today is that this federal parliament fill
the leadership vacuum that the Prime Minister and the Liberal
government have failed to fill and simply move ahead, at a time
when every single provincial and territorial leader has done all
of the leg work, to get with the program, help put the ball
through the goal and make social policy in this country stronger
and better. That is what we are asking and I urge members to
support the motion.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote
from Premier Romanow. He stated: “The first order of business
with a social union is negotiating it as quickly as we can, not
under any artificial deadlines or timetables”.
1355
I would like to ask the member two questions. First, Reform
members come into this House and purport to be acting on behalf
of the provinces. Do they or do they not believe that there is a
position for the federal government in these negotiations?
Second, how can they come forward to impose a deadline when the
very chairman of the process they purport to support does not
want it?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the
premiers' news release of August 6, 1998. The last sentence of
paragraph 6 states: “Premiers stressed that negotiations should
now proceed with a view to concluding a draft agreement by the
end of the year”. That is what the premiers said.
Clearly, there have to be some goals set. If the timeline for
negotiation is infinite, all the federal government has to do is
play the violin and say nice words about how wonderful it is to
have co-operation within the federation. We will never get
anywhere.
There has to be somebody, somewhere, at some time who drives it
to conclusion. The premiers have made it extremely clear what
they think the proper timelines are.
There is clearly a role for the federal government in this. What
we are saying is “Get on with it. Play a role. Do something
that will move this ball through the goal posts”. The federal
government has not only been doing nothing, not only dragging its
feet, but the Prime Minister himself is saying “We are not going
to be flexible. We are not going to negotiate. Either you take
what we are going to give you or tough bananas”.
That is not the way to give us a strong, co-operative
federation. We will have to do something differently.
The Speaker: I see by the clock that we still have a
little over two minutes, but we will hear questions and comments
after question period.
With your permission, in one minute we will move to Statements
by Members.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the Auditor General of Canada for the year 1998.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE DULCE HUSCROFT
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for Dulce Huscroft, giving was a way of
reaching out to people.
She gave freely of her time whenever called upon and often
because she alone saw a need.
It seems only a few short weeks ago that her family and friends
rallied together to show her just how much they cared. Today we
gather again to pay our respects and to say goodbye to a truly
caring person.
Dulce always put her family first and to them I offer my
sympathy.
She touched many of us in her busy life as a school trustee,
community volunteer and as a caring parent. We will all miss
her.
* * *
BILL C-68
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the beginning of the forced registration of
law-abiding Canadians' hunting rifles and shotguns.
This Liberal folly has cost over $200 million to date and has a
long way to go yet.
The justice minister claims that Bill C-68 will save lives. A
portion of the money being spent to set up this program could
save over 1,700 breast cancer victims and dramatically reduce
health care costs in the process. That is far more than the
total number of firearm related deaths.
The justice minister also claims that Bill C-68 will make
streets safer. In British Columbia, the RCMP's campaign against
organized crime has been curtailed, patrol boats are docked and
patrol aircraft are grounded.
In rural areas, border surveillance and night patrols have been
cut due to an $8.5 million budget shortfall. That represents
less than 5% of the money being wasted on her bill.
The bottom line is that Bill C-68 will cost lives and make the
streets less safe.
Merry Christmas from the Liberal Party of Canada.
* * *
VOLVO ENVIRONMENTAL PRIZE
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Volvo environmental prize recognizes individuals who have
made outstanding innovations or discoveries that have a
significance in the environmental field and are of global or
regional importance.
Dr. David Shindler, a professor at the University of Alberta,
was a co-winner of the 1998 prize.
1400
Dr. Schindler was recognized for his discoveries on freshwater
pollution. The importance of this work becomes greater every
year as the world's supply of quality fresh water comes under
increasing stress. This prestigious award is one of a long list
of honours given to Dr. Schindler for his outstanding
achievements and contributions.
David Schindler chose to make Canada his home and we are blessed
both by his presence and his work. As legislators it is our
responsibility to listen to the David Schindlers of Canada and
the world to ensure that we make good, healthy public policy
decisions.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I invite all the people of Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik,
especially the various social integration partners, to take an
active part in the events of Access Awareness Week.
It is vitally important we become aware of the importance of
making our services accessible to people with functional
limitations.
Whether we are talking about medical or rehab services, day
care, schools, a recreation centre, work, a business or a
cultural centre, we all must make the needs of disabled persons
our business.
These people are our parents, our friends, our neighbours, our
clients and our colleagues. They are men, women and children
who are entitled to expect greater openness on the part of the
people around them and society in general.
I hope that this week provides an opportunity to discover new
support for the social integration and involvement of persons
with disabilities.
* * *
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, December 1 marks World AIDS Day. This year's theme is
“Youth, a Force for Change”.
The UN joint program on AIDS reveals that five new young people
are infected every minute worldwide.
In Canada, the rate of infection among young people, who are
particularly vulnerable, is a concern too.
We must therefore work with our government and non-government
partners to respond to this concern.
Our young people are our future. They warrant our urgent
attention, because they may be a driving force in changing the
course of the epidemic.
I encourage all my colleagues to wear a red ribbon to draw
attention to World AIDS Day. Let us as well give some thought
to all those who have died from this disease.
* * *
[English]
FIREARMS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is December 1 and the justice minister's billion dollar
boondoggle begins. Establishing a firearms registration system
has cost over $200 million so far and costs are projected to
exceed $1 billion before we even know if the computer set-up
works.
Canadians have also paid many lesser known costs including
$10,000 for a special interest group in California that is
preparing a global campaign against private firearms ownership
and $20,000 for the United Nations to publish and distribute a
study on firearms registration. Taxpayers should know that
$10,000 was for translating the document into French and Spanish.
Let us not forget about the more than $40,000 the government
spent last year to send bureaucrats to international workshops
aimed at restricting private firearms ownership.
Where are the criminals this legislation is supposed to stop?
They are laughing all the way to the bank, the bank they will rob
with their unregistered firearms.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, violence against women is a national problem that
demands the attention of all Canadians.
On December 6, 1989, 14 young women were savagely murdered at
the École Polytechnique in Montreal. To commemorate the deaths
of these women, the Government of Canada established December 6
as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against
women.
Nine years after this horrible event I join men and women across
the country in remembering those who have been injured or killed
and in thanking community groups that help abused women on a
daily basis.
This important work is done in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie by
Algoma Women's Sexual Assault Services, Women in Crisis, the
Sexual Assault Care Centre, Breton House and the Phoenix Rising
Women's Centre. Like their counterparts across the country these
groups are putting remembrance into action.
Let us all do our best to follow their example. Let us all do
our best to put an end to violence against women.
* * *
2010 WINTER OLYMPICS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that the Vancouver-Whistler bid
was chosen today as Canada's official entry for the 2010 Winter
Olympic Games. The voting was close with 20 votes for Calgary,
25 for Quebec City and 26 for Vancouver-Whistler.
1405
This is extremely exciting news for British Columbia and all
Canadians as I believe the Canadian bid will have an excellent
chance of being chosen as the site for the 2010 Olympics.
The bid received excellent support from the public, sport and
business communities, and from the local and provincial
governments of B.C.
I thank those who played a part in making Vancouver-Whistler the
official Canadian entry for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. I
hope to see them all in 2010.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
will be a bleak Christmas this year for communities and families
working in Canada's natural resource sector. Many farmers are
facing bankruptcy and foreclosure as a result of the collapse of
the commodities markets and the government's don't worry, be
happy attitude.
World oil surpluses are at record highs while prices are at near
record lows, creating a very uncertain future for those employed
in the oil industry. Canada's world class miners have to go to
Chile and Peru if they want to work in their industry. The
Canadian forest industry is facing an unemployment crisis with
more mills closing every day while the government continues to do
nothing more than talk about solutions.
It will be a bleak Christmas for many Canadians working in the
natural resources industries. We can only hope that the new year
will bring less talk and more action from the government on
behalf of these industries which represent the backbone of the
Canadian economy.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Robert
Middlemiss, Mr. Réjean Lafrenière and Mr. Norman MacMillan for
their great victory in the ridings of Pontiac, Gatineau and
Papineau in yesterday's Quebec election. Their re-election with
a comfortable majority proves that the people in these ridings
want a strong Quebec in a united Canada.
I assure the people of Pontiac, Gatineau and Papineau that their
federal member of parliament will work tirelessly with his
provincial counterparts to guarantee that this beautiful region
of ours remains forever in a united Canada.
* * *
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
our hearts go out today to the families and loved ones of all
those who suffered so tragically in the Westray Mine disaster.
It was one year ago today that the report on the Westray
disaster was released. That report noted that management through
its actions and attitudes sent a message that the safety of the
workers was not a priority and that this was a contributing
factor to the disaster. Based on a submission from the United
Steelworkers of Canada union the report called for the federal
government to introduce amendments to legislation to ensure that
corporate executives and directors be held accountable for
workplace safety.
The federal government has done nothing to act on that report
even though on average 900 workers die needlessly in workplace
related accidents each year in Canada.
In light of the federal government's inaction, the NDP will be
bringing forward legislation in this session that will hold
corporate managers and directors accountable for the safety of
their workers, legislation that we hope will prevent any future
disasters like the one at Westray.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, December 1 is
World AIDS Day.
AIDS has been a part of our collective reality since the early
1980s. Who among us does not know or know of someone who has
contracted the virus?
Every day some 11 people become infected with HIV in Quebec and
Canada. Of course, the face of AIDS is changing, and today it is
more closely associated with intravenous drug use. But make no
mistake.
When AIDS strikes, it strikes hard and indiscriminately.
That is why, on this occasion, I want to reiterate that
prevention remains our best ally against transmission of the
AIDS virus.
In addition, the network of community groups, which support,
comfort and help those infected and their families on a daily
basis, is the cornerstone on which we can base our actions and
interventions.
To all those who are involved in this fight, I say a big thank
you—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night, the people of Quebec clearly indicated who they wanted to
represent them in the Quebec National Assembly.
Our congratulations to all those who ran in the 125 ridings. We
should also acknowledge all the hard work done by volunteers,
who spared neither time nor effort to make their organizations
run smoothly.
Special congratulations to all those who ran under the Liberal
banner.
1410
Quebeckers have made it clear that they did not want another
referendum. They see their future within Canada.
I congratulate the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and
everyone on his team. Last night, they made us proud, they made
every Canadian proud.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, last night,
I was proud to be in Sherbrooke to celebrate Jean Charest's
victory. I congratulate Mr. Charest on that victory and on
winning a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Parti
Quebecois.
Through this victory, Jean Charest sends a clear message to
Quebeckers and to Canadians. Quebeckers do not want a
government that talks about referendums and separation. They
want a government that talks about jobs and health, and that
looks for ways to make the federation work.
This is what Mr. Charest did, despite the Prime Minister's
efforts to derail him. We can look forward to a very
interesting fight in the National Assembly over the next four
years.
With Mr. Charest heading up a strong opposition, all Quebeckers
stand to gain.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Quebeckers renewed their trust in the Parti Quebecois
government and in their premier, Lucien Bouchard.
The people of Quebec gave the Quebec government a mandate to
continue its determined efforts to defend their interests and to
help them achieve their destiny. Through this democratic
decision, Quebec is keeping all its future options open. It is
still free to make its own choices.
For now, the Government of Quebec has been given a mandate to
continue what it has begun: sound and responsible management of
public finances, conclusion of a social union agreement based on
the Saskatoon consensus, and an ongoing battle against all the
federal government's interference in Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction as set out in the Constitution.
Bravo to the Parti Quebecois for this second victory.
Yesterday's verdict shows clearly that the tough measures of the
last four years fell squarely in line with what our fellow
citizens wanted.
Congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Bouchard on another term
in office—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington has the floor.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the current farm crisis is not
only a rural issue in one province. It is an issue in all
provinces across Canada. Urban Canadians share in the benefits
the agriculture and agri-food sector provides.
Farmers' investment and labour provides delicious and nutritious
food for Canadians at the second lowest prices in the
industrialized world, costing less than 10% of our disposable
income.
Production happens in the countryside where machinery
dealerships and other input suppliers also live and work.
However, transporters, processors, grocers and restaurant workers
also live in cities and towns. The industry is Canada's third
largest employer. Add to this the $20 billion worth of
agriculture and food products exported and we have some idea of
the value of the farm sector in Canada.
Our hearts go out to farmers who are suffering extraordinary
losses. We must act now and respond to their need. Friends and
neighbours in my constituency of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington tell me that family farms are a valuable resource that
we must protect.
I urge all members of the House to support the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food—
The Speaker: Oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my questions for today are for the manager of the
general store.
Last night's election in Quebec cries out for a positive signal
from the Prime Minister. Quebecers are not happy with the status
quo, but they would rather not separate either.
The best idea on the table is the social union proposal from the
premiers which if concluded would improve the ways Ottawa and
the provinces work together on health care and other services.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the speedy conclusion of a
substantive social union proposal is the best way to strengthen
the federation at the present time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I initiated this process with the premiers a year ago.
It was the suggestion of the Prime Minister.
Yesterday's election in Quebec had not even terminated on TV
when the leader of the Reform Party was trying to get in bed with
the separatist leader of Quebec.
Today Premier Harris, Premier Romanow, Premier Tobin and the
leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec said we should not have any
artificial deadline. We should work together to find the
appropriate solution in due course.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is only confusing things with that
type of talk.
He implies that he wants a social union agreement. But he goes
to sleep when he should be awake. He says the wrong things at
the wrong time. He drags his feet.
The Prime Minister says he wants a social union agreement yet he
continually drags his feet. He objects to an artificial
deadline. What is his deadline for concluding an agreement? Is
it the end of the year? Is it next month? Is it some other
time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the provinces was developed over the
period of January to July. Thirty days after that the federal
position was tabled. Since that time they have been working to
find the proper solution. Obviously they stopped the
negotiations during the election period in Quebec.
The ministers are to meet in a couple of weeks or sooner. At
that time we will see what the differences are and we will try to
find an appropriate solution.
When I see the Leader of the Opposition trying to be such an
opportunist when it is time to really work for the benefit of
Canada, I cannot believe it. He cannot learn to be—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am in a hurry on this issue. I want to get this
country out of the 19th century and into the 21st century
constitutionally, whereas Rip Van Winkle over there is prepared
to snooze his way through the 20th century.
Again, when is the Prime Minister prepared to conclude a
substantive social union agreement with the provinces to
strengthen the federation?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are working on that. It is in our initiative but we
do not want to have an agreement for the sake of an agreement. We
want to have a good agreement to make sure the Canadian people
will receive the proper services everywhere in Canada of first
quality that makes the difference between a Canadian and others.
When I talk about the past and I see the leader of the Reform
Party who wants to scrap social programs, this is not what we
want. We want to have good programs for all Canadians in
collaboration with the provinces.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, ten premiers were able to arrive at a
unanimous position during a three day meeting in August. But the
federal government has not been able to reach an agreement with
the provinces in the subsequent four months.
The government says it is negotiating with the provinces but it
has not said about what.
Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians what the hang-up is? Is
it the dispute resolution mechanism, the opting out clause? What
is the government's problem with the social union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are in negotiations with the provinces at this time
to find the proper solutions.
As the national government we will make sure we have national
programs that will apply to all Canadians. We do not want a
situation where the rich provinces have great programs and the
poor provinces have nothing. It is not why we are here. We are
here to make sure there will be justice for all Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the funding is part of
this arrangement.
In August the premiers felt they could conclude a deal with the
federal government by the end of December. However, they were
not counting on the Canadian version of Stonewall Jackson
defiantly protecting and defending his turf.
How can this government ever sign an agreement with the
provinces when it does not even know what it is negotiating?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can see the jealously of the opposition. It knows we
are making progress. All the premiers are saying we are making
progress. They say we do not need any artificial deadline because
it will be counterproductive.
The Leader of the Opposition tried to score some political
points. It was not me who replied to him this morning. It was
Mr. Harris, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Romanow and Mr. Charest. I think I am
in better company.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
August, all the premiers reached agreement in Saskatoon to
propose a framework for social union aimed at setting out
guidelines for the federal spending power.
Yesterday, Quebeckers gave their premier a mandate to settle
this question once and for all.
Does the Prime Minister intend to respond promptly to this
appeal and to hold a meeting with his provincial counterparts in
order to finalize the agreement on social union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the real winners by more than 25,000 votes yesterday in Quebec
were the Liberal Party and Jean Charest—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —who told the press, and who told me
personally a few hours ago, that what is important is to ensure
that we work together.
Mr. Charest discussed the social union with me in May, in June.
Only in August did Mr. Bouchard start showing interest in it,
when he said there were already nine other people on board the
bus.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should keep in mind that he was elected in 1997
with 38% of the popular vote across Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that,
in the matter of spending power and the right to opt out with
full compensation, Quebec only showed an interest in August. But
talk has been going on about this for 50 years.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is his collaboration
with the premier of Quebec done by negotiating behind the back
of the Premier of Quebec with the leader of the opposition in
the National Assembly? Is this his idea of collaboration? I
would like to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is true that we only received over twice as many votes as the
leader of the opposition in the last election—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —and it is absolutely normal for me to
talk to my colleague, and I imagine he talks to Mr. Bouchard. I
saw Mr. Bouchard on television last night. He was smiling at the
beginning of the evening, but he had no smile left by the end.
I believe we spoke last year in December about making some
progress. Our position is in the 1996 Throne Speech. We
ourselves were the ones to propose—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, most certainly,
the Prime Minister of Canada with his majority of five ridings
out of 300 would be comfortable with a majority of 27 out of
125.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: However, that is not what I want to talk to
him about. Clearly the Prime Minister's remarks are suspect,
because each time he has spoken behind the back of the Premier
of Quebec—we know what that led to in 1982—he is starting again.
My question for the Prime Minister is the following: what
principle gives him the right to decide on health care, when it
is not his responsibility and he has never campaigned on it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go again. The poor martyrs are weeping again. The
humiliated are back complaining again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: It was this government that proposed
limiting spending power in the 1996 throne speech, and the Bloc
Quebecois voted against the throne speech.
They voted against the resolution to give Quebec special status.
They voted against legislation giving a veto to the regions in
Canada, including Quebec. But they continue with their
hypocrisy, whining all the time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1430
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members that I would prefer
they not use words like “hypocrisy”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of hypocrisy—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members that I asked they not
to use such words.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to choose their words very
carefully. I would ask the hon. member for Roberval to put his
question now.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister.
What do we call a person who visits Quebec, who is the Prime
Minister of Canada, who makes promises, and who, at the first
opportunity, breaks them? A hypocrite.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1435
The Speaker: I ask the member for Roberval to please withdraw
his words.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will
withdraw his, I will be pleased to withdraw mine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I will return to this problem at the end of Oral
Question Period.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister talks about co-operation to improve Canada, but he does
the opposite.
A government that cuts health care is not co-operating with the
provinces. A Prime Minister who refuses to negotiate the social
union is not working to improve the federation.
For the good of Canada, will the Prime Minister come out of his
hiding place and sit down at the negotiation table?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
simply want to quote what was said. I apologize, but the text is
in English.
[English]
“The first order of business is the social union, negotiating
it as quickly as we can, not under any artificial deadlines or
timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination.
The Prime Minister wants to do it. The premiers want to do it”.
It is Mr. Roy Romanow who said that on Newsworld on November 30,
1998.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Exactly, Mr.
Speaker. On this day I want to say the Prime Minister is
absolutely right to ignore Reform's artificial deadline. It is a
formula for failure. At the same time Canadians want the Prime
Minister to be a leader, not a straggler, in securing a stronger
social union. To build on the positive momentum, the Prime
Minister must send a positive signal.
Will he reinvest the $2.5 billion so desperately needed in
health care now? Will he do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are negotiating the social union. We are not
negotiating the budget of the federal government. It is not a
question of trading. We are not in the business of trading
anything there.
What we need to do is to find a formula for a good social
program which will apply to all Canadians and which is done by
the provinces and the federal government in a co-ordinated
fashion.
The question of the budget is another problem. I said in August
in New Brunswick, long before the question was asked, that the
first investment will be in health care. I said that five months
ago.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of intergovernmental affairs said this
morning on the social union that the provinces have a proposal
and that his government also has a proposal, but no one knows
what that proposal is. What is the government afraid of? Will it
take another letter from the minister to Mr. Bouchard for us to
find out what that proposal is?
Does the government have a proposal for the provinces, for
Canadians, and if so, what is it?
1440
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you that we are negotiating with the
provinces with the following objective in mind: to ensure that
all Canadians have access to the social and health services to
which they are entitled, through a better framework for
negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.
We will have nothing to do with the booty policy.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
is a problem.
Will the government wait until the infamous general store goes
bankrupt before making a move? What does it have to say to the
provinces that are anxiously waiting for concrete proposals?
Could the government inform the House of its plans? Will it take
action? Its credibility is at stake. The government must act and
act now.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the provinces stated their position in June and we
replied in July. It took them six months to come to an
agreement. We are not blaming them, because this is a complex
issue.
We replied to the provinces in July, and the Quebec premier took
an interest in this issue in August. When the Quebec premier is
not there to take a leadership role, it is always more
complicated.
It took us much less time to agree on the need to clarify the
federal spending power—because we started in February 1996—than
it took the Conservative government, which had eight years to do
so, but did nothing.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister is gouging workers by $350 each on their EI
premiums. Today he expects us to cheer because he is only going
to gouge them by $292. He is gouging every small business person
$500 per worker, but today the announcement is that he is only
going to gouge $417 out of them.
Let me ask a question of the tax collector. His knife is in the
back of every small business by nine inches. He is going to
put—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, of course in question period
we expect strong words but I think today we are going a little
bit overboard. I think if we are going to get on with question
period we have to be civil to one another.
I would ask the hon. member to please go directly to her
question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what is
overboard. It is a finance minister who will overcharge and take
too much money out of our pockets.
I would like to ask—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question.
Miss Deborah Grey: The question is, why will he not obey
the law? Why is he overcharging?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to confirm the announcement that was made
this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, that following the recommendation of the Employment
Insurance Commission the government will be reducing the
employment insurance premiums by 15 cents to $2.55.
1445
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure Canadians feel good. It is sort of like when a mugger
steals your purse and gives you bus fare so you can get home—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the Minister of Finance have decided to lower contributions
to the employment insurance program by only 15 cents.
How can the Minister of Finance lower contributions by a mere 15
cents, when the program could operate for three years just on
the surplus accumulated to date, without a penny being raised in
contributions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is in
such a bad mood this afternoon. I think it has nothing to do
with the announcement the Minister of Finance and I made today
about the contribution rate.
It probably has more to do with the fact that the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques having lost
his provincial election in both Riviève-du-Loup and Kamouraska,
where he had worked very hard just recently.
The reason for his bad mood cannot be found in the fact that we
have lowered the contribution rate for the fifth consecutive
year. It is the lowest it has been in Canada in more than eight
years.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in our regions, people are expecting more than
petty politics from the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The employment insurance program is not intended to allow the
government to accumulate billions of dollars in surplus; in
fact, the act specifically prohibits unreasonably high premiums.
On the basis of what kind of legal opinion does the Minister of
Finance think he can announce a reduction that is one quarter of
what could have reasonably been expected?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques came
back to this House; he would notice that the recommendation the
Minister of Finance and I made to lower contributions is one
that was unanimously passed by the employment insurance
commission, where both labour and management are represented.
We respected the law and our system. It is absolutely incredible
that, on that side, they would try to have people believe that
the system does not respect the integrity of a reform of the
employment insurance program we had the courage to carry out.
1450
This reform will put $1 billion back into the pockets of
Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
StatsCan is reporting that income taxes are rising at twice the
rate of Canadian incomes. In fact, now Canadians are being
forced to dig into their savings accounts to pay the head tax
collector. Oh, how that must warm the spot where the finance
minister's heart should be.
Now that Canadians are cleaning out their savings accounts to
pay taxes, will the minister acknowledge that his high tax
policies really are hurting Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a heart. Reform is the party without heart. The
fact is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that
the numbers he is referring to vary from quarter to quarter. In
fact, they vary from month to month. What does not vary are the
longer term trends.
I simply announce that real personable disposable income in
Canada increased substantially in 1997, rising over 8% from 1996.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is that there has never been a finance minister in the
history of the country who has taxed Canadians more ruthlessly
than this finance minister.
Instead of taxing Canadians ever more to build up surpluses in
the government, when is the finance minister going to start
working for Canadians? When is he going to bring in a program of
long term, deep tax relief for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget we brought in over $7 billion in tax
relief over three years. Today my colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources Development, decreased employment insurance
premiums by 15 cents, which represents well over a billion
dollars.
Every single year that we have been in office employment
insurance premiums have come down. There are two things to count
on: employment insurance premiums coming down; and their
popularity going down.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, each year the
federal government forks out over $3.7 billion in professional
services contracts over $25,000. Over half of these contracts
are awarded without competitive bidding. This was what the
auditor general had to tell us this morning.
Apart from patronage, what explanation can the Minister of
Public Works give for the fact that so many contracts do not go
through the competitive bidding process?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general's observations are based on 1995 figures . We agree
completely that 55% of contracts being awarded without
competitive bidding is a percentage that had to be improved.
And improve it we did. Once the problem was identified, the
necessary action was taken and now over 80% of professional
services contracts go through the competitive bidding process.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the problem is
worse than that. Because of the carelessness of the Minister of
Public Works, a contract that started out at $25,000 went as
high as $300,000, still without being tendered.
1455
How does the government explain such carelessness, when it is
bursting its buttons telling us how well it manages taxpayers'
money?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are
completely valid reasons for sole sourcing, such as when only
one supplier is able to provide the professional services.
It is therefore possible to sole source for reasons that are in
the public's interest. But, I repeat, we have already corrected
the error pointed out by the auditor general and, since 1995, we
have increased the number of contracts that go through
competitive bidding from 55% to over 80%.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
multiculturalism program is a case study in government waste.
According to the auditor general, fully one-third of all grants
given out by the heritage minister cannot be justified. The
minister has no idea what the program is supposed to achieve,
where the money goes or why she is giving the money away in the
first place.
How many more years will Canadians have to pay for programs that
have no reason to exist?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
multiculturalism program, we have just finished a complete
review of new program guidelines. We have given it a three-year
transition.
We are at the end of our first year and we are very pleased that
the auditor general was able to pinpoint exactly what we wanted,
evaluating how we are moving over the first year of a three-year
transition to ensure accountability in the system.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
nothing but waste. But it does not end there. The government is
spending billions of dollars on contracts with no competitive
bids.
Contracts are handed out, according to the auditor general, to
people who are identified before the contract is granted. We
have heard of a case in which $3,000 per day was paid to a person
on a non-competitively bid contract.
Is $3,000 a day to an individual on a non-competitive contract
value for money? Who is looking after the taxpayer?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already answered that question.
The report of the auditor general on that question is based on
data that were collected for 1995. This was a problem. We have
now rectified the problem and over 80% of these professional
service contracts are granted under competitive bidding.
* * *
[Translation]
AIDS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
all aware of the plight of AIDS victims.
What is less known though is the extreme slowness with which the
federal Minister of Health is acting to approve AIDS medication.
How does the Minister of Health explain that, since 1996, the
United States has approved two drugs against AIDS, while only
one of these products has been approved in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the 11th World AIDS Day. It is important to reflect on the
problems and the challenges before us, and to develop an
awareness of the risks involved, particularly among young
people.
It is to that end that we have adopted a Canada-wide strategy
against AIDS. The Government of Canada has displayed leadership
in this matter and on the issue of drug research.
We are now improving the approval process for new drugs, and we
have already taken action in that respect. This is in the public
interest.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask on world AIDS day if the Minister of
Health could tell us what is being done to combat this terrible
disease which is a growing epidemic, especially among young
people around the world. Recent statistics show us that half of
new HIV infections are among young people. What is the strategy
to combat this terrible disease among young people?
1500
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning I published the first annual report from the
Government of Canada to Canadians on the progress of our strategy
against HIV and AIDS, a strategy in which we are investing $42
million each and every year.
While there are daunting challenges before us there were some
encouraging things that were reported this morning. We are
working in partnership with Canadians. The voices of the
communities are being heard. We are targeting youth in
particular, aiming toward prevention through education and
instruction. We are investing in research. We are supporting
community efforts. We are focusing this year on youth.
* * *
[Translation]
The Speaker: The oral question period that just ended was a
little more difficult than usual for all members. One must
realize, as I do, that we sometimes get a little carried away
during question period.
During today's oral question period, one member, the Prime
Minister, used the word “hypocrisy”. I asked him not to use that
word, and when the hon. member for Roberval took the floor, he
also used the word “hypocrisy”. I asked him not to use such a
word and, later, for some reason, the hon. member said that
another member was a “hypocrite”.
I find this language to be unparliamentary. I asked my
colleague, the hon. member for Roberval, to withdraw his comment
that another member was a hypocrite, but he would only do so if
the other member also withdrew his comments.
It is now up to me, as Speaker of the House, to make a decision.
1505
This is not a simple decision to make, and I once again address
myself directly to my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval,
for whom I have a great deal of respect. I respectfully ask him
to withdraw the word he used, when he said that another member
was a “hypocrite”.
I address myself directly to the hon. member for Roberval and I
ask him to withdraw his comments.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, may I ask you
to look at the blues before making your decision?
It is my impression that there is an important nuance between
what I said and what you tell me I said. I believe that looking
at the blues would be the best thing for you, for myself, for
everyone and for the Standing Orders. After that, you and I can
take the proper steps within the parliamentary process.
If I might ask you this rather small favour of looking at the
blues and we can then discuss this situation again. I will make
honourable amends, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to check the blues first.
Is it possible to ask you to do so?
The Speaker: As the hon. member said, there may be some nuances
in the words used.
In my judgment, the words used, the words “il est un
hypocrite”,
he is a hypocrite, caused a disturbance in this House, in my
opinion. For that reason, I am asking the hon. member once
again—
An hon. member: The Prime Minister provoked it.
The Speaker: Once again, in my judgment the words used during
the Oral Question Period by the hon. member for Roberval, were
unparliamentary. I ask him once again to withdraw the words he
spoke.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the
Chair, for the institution, but for once, I will have to accept
your verdict. Unfortunately, I cannot comply with your request.
It goes against my principles.
I consider that I have been unfairly treated compared to the
Prime Minister.
* * *
1510
NAMING OF MEMBER
The Speaker: It is not with great pleasure that I say the
following:
Mr. Gauthier, I must name you for disregarding the authority of
the Chair.
Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Standing Order 11, I
order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of
today's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Gauthier having withdrawn]
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF SPORT IN CANADA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege with regard to yet another leaked
document, this time on the subcommittee on sport.
I propose to spend a brief amount of time on this, but I will
suggest a solution to the House on behalf of our members on how
to curtail this.
While browsing through press clippings this morning I noted that
the debate on the report of the subcommittee on sport began on
Friday in the Toronto Star. Tim Harper in an article makes
the following comment: “Canada's professional sports teams
would be eligible for tax breaks if they can show they are
providing substantial revenues to their communities but need some
help to continue, a committee will recommend”.
It goes on to quote the chairman, the member for
Broadview—Greenwood, saying: “His committee will recommend
Canadian sports franchises playing in North American leagues
could be eligible for tax breaks if—” and it goes on and on.
The article lists a number of items from the report.
The Saturday edition of the National Post on page A17
reports much of the same thing and uses the language “A Commons
committee recommends”, and on it goes.
Today in the Ottawa Citizen the debate continues on the
report. In an article Gare Joyce states that the opposition
members leaked details of the report late last week.
We have circumstantial evidence that points to the chair openly
discussing the report and the article in the Ottawa Citizen
actually cites members as leakers. Whatever the case may be,
there are leakers among us.
I am not surprised this committee is ignoring parliamentary
practice since it was this committee in fact that decided to
ignore parliament altogether when it travelled to Toronto without
the permission of the House. It is my understanding that the
committee actually brought with it a host of Commons interpreters
and other staff.
This committee and its members have absolutely no respect for
parliament. But then again, why should they? Leaking a report
before it is tabled in the House is more common than waiting for
a report to be tabled.
1515
There are some recent examples are, Mr. Speaker, and you have
heard them all from us. There is the third report of the justice
committee, the fourth report of the fisheries committee, the
second report of the health committee, the child custody report,
the foreign affairs report, and now the report on sport in
Canada.
What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that these people who
leak this information are being rewarded by getting a hit in the
news and the news organization that receives the leaked
information gets a news scoop.
Since there is no deterrent for leaking reports, reports
continue to be leaked in this House. This has happened so often
without the House taking responsibility that committees and their
members have now decided to ignore parliament altogether. I
wonder what will be next.
If parliament is going to be known as a good place for a leak,
then we have to talk about a little more transparency on the
issue. We might as well openly leak reports.
I am faced with this situation with my colleagues. We have not
leaked reports but we are sick and tired of reports being leaked
from all of the committees. Either these reports will stop being
leaked from these committees or this party here will consider
reports from committees to be open public documents.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider this and consider that
time after time we come to this House and appeal to you to have
this sort of thing stopped with no satisfactory resolution
whatsoever.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only speak to that portion of the member's remarks
that deals with the subcommittee on sport. I can say two things.
It was approved in the heritage committee this morning that the
report would be tabled here on Thursday morning. I can also say
to the hon. member that he will not find one sentence of any
article anywhere in this country in the report that will be
tabled here on Thursday. The report as of this minute has not
been leaked in any way, shape or form to the press.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chair of the subcommittee in
question has just indicated that to the best of his knowledge
nothing that is in the report in fact has appeared elsewhere.
May I respectfully recommend to the Chair that before
determining whether in fact there has been a leak, let alone what
is done with it, that one should await the tabling of the
document in question. That would not ascertain whether there has
been a leak but it certainly would ascertain of course if the
allegations made today in the media are false. We would at least
know that as a first proposition.
That being said, I understand that the procedure and House
affairs committee has received representations from hon. members.
In fact it intends to start a discussion of this issue very
shortly and of course subsequently to report its findings to the
House.
There are two things. One, we do not have a copy of the report
of the said subcommittee before the House and no way to compare
whether or not the allegations in the paper are factual. Two, we
should also wait for the report of the committee on procedure and
House affairs.
That being said, I must say that I profoundly agree with anyone
who suggests that it is improper to leak reports from standing
committees. I as a parliamentarian and all members of this House
have the right to be the first to know of what is prepared by a
committee of our own colleagues.
I fully subscribe to that proposition and I fully condemn anyone
who attempts to make a report of ours as members of parliament
available to someone else before our own colleagues.
1520
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to say that I share the concern expressed by
the House leader of the Reform Party and for that matter by the
government House leader about the pattern of leaked committee
reports.
I will have more to say on a subsequent point of order about
question period, but one just feels the whole place here is
teetering on the brink of chaos. People each in their own way
are showing no respect for a variety of customs that have been
established in this place to keep us from descending into chaos.
One of those things has been the provision that committee reports
are private and confidential until such time as they are tabled
in this House.
This is part of a larger pattern of disregard for the House. It
is not surprising to me, although I say this in no way to excuse
it, but over time members would come to see the media as the
place to make announcements when a pattern has developed over the
years where the government itself does it. The House itself is
used less and less by ministers, by the Prime Minister and by the
government to make announcements. It is not just committee
reports that we read about in the paper; it is government policy
announcements and other kinds of major announcements that we read
about in the paper. It is a pattern that is destroying this
place.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you can do about it because in
the end it is something we all have to do something about. It
does not just have to do with committees. It has to do with a
pattern of government disregard for the House which has caught on
and which has become endemic and is reaching its way into every
aspect of our undertakings here.
I would urge members in whatever their capacity, whether they
are government or opposition, that wherever they have an
opportunity, to uphold the view that here is where we hear about
things first. Here is where members of parliament get elected so
they can hear about things first, instead of reading about it in
the newspaper whether it is a committee report or an announcement
by a minister. Then we can get back to being a parliament for a
change.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the House leader of the NDP. As usual
I appreciate his experience in this place and his observations of
what has happened over the years. It is well known that members
of the Reform Party are willing to look at new ways and different
ways of doing business in this place.
There are things that need to be respected. What needs to be
respected are the rules that we have agreed on going into the
game. As happened yesterday, rules were changed on Private
Members' Business by resolution of the House. That is how you
change the rules and until such time you live under those rules.
But when constantly day in and day out and week in and week out
reports are leaked to the press, ideas and balloons are floated
in the press, then imagine the whip's job as he tries to get
people into committee and argue with them that it is important
work of parliament and we are doing the people's work by doing
these studies. People come back to me and other people in the
party and say halfway through that it is totally irrelevant
because the government leaks it to the media.
The question of was an exact quote attributed verbatim out of a
report does not matter in this instance. On talking about the
sports report that was leaked earlier, when someone quotes
somebody as saying that his committee will recommend Canadian
sports franchises playing in North American leagues could be
eligible for tax breaks, that may not be a word for word quote
out of the report, but what is the difference? The report is
out. It is now public debate. The work of committee members who
have been slogging it out for months on that report is now
irrelevant. We may as well all go down and talk to our favourite
reporter and duke it out.
That is not the way to come to consensus. Members of parliament
who do not like that can come to this place and try to change the
rules. But the rules should be followed.
1525
This party is following the rules. I believe this side of the
House is following the rules. That side of the House had better
smarten up or, as the House leader of the NDP has already said,
we are going to devolve into more disrespect for parliament
unless they get their act together.
The Speaker: As was stated by the hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, we are indeed talking about a
broader problem. It is a problem here with parliament where we
were elected to serve.
What we have with the point of privilege that was brought up by
the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, at least at this point
from what I can hear, is that the hon. member is saying that
someone from the government side leaked a document. He does not
name a member but he seems to indicate that one of the members
may have done it.
The member that he seems to have indicated, the member for
Broadview—Greenwood, stood on his feet and as an hon. member he
told us here in this House that he and no one else that he knows
of has leaked this particular document.
We are right about one thing, that we do have the
rules in the House and ultimately the rules are going to be kept
by us, the members of this House. I do not know how many times
that I as the Speaker have to appeal to all members. These rules
are made for all of us.
At this point, from what I have heard, we have a dispute on the
facts of what happened. I find that there is no prima facie case
for a point of privilege.
However, how many times do we all stand in this House and bemoan
this fact? The government House leader says that he is
absolutely opposed to anything like this. We have the Leader of
the Opposition who is absolutely opposed. The spokesperson for
the New Democratic Party is opposed. We all agree and yet these
things still go on.
Unless we the parliamentarians together make a decision as to
how we are going to conduct ourselves in here, we must not just
deteriorate into the chaos of pointing fingers at one another.
I find that there is no prima facie case for a point of
privilege.
I appeal to all my colleagues that unless we want to make this
place work, it will not work. I appeal to your sense of honour
that this type of thing should not happen. The best place for
these announcements is here in our House where we are. This is
where they should be made.
I encourage all of you, whoever the person is who leaked this,
if they are indeed in this House or close to the people in this
House, in the name of respect for this institution, that this
cease forthwith.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order has to do with question period.
As some members know, like some other members around here I am
closing in on 20 years in this place and I have to say that was
one of the worst question periods I have ever experienced. I
think we all have some thinking to do about what is happening in
question period and what happened to it in the extreme today.
I do not think we can continue in a situation where there is
this sort of collective bellowing and clapping that goes on after
every exchange. This is not a soccer game here for God's sake.
1530
I can be as partisan as the next person. I like a good heckle
and a good exchange, but everything that has been happening
throughout this fall is going beyond the beyond.
I must confess a collective self-interest in the matter. It is
not just a question of decorum for us, it also a question that
the smaller parties get pushed off at the end of question period
when this happens. The people who are generally at fault in
this, who have the power collectively in their numbers to bring
the House to a standstill, are not the people who suffer. Either
the government or the Bloc or the Reform Party each take its turn
at this and who suffers? Who gets pushed off at the end of
question period? It is not the people who have the power to
create this kind of situation.
I am concerned about it from the point of view of the NDP and
the Conservatives, but it is not just that. It is also the
people on the end of the list for the Reform Party, on the end of
the list for the Bloc and the government backbenchers who were on
the list. I do not think we can tolerate this situation any
longer.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with you to rethink your own tactics in
this regard. I know that you do not want to say “order”, but I
am very concerned that the tactic which you employ of simply
standing until the House reconvenes, until it quiets down by
itself, is not working. As much as I know your reasons, which I
think are noble, for not wanting to say “order”, there are
certainly times in this place for the Speaker to intervene and
say “order”, as speakers do with gavels or orally in
parliaments all around the world. There is a time and a place
for this. I would urge you to rethink your strategy in this
regard because it is visibly, obviously, clearly not working.
Today was a perfect example of that. There were moments when I
felt that an intervention by the Chair might have brought order
or might simply have moved us on. If you feel one party or
another is contributing negatively to decorum, move on to the
next party. Do as speakers in the past have done and use the
discretion of the Chair to punish people who are not contributing
to decorum.
It may be that people who are members of the parties which are
acting up will be punished for the sins of their colleagues, but
collectively they will have a discussion about it after the fact
and maybe better behaviour will come of it.
When people watch this on television they cannot tell who is
yelling. All they see is you, Mr. Speaker, so they think we are
all yelling. We are not all yelling. Some of us are sitting
here hoping the place will get quiet so we can get on with our
questions. It does not help the public perception of the House
of Commons to have you standing there for literally five minutes
at a time sometimes, as was the case today, while there is this
terrible background noise. It cannot be good for parliament in
terms of its perception and it certainly is not good for
parliament in terms of its everyday practice.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to add to the remarks of my
colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona. He is absolutely right when
he says that those who are perhaps the most active in this
raucous behaviour that is delaying question period are the direct
beneficiaries of that behaviour and that the people who pay the
price are those in the smaller parties.
Let us have something else on the record. The loss of two or
four questions from the two smallest parties in this House is
significant in terms of our overall presentation and our ability
to participate in a fair way in the question period process.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your sense of fairness and
even-handedness that you do intervene and that you move quickly.
There should be some consequence for the type of behaviour we
have seen displayed.
1535
There are certain members who continuously and repeatedly ask
questions that cause this place to deteriorate into an uproar and
there seems to be little consequence for that behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you and ask you to use your discretion
in the Chair to move quickly. As has been stated previously by
the hon. member from the NDP, there has to be some sense of
fairness and justice if question period is to work.
I certainly do not have the experience of the previous member,
but in the short time I have been here, in the past number of
months, I have seen the deterioration. Perhaps today was an
aberration, but I believe that there has been deterioration.
There has to be some intervention on the part of the Chair if
this behaviour is to stop.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to put on the record that I am also disgusted to be one of
the 301 people sitting in the House today. I am ashamed to be
part of this collective House and what went on in here.
I concur with the comments of both of the last two members who
spoke. It is not just today. We have seen this all fall.
Look, for example, at what happened today. There was no
punishment by throwing the member out of the House for the rest
of the day. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you have to take serious
action and maybe even not recognize people in the future.
Something has to be done to bring decorum back to this House.
I said to one of my colleagues “I wonder what it looks like
through the eyes of the camera, to the people out there? How bad
is it?” I can say that I was disgusted to be one of the members
sitting in the House today. We are collectively part of this
institution and it is time we changed this situation.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not specifically want to
comment on the strategies employed by the Chair, other than to
indicate my support for the Chair and its occupant.
I do agree that this was not one of our better days. I do not
want to say it was the worst one we have ever seen. I have been
around here a long time too and I remember a number of others.
But it is true that this was not up to the standard which we have
established over the last year, year and half or perhaps before
that.
Maybe one good idea would be for all of us, as we gather
tomorrow at our weekly caucus meetings, to review and gather our
thoughts to determine what we can do.
In the spirit of the season, notwithstanding the insults flying
across the way, we should do what we can to co-operate at least
over the number of days remaining before we adjourn for the
holiday season.
If there are parties that have been aggrieved today, and no
doubt some were because of the shortage of questions, maybe if we
do a better job of being brief in our questions over the next few
days, then we will at least make up for any grievance that might
have come forward today.
That is what I would hope and I offer it as a suggestion not to
the Chair, but to all of us, to help make this place work better
over the next five or six days until we adjourn for the holiday
season.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I think my colleague, the parliamentary leader of the NDP, has
just raised a very important point.
Your, in my opinion very harsh, ruling against the hon. member
for Roberval was made on the basis of order or disorder. Our
colleague earlier—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: There will be no questioning the Speaker's ruling.
The matter is closed, and I want no more discussion of the hon.
member for Roberval.
I would ask my hon. colleague to direct his remarks to the point
of order raised by the parliamentary leader of the New
Democratic Party.
1540
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, if the government House
leader would let me continue, I would have an opportunity to
establish a direct connection with the point raised by our
colleague from the New Democratic Party.
A moment ago, and you did not interrupt him, our colleague from
Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that the ruling you had just made
was not a real punishment of our colleague.
Anyone who knows the member for Roberval knows that he is an
experienced parliamentarian with profound respect for
parliamentary institutions and, as such, fully aware that his
decision not to comply with your ruling—
The Speaker: I have asked that no reference be made to the hon.
member for Roberval. If you have a point to make, please make it
now so that we can continue. I do not want any further reference
to the hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, if in order to make my point
I must refer to my colleague without naming his riding, as did
the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I shall carry on
without naming his riding, confident that all the members of
this House know full well who I am referring to.
His decision not to comply with your ruling was a very difficult
decision for him to make. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, you
made this ruling on the basis of the disturbance his remarks may
have caused in this place.
I respectfully submit that his request, which, in my sense, was
a very reasonable one, was for you to examine remarks—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think probably what my colleagues feel is that there is not
equality in the way in which every member is treated. I can
understand the position that you are in. It is awkward. You
have to make a call on the fly and it is a difficult thing for
you to do. I think my colleague from Winnipeg made a good point
that rather than just standing there for what seems forever when
we are in the short, tight period of question period, maybe you
do need to be a little more proactive.
I have just gone up to my office and reviewed the tape of my
question period time and over five minutes was spent on that.
There was nothing unparliamentary in what I said. But what I
sensed from you, Mr. Speaker, was that because you were angry
with the Bloc you ended up taking it out on me. I am not sure
there is any wisdom in that.
The Speaker: I am getting a pretty good picture of where
we are going. With respect to this point of order I am going to
make a suggestion.
At the beginning of this parliament the House leaders came to me
with a suggestion about question period. It seemed like a good
suggestion at the time and I think it is a good suggestion even
to this day.
This was a bad question period. It was probably the worst that
I have been through as Speaker of the House. Perhaps the blame
should rest on my shoulders. After all, I am your Speaker. You
have chosen me. Perhaps the tactics that I have used have been
less than proactive, as was suggested. However, I have always
been of the view that members of parliament, indeed most people,
are reasonable people. You have come to the same conclusion
today. You have seen what we can do to ourselves in this
institution.
I would like to convene before the question period tomorrow. I
see that most of the House leaders are here now.
I would like to convene the House leaders and if they so wish
their whips, but if not just the House leaders, in my chambers. I
will have them contacted before the end of this day with a time.
This is serious enough that I would like them to sit down with me
in my chambers. We will address this problem together and we
will solve this problem.
1545
The House leaders are here, except for of course my colleague
who is not here. He will be informed and he will come to be with
us also.
I want this point of order closed down. If there is another
point of order I will listen to it.
[Translation]
Does the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have another point
of order?
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like another element to be added to the debate. Since all
parties have spoken on the topic and since one element was
missing, I can assure you that this has nothing to do with your
ruling.
The Speaker: We will leave the matter as it stands.
[English]
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response
to a question from the Leader of the Opposition today in question
period the Prime Minister stated that the federal government had
tabled an agreement in December 1997 in response to the premiers'
social union agreement.
We cannot find any such agreement and we are wondering if the
Prime Minister could please table it so that it could be made
available to us.
The Speaker: As far as I know he did not quote
directly from the document. If he did not quote directly from
the document, we might ask him through the government House
leader if there is such a document and then go from there.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SOCIAL PROGRAMS
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with a colleague.
Members of the House deal with many different issues on a day to
day basis. During any given session we could be talking about
bank mergers, agricultural subsidies or assistance to northern
communities. The topics are as diverse as the physical and human
geography of the country. Each is important in its own way
because each impacts on the communities and the people we
represent.
I am sure we would all agree that Canada's social union is an
issue that touches both the hearts and minds of every Canadian in
each corner of this great nation. I am happy the Reform Party
has taken an active interest in the social union framework. It is
certainly an issue which the government and the Prime Minister
take seriously.
Today's motion neglects to mention that the idea of the social
union framework arose not from the Saskatoon agreement but rather
from a meeting between the Prime Minister and his provincial
colleagues in December 1997.
The government has always supported the initiative from the
start. While I understand the opposition's desire to speed
things along, I cannot support the motion. Nor should the House
support it. Negotiations are still ongoing and we must resist
the temptation to rush recklessly forward. There are important
issues on the table and it demands that they be addressed both
thoroughly and thoughtfully.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of the architects of our modern system
of government, once characterized federalism as a great principle
that speaks to the very foundations of human nature. I like
this. It shows the kind of spirit that went into the development
of this great country.
1550
The principles at the heart of the federal idea are noble ones:
mutual support, understanding and accommodation. These are the
principles upon which the country was built and helped make
Canada what it is today.
[Translation]
But when we focus on disagreements and disputes, we lose sight
of these principles. We lose sight of how we all benefit from
federalism.
Our parliament and our country were not built by men who kept
saying that it was beyond their ability or wondering what they
would get out of it. They were built by people who focussed on
what they could accomplish together.
We need a bit more of this kind of enthusiasm today, because
Canada is constantly evolving. It is a work in progress. We
have a solid foundation, but we must keep building.
[English]
That is exactly what the government is doing. The Reform Party
asked about our plans concerning the social union framework. The
answer is straightforward. We are negotiating with our partners.
It is that simple.
The government is confident that we will negotiate a framework
agreement that is good for the country and all citizens. That is
how the government operates. We take a reasoned approach
designed to produce maximum benefits for Canadians.
That is certainly the approach we are taking toward renewing the
federation. We promote national unity by building a better
Canada for all Canadians. That is what Canadians want. If we
ask people on the streets of Kitchener, Halifax or Drummondville
what their priorities are, we will get the same answers: jobs,
safe streets, good health care and a healthy environment for
themselves and their children. That is what Canadians want and
that is exactly what we are working on giving them.
Despite what some may be implying, building a stronger Canada
does not mean focusing exclusively on the Constitution. The
Constitution is a useful tool for state building that continues
to serve the country well. It needs to be respected, but
constitutional change is not the only way to improve the
federation.
The government has worked very hard over the past five years to
improve our country. It has worked systematically in partnership
with the provinces to address the needs of Canadians.
Negotiation of the social union framework is part of the these
efforts.
A number of our initiatives have been introduced on a variety of
different fronts. They have been developed with the goal of
better positioning Canada as we enter the 21st century. We have
a plan that we outlined in the Speech from the Throne. We are
following that plan systematically.
First I will discuss some of the advantages we have made on the
fiscal side of things. Getting our books in order is
fundamentally important because it allows us the freedom to
pursue our goals. Then I will identify the principles that
underlie our current efforts toward renewing the federation.
We must look at the initiatives the government has undertaken
which prove that progress has and will continue to take place.
That should give members of the House a good idea of how much has
already been accomplished over the past five years.
The government has made historic inroads in deficit reduction
and has worked with Canadians to balance our books. I am proud
to say that the world has taken notice. The financial gurus who
were disparaging us just a few short years ago are now changing
their tunes.
Thanks to the sacrifices that Canadians made and the conditions
we have set in place to ensure a strong Canadian economy, we have
continued a five year tradition of beating every one of our
fiscal targets. The federal budget balance has improved from a
deficit of $42 billion in 1993-94 to a surplus of $3.5 billion in
1997-98, a $45.5 billion turnaround in just four years.
1555
While unemployment is still too high it has fallen from the
11.4% in the fall of 1993 to the 8.1% of today, the lowest level
in eight years and a record improvement exceeded only by the
United Kingdom among the G-7 nations.
Throughout the decades of the seventies, eighties and the early
nineties our deficits were much higher than those of the U.S. Now
we have a surplus. Interest rates on long term government bonds
which directly affect mortgage rates and business loans are at
their lowest levels in three decades. A good economy goes a long
way in promoting a strong and unified Canada.
The opposition motion fails to recognize that when we are in a
partnership it takes agreement and it takes consensus among all
the players. While it is true that there has been consensus
reached and the government will build on that coming from the
Saskatoon meeting of August 7, there is not the unanimous consent
the motion is predicated upon.
The government has shown that it is willing to work in a
meaningful way in a partnership with the provinces and
territories to continue to have a government and a nation that
are relevant and good for Canadians both today and into the next
century.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to what I call a
wonderful accolade which has been given to the government, a
wonderful vote of confidence, a wonderful gesture of the
opposition stating that it has the utmost confidence in the
government to conclude in 31 days what I would call one of the
most fundamental, one of the most important and one of the most
significant agreements in Canadian political history.
The opposition through the Reform motion is calling on the
government to conclude an agreement by December 31, 1998 on what
its version of social union would be. It is calling on the
government to unilaterally conclude those discussions and to come
up with an agreement by December 31.
If we really reflect on it, as the hon. member for Burin—St.
George's should do instead of babbling on over there, the
opposition is telling us that we should have a clear and full
mandate to unilaterally, without the scrutiny of the opposition,
conclude that agreement.
If we think about what social programs are to Canadians, the
values that Canadians instil through their social programs and
what they mean to them practically in their day to day lives,
this is quite an accomplishment. The opposition is giving us
quite an accolade.
On social programs, our health care system, our employment
insurance system and our job training system, things that
Canadians cherish and rely upon, the opposition is telling us
that with unanimous consent of the House we should be able to
conclude an agreement within a 31 day period.
Canada is a nation that has evolved over 130 years. If we think
about it, the opposition is now telling us that we should have 31
days to conclude a very significant piece of work. I take the
compliment very seriously and gratefully, but I think the issue
is far too serious, far too important and far too fundamental to
the wishes and aspirations of Canadians for us to do so without
fully engaging our partners in this discussion.
Social programs are very important. We take very seriously our
role in guarding them and making sure that they are available to
future generations just as they are available to us today. It is
not so much ensuring that they are available as is but that they
evolve according to the wishes and the needs of Canadians over
time.
The agreements and discussions that will come forward in coming
months and years must reflect the priority of Canadians. They
must reflect their wishes. That involves citizen engagement.
That cannot be done in a 31 day period as the opposition is
telling us.
1600
I do not think any agreement could be drafted, and I am not
saying should be drafted, in a 31 day period given the fact that
there probably would not be too many opposition members around on
December 31, 1998 to review it, to reflect upon it or to offer
their opinion.
I do not think that bodes well for the conduct and activities of
the House. I do not think that those are the original intentions
or wishes of the opposition. However, it reflects their very
poorly thought out, opportunistic and ill spirited intent to
corner the government for the sake of cornering it by suggesting
that it would be appropriate to conclude such a significant
agreement within a 31 day period.
Canadians are far more intelligent, far more reflective and take
their social programs far more seriously than to be boondoggled
by such a very inappropriate and ill conceived notion.
We are working diligently toward building a consensus, working
with our partners and working with all sides of the House in an
honest debate, not on something that is preconceived and
arbitrary, not in the best interest of Canadians and not
reflected by the premiers of the province. Within the past 24
hour period they have come forward and said that we should do
this thoughtfully and responsibly and get the best possible
social union, not just any social union.
That is the difference between members on this side of the House
and members on the other side of the House. We are looking to
get what is in the best interest of Canadians. That means not
concluding a deal just for the sake of concluding a deal. It
means making sure that we build upon the 130 year history of our
country and that we build upon the efforts, the initiatives and
the strengths of our forefathers, the people who built the
country.
We have to remember the country did not evolve within a period
of 31 days as is now being suggested as the objective, the motive
or the principle we should adopt. It is being suggested that as
at December 1, 1998 we should put in place an arbitrary deadline
for the form and the finality of a social union which will be the
cultural base of our social programs for the future and will be
the rigid structure.
That is not what this is all about. We are not engaging in a
debate that will actually determine the nature of social
programs. We are engaging in a discussion about how the
implementation of those programs will proceed. We will still
need a lot of flexibility over time. We will still need the
input of Canadians over time. No matter when or whatever
agreement is concluded, Canadians must, should and will be a part
of any process. Canadians have to be. We have to engage our
citizens in any such discussion.
If we include a December 31, 1998 deadline and say that there
will be no further discussions after that point, on New Year's
Eve 1998 while the Reform Party is out celebrating the Government
of Canada will be finalizing the entire form, structure and
nature of the social union.
Let us think about it. Canadians across the country have
already thought about it. They do not want it. They want a
process which is a lot more responsible, inclusive to their
wishes and abides by the wishes of the 10 provinces. The
provinces have spoken. They have said that we should continue
the discussions, not put arbitrary deadlines on anything but
build an agreement which is substantive, in good form and
reflects the needs of current and future generations.
I do not think there is much more to say. Canadians know what
they need. They know what they want. They know what they
deserve.
1605
What they deserve is a process that is fair, equitable,
transparent and reflects the fact that it is irresponsible to
negotiate an agreement with a gun to the head as the Reform Party
is suggesting through a motion that binds the Government of
Canada to a December 31, 1998 deadline to conclude all future
discussions, to finalize it, to finish it and to have no more
involvement.
I will conclude where I began. The Reform Party has given us
quite an accolade. It is quite an acknowledgement of our
capabilities, our spirit and our willingness to work for
Canadians. It is quite a show of confidence. However, it is
unfortunately one that I will reject right now because this party
and this government are more interested in doing things right, in
including the citizens and in doing things the responsible way.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member
opposite. He said that we have asked them to settle this most
fundamental and important agreement ever for the government in 31
days.
I was here during question period and I heard the Prime Minister
tell the House that the government originated the social union
talks. It must have some parameters upon which it supposedly
built, although I disagree with who originated it. He also said
that they had a response report in December 1997. We are talking
about the government having a response to the premiers social
union 12 months ago.
If the government has been negotiating long enough to respond to
the premiers a year ago, is he telling me that it cannot wrap up
a year and a half long or a two year long discussion in 30 days?
I cannot believe that the member rapped about 31 days. We are
not talking about 31 days. According to the Prime Minister, the
government has had at least 12 months from the time it gave a
response to the premiers on the social union.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand why
the member from the Reform Party would be confused or not
understand how members on this side of the House could actually
enter into a discussion without a preconceived notion. When the
Reform Party caucus meets and decides automatically who the
Reformer of the week is, all those discussions have usually come
to a preconceived conclusion. That is why that particular aspect
of my comments today may not fall on completely sensitive ears.
The hon. member is quite right. This is a process that does
take time and has taken time. Quite frankly it will take even
more time. The country was not built in 31 days. Nor was it
built in a year and a half. Nor was it built in a decade. It
took several years to come to the point where we have a national
health care system with universal principles that is universally
accessible.
It took several years to build an economic system where we have
infrastructure from one end of the country to the other, where we
have different ideals and beliefs about the implementation of
labour market principles and where individual provinces agree
with it.
Good things take time and it is about time the hon. member
learned that.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just have a
quick question for the member. The member who just spoke is well
known as an advocate for his region of the country, Atlantic
Canada. He spends a lot of time thinking about, debating and
working on the issues that are comprised within the social union
envelope.
Could he tell the House whether there has been a cry on the part
of the Atlantic premiers for a deadline? Are they expressing
concern about the speed of this? In his experience are they
asking for a specific deadline?
1610
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, that question actually
focuses the debate and the discussion much better. I am pleased
to answer it. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone
on record. He specifically said that we should continue to work,
take our time, be diligent in our discussions, be thoughtful in
our discussions and do it right.
The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has been joined by
premiers from western Canada as well the constituencies, places
or regions that some members opposite may purport to best
represent. However, premiers from across the country have said
that they support the federal government. They acknowledge the
federal government. They are equal partners in the discussion.
They should not be sidetracked into a secondary role based on a
Reform motion which imposes upon the federal government alone to
conclude the discussions and the negotiations by December 31,
1998. That is not the spirit. That is not the substance of what
we are trying to do. The Reform Party should learn that and
understand it once and for all.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the province of Quebec voters again turned to the
separatist government of the Parti Quebecois, or did they? I
submit that Quebecers did not vote for Lucien Bouchard as much as
they voted against status quo federalism. Polls indicate that
the majority of Quebecers believe in Canada. However they have
made it very clear that Confederation must be rejuvenated. This
will not be an easy task.
The federal government has avoided it for over 30 years. Despite
this terrible record members opposite can make their first steps
in the right direction by voting in favour of the motion by the
hon. member of South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, more
importantly by beginning to create winning conditions for Canada.
Canada was formed into Confederation in 1867 at a time when the
Constitution Act guaranteed the division of power between the
federal and provincial governments. However, since that time the
federal government has clawed back control over areas that
rightfully belong to the provinces such as employment training,
social services and education. Because of this, Quebec and other
Canadian provinces alike continue to feel marginalized by the
federal government.
In 1980 René Lévesque took Quebec to the polls in a bout on
sovereignty. This was a wake up call to the House of Commons
that the social union between the provinces and the federal
government was not functioning. Still nothing was done to solve
the problem. Instead the federal government under Liberal leader
Pierre Trudeau continued to pick away at areas of provincial
responsibility and attempted to impose the federal government's
will in every facet of social spending.
The Constitution was repatriated to Canada in 1982 with great
fanfare, much horn blowing and flag waving. Accords were
appended at Meech Lake and in Charlottetown. By 1992 both these
agreements had been defeated due to their fundamental failure to
address the issues of provincial-federal relations. Worse still,
neither of these agreements responded to the grassroots voices of
Canadians.
Canadians rightfully rejected the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
accords. At the time only the Reform Party stood against these
backroom, made in Ottawa solutions to Canadian unity. I am proud
of our record in this regard.
Inevitably in 1995 the Parti Quebecois launched a second vote on
separation. Throughout the referendum campaign the Prime
Minister led Canadians to believe he was not concerned or worried
about the outcome. Canadians were loath to sleep because of
these assurances. The Prime Minister was terribly wrong in this
assessment of Quebecers' desire for change and we fortunately
achieved a no victory by the narrowest of margins.
Why the history lesson? Because all these efforts have brought
us exactly nowhere. As of Monday we again sit on Canada's
break-up. The clock is ticking. Premier Bouchard is already at
work in attempting to manufacture a yes vote in the next
referendum. In the last 30 years federal politicians have talked
around the issue of Quebec separation. They have never addressed
the core problems of federal-provincial responsibility. This head
in the sand approach has resulted in two referendums in
succession, two failed constitutional accords and the growth of
two full blown separatist parties in the Bloc Quebecois and Parti
Quebecois.
The people of Quebec are clearly dissatisfied and the narrow
margin of a no referendum victory in 1995 sent a very clear
message of the vital need for real change in the country.
1615
Not only Quebecers but British Columbians, Albertans and people
from all provinces want greater control over the decisions which
directly impact the economic, social and cultural fabric of their
lives. The symbolic gestures of distinct society and regional
vetoes that were made following the referendum vote have proven
ineffective and irrelevant to resolving the crisis. In
particular, the passing of Motion No. 26 recognizing Quebec as a
distinct society demonstrated a blatant disregard for the wishes
of Canadians who had twice expressed their opposition to such
recognition in Meech Lake and Charlottetown. It had no affect on
the desire of sovereignists to separate.
The Reform Party has consistently set out to resolve these
problems, not with empty rhetoric and bind faith, not with
rolling dice in backroom deals. We have proposed substantive and
workable change in the Canadian federation.
In January 1996 we published “20/20: A Vision for The
Future of Canada”. This document outlined 20 realities to
secession so that the federal government would be prepared to
face future threats of separation. More important, we provided
20 proposals for a new confederation. I believe these proposals
were the beginning of creating winning conditions for Canada.
In May 1988 the Reform Party again proposed changes to modernize
the Canadian government when we introduced the new Canada act.
To date the government has taken no action on any of these
recommendations. We cannot afford to sit on our hands any
longer.
The motion of the floor of the House today speaks to the heart
of these matters. If passed it would be the first real step in
achieving a fair relationship between the federal and provincial
governments from coast to coast. It is not specifically designed
for Quebec, nor should it be. However, the framework put forward
today addresses key concerns on the minds of people both in and
out of Quebec.
There is an understanding among all 10 premiers and both
territorial leaders that health care is a top priority. The
Parti Quebecois of Quebec, the NDP Government of Saskatchewan,
the Conservative Government of Alberta, the Liberal Government of
New Brunswick all have called for greater input into the
provision of social services. The widespread support for the
Calgary declaration should have been used as a springboard for
this government to tackle some of the outstanding problems in
federal-provincial relations. Instead it sat largely untouched
and unused.
The motion on the floor today addresses many of the concerns
Canadians have been expressing across the country. It provides a
framework of discussion that will lead to a bilateral,
universally accepted social union between different levels of
government and remove uncertainty facing Canadians. It will
provide direction for legislation that can address a wide range
of outstanding issues on health care and constitutional reform.
Currently there is no federal-provincial dispute resolution
process.
As mentioned earlier, the Constitution Act, 1867 guarantees the
right of provinces to provide these services. Despite this, the
federal government has consistently pursued a policy that has
limited the input of provincial authorities. We cannot continue
to unilaterally dictate the terms of social union and provincial
authorities and expect co-operation under the terms of
Confederation. We must establish a framework for open discussion
and equal footing.
I am from British Columbia. I state for the record that I am
dismayed with the performance of the present provincial
government. It has helped to drive British Columbia to the brink
of financial ruin. Nurses threaten widespread picketing and
doctors continue job action. They are critically understaffed.
But the federal government is equally culpable. B.C. is like all
provinces handcuffed by the $7 billion removed from health care
transfers. This motion lays the framework for legislation that
will ensure that when the federal government promises to pay 50%
of program costs the promises will be kept. Without this blind
assurance, the long term planning of health, social welfare and
educational budgets is impossible.
Currently the federal government is the prosecutor, the judge
and the jury of any disputes. British Columbia, Alberta and
Quebec have all been forced to structure their social welfare
programs within very strict guidelines despite the federal
government's ability to unilaterally reduce funding through the
Canada health and social transfer.
All provinces are not the same. However, all provinces must be
treated equally and fairly by providing realistic and mutually
acceptable approaches to the participation or non-participation
of provinces in Canada and Canada's social programs. This motion
gives more latitude in the provision of social care.
The government is focused on the December 31 date. I hear it
over and over again.
1620
This is the beginning. We are saying it has to get the
framework in place. Obviously the details would be ironed out
down the road. We have to make it happen and there has to be a
target date. It is nonsense to say we will solve everything. But
the entire framework and how it is to happen has to be in place.
It is very achievable.
Historically the federal government has guarded this right
zealously. However, it has not provided provinces the ability to
operate creatively within this framework. The motion today
provides that opportunity.
We have an opportunity today to put a positive step forward and
engage the provinces in a meaningful manner, a way that does not
require constitutional amendments nor placing any one province in
an unequal position to that of the others.
The motion on the floor today proposes a social union between
the provinces and the federal government. It would create a
mechanism to constructively move this process forward. It would
give British Columbia a greater say in social policy. It would
give Newfoundland fair and even footing with dealing with Ottawa.
And yes, it would provide the Quebec people with the greater
control they seek without separation.
This motion does all these things from a position of equality
and openness. It will provide the blueprint for a secure social
safety net and a more solid foundation for the Canadian
federation.
I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of it and
to help ensure that Canada, which we are rightfully proud of,
will be intact and stable for our children.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Halifax West, aboriginal affairs;
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, health.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with some interest to the member for Saanich—Gulf
Islands and his history lesson. As a student of history and
someone who reads a fair amount of history, both ancient and
modern, I would like to repeat a bit back to the member about
Canadian unity and the ability of the provinces to sit down as
equals and hopefully work toward a better country for all
Canadians.
As the hon. member was speaking I was thinking of an ad that his
party supported during the previous election. It said not
another leader from Quebec. They were all crossed out. That is
a very difficult thing to overcome and that is the type of thing
the member has to wrap his head around and overcome if he and his
party are to move ahead toward unity in this country.
The motion on the floor today is not about bringing the
provinces together. It is a motion to set in place the next
referendum in Quebec. It is impossible for the people to meet by
December 31. It is an artificial date. It will not happen.
Everyone is off over Christmas. It is totally fraudulent and
ridiculous and cynical. If the date had been the end of January,
the end of February or the end of March I think the member and
the party would have received some support for the motion.
How cynical can we be. There is no open discussion. There is
no equal footing among the provinces at this time. They cannot
meet a deadline when everyone is off during the Christmas
holidays. We will not achieve unanimity and it will fail and the
new government that sits in Quebec today will say “Look at that.
We can't even get agreement on a December 31 deadline therefore
the door is open, let's look at a referendum”. That is what
will happen.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. People are focused on this very narrow part, the date.
If that is the only problem, as the member suggested, let us
change it to January or February. Let us change it. I am not
stuck on the date. I am stuck on this country.
We have to make changes.
It is not working. The people of Canada spoke on Charlottetown.
They sent us a clear message. We still have status quo. It has
not changed. We need change. We need winning conditions for
Canada if my children are to have the country that I had to grow
up in. That is what this is all about.
I read the motion that we set the framework up. But if the date
should be changed let us change it. We are not stuck on the
date. Let us change it and make it happen.
1625
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of
the date he dismisses and does not dismiss. He said if the 31st
is not suitable then let us have another date.
This is a negotiation or discussion with the provinces. How can
this House commit the provinces to a date? Do we not have to
consult our partners? Is it not a little presumptuous of the
House to say this or that date? This thing will be a negotiation
among partners. Perhaps we should leave the decision about the
timing of this to the partners who are negotiating.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I quote a government news
release: “Premiers stressed that negotiations should proceed
with a view to concluding the draft agreement by the end of the
year”.
If we are stuck on that date, change it. The premiers want
change and if there is no goal it does not happen. If there is
no target it will not be achieved. We have been sitting for
years in the House with the status quo. This system is broken.
It needs fixing. It is not working.
Let us provide winning conditions for my children so they will
have a great country in which to grow up. If the date is what
they are stuck on let us change it to January or February. I
have no problem with that at all. If they want to put a motion
forward to change the date I am sure they would get the consent
of the House. If that is the only problem I suggest they put a
motion forward to change it and see what happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this official opposition motion put forward
by my colleague from Calgary Southwest.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement
with the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998,
and based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed
to last August 7 at Saskatoon, to strengthen the partnership
between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in
order to secure Canada's social programs for the future.
This is a very important motion in the light of yesterday's
election in Quebec. It is very important for this House to
consider the issue of social union.
[English]
What we saw yesterday was Quebecers saying they are not
satisfied with status quo federalism nor are they satisfied with
the radical option of separation. What Quebeckers said by
granting a parliamentary majority to the Parti québécois but an
electoral plurality to the Parti libéral du Québec was that they
do not support either the status quo or the radical option of
separation.
What they said in the public opinion polls and the exit polls
was that they do not support the radical option of separation but
they do want change. In this desire they form common cause with
most other Canadians, certainly with the representatives of the
official opposition and the vast majority of those we represent
in western Canada, with the various provincial governments which
in August agreed on an entente to address the need for change in
the federation, and apparently with all or most of the opposition
parties in the Chamber.
The premiers and the governments they represented gathered
together in good faith several months ago to put forward some
constructive concrete proposals for the rebalancing of powers
between the two levels of government. What did they receive in
terms of a response from the federal government? Little or
nothing. They received a duck and dodge which the provinces are
all too familiar with from the government.
1630
What does it come down to? Let us be blunt. The Liberal Party
of Canada really believes its own propaganda, that it is the sole
saviour of confederation, that it is the one and only political
vehicle for federalism in this country.
It really is a kind of political arrogance that is endemic in
the psychology of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is attached to
the idea that Ottawa knows best, that top down big brother in
Ottawa can unilaterally weave its way into areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction through its spending and taxing powers,
that through this enormous intervention on the part of the
central government the federation can somehow be kept together.
The story of our federation in the past three decades is one of
growing and almost fatal tension between the centralizing, Ottawa
knows best mentality of the members opposite who I believe hold
the view sincerely. There is the growing need of the provinces
and regions to more ably represent their regional concerns in a
more flexible federal context. This is the tension that really
lies at the heart not only of the sovereignty debate in Quebec
but so much of the feeling of alienation and discontent in the
rest of the country.
It is very disappointing for me to pick up the newspapers today
and read various quotes of members of the Liberal government
saying essentially that change in the federation is a
non-starter, that we are going to just set our feet into concrete
and that we are not going to allow the federation to evolve into
the 21st century.
In an article in today's Ottawa Citizen for instance I
read a statement from the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge
River who said “I have not met an MP who is prepared to
negotiate away an element of the federal government's role just
so we can achieve temporary peace with the brawling provincial
children. It just is not on”.
This is typical of the attitude of members opposite. Instead of
a constructive, collaborative and co-operative approach, the kind
of co-operative approach upon which a healthy federation must be
founded, we find this kind of belligerent attitude regarding
sovereign provincial governments. They are sovereign in their own
jurisdiction, sovereign as defined in the original Constitution
of this country in their own areas of competence.
Instead of regarding them as co-operative sovereign governments,
the hon. member and many of his colleagues refer to those
provinces as brawling children. He says that we just cannot
negotiate a single element of what this federal government does,
the government that spends $160 billion with a cabinet of 35
ministers.
This government has one of the largest cabinets probably of any
federation in the world, much larger than the federation to our
south, or Germany or Australia. It is a federal government that
encroaches its way into virtually every area of provincial
jurisdiction.
The most galling thing about it is that while these Liberals
refuse to accept the kind of co-operative change proposed by the
provinces, at the very same time they undercut the very authority
upon which the federal government's spending power is asserted.
Look at the Canada Health Act. The only guarantee of the
enforcement of federal standards in the Canada Health Act is the
federal transfer, the Canada health and social transfer.
When the federal medicare system was developed 30 years ago, of
course it was predicated on a commitment of 50% funding. That is
the basis upon which the unilateral federal standards are imposed
on the provinces. Yet today this government which prides itself
on its commitment to unity and federal standards has reduced that
funding share to 11%. And it still expects the provinces to
accept the standards as defined by Ottawa.
What the provinces are asking for in the social union agreement
of this August, what the official opposition and other parties
are asking for is not unilateral imposition of federal standards
but rather, co-operative national standards agreed to by all the
provinces co-operatively, not by one of the governments, the
central government, unilaterally.
It is not a radical concept. It is a concept embraced by
virtually every mature and healthy democratic federation in the
world.
1635
I appeal to my colleagues opposite to try to be a little more
flexible when it comes to this.
[Translation]
A social union should consider collaborative approaches to the
exercise of the federal spending power in provincial
jurisdictions. This is very important for Quebec, as this is one
of its traditional demands. Western Canada has asked for the
same thing and, in this respect, it has a great deal in common
with Quebec.
When the federal government spends money in provincial areas of
responsibility or arbitrarily withdraws funding from a
provincial jurisdiction, this may cause friction in
federal-provincial relations and problems in service delivery.
We need a new agreement describing how powers are shared between
the federal government and the provinces. I would ask that the
members of this House support this Reform motion.
[English]
In closing, much has been raised about the timing, the deadline
in this motion, which was simply taken from the accord of the
premiers in August. We would like to respond to the legitimate
arguments raised about the deadline by members of various
parties. I would like to ask for consent to move that the motion
be amended by deleting the words “prior to December 31, 1998”,
and substituting therefor the following: “before the next
federal budget is introduced”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary Southeast has requested the unanimous consent of the
House to move a motion. Does the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast have the unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Before giving consent to anything, I remind you that this motion
was introduced this morning, and I would like to know why I was
not allowed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but this is not
a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can
deal with both issues.
The member in his remarks made a point of talking about the
arrogance of the federal government simply ordering things around
in the union in a top down fashion. This government for quite
some time now has been working very hard in co-operation with the
provinces on a whole range of problems.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of
Justice in the social union discussions have been working very
diligently with all of the provinces to bring about a consensus
on needed changes to the social union framework. That is what is
going on.
For the federal government to order—actually not the federal
government in this case but the House—by passage of this motion,
whether it is December 31 or before the first budget, is setting
a setting a condition around these negotiations that we have no
authority to set. The provinces are partners in this so how can
we presume to tell them when they are going to conclude this
agreement? I would also suggest it introduces an item into the
negotiation that mitigates against the kind of consensus we are
all trying to achieve. These are extremely important services
that affect all Canadians in all parts of the country.
The member is absolutely right when he makes the case that they
should be conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation and
consultation. We should work toward a consensus, all partners to
the agreement, all the provinces, the territories and the federal
government. That is the final part of the comment. The federal
government is not a passive bystander in this. It has a role to
play.
The question I have for the member is, in supporting so
fervently the consensus arrived at by the provinces, is he saying
that this position is the position of the Reform Party?
1640
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the precise position of
the Reform Party with respect to the social union reform of the
federation has been laid out in some considerable detail in our
proposed new Canada act, a copy of which the hon. member opposite
can find at our web site at www.reform.ca, or by writing to my
office postage free. I would be happy to send him a copy of the
new Canada act. It endorses in large part the recommendations of
the premiers on the social union but goes further in other areas.
It is not identical, but we do believe that social union is a
major addition to the debate.
The hon. member said he was going to address both issues, one of
which was timing. All day we have heard from the Liberal members
that the December 31 deadline in our motion was unrealistic. We
have listened to the concerns of various members opposite. We
want to be co-operative in this.
[Translation]
This morning, we supported a motion from the Conservative Party
to extend the deadline.
[English]
Just now I sought unanimous consent for a motion to extend the
deadline to later in the year 1999.
Perhaps the hon. member opposite has a better idea about a
deadline, but some kind of deadline is necessary if we are going
to stop the vacillation of the federal government. That is all
we are saying.
This does not come arbitrarily from the official opposition. It
comes from the premiers themselves. Paragraph 6 of the framework
on the social union says the “premiers stressed that
negotiations should now proceed with a view to concluding a draft
agreement by the end of the year”. That is where the idea came
from, not from ourselves.
I would once again invite the Liberal members opposite to
reconsider our support for an earlier motion on the part of the
Conservative member to extend the proposed deadline. We are not
stuck. We do not want to split hairs here. We do not want this
very constructive motion to be not supported because of arbitrary
deadlines. We are prepared to be flexible. But at the end of the
day, as the premiers indicated, we do need a deadline to ensure
the government does not endlessly vacillate, prevaricate and
obfuscate.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
This motion is a very important subject which is very important
to the government and very important to Canadians. The motion
however is an unfortunate mix of good intentions and a blatant
attempt to score cheap political points. As such it is
insupportable.
The motion before us asks the House to urge the government to
conclude an agreement on the social union with the provinces
prior to December 31. When the Prime Minister and the other
first ministers initiated these negotiations last December, they
intentionally avoided setting artificial deadlines. This
initiative is too important for Canadians. It must be done
right.
Last night both Premier Romanow and Premier Tobin rejected
establishing artificial deadlines. It is unfortunate the focus
of this motion is an attempt to capitalize on what is an
important issue, one that this government takes seriously and one
that is important to all Canadians.
Let us look at the important elements of our social union and
what this government is trying to achieve in these negotiations.
[Translation]
What the federal, provincial and territorial governments are
trying to do is to arrive at a framework agreement on the social
union. The idea is to strengthen the social partnership between
the provinces, on the one hand, and the governments and
citizens, on the other hand.
The Government of Canada feels that the new partnership should
have three objectives: to provide equal opportunities to all
Canadians, wherever they live or travel in the country; to
increase co-operation between the governments so as to better
serve Canadians; and to make governments more accountable to
Canadians for the results they achieve.
To provide equal opportunities also means to respect the great
diversity that is an integral part of Canada.
We must therefore be flexible enough to meet the diverse needs
of Canadians. That diversity is the result of cultural,
linguistic and geographical factors, or of other specific
circumstances or features.
1645
This means that governments must work together with the
aboriginal peoples of this country to meet their particular
needs.
As the premiers pointed out in the Calgary declaration, it also
means recognizing that the equality of the provinces is
compatible with recognition of Quebec's particular needs, in the
form of its French-speaking majority, its distinct culture and
its tradition of civil law.
Finally, equality of opportunity means ensuring that Canadians
are free to travel anywhere in their country, without facing
obstacles related to place of residence and without concerns
about access to social benefits.
[English]
Our social union is about our solidarity with one another. It
is about our understanding that we are stronger together, that
when Canadians in one part of Canada are in need, Canadians from
all parts of Canada are prepared to help. This in turn means
greater collaboration among governments in Canada, learning to
manage their interdependence to ensure the most effective and
efficient service to Canadians.
In this era of globalization, with an increasingly competitive
world economy, it is no longer possible, if it ever was, to
segregate public policy into neat, air-tight compartments of
social policy and economic policy, federal and
provincial-territorial responsibilities, or even domestic and
international considerations.
Canadians want their governments to work together to modernize
our social programs, to face the challenges ahead, to help
individuals and regions adapt to the new knowledge-based global
economy and to ensure that social programs work and are
affordable and sustainable.
How do we translate all of this into action? Practically
speaking, it means that all governments should make commitments
to information sharing, to joint planning and to joint action
where this would provide more cost effective service to Canadians
and to advance notice and consultation.
We are already working together with the provinces and
territories in this new collaborative partnership approach. A
good example of this is the new national child benefit which the
Government of Canada developed with the provincial and
territorial ministers. It focuses on the goal of helping
Canada's children. This collaborative approach promises to bear
fruit in other areas, including developing a national children's
agenda, programs for persons with disabilities and youth
employment.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have also made it
clear that renewing medicare and modernizing Canada's health care
system will require co-operation among all governments in Canada.
[Translation]
The future social union framework agreement will give effect to
the new partnership between governments in the social policy
sector by requiring a more co-operative approach to federal
spending authority.
In all the world's large federations, the national government
has this authority. It is because of this authority that the
Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces and
territories, can ensure that all Canadians have access to more
or less comparable benefits and services. This was how the
government promoted equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
It is clear that, without this spending authority, we would not
have Canada-wide social programs, such as medicare.
In fact, we would not have the national social safety net.
Even if the federal spending power is an essential component of
the Canadian social union, one that is recognized in the
Constitution, we must exercise it prudently, taking into account
and respecting the important responsibilities assumed by the
provinces in the area of social policy.
For this reason, the Government of Canada promised in its 1996
Throne Speech not to implement any new cost-shared programs
without the consent of the majority of provinces. Provinces
opting out of these programs would be entitled to financial
compensation, provided they offered a comparable or equivalent
program.
1650
Similarly, the legislation creating the Canadian Health and
Social Transfer, the CHST, which is the main federal instrument
of support to the provinces in the area of social policy since
1995 calls for the drawing up of new principles or objectives,
by mutual agreement.
The Government of Canada has also made an effort to make the
funding of social transfers more predictable, by having
multi-year financial commitments, by establishing a minimum
guaranteed floor for the cash component of the CHST, and by
holding consultations prior to renewing or modifying any
taxation agreements.
[English]
Social policy principles and commitments to collaboration among
governments must be put into practice and made effective. A
social union framework must include appropriate mechanisms and
means to ensure this through public accountability and
transparency. This means public reporting by all governments,
linking expenditures to results for Canadians. It means
developing comparable measures and, where appropriate, making use
of experts and non-governmental organizations for independent
evaluation and social audit.
It also means recognizing publicly the roles and contributions
of each government, so the public knows who should be held
accountable for what. And it means engaging Canadians, providing
opportunities for their input into policies and programs and the
assessment of their effectiveness.
This is a far cry from the old style government-to-government
accountability and traditional bean counting. The key must be
accountability to Canadians for results.
This is how a social union framework can be made real and
meaningful to citizens and taxpayers and it should not restricted
by the timeframes suggested by this motion.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Simcoe North said at the outset that the
premiers oppose an arbitrary deadline. If that is the case, how
would he characterize the statement in their accord of August 6
of this year which states “The premiers stressed that
negotiations should now proceed with a view to concluding a draft
agreement by the end of the year”? Was that an arbitrary
deadline? Was it not? If so, what is the difference between
that statement and the deadline proposed in this motion? That is
my first question.
My second question is, if he does not want arbitrary deadlines
and if he does not like the one in this motion, why did he and
his colleagues oppose two efforts to amend our motion to extend
the deadline? Does he have a better idea? Does he have another
deadline in mind, or no deadline at all? Did he just want this
to go on indefinitely as it has for 30 years?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, as far as a deadline is
concerned, whether it is the end of the year, budget time or next
June, that is not the proper way to negotiate an issue that is as
relevant and as important to all Canadians as this issue.
With respect to the member's first question dealing with the
position of the premiers, it is clearly the case that when this
engagement was undertaken, the negotiations on the social union,
there was never an intention of imposing a deadline at that
point. The negotiations need to be permitted to continue without
this kind of external imposition.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member opposite
talked about accountability and the need for the federal
government to manage programs because it is more accountable and
more visible to the Canadian public. He left the impression that
he does not feel the provinces are capable of managing these
programs in an efficient and accountable manner.
Is it not true that the QPP is more financially sound than the
CPP? The Quebec pension plan is more financially sound than the
Canadian pension plan.
The provinces are very capable of administering programs, in
some cases far better than the federal government is capable of
monitoring them, and they are accountable to the auditor general
as well as to the people of Quebec.
1655
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon.
member to consult Hansard. I certainly did not say what
she is imputing to me, that the provinces are not capable of
remaining accountable or demonstrating their accountability in
the areas of their jurisdiction.
My comments dealt with the entire governmental process and all
levels of government. I said that what we need to accomplish in
the process of negotiating this social union is accountability at
all levels. That is the most important factor.
I invite the member to consult Hansard, but there was
certainly nothing in my speech that would suggest or imply that
the provinces are not capable of being as accountable as the
federal government.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
mixed feelings that I contribute to this debate because I look
forward to opportunities to discuss the social union in this
Chamber and to debate the social framework, the agreements that
are going to guide the federal and provincial governments in the
delivery of improved services. I think this is a very important
topic. I do not want to reflect too much on the motives of the
official opposition in bringing forward this motion, but I have
to wonder why we are into this kind of debate the day after the
Quebec election.
I hear a lot of language on the other side of the House that
talks about an open debate and the desire to improve programs in
Canada. I also hear, quoted by the previous speaker for the
Reform Party and in his question to my colleague, this sense of a
desire to facilitate this process based on a statement by the
premiers in August of this year.
Let me share with the House some statements which were made by
the premiers yesterday and today, not five or six months ago. The
chairman of the process, the premier of Saskatchewan, stated:
“The first order of business is the social union, negotiating it
as quickly as we can, not under any artificial deadlines or
timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination.
The Prime Minister wants to do it, his ministers want to do it
and the premiers want to do it”. That is a statement made
yesterday by the chairman.
Let us take a Liberal premier of Atlantic Canada, Brian Tobin of
Newfoundland. He stated: “On the question of social union and
the negotiation that is ongoing, I think that is something that
we will get back to in the new year. I think we are making good
progress with the national government”.
Let us take a Conservative premier, the premier of Ontario, who
today at one o'clock said: “We obviously would like to see some
progress after the budget—I mean on the social union
discussion”. He is not demanding a December 31 deadline.
Based on what did the Reform Party undertake to draft this
motion upon which we are going to be called upon to vote in 15
minutes?
The motion states:
That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with
the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998, and—
I have two problems with this. The first problem is the
deadline; not the specific deadline but a deadline. Let the
process go on. Let the provinces in good faith come to the table
to discuss this along with the federal government. These are
people who want to solve problems on behalf of the people we all
serve. Let us not presume from the federal House of Commons to
set any deadline for them. They are responsible people.
I heard the member talking about the ability of the provinces to
manage these programs. That is a position I endorse. Certainly
they can and certainly they are competent to make the decisions
about how and when these negotiations should proceed.
1700
The second part, the second reason why I cannot support this
resolution is that it is based on the unanimous resolution of the
provinces.
We are the federal House of Commons. What I find disturbing
about Reform's position on this is that it seems to act as though
there is no federal role, as if there is no reason for the
federal government to concern itself with these programs. I do
not share that view.
Do they need to change? Absolutely they need to change. Change
is something we are always going to have to face and it is hoped
that we create a framework, a relationship with the provinces
that allows change to be ongoing. Circumstances have changed.
Economic circumstances have changed. People's mobility has
changed. People's opportunities have changed and the programs
that the federal government and the provincial government operate
jointly should change in order to reflect those changes in the
community. That is a given.
As someone who comes out of the social policy, the social
program area, as director of child welfare in Manitoba for a
period of time, not only do I believe that the provinces have the
capacity and the ability to deliver these programs, I think they
are better able to deliver these programs. I think that case
oriented decisions about social services should be made by those
people who are working closest to the people who are receiving
them. I absolutely endorse that. I do not have any difficulty
with those positions.
However, I also believe, as the people who created this
federation believed, and as we have acted in accordance with
throughout the life of this country, that there is a reason for
our being a federation and that there are certain rights and
abilities we all exercise because we are a federation. I also
want those things considered and respected.
I want to know that when a disabled person moves from one
province to the other they will receive services. I want to know
that when a person goes into another province they will have the
ability to work. I think there are pan-Canadian issues here.
There also is a very real ability for the provinces and the
federal government, working collectively, to learn a lot about a
better way to deliver services.
I am a little saddened, frankly, by the discussions I hear
coming out of the Bloc, because when I meet with members of the
Bloc and I meet with people within the province of Quebec who are
working in social services, and I do this rather regularly, what
I see is a very creative approach to a great many of the services
I have worked with. I think they have really captured some very
important concepts and have developed some very important
policies in how one activates communities and involves
communities in the way of services.
I think in many ways some of the activities that have taken
place in social services in the province of Quebec have proved to
be a model for the rest of Canada. I think they are an important
contributor to the development of policies and services across
Canada. So I am saddened when I hear this debate sort of draw
back into a discussion of powers and rights because I think when
we focus our attentions and energies on powers and rights, we are
talking about things that are mainly of interest to a few
politicians and we marginalize the rest of Canada.
I think what Canadians want to hear us talking about is services
and opportunities, ways we can be supportive of the kinds of
goals they have, whether they live in Chicoutimi or Winnipeg or
Prince Albert. They want to know their children will have a good
education. They want to know they will have work. They want to
know their health care will be of the highest quality possible.
If we focus on solving those problems, if we focus on building a
relationship with the provinces that allows us to collectively
focus all our talents and energies on solutions to those
problems, we will have done a great service to this country. But
if we simply fall back on to endless arguments about powers and
rights, I think we all lose. I think the people of Canada lose.
I think the people in this Chamber and in all the chambers across
the country lose.
I am very pleased with what I heard coming from the New
Democrats and the Conservatives.
What I heard the speaker for the New Democrats talk about was a
commitment to services. He wanted to talk about services, as I
heard from the Conservatives. I just wish we could find a way in
this House to put aside on these important services some of this
battling that seems to serve no one other than perhaps a few of
our friends in the media.
1705
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member at the outset of his remarks questioned the
motivation of the official opposition putting this motion before
the House at this time suggesting that for some reason it was
peculiar to put it forth the day after the Quebec election.
The hon. member will know that each opposition party is
allocated a limited number of supply days to debate motions of
this nature. We have been planning for some time to hold a
motion on the balancing of powers, reform of the federation, the
social union and our new Canada act. We did not schedule this
day. It appeared this way on the parliamentary calendar.
I think it is quite propitious that we have an opportunity to
debate this in light of the democratic decision of the people of
Quebec yesterday. Had we done this before an election of course
the hon. member would have said it was interfering in the Quebec
election and so forth.
This timing is a complete red herring. There have been two
motions now to extend what is not a deadline in the motion before
the House. It is a target date. It simply urges to the
government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and
territories prior to December 31. It is a very similar wording
they use in their own declarations.
If the hon. member does not agree with that deadline or that
suggested date of conclusion, perhaps he has another one he could
suggest. The Prime Minister told us he has always in his
political career supported Senate reform as an objective. He has
been here for 35 years. Is that how expeditiously this
government operates with respect to its constitutional agenda?
I want to ask the member why he does not allow some flexibility
with respect to the timing in this motion. Why is it he who is
denying unanimous consent to extend the proposed time line in
this motion?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely
correct when he says he did not choose the day but his party
chose the topic. There are a great many things the House can be
talking about at any point in time. They chose today to put on
the agenda the social union discussions.
As to the deadline, the motion says that this House urge the
government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and
territories prior to December 31.
If that is not a deadline I do not know what we call a deadline.
Whether we say prior to December 31 or prior to the next budget,
what we are doing is setting up an icon which is a pressure on
those discussions that perhaps is not in the best interest. If
the hon. member truly believes that the provinces and the federal
government should and can get together and work co-operatively as
they say, if we look at the statements of the premiers, none of
the premiers is calling for this deadline or any deadline and
they are all saying this thing is moving, they are happy with the
way it is going.
Let me quote one more time from the chairman: “The first order
of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we
can, not under any artificial deadlines or timetables, doing it
with dispatch, doing it with determination”. This is a quote
from Premier Romanow: “The Prime Minister wants to do it, his
ministers want to do it, the premiers want to do it”.
If that is not an endorsement of the process, I do not know what
is. I am not certain what is served by the Reform Party's trying
to insert itself into this debate. Frankly I am a little
surprised that the Reform Party is so willing to sign a blank
cheque. I understood Reformers ran for this Chamber because they
had an interest in the federal government. I am deeply concerned
about their willingness to run in and sign on sight unseen to a
provincial position.
1710
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address today the matter of the social union, which will be
increasingly prominent in political affairs for various reasons.
Let us first try to define to some extent what underlies the
notion of social union. The premiers of all the provinces, for
some time now, have been working to force the federal government
to reinvest where it cut money, that is, in social programs
including health and education, where it substantially and
unilaterally cut its transfers to the provinces.
The provinces began discussions to make sure that this sort of
thing did not recur in the future and that their ability to
manage social programs would be protected to some extent.
The premiers got an agreement permitting them to manage their
programs themselves and allowing them to opt out of federal
programs, and I will provide a specific example of this in the
last minute allocated to me.
In this agreement as well, the provinces clearly indicated their
intention to reinvest the money in the coming years in health
care. They also mentioned that they had already begun to do so
and that the only government that had not done so was the
federal government, for the current fiscal year.
The provinces want more money invested in health.
As everyone knows, the health system everywhere in Canada needs
reinvestment.
Since they have had to cope with difficulties in recent years,
however, they are best placed to know where the money ought to
be reinjected, how to make adjustments to situations requiring
very precise interventions. In the health field, the
administrative infrastructures are a provincial jurisdiction.
The provincial governments do not want to see the federal
government turning up with all manner of programs just to score
political points.
I will give an example, this time in post-secondary education.
The federal government reduced its contribution considerably.
Then suddenly, feeling in need of a higher profile, the Prime
Minister launched the millennium scholarship program. Through
it, the federal government will be handing out numerous
bursaries in the next decade to numerous students.
It will certainly do this itself, through a foundation to which
it will be sure to appoint its friends, people who will carry
out the wishes of the federal government.
All this is intended to ensure that the students see that the
money comes from their good friend, the federal government. We
in Quebec already have a financial assistance system in place,
with eligibility criteria which take into consideration the
student's situation, that of the parents, and so on. Now, the
federal government can turn up with other criteria, with another
infrastructure, adding excellence to the list.
At the same time, it has made hundreds of millions of dollars in
cuts to education. Would the priority in education not have
been to reinvest so that all students could benefit? At the
present time, there is a crying need at the university level.
We saw this in the last election campaign. A number of rectors
and representatives of the education sector called for money to
be invested in the university system, but not necessarily as a
priority in the loans and bursaries system. If there were needs
to be adjusted, we could have taken part of the $2.5 billion
reinjected into the loans and bursaries system, but we could
have taken and managed the rest according to our own priorities.
This is a striking example of federal-provincial relations in
which each government tries to define its priorities in what
should be provincial jurisdictions.
This is a fine example of a situation that will create a dispute
between governments, rather than real co-operation, initiated by
a federal government in need of visibility. It does not meet
the real on-site priorities.
But why reach an agreement before December 31? Because we want
to avoid having the same thing happen in the next federal
budget. Let the federal government announce now its intention
to honour the spirit of the agreement, to comply with it, to
reinject funds into health and to respect provincial
jurisdictions. The federal government must show its respect for
provincial jurisdictions by allowing them to manage their own
programs, if it contributes to them, with the right to opt out
when the provinces have similar programs or the same objectives.
That seems laudable and very reasonable to me. However, the
federal government is not co-operating. We hope it will wake up
in time. We support the motion that was put forward today by
the Reform Party.
We want the government to move in the coming weeks, and quickly,
to improve the situation for everyone.
In Quebec, everyone, federalists and sovereignists alike, of
whatever political affiliation, agree that we have to move
forward based on what appears to be a political consensus of all
parties in Quebec to move in this direction, as was seen during
the last election campaign.
1715
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
The question is on the amendment. 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 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.
1750
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The next
question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
[Translation]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) moved:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999, be concurred in.
[English]
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please
say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1810
(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)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| 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
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| 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
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 166
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| 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
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 113
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-60, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999,
be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill
be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1820
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
members of our party will vote yea to this motion.
[English]
The Speaker: It is too late now to be inscribed with the
yeas unless of course we have unanimous consent of the House.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: The answer is no, you will not count.
(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
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| 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
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 111
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. The House is now in committee of
the whole on Bill C-60.
[English]
(On clause 2)
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
could the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the bill
is in the usual order.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, the form of this bill is the same as that passed in
previous years.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would
like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
He answered a question from the hon. member of the Reform Party.
In what way are these statements similar to those tabled in the
two previous years? I would like him to elaborate on that.
The Chairman: I think that, in his response, the President of
the Treasury Board indicated that the form of the bill is the
same as in previous years. I think that about covers it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury
Board replied that these figures reflected those of last year.
But do they reflect those of two years ago?
The Chairman: Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board could
answer the question.
1825
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, the form of this bill is the
same as that of the bills approved in previous years, including
that of two years ago.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 2 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 161; Nays, 107)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 3 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
1830
(Clause 3 agreed to: Yeas, 165; Nays, 103)
(On clause 4)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order.
Clause 4 reads “Any commitment resulting from an item mentioned
in section 2, or based on subsection (2), be deemed, or as
regards the authority corresponding to the level of the amount
that is specified—”
The Chairman: Order, please.
There is no opportunity in committee of the whole to present
arguments on this bill.
[English]
We are operating under the rules that require that every
question be put without debate or amendment. There is one
traditional point of order permitted during the committee of the
whole proceedings. That has been done twice. As Chair I am not
disposed to allow any further points.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 4 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
1835
(Clause 4 agreed to: Yeas, 164; Nays, 105)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 5 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
1840
[Translation]
(Clause 5 agreed to: Yeas, 162; Nays, 101)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 6 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
1845
[Translation]
(Clause 6 agreed to: Yeas, 159; Nays, 102)
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
In the negotiations preceding this vote tonight there was an
understanding among all parties that there would be no
shenanigans during the Christmas party season. I am now going to
release members who have children at our Christmas party and I
ask them to go home and look after them.
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the schedule will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Schedule agreed to: Yeas, 157; Nays, 101)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 1 will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
1850
[Translation]
(Clause 1 agreed to: Yeas, 151; Nays, 102)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Chairman: All those in favour of the preamble will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
1855
[Translation]
(Preamble agreed to: Yeas, 155; Nays, 108)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Chairman: All those in favour of the title will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Title agreed to: Yeas, 155; Nays, 95)
(Bill reported)
1900
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1910
(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)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| 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
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| 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
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 163
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Ramsay
| 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
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall
the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please
say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1920
(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
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| 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
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| 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
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 98
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
TOBACCO ACT
The House resumed from November 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the
third time and passed.
The Speaker: Pursant to order made on Thursday, November
26, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the motion at the third reading stage of
Bill C-42.
1930
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 188
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Earle
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 66
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from November 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservations areas, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
motion that the question be now put.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November
26, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the previous question at the second reading
stage of Bill C-48.
1940
(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
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| 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
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Crête
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Rocheleau
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 95
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1950
(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)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 169
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McNally
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Ramsay
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 59
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed from November 26, 1998, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and
the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First
Nation Land Management, be read the second time and referred to
a committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 26,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the previous question at the second reading
stage of Bill C-49.
2000
[English]
(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
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| 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)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 95
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
The Speaker: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2005
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| 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
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 199
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Ramsay
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 38
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
The House resumed from November 26 consideration of Bill C-35,
an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November
26, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of several
deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-35.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
2015
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Ramsay
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 84
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Collenette
|
Copps
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jones
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wood – 126
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 2.
2025
(The house divided on the Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 50
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
2035
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 192
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bigras
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 39
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 carried.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 4. An affirmative vote on Motion
No. 4 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions
Nos. 5 and 6. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the
question to be put on Motions Nos. 5 and 6. The vote on Motion
No. 5 also applies to Motion No. 6.
2040
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 46
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Price
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2045
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 46
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I
therefore declare Motion No. 6 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
2055
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 67
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 167
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 defeated.
2100
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2110
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 231
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Hardy
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Solomon
| Stoffer
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 16
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
EXTRADITION ACT
The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the
Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and
the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend
and repeal other acts in consequence, be read the third time and
passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the third reading stage of Bill
C-40.
2115
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| 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
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 215
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Obhrai
| Ramsay
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 34
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and
the currency Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-41.
2125
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| 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
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 215
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Obhrai
| Ramsay
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 34
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I wish to
inform the House that because of the delay the hour provided
for consideration of Private Members' Business will not take
place today. The order is therefore deferred to a future
sitting.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise to express my sorrow that the Dene of Deline on Great Bear
Lake in the Northwest Territories continue to be treated with
disrespect and callous disregard by the government. I share the
sadness that members of the community feel as their pleas for
immediate crisis assistance continue to be ignored by the
government.
Since March 20 of this year members of the community felt hope
that after decades of neglect their tragic story and the grave
injustices inflicted upon their people would be addressed. The
Dene of Deline listened as the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development stood in the House on March 30 and stated
“the government takes this issue very seriously”.
The country listened to the minister state on CBC National Radio
on Saturday, May 17:
We are deeply concerned about potential impacts associated with
the historic uranium mining operations in the NWT.
The country listened as the minister further stated her
government's position:
The potential impacts have occurred. A people are devastated by
radiation deaths in Deline and along the route the ore carriers
travelled from the north to Fort McMurray. The impacts are the
loss of an entire generation of elders who pass on the
traditional knowledge and honourable ways to the next
generations.
The impacts are the result of a federal government's inexcusable
disregard and contempt for not warning the Dene in the early
1930s when the effects of these, to use the government's words,
deadly and insidious substances were first identified. With a
warning the people could have protected their families and their
children. The families travelled with the ore carriers exposing
an entire generation to the uranium radiation dangers carried on
their backs in burlap sacks.
At the United Nations conference on human rights this past
weekend in Edmonton this tragic story was told before
representatives from countries around the globe. Six months has
passed since the minister issued grand statements of caring and
action. Since her empty statements Dene representatives appeared
before the House Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development. Elder Baton after 30 years told the
Deline story. Members were shocked. Some moved to tears.
Dene representatives met with the minister and her colleagues in
June and left with hope. They still wait.
A community delegation travelled to Hiroshima in August to
express their sorrow and to apologize that they did not know they
were assisting in war and would contribute to the nuclear bombs
that killed thousands.
I raise today the travesty that continues through the
government's inaction.
2130
This community of honour does not deserve the dishonourable
treatment meted out by this government before Canadians and the
world.
I ask today for the honourable answer. Where is the immediate
crisis assistance? Where is the funding for the community's 14
point plan? Or will this government admit today that these past
six months have been empty promises and false hopes?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development to respond to the hon. member for
Halifax West on past mining activities in Deline, Northwest
Territories.
The Government of Canada is very concerned with potential
impacts of historical uranium mining and other activities at the
Port Radium uranium mine located at Great Bear Lake, Northwest
Territories.
Along with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Natural
Resources and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met with
representatives of the community of Deline on June 10, 1998 in
Ottawa.
The outcome of this meeting was a commitment by the ministers to
work in a partnership with the community to try to address three
subject matters. First, the immediate and long term health
concerns of the community including assessments on health and the
environment. Second, to establish a co-operative approach and a
joint committee that includes administrative and financial
assistance for the participation of the Deline community. Third,
to establish a common understanding of the history and the
impacts of the Port Radium mine and related activities.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wrote to
confirm that all parties will work co-operatively and will
provide the community with discussion papers to assist in
implementing those commitments.
On August 26 and September 15, 1998 departmental officials met
with Deline Chief Raymond Taniton in Yellowknife and Ottawa
respectively to open up a dialogue with the community and to
investigate how to move ahead on this very critical and important
issue. This work continued through meetings and correspondence
in October and November.
We have recently reaffirmed our commitment to provide
contributions to the community to assist its participation in
these important investigations and to conduct biological sampling
programs in the—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary as the time has
expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.31 p.m.)