36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 206
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 13, 1999
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTIPOVERTY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-491. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1010
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Wheat Board
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parental Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms Act
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Freshwater Exports
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Iraq
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post Corporation
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1015
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Financial Services Sector
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Grain Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromiski |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Regions of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1030
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1035
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1050
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1055
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1110
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1125
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1140
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1155
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1210
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1225
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1230
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1235
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1250
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1305
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1320
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1325
1330
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1345
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1350
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1355
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINDSOR—ST. CLAIR
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SIKH COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1400
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ERINOAK
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOM HASHOAH
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CODE OF ETHICS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURE OFFICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPECIALTY WOOD PRODUCTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ASIA-PACIFIC
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SIKHISM
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINDSOR—ST. CLAIR
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC BENCH
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSOLIDATED GROWERS AND PROCESSORS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAFFODIL MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1415
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL FORUMS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUILDING CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Regions of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1505
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1530
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1545
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1600
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1615
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Regions of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1630
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1645
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1650
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1705
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1720
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-67. Second reading
|
1800
(Division 365)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSIT PASSES
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1810
(Division 366)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1815
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-27. Report Stage
|
(Division 367)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1820
(Division 368)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
(Division 369)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 negatived
|
(Division 370)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4 negatived
|
(Division 371)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8 negatived
|
1825
(Division 372)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | amendment negatived
|
(Division 373)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10 negatived.
|
(Division 374)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 14 negatived
|
(Division 375)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 15 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1830
(Division 376)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-11. Second reading
|
1840
(Division 377)
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
1845
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CODE OF ETHICS
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1850
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1855
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1900
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1915
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1920
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1925
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 206
![](/web/20061116184340im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 13, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these order
in council appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate
standing committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Government
Leader 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 15 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in
the House today to table, in both official languages,
international treaties that were entered into force for Canada in
1997 and 1996, a list of which is also tabled.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, a report from
the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
concerning the parliamentary visit of the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association which took place from February 14 to 20
in Barbados.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th
report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, November 3, 1998,
your committee has considered Bill C-54, an act to support and
promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information
that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by
providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or
record information or transactions and by amending the Canada
Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute
Revision Act, and is pleased to report the bill to the House with
amendments.
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 64th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
I also have the honour to present the 65th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Finance.
If the committee gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence
in the 65th report later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTIPOVERTY ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-491, Antipoverty Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table an antipoverty bill
that proposes to add social condition as a prohibited ground of
discrimination. The bill creates a new prohibited ground of
discrimination: failure to offer financial services on the basis
of inadequate income. It asks the Canadian Human Rights
Commission to evaluate annually poverty in Canada and the
resources that should be allocated in order to eliminate it.
I look forward to receiving the support of each one of my
colleagues in this House, since it is an excellent bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 65th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present six petitions to the House on behalf
of the good people of Dauphin—Swan River.
The first petition calls on the government to mandate the
Canadian Wheat Board to start shipping grain to the port of
Churchill and not just toward the east and west coasts as it has
done for decades.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition the petitioners request parliament to
affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children
according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain
section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the third petition the good people of Dauphin request the
government to support Motion No. M-300 which states that the
government should authorize a proclamation to be issued by the
governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section
7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the
fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental
rights and responsibilities of parents to direct the upbringing
of their children. The petitioners urge the legislative
assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the next petition the good people of Dauphin ask that
parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
ABORTION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the fifth petition the good people of Dauphin—Swan River
believe that the House needs to bring in legislation in
accordance with the provisions of the Referendum Act that would
require that a binding national referendum be held at the time of
the next election to ask voters whether they are in favour of
government funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the last petition the good people of Dauphin request that the
government repeal Bill C-68 and allocate those funds to more
positive things, such as women's crisis centres, preventing crime
on the streets and so forth.
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 from a number of constituents of
Clearwater, British Columbia who point out a number of reasons
they are concerned that the provisions of NAFTA will result in
the eventual export of Canada's fresh water to the United States
and northern Mexico.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from citizens of Peterborough and
other communities in Ontario and Alberta who are concerned about
the people of Iraq. They point out that the people of Iraq have
suffered untold hardship and trauma in the wake of the gulf war
and the recent mass bombing attacks.
They call upon the Parliament of Canada to strongly appeal to
the United Nations, the United States and Britain for the
rejection of any further military action against Iraq, and call
for a serious attempt at peace negotiations with Iraq and its
neighbours.
The petitioners also call for the raising of the embargoes,
except for military materials, and they urge that Canada vastly
increase its efforts in providing food, medicine and
infrastructure reconstruction to Iraq.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
present to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents
who are asking that section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation
Act be repealed so that rural route mail couriers are allowed to
have collective bargaining rights in the same manner as private
sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I also
submit to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents
who are asking parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend
the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in
statute that a marriage can only be entered into by a single male
and a single female.
1015
FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present two petitions to the House of Commons today.
The first is signed by people from Humboldt, St. Benedict and
Moose Jaw who call upon parliament to reject the recommendation
of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the entry of banks
into the casualty and property insurance markets. They call upon
parliamentarians not to give in to the pressure of Canada's
chartered banks on this important matter.
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from farm families in the Kelvington Nut Mountain
area of Saskatchewan. They are calling on the House not to
accept major recommendations of the Estey report on grain
transportation, including specifically the abolishment of the cap
on freight rates, the altering of the role of the Canadian Wheat
Board in managing transportation and handling of export grains.
The petitioners also want to ensure that hopper cars remain in
the hands of the wheat board or farmers to ensure that producer
cars remain affordable and that new rules be established to
encourage viable short line railways.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 171, 173, 175,
177 and 194.
.[Text]
Question No. 171—Mr. Ted White:
What were the total costs incurred by the government since 1995
as a result of the negociations to return Christine Lamont and
David Spencer to Canada, iremized by department and including,
but not limited to, administrative and travel costs for ministers
and other parties to the negotiations, RCMP expenses associated
with the physical return of Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer to Canada
and transportation costs within Canada?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and the Ministry
of the Solicitor General as follows:
1. The sum of $1,674 was the cost for translating a 6,200 word
document from Portuguese to English relating to the sentence,
judgment and appeals, which is required by Correctional Services
in order to calculate the sentence and eligibility for
conditional release in Canada.
Five other texts were translated prior to 1996. The costs for
translation were borne by the secretary of state. The estimated
cost for the translation of those five documents is $10,878.
2. The sum of $785 was the cost for translation of documents by
the embassy in Brasilia. These documents relate to the behaviour
of the two Canadians transferred back to Canada.
These documents are not required in order to effect the
transfer, but would be used in the assessment of the conditional
release terms.
3. There were no trips made relating to the negotiation of the
transfer. The Transfer of Offenders Treaty itself was negotiated
in 1992 and ratified in 1998.
4. Consular visits are part of the consular mandate and were
conducted during regular working hours.
The total costs incurred by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
which related to the return of Christine Lamont and David Spencer
to Canada were $118,078.00. This amount was cost-recovered from
Correctional Service Canada.
Question No. 173—Mr. Randy White:
For the years 1997 and 1998; (a) how many criminal offences
were committed with the use of a firearm; (b) of those
offences, how many firearms were recovered by law enforcement
authorities; and (c) of those firearms recovered by
authorities, how many were registered in the national firearms
registry?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by
Justice Canada and Statistics Canada as follows: (a) The most
recent year in which Canadian crime statistics are available is
1997. Data on criminal offences committed with the use of
firearms are reported by police to the Aggregate Uniform Crime
Reporting Survey UCR1, and Homicide Survey maintained by the
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. The CCJS is Canada's
official source of crime data.
There are three criminal offences reported in the
above-mentioned surveys. These include firearm homicide, firearm
robbery and discharge firearm with intent. Other types of
criminal offences investigated by the police which may involve
the use of a firearm, et cetera, for example attempted murder,
assault, sexual assault, abduction, are currently not reported to
the CCJS, nor are they available nationally from other sources.
In 1997 there were 193 firearm homicide incidents, 5,478 firearm
robbery incidents and 189 discharge firearm with intent
incidents, representing a total of at least 5,860 criminal
incidents which involved the use of a firearm.
(b) Although individual police agencies may collect this
information, data on recovered firearms are not available from a
national data source. Compiling such data would require
considerable effort and cost. However, the Canadian Firearms
Registration System, CFRS, will assist in further developing
national data on firearms recovered by law enforcement in the
future.
A number of alternative sources may be examined to provide a
partial picture. Data from the Provincial Weapons Enforcement
Unit, PWEU, of Ontario and from various recovered gun studies are
presented below. According to PWEU, there were a total of 7,566
firearms seized by Ontario law enforcement in 1997 and 1998.
These data reflect firearms seized from a crime scene or guns
that were illegally possessed. According to PWEU, their records
do not indicate whether the firearms were in fact used in a
crime. Individual municipalities are still reporting data from
1998 and as a result the above figure is an undercount.
As additional information, PWEU provided the types of firearms
seized by police during the above period. In 1997, 78% of the
firearms seized were rifles/shotguns, 18% were handguns, 2% were
machine guns/pistols and the remaining 1% were sawed-off
rifles/shotguns.
Recently the Department of Justice Canada, in partnership with
police services in Saint John, New Brunswick, Hull, Quebec,
Thunder Bay and Windsor, Ontario, and Regina, Saskatchewan
commissioned a joint research project to study the number and
types of firearms recovered by police. It examined police
records and property room files for the year 1995.
The study found that in 1995 these law enforcement agencies
recovered 473 firearms in criminal incidents. Overall the study
found that 52% of the firearms recovered by police in relation
to a criminal incident were non-restricted rifles and shotguns,
21% were handguns, 19% were air guns, 4% were sawed-off
rifles/shotguns and the remaining 4% were other firearms. It is
important to note that under the Criminal Code air guns that
shoot projectiles under the velocity of 152 meters per second are
not defined as firearms. However, due to the number recovered in
this and previous studies data on air guns were collected.
Data collected by the national Firearms Smuggling Work Group
from 10 different police agencies across Canada revealed that
they recovered 4,496 firearms in criminal incidents in 1993.
The study also reported that of the 4,496 firearms recovered in
criminal incidents, 47% were rifles/shotguns, 21% were
handguns, 18% were air guns, 11% were other firearms and the
remaining 3% were sawed-off rifle/shotguns.
In the above two studies, recovered firearms served as the unit
of analysis, not criminal incidents involving firearms. In these
studies the firearms may or may not have been used directly in
the commission of a crime. For example, they includes firearms
recovered by police during a drug raid.
(c) As noted above, data on recovered firearms are not readily
available on a national level. Futhermore, if national data were
readily available, the registration status of recovered firearms
could only be ascertained for restricted firearms “mainly
handguns” registered on the Restricted Weapons Registration
System, RWRS, maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Once again, the CFRS will assist in developing information on the
registration status of all firearms recovered by law enforcement.
Long gun registration statistics for crime will only be
available when long gun registry is fully operational, after
January 1, 2003.
Question No. 175—Mr. Lee Morrison:
Regarding the Halifax Port Corporation: (a) has the corporation
awarded an exclusive, untendered lease on Shed 9A, Richmond
Terminals, Halifax, Nova Scotia, to a newly incorporated company,
Scotia terminals Limited; (b) does this company have any other
leases or businesses with the corporation; (c) has this
facility and its related dock recently had the benefit of a $5
million capital improvement at the cost of the corporation; (d)
in the past five years, how many other untendered leases for
multimillion dollar port facilities have been granted and to
whom; (e) what is the total annual revenue expected to be
generated by the Scotia Terminals Limited lease for each of the
next five years; and (f) who are the principals, officers and
directors of Scotia Terminals Limited?
Mr. Stan Dromiski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, Lib.): (a) The Halifax Port Corporation did enter
into a lease agreement with Scotia Terminals Limited for
facilities at Pier 9A. The lease commenced December 1, 1998. A
tender call for the lease was not issued. In fact, it would be
highly unusual for the Halifax Port Corporation to call for
tenders to lease facilities. Neither HPC's enabling legislation
nor its internal policies require it to call for tenders for
leases.
(b) No.
(c) In 1996, the dock, which was constructed over 50 years ago,
was declared unsafe and taken out of service. The proposal to
lease facilities put forward by Scotia Terminals Limited provided
the necessary support for the decision to carry out the $5.3
million repair expenditure. The repairs were at the cost of HPC.
(d) In the past five years there have been two other leases of a
multimillion dollar port facility. One was to PanCanadian
Petroleum Limited at Shed 9B and the other was to Colbalt
Refinery Limited at Shed 22. The latter area was subsequently
leased to Scotia Terminals Limited. The lease terminated on
November 30, 1998 when the operation moved to the Pier 9A
facility.
(e) The Halifax Port Corporation deems the amount of revenue to
be generated by the lease as commercially sensitive and
privileged information.
(f) The officers and directors of Scotia Terminals Limited are:
President: Bernard Prévost
Secretary/Treasurer: Harry Mathers
Comptroller: Cheryl Newcombe
Directors: Harry Mathers
Bernard Prévost
Question No. 177—Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
What have been the federal government's activities in the area
of hepatitis B vaccination, specifically: (a) information
learned by Health Protection Branch regulators from the decision
by France to suspend the administration of the hepatitis B
vaccination; (b) actions taken by Health Canada to assess
safety of the vaccination B product and, in particular, to survey
for adverse reactions over and above voluntary reporting; (c)
information requested and received from international bodies such
as the World Health Organization about the safety of the
hepatitis B vaccination; (d) reassessment of existing evidence
in the new drug submission for the hepatitis B vaccination
previously assessed; and (e) evidence that plasma was not
involved in any part of the manufacturing of the hepatitis B
vaccination?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Hepatitis B is a
potentially serious disease, spread by blood and body fluid
contact. From 1990 to 1994 the incidence of hepatitis B in Canada
was on average about 10.3 per 100,000 per year, with
corresponding mortality, morbidity and the potential for long
term complications and chronic carriage. The best time to
introduce the vaccine into the routine schedule is before children
become sexually active. Targeting high risk groups only is an
ineffective strategy, which is why the vaccine is being offered
for infants or children.
(a) The decision in France was taken in response to pressure
exerted by opponents to the vaccine who allege that immunization
with the vaccine is associated with the development of some types
of neurologic disease. It was not based on scientific evidence.
The French Minister of Health announced on October 1, 1998 that
school based vaccination programs would be temporarily suspended,
in part due to pressure from opponents to the vaccine.
Allegations have been circulating in France, despite a lack of
scientific evidence, linking hepatitis B vaccination and the
development of demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis,
MS. In contrast, the vaccine is still recommended for routine
infant immunization, and for adults in high risk groups. More
importantly, vaccination is still recommended and available to
adolescents through their family doctor's office. The French
minister highlighted that this move was temporary, and it will
permit a reassessment of the method of delivery of adolescent
immunization in school settings. France embarked on a very large
scale hepatitis B immunization effort several years ago, to the
point where some 25 million doses have been distributed and over
one-third of the population have been vaccinated.
(b) The Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, LCDC, Health
Canada and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, NACI,
have continued to review available evidence, including results of
postmarked surveillance in Canada, in light of the allegations
against hepatitis B vaccine. There is no evidence to suggest any
change in the current recommendations for the routine use of
hepatitis B vaccine in Canada. There is no credible scientific
evidence linking hepatitis B vaccination and MS and chronic
fatigue syndrome.
The World Health Organization, WHO, has reaffirmed the safety of
hepatitis B vaccine and strongly recommended that all countries
already using hepatits B vaccine continue to do so, and that
countries not yet using the vaccine begin as soon as possible.
Health Canada's role with regard to the hepatitis B vaccine is
multifaceted.
The Therapeutic Products Program, TPP, reviews the vaccine
through a process of careful assessment of pre-market clinical
trials to ensure it meets required standards of safety and
efficacy. In addition, each lot of vaccine is individually
cleared by TPP before being allowed on the market.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, reporting to
the Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Protection Branch, issues
guidelines and recommendations on the use of the product. NACI
indeed has recommended routine use of the vaccine and continues
to do so.
The Division of Immunization, Bureau of Infectious Diseases of
the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control is responsible for the
postmarked surveillance of vaccines in Canada, including the
hepatitis B vaccine. It undertakes both passive and active
surveillance of vaccine associated adverse events and supports an
external expert advisory committee on vaccine safety. There have
been no concerns regarding MS identified in Canada, and an
investigation into whether the vaccine causes chronic fatigue
syndrome found no evidence of an association.
The monitoring of vaccine safety relies on many interrelated
activities in addition to case reporting. Not only do the
Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, LCDC, Health Canada and
the National Advisory Committee on Immunization aggregate and
assess all reports received to be able to detect any signals of
increased, unusual or previously unrecognised adverse events, but
in addition Health Canada funds a national program, through the
Canadian Pediatric Society, which actively monitors for serious
reactions to vaccinations in children and adolescents at 11
pediatric hospitals. The Division of Immunization has also
established a committee of medical and vaccine experts to review
all the reported serious cases and to further investigated any
concerns and take appropriate action as required.
(c) The World Health Organization, WHO, has issued a press
release reaffirming the safety and benefit of hepatitis B
vaccination. It concluded, after careful review with the
assistance of external experts, that available scientific
evidence does not demonstrate a causal association between
hepatitis B immunization and central nervous system disease,
including MS. The Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board, a World
Health Organization collaborating centre for the prevention of
viral hepatitis, called a technical consultation at the end of
September 1998 to review accumulated data. Participants at that
meeting were presented with data, including preliminary and still
unpublished recent analytic epidemioligic studies conducted in
France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Although they
acknowledged that the data available to date was limited, none
demonstrated a causal association between hepatitis B vaccination
and demyelinating disease. They concluded that no evidence was
presented at the meeting to indicate a need to change public health
policy with respect to hepatitis B vaccination. Routine
immunization programs against hepatitis B are in place in 100
countries around the world.
(d) Reassessment of existing evidence has not been considered
for the time being in view of the aforementioned notification
from WHO. Its statement is based on the conclusion from the
international expert meeting at Geneva, on September 28-30, 1998,
at which all available information was reviewed in
detail—national public health and regulatory authorities,
academia, the hospital sector, the pharmaceutical industry and
the World Health Organization; experts in public health,
epidemiology, immunology, neurology and pharmacology—in
response to the decision of the Minister of Health in France to
temporarily suspend the school based immunization program.
(e) There two hepatitis B vaccines available in Canada, both of
which are recombinant products. This means that they consist of a
non infectious subunit derived from the hepatitis B surface
antigen harvested and purified from cultures of a strain of
yeast. Therefore, no blood products are used at any stage of the
manufacturing process. Before the approval of these two vaccines
in 1987 and 1990, human plasma was involved in the manufacturing
of hepatitis B vaccine. Those “plasma-derived” vaccines have
been discontinued with the availability of recombinant products
and are no longer in use.
Question No. 194—Mr. Peter MacKay:
What financial charges have been made against the budgets of the
RCMP and the Department of Justice for the Airbus investigation,
and what is the total cost of the investigation as of February
10, 1999?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows:
The Department of Justice does not have responsibility for
criminal investigations. Department of Justice counsel may
provide advice and assistance to the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, RCMP, and other police forces with respect to their
investigations. Such advice or assistance is provided by the
relevant sections of the department and the resources relied upon
are those assigned to that particular function. Thus, it is not
possible to provide figures on funds spent by the Department of
Justice in relation to any particular RCMP investigation unless
charges have been laid and the Attorney General of Canada has
responsibility for the prosecution. In that instance, it might be
possible to provide cost estimates for the prosecution. The
budget for providing assistance to the RCMP in various contexts is
allocated globally to units such as the International Assistance
Group and it is not calculated by reference to individual cases.
It is the position of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to
disclose the costs at this time as it would be harmful to the
ongoing criminal investigation into this matter.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 130 and 131 could be made Orders for Return, the
returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 130—Mr. Gordon Earle:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the federal
government issued in the constituency of Halifax West for each of
the following time periods: a) October 25, 1993, to October 24,
1994; b) October 25, 1994, to October 24, 1995; c) October
25, 1995, to October 24, 1996; and d) October 25, 1996, to June
1, 1997; and in each case, where applicable: (i) the department
or agency responsible; (ii) the program under which the payment
was made; (iii) the names of the recipients if they were groups
or organizations; (iv) the monetary value of the payment made;
and (v) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment
received?
Return tabled.
Question No. 131—Mr. Gordon Earle:
What funds, grants, loans and
loan guarantees has the federal government issued in the
constituency of Halifax West from June 2, 1997, to June 1, 1998,
and in each case, where applicable: (a) the department or agency
responsible; (b) the program under which the payment was made;
(c) the names of the recipients if they were groups or
organizations; (d) the monetary value of the payment made; and
(e) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment
received?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just wonder if the parliamentary secretary could do as well on
notices of motions and get P-70 responded to as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: He will not today because they are
called only on Wednesdays. I know that the hon. member for North
Vancouver will be very patient and will wait until Wednesday when
we will hear all about it.
The parliamentary secretary has asked that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between the parties and
the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley concerning the
taking of the division on P-31 scheduled at the conclusion of
Private Members' Business today. I believe you will find consent
for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on P-31, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a
recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday,
April 20, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. chief government whip
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—REGIONS OF CANADA
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemns the
government for alienating itself from the regions of Canada by
failing to identify and address the concerns and issues of those
regions, and as a symbolic first step towards taking
responsibility for all of the regions of Canada, the government
should rename the Liberal committee on Western alienation the
“Liberal Alienation Committee”.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
We look forward to this debate today. Reform Party members
participating in the debate will be dividing their time.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the government's ongoing
and arrogant disregard for the aspirations and valid concerns of
the provinces and regions of this country that we are having to
debate this motion today. I would like to read it into the record
once again:
That this House condemns the government for alienating itself
from the regions of Canada by failing to identify and address the
concerns and issues of those regions, and as a symbolic first
step towards taking responsibility for all of the regions of
Canada, the government should rename the Liberal committee on
Western alienation the “Liberal Alienation Committee”.
1020
As the debate progresses today, Reform MPs will be speaking one
by one about the concerns of Canadians on a region by region
basis beginning with the west. We want to try to provide the
Prime Minister with information firsthand which is much more
detailed and valuable, and perhaps even more relevant than that
which will be collected by his partisan task force, a task force
which appears to be interested in receiving input only from
persons or groups who can be identified as Liberal supporters.
As an example of a meaningful message, I would like the House to
consider for a moment a poll of residents in B.C. and Alberta
which was completed by Mark Trend Research in late March. The
results of the poll provide some important contradictions to the
claims made by the Prime Minister that he has been dealing with
western concerns.
It is especially interesting to note that barely one in ten of
the respondents had even heard of the Prime Minister's task
force. That is not surprising in light of the complete failure
of the task force to publish an agenda or to even make public the
venues for the meetings so that westerners can give their input.
If we take as an example last week's activities of the task
force, the chairman of the task force claimed in this House
yesterday to have met with 60 individuals and organizations in
Manitoba. I have a copy of their agenda here. It is quite clear
that it was designed to exclude the public who would more than
likely have arrived at the meetings with tough messages
embarrassing to the task force.
This agenda was obviously put together months ago. It has been
carefully constructed and it is entirely a set of meetings behind
closed doors with special interest groups and Liberal Party
hacks. Mind you, the chairman could be a bit gun shy of public
exposure. In light of his experience on a Canada-wide talk show
in early February, I would not blame him for wanting to have his
meetings behind closed doors.
In two hours of open radio talk show he did not receive a single
call of support from anywhere in Canada, in an entire two hour
talk show. In fact, it was probably the hottest of public
roastings experienced by any MP in a long time. Callers
predicted that the task force would be a complete waste of money
and that the members would not listen anyway. This prediction
appeared to become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the talk show
progressed.
The member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia made comments
like “We have to pursue what we think is in the national
interest” and “I hope the passions diminish and westerners
accept the legislation”. He was talking about the ill-fated gun
control bill, the Liberal gun control disaster. His comments
made it quite clear that he had no intention of listening to the
input from law-abiding gun owners who are sick of being treated
like criminals.
Another comment from the task force chairman on that talk show
was in connection with the probably unconstitutional Nisga'a
treaty that is being dealt with in B.C. His answer to a request
from one of the callers was “You know we don't believe in
referendums”. To say the least, this is a truly insensitive
statement from someone who claims to be leading a group which in
the Prime Minister's words has a mandate to travel throughout the
west on a fact finding mission. No wonder a caller to the show
told the member that he is obviously deaf and needs a hearing
aid.
In fact, the Mark Trend poll I mentioned earlier found that 65%
of people in B.C. want a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty. That
is up from 60% three months ago and up from 48% in August 1998.
The more people learn about the agreement, the less they want it.
The fact is they do not want two arrogant governments, each
elected with less than 38% of the popular vote, ramming down
their throats a system of government which is 100% based on race
and which is probably unconstitutional.
On the flight to Ottawa from Vancouver this week I sat alongside
a B.C. businessman who had lived in South Africa for seven or
eight years. He told me, as have so many of my constituents who
have lived in South Africa prior to coming to Canada, that the
Nisga'a treaty does exactly what South Africa was told by the
international community to abandon. It sets up a government
based on race, a system of apartheid and racism and homelands
rather than a system of equality of peoples.
Even the Liberal Party of B.C. is against the Nisga'a treaty and
has launched a court challenge against the unconstitutional
delegation of powers contained in the agreement.
1025
Yet the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia and his
so-called task force are choosing to ignore the concerns of the
people of B.C. and even what their own provincial counterparts
are telling them. Unfortunately, the callers to the radio talk
show were correct when they said that the task force would be a
flop. They know that the vast majority of government members are
simply trained seals who will vote the way they are told to vote
by the Prime Minister regardless of the input they have received
from the people in the west.
It is a sad commentary on our dysfunctional parliament that men
and women who no doubt in their private lives are intelligent,
thoughtful and reasonable people have no option but to vote the
way they are told by the Prime Minister because otherwise he will
not sign their nomination papers. It prevents them from
representing their constituents.
In contrast, soon after westerners started the Reform Party,
they included in the party constitution a provision which
prevents a leader of the party from refusing to sign nomination
papers. In the Reform Party it is the executive council, a body
elected from the members at large which decides whether or not a
leader will sign a candidate's nomination papers. Reform MPs are
guaranteed the freedom to do what has to be done when it needs to
be done in terms of voting freely in the House.
This is good because that Mark Trend poll I keep mentioning
found that in both Alberta and B.C. more than 87% of the people
want parliament reformed to establish free votes as the norm
rather than the never. They want their MPs to represent them,
not a political master in an office on Parliament Hill. Until the
task force comes to grips with that reality, we all know that the
callers to CKNW's radio talk show were absolutely right that the
task force is a big waste of money and resources.
Surely it might make the task force members feel all warm and
fuzzy inside when they meet with their carefully chosen
sympathetic supporters, but as Winnipeg Sun copy editor
Mark Perry wrote back in January “If Chrétien and his Liberal
flunkies really wanted to know what's on the minds of Western
Canadians”—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows he
cannot refer to other hon. members by name, even when quoting
from a document. I would invite him to comply with the rules in
that respect fully.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I thought you might stop me
on that so I will start again. The article states that if the
Prime Minister “and his Liberal flunkies really wanted to know
what is on the minds of western Canadians, they could start by
unplugging their ears and listening to what those folks sitting
across from them in the House of Commons have to say. No, not
the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party”.
Mr. Perry then went on to state that they would find out very
quickly and pointedly why the west does not elect more Liberals,
which is of course the real point of this wasteful junket. Mr.
Perry also wrote that the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia should know better than to be part of this
sham.
I know that my time is running short already. I am going to
read out a typical list of western concerns. It is a list that
has only grown since the government was elected in 1993. With
respect to a few of the items on the list, the government has
engaged in a very expensive and lavish public relations exercise,
feigning concern and pretending that they have actually done
something about the issues but to all intents and purposes
nothing has changed.
One of the items on the list is an overhaul of the Young
Offenders Act. That is a real overhaul, not the pathetic piece
of fiddling while Rome burns that was recently introduced by the
Minister of Justice. They want an end to the wheat board
monopoly; a referendum on the Nisga'a template; prompt
deportation of the tens of thousands of criminal refugee
claimants in Canada and an end to refugee claims at the borders;
action on judicial activism and a more transparent and public
method for selecting judges; reform of the Senate; an end to the
use of closure to limit parliamentary debates; and meaningful tax
reductions.
That poll I mentioned asked westerners what they thought would
be a meaningful tax reduction. Almost 87% said the tax
reductions given by the minister were pitiful and that $2,500 to
$3,000 per year was meaningful.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. friend's
comments. I find I agree with most of what he says, which is
somewhat frightening, but on this issue I can feel safe.
1030
The member referred to the fact that a number of Liberal
backbenchers toured western Canada to seek out why people from
that region of Canada were feeling somewhat alienated. Could he
share with the House what his constituents felt about this
initiative in terms of having to send out a delegation of eastern
backbenchers to find out what they were concerned about?
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, that is a really good
question and I thank the member for it. He is from British
Columbia and he is well known as what we call a constituency rep.
He cares for his constituents and their opinions.
The Mark Trend poll I mentioned asked a question of whether or
not people thought the Liberal task force would actually listen
or make any difference. Almost 70% thought it would not make the
slightest bit of difference. Therein we have an answer to part
of his question. People do not believe it will make any
difference. All it will do is meet with its own people, Liberal
supporters, and not really listen.
Judging by the telephone calls to the radio talk show I
mentioned, many of which were from western Canada, they simply
did not believe the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia
was listening at all to the concerns. Caller after caller said
“You are not listening, are you? Will you please be quiet and
listen to what I have to say?” They repeated one after the
other the same theme that the member really had not clicked to
the need to listen to the constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to say
how happy I am to learn, from the remarks by my hon. colleague
from North Vancouver, that in his second term as a member of
this House he has realized that the west is neglected by the
Canadian government.
During the first referendum in Quebec in 1980, we consulted the
people to inform them that the Canadian government saw the
province of Quebec as a region and that Quebecers were
recognized by Ottawa only as taxpayers but that no services were
being provided to Quebec.
This is why in 1980 the then Premier of Quebec, René Lévesque,
and, in 1995, Mr. Parizeau, told the people “We should be
masters in our own house, we should manage our own affairs and
stop being considered as a region by the government”.
I am delighted that today the Reform Party member in his
speech is beginning to take a view similar to Quebec's position
and that he realizes the Canadian government is doing nothing
for the west. While it may be doing nothing for the west
now, it has not been doing anything for Quebec for a very long
time.
That is why one day Quebec will assuredly achieve sovereignty,
or independence, and then it will govern itself with its own
money, its own taxes and its own powers, and will no longer
depend on the Canadian government.
[English]
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I would like him to know that in the 10 years since
the Reform Party was formed we have always had a policy that the
federal government should remove itself from using its spending
powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has been an
irritation to the west just as it has been to Quebec that this
federal government interferes constantly in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
He may also be aware that there has been quite a strong
separatist movement in western Canada that has ebbed and flowed
from time to time. It even elected two members in Alberta at one
stage. In B.C. the support for western separation was measured
as high as 17% to 18% at one point in time.
The irritations he mentioned are certainly not limited to
Quebec. They are widespread throughout the country. I hear
comments from people in Ontario that they feel this place,
Ottawa, interferes constantly in what should be left to the
provincial government.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since the Liberals are sending this committee to the
west I am sure they will be to British Columbia, that place on
the other side of the Rockies.
1035
Could the member tell us what the itinerary is, if they are
coming to my area, because we would like to give them our own tar
and feathers as well. Is it possible that the member could let
us know where they will be in British Columbia?
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we cannot
provide the agenda as requested by the member.
The task force did not release its agenda for last week until
this week. The meetings had already taken place by the time we
knew where they were and there was absolutely no opportunity for
public input whatsoever.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is something wrong here. We have a Liberal committee with
a sort of agenda and itinerary coming west to find out what
alienates them. It was there last week and released the
itinerary this week. This is a good example of the way Liberals
do things and maybe what alienates the west as well as all other
provinces. Three or four senators are being sent on this little
trip to the west. I am sure they might get the gist of things.
In my capacity as House leader for the official opposition I
also have the role of regional critic for Nova Scotia, a job
which I am very proud to undertake. I want to tell the
government that there are other areas in the country that are
truly alienated. I am sure that is why the Liberals do not have
any seats in Nova Scotia. It may be just dawning on them what
the problem is. I asked quite a few people in Nova Scotia what
exactly was bothering them about being alienated from the Liberal
government and I will give their responses.
However, I want to clarify something for the geniuses across the
way that they are bragging about a byelection they won last night
in Windsor—St. Clair. The Reform Party did not do well but the
NDP just about took them out. I might add that they did lose a
considerable number of votes from the last election. Not only
that. I would invite members opposite to come to my riding
during a byelection any time and then come into the House and
brag after it. We will see where they go. The Liberals do not
win seats across the country. We are trying to point out today
that the Liberals have won seats in two regions of the country.
That is where the Liberals primarily have votes.
Other regions of the country are sick and tired of the way the
country is governed. Let me give some idea of the things I have
heard in Nova Scotia. I am sure some of my colleagues who
represent that area will either agree or add more to the list.
Why in the name of heaven are we sending this group of
backbenchers and senators to one region of the country when there
are all kinds of regions that are hurting and all kinds of
regions that are sick and darned tired of what is opposite? I ask
them to listen up, all five of them.
Sable Gas is a project the people of Atlantic Canada, Nova
Scotia in particular, have been watching for so long as one of
the great hopes of the region. One can understand that with the
potential it has. It continues to remain on the horizon. The
country was promised a November 1999 start-up of the project, and
now they are talking about November 2000. Who knows where it
will go from there? There are still no clear indications of the
benefits when the contract is signed.
We can recall in the House some time ago debating the issue of
why the Liberals went to another province and said let us divert
that natural gas pipeline north around Nova Scotia. Nova
Scotians and people all over Canada asked what they were doing.
In fact I stood in the House and asked why they would not allow
these people the production and the growth as Alberta did with
its natural gas until they introduced the national energy
program.
1040
Nova Scotia is an area of great potential. Yet the federal
government did nothing but play games in that exercise. It is
not even visible in getting this project active today. It kind
of walked away from it when it did not serve its own benefit. Do
the people of Nova Scotia feel alienated by that? Maybe the
government better send some members down there to ask a few
questions.
Some of my colleagues and I met with families affected by the
Devco situation. There has been no direction from the
government. There has been no meaningful assistance and no
acceptance of responsibility by the government. Some shake their
heads, but that is what is happening. The government says that
it is only the west that is alienated. Give it a break. Get a
life. There is more to the country than one small region.
There is no policy on what to do with Devco or what to do for
the men and women, particularly the families in Cape Breton that
are highly stressed. Where are the Liberals today? How are they
dealing with this situation? The frustration is showing more and
more with protesters, depression and suicides.
The government goes to Sydney, makes an announcement and walks
away. No responsible government does that under any
circumstances. Why do the people in Nova Scotia feel alienated?
One problem is that the government does not ask why. It just
thinks it is a problem in the west because the Reform Party is
sitting here.
Let us talk about shipbuilding in Nova Scotia. The Marine
Workers Federation had an excellent suggestion. Where was the
government when that suggestion was made? Nowhere. It was not
even supportive of the issue.
What is the issue? I know a number of people who have worked in
the marine industry for 20 or more years. Why not build some
ships? There is the capacity in the shipyards in Halifax. The
dedication is there. Canada has low costs in terms of the
international value of the Canadian dollar. Holland is producing
at a higher cost. Why can we not do it here?
The question from the government would be why do we have to
build ships anyway. It does not understand that one potential
market is the coastal tanker fleet which is 25 to 30-plus years
old. It must be renewed by 2004 to meet environmental standards.
Many of the necessary tax acts and other incentives are already
in place. With a little policy direction there could be half a
billion dollars worth of work at approximately $30 million per
vessel. Where is the government promoting that kind of thing?
There is a saying that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul
can always depend on the support of Paul. Is it the government's
intention to rob Peter to pay Paul and to make sure that the
Pauls are always in place rather than look at some initiatives
that might help a region? Talk about regional alienation.
I could talk all day about the tar ponds in Sydney. I will be
there on Thursday looking at them again. It is one of the
biggest open sewers in the world. After $50 million plus were
spent on it nothing has been done. There has been study after
study.
The Liberals walked in, threw some bucks at it, walked out and
said the problem was solved. It has not been solved. It has
been going on for decades and decades. For the last 12 years the
government has been throwing money at it in a big way. People
are still living in front of a major sewer which is unacceptable
anywhere in North America. Except this government accepts it in
Sydney. It is incredible.
We could talk about the gun law. Nova Scotia among other places
is appalled at what is going on with the famous gun law the
government brought in to prevent murder by gun. What did we
recently see in Ottawa? Murders by guns. Has it stopped it? No.
Steve Gullon in Nova Scotia can tell us. He cannot live off his
business any more. It is dying because of the cost and the
exorbitant administration rates.
1045
I only have a minute, unfortunately. I would like to talk about
the toll highway in Nova Scotia. I would like to talk about the
Port of Halifax, the crime, the issue of offshore ownership of
waterfront property and real estate, the inefficiencies of ACOA,
high taxes and overburdened health care. I could go on and on.
I would suggest that the government get off the idea that it is
only western Canada which is alienated. The whole damned country
is alienated.
Therefore, I would like to introduce an amendment to the motion.
It is necessary to introduce it because we do not know what the
plans of the government are. I move:
Maybe then we in the west, the people in the east and people
throughout this country will understand that there is more to
this than just some PR exercise by backbenchers.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, considering how few members are on the other side to
debate the motion, I am not surprised they could not find a
seconder.
The Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State for Parks
knows that it is improper to refer to the presence or absence of
members and I would advise him to refrain from such comments. He
knows it is contrary to the rules.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Not only is it improper, but there are only three members on the
other side of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford knows that is not a point of order. He is
only compounding the difficulties of the Chair. The Chair is
trying to ensure orderly debate in the House and I know that the
hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, as House leader for the
official opposition, would want to assist in every respect.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, so as not to make your
job more difficult, I will refrain from making such comments.
It is interesting that this particular debate would take place
the day after at least some Canadians spoke directly to the role
of how the various parties are doing here in parliament.
It was interesting to note in the byelection results in
Windsor—St. Clair that a Liberal was returned to the House. It
was interesting to note that the Reform Party got a little over
6% of the vote, certainly under 10% of the vote, and actually saw
its percentage decline, which is interesting to put in the
context of the debate that is taking place today.
My question has to do with the comments of the two initial
speakers and their criticism of members of parliament seeking the
views of Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, members opposite are
chuckling because they think they are the only ones who know how
to do it.
Let us make it clear that what the Reform Party is criticizing
is an effort by parliamentarians to understand what Canadians are
thinking.
My question to the opposition House leader is, why does the
Reform Party not support efforts to talk to Canadians to ask them
what their perspective is?
1050
I realize that since it is not the Reform Party doing it
Reformers are somewhat embarrassed that they are left flat-footed
because they have not gone out and asked their folks what they
think, but the Liberals have indeed done that. I want to know
why they have not gone out to consult with their constituents.
Why they have left it to the Liberals?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not
understand that in the last election 62% of Canadians voted
against them. How does the member figure that? It would be an
awful lot more important if the few Liberals here would
understand that what we want to talk about today is not what they
are doing but what they are not doing in all regions of the
country.
His question was why we would be concerned about the Liberals
going to the west asking about what is alienating westerners. If
it were truly a practical good exercise with the intention of
finding out what alienates westerners, we would be all for it.
But the fact is that this is a clandestine exercise by a
committee that announces its itinerary a week after it shows up,
gets absolutely no press in Winnipeg and talks behind closed
doors with people. It is a fact that it is on a search for
candidates for the next election. As well it bellyaches about
parties opposite meeting behind closed doors. I hardly think
this committee is really looking to find out why westerners are
alienated. I think it is really there for other exercises, and
it is not doing a very good job at that. I would encourage those
committee members to try to be more realistic. If they think
westerners cannot see through this they are kidding themselves.
I am sure the other opposition parties are hoping that if the
committee is coming to their area it would at least notify them.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
very important that all members of parliament, on a consistent
basis, be judicious in their comments relative to other regions.
During a previous debate on issues facing Atlantic Canada I was
offended as an Atlantic Canadian when I heard a member say that
the smallest violin in the world plays for Atlantic Canada. That
member was mocking the efforts of Atlantic Canadians to bootstrap
themselves into prosperity.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that, given that it
was a member of his party, the member for Calgary West.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a bit
about this today. There is some shyness and concern from the PCs
who are a little concerned about us bringing up regional
interests, in particular in their area. We should watch for the
kinds of suggestions and improvements they have for their own
area. It is unfortunate that they act this way, but that is just
the way it is going to be.
What we are talking about is not a matter of party politics.
Maybe some day when the PCs grow up they will get to be the
official opposition, but it is going to be a long time. I would
encourage them to listen to the issues and to respond in kind to
the real problems in this country.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the official opposition's
motion.
[English]
Last night, as I was putting down some thoughts with respect to
today's address, I was in a restaurant and a number of people
came over and asked what I was doing. I showed them the motion.
I asked them what they thought of it. The first person said “I
really don't understand it”. Another two people said that it
seemed rather silly. Another person said “It makes no sense”.
1055
Having already heard from these people, I recognized some
others, so I went to them. The truth of the matter is that
another two said it was a silly motion and another two said that
it made no sense that the government should rename the Liberal
committee on western alienation to the Liberal alienation
committee. Even the most literate could not understand what that
meant. Reformers did not even have the courtesy of having the
formal title. They probably could not find it, or perhaps they
could not understand it.
There are a lot of issues that could have been raised in debate.
We could have talked about building a stronger, more united
Canada. We could have talked about increasing Canada's economic
performance. We could have talked about Kosovo, the genocide
that is occurring there and what it is that we might do to lessen
the atrocities. What did they do? They picked a silly motion
that does not make any sense to anyone. They are playing
politics.
Why would they be doing that? They are a little nervous because
they have pockets of support. They say that this could be
useful. This might work. Therefore let us get in there, let us
be dysfunctional, let us be negative, let us do whatever we can
to torpedo it.
Are they waiting to see the report so they can look at it and
then perhaps address substantive issues and solutions that will
be identified in it? Of course not. That would be logical.
That would be a professional approach. Of course they are not
going to do that.
I participated for two days on the task force. I met with the
mayor and councillors of the city of Winnipeg. It was an
excellent meeting. We met with the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce.
We met with la Chambre de commerce francophone du Manitoba and it
was an excellent meeting. There was a meeting with the Brandon
mayor and his council, which was an excellent meeting. I also
attended a meeting of reeves and councillors from southeastern
Manitoba. Guess what? It was an excellent meeting.
Were they friends of the government? No. They were responsible
citizens, identifying issues and making concrete proposals for
solutions.
In view of the way in which this has started and in view of this
particular motion, perhaps the Reform Party ought to consider
renaming itself the silly party of Canada, or perhaps the “we
never made sense and will never make sense party of Canada”.
I will give an example of the lack of respect they have for
their colleagues. This morning “flunkies” was used with
respect to government members. They referred to MPs from eastern
Canada as lackeys and trained seals, as if they had no role to
play on such a task force. They also referred to senators
without the least bit of respect, as if they were men and women
who had no knowledge of the country, who could not make a
contribution. I find that shocking.
An hon. member: Reprehensible.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: It is reprehensible.
The good news is that they are not all like that. I will share
what one Reform member said. He no doubt recognizes the fallacy
of the Reform Party's motion this morning. Here is a quote found
in two publications which was made by the member for Athabasca.
The federal government has made the provision of information one
of the cornerstones of its effort to assist Canadian small and
medium-sized enterprises....no matter where you live in western
Canada, Western Economic Diversification, in partnership with
other business service organizations, is your local link to a
world of business resources.
That is what the member for Athabasca had to say.
Another MP from the Reform Party, one of the more enlightened
ones, who sees more than what they see thank goodness, who
responds to materials made available to him so that he can share
them with his constituents, said “It will be my pleasure to
share this information with my constituency”.
The Reform Party has a platform. It would like to remove the
economic development agencies, but it has not said what it would
replace them with.
It has not given an indication of how it would undertake economic
development. Absolutely none. This is the party that would
reduce equalization payments without having any clue whatsoever
of the impact it would have on the provinces that are in fact
receiving that kind of assistance.
1100
[Translation]
What would they replace this by? They have no idea. They would
be prepared to slash and to cut, without understanding what is
going on, without analysing the impact this would have on
Canadians. I find this absolutely unacceptable.
[English]
I want to talk this morning about western economic
diversification.
[Translation]
I am responsible for this portfolio. I want to further emphasize
this agency's presence in western Canada. Before doing this, I
want to talk about, or at least briefly mention, the other
agencies.
[English]
In the Atlantic provinces we have ACOA. While there are
similarities to western economic diversification, there are
differences and there need to be differences. If we are to
listen to the people from those regions, we need programs that
respond to their unique needs.
[Translation]
In Quebec, there is also the Economic Development Agency of
Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Here again, there are some
similarities with other economic development agencies. Of
course, there are some programs that have been tailored to meet
the specific needs of Quebecers.
FedNor, an agency that operates in Northern Ontario, is similar
in many respects to the other economic development agencies.
Programs are in place to meet the special needs of this region.
[English]
Let us talk about the mandate of western economic
diversification. It is to diversify the economies of the western
provinces. What does that mean? We all know that traditionally
we have made a good living. We have done very well based upon
the natural resources that we have had, an abundance of natural
resources in a number of sectors.
We also recognize that we are in a different world today. We
are in a knowledge based society which requires a knowledge based
economy. What does that mean? That means getting more from what
we have by applying the knowledge we have in the mining sectors,
the forestry sectors, the agricultural sectors and the fishing
sectors. That is what it really means.
If people have businesses that are doing well, can they do more
with those businesses? Can they create more jobs? If they have
an idea for a new business, can they in fact launch that business
successfully and create more jobs for western Canadians?
We on this side of the House believe that a strong western
Canada, like strong Atlantic provinces, like a strong Quebec,
like a strong Ontario, like strong northern territories, is good
for Canada. It makes for a stronger nation. That is what we are
all about.
Where is western economic diversification in the Government of
Canada? It is headquartered in Edmonton, headed by a deputy
minister from Edmonton, an outstanding public servant with an
outstanding staff for each of the provinces, committed to western
Canadians, committed to being advocates for western Canadian
issues.
There is a satellite office, by the way, in Calgary, Alberta,
because we want to bring the services to the people. We
recognize that southern Alberta differs from Edmonton and
northern Alberta.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I was under the impression that I had 20 minutes.
Is that not the case?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, I am sorry, but 10
minutes is the amount of time allotted.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: That is unfortunate, because I was told
that I had 20 minutes. Therefore, I had prepared myself
accordingly. I thought that as the main speaker for the
government, I would have 20 minutes.
[English]
We are in Vancouver. We are in Saskatoon. We have a satellite
in Regina. We have an office in Winnipeg. More important, we
are in the small places.
[Translation]
Saturday morning, for instance, I was in Saint-Pierre-Joli to
announce the opening of a business centre. We are present in
small towns and villages like Prud'homme and Bonnyville, not
just in large urban centres.
[English]
We have a number of partners. We have four women's enterprise
centres.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Unfortunately I must
interrupt the secretary of state. The rules of debate state that
the first speaker has 20 minutes and the four subsequent
speakers, 10 minutes each. We now move on to questions and
comments.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: I rise On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
would like the unanimous consent to continue with my
presentation.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. secretary of
state is asking for unanimous consent to continue for another 10
minutes. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1105
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am curious about the comment of the hon. member
opposite that the motion being debated today is a waste of time.
I am sure the people where I come from will be very interested in
that comment.
It is not just where I come from in the west. I spoke on some
serious issues that I was made aware of in Nova Scotia. They
were the port of Halifax, the tar ponds, shipbuilding, Devco and
Sable Gas. All these issues are facing the federal government
and it could do more. I am sure the people down there do not
take kindly to the words that it is a waste of time.
We had hoped to get from the government not that it was a waste
of time on regional issues but that we could do more and this is
what we should do. It is truly unfortunate that it has taken
this stance. I hope it can do more.
Would the hon. member do one thing at least? Would he stand
here and commit on behalf of the committee he says he is on that
it would table in the House today the itinerary, the agenda it
has for the rest of Canada?
People in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia would like
to know where and when these folks will be showing up. He talked
about having meetings with chambers of commerce and other
organizations. The vast majority of people in those areas do not
know those meetings are occurring. Behind closed door meetings,
quiet meetings or unannounced meetings do not get adequate public
input.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I will respond to
my colleague's questions. First, I did not say it was a waste of
time. I said that—
Mr. Randy White: Yes, you did.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: No, I did not. I said people
said it was silly. People said it made no sense. My hon.
colleague knows that it is nothing but petty politics he is
trying to play. He is trying to embarrass the government.
If he had wanted he could have given me an extra 10 minutes to
talk about our partners in the women's enterprise centres, to
talk about the 90 community futures development corporations we
have in western Canada, and to talk about the 81 Canada-Manitoba
and other provincial business centres that help businesses.
He could have permitted us to talk about businesses with which
we work, businesses to which we provide information and
businesses which we assist by finding funding and information on
internal markets and export markets.
He could have permitted me to talk about aboriginal peoples and
the way in which we are trying to integrate them more fully into
Canadian society.
He could have permitted me to talk about the youth programs we
have because we recognize that they are important. He could have
encouraged me—
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The rules of the House are well known, particularly to my
hon. friend who is an experienced member. The first round is 10
minutes with 5 minutes for questions and comments. It seems to
me that he is simply bootlegging in parts of his speech that he
was hoping to make within 20 minutes.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: What is your point?
Mr. Nelson Riis: My point is—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. secretary of
state still has two minutes.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I would like to
know what his point is.
I wanted to point out that western economic diversification,
with other government departments, has responded to the needs of
western Canadians such as those in rural areas and francophones.
They do not want to hear about that. We have been involved with
the fishing communities that were devastated in western Canada
and with the people affected by the floods. We have had a number
of initiatives in science and technology and invested major
dollars in western Canada. Why? Because western Canadians are
competitive.
Why is it that hon. members opposite cannot see what the
government has done? Why is it that their only ability is to try
to identify issues about which they know very little and to try
to inflame the passions of western Canadians against other
regions of the country? I cannot understand that logic. That is
petty politics. That is unacceptable. Frankly I am ashamed of
that behaviour.
1110
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, the member does not admit that there is
any problem at all.
Would he at least be prepared to say that in the regions of
Canada, in the fishing sector, the mining sector, agriculture and
forestry, there are some issues that are yet to be addressed
seriously? It is not a perfect world out there in the regions of
Canada, particularly those in the resource sectors.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I thank my
colleague for the appropriate question. Of course there are
issues and I wish we would identify them.
Let us talk about the $400 million that was given to west coast
fisheries. Is that appropriate? Is it working? How is it
going?
Let us talk about the $224.5 million that was given to flood
victims in Manitoba. Is that appropriate? Is it working?
Let us talk about the $56 million that was invested in
Synchroton in Saskatoon. Is that an appropriate investment? Are
we for it or against it? Those are the questions we ought to be
talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my
turn to speak on this opposition day motion by the Reform Party.
I would like to divide the motion into two parts. The first
part of the motion condemns the government's failure to address
the concerns of the regions of Canada. In Quebec, our region,
this failure is only too clear. Our presence here is vivid
proof that Quebeckers are deeply dissatisfied with this
government and the federal system that governs them.
The second part of the motion, on what should be done to remedy
the situation, is a proposal that the government rename the
Liberal committee on western alienation the Liberal alienation
committee. Even if this proposal might be considered justified,
it seems to me that somewhat better wording could have been
found to condemn the government's action and suggest to it
possible courses of action.
I shall concentrate on the first part of the motion, condemning
the government's failure—I would say historic failure—to address
the concerns of many of its citizens, and in our case,
Quebeckers.
I shall not go over all the constitutional negotiations that
have been the subject of dispute and the failure by the federal
government to respond to Quebec's demands. There have been many
such negotiations, particularly in the past 30 years, and they
have one thing in common: regardless of who was negotiating—the
federal Liberal or Conservative Party, a Quebec Liberal or Parti
Quebecois government—the result has always been the same:
failure.
It might be tempting to lay this failure at individuals'
doorsteps, but that would not hide the fact that there is a
profound problem: an inability to live together or find rules
that can govern all of us within a single system.
Efforts to this end have always been based on the concept of
Quebec as a province. From the federal government's point of
view, the provinces must have a certain character.
Though the government is reluctant to say that it sees them as
all equal, it does have a very strong tendency to say that it
has to avoid special treatment for certain provinces. This has
prevented agreements being reached that would have led to an
asymmetrical model, more particularly for Quebec, giving it a
different constitutional status from the other provinces. The
Canadian government has always been too frightened of the
reaction from other regions of Canada and too frightened as well
that the whole thing would become unmanageable, although it is
already extremely difficult to manage.
To come down to brass tacks, this is causing a considerable
number of day to day problems for ordinary citizens. I am going
to indicate some of these. I will not expand on my examples
right now, I will return to them, but I am thinking of the
millennium scholarships.
There are also secretaries of state for various economic
development agencies, for example Canada has a regional
development agency for Quebec, while Quebec has its own regional
development sttructure.
This gives rise to a sizeable number of concrete problems. It
is hard to co-ordinate the work in the field, because the federal
government wants to be visible more than it wants to be useful.
This causes problems of slowness and inefficiency in the system,
when it comes to meeting people's needs.
The primary underlying problem in all these negotiations, in
Quebec's case, is that it is difficult to reach an agreement
with someone who represents an entity whose existence one
refuses to recognize.
1115
When we are told there is no such thing as Quebec culture, as
the Prime Minister said, when one refuses to recognize the fact
that Quebeckers are a people, it is very difficult, when it
comes to negotiating with someone who refuses to recognize our
very existence, to find a basis for understanding. This in turn
creates a number of problems. The basic problem in relations
between Quebec and Canada has always been at this level.
Even though people believe we talk too much about it, we do not
stress it often enough. When it comes to the Constitution that
currently governs Canada and contains the fundamental rules
according to which people are living together, it is now
shameful to talk about it.
Are there many other countries that are ashamed to talk about
their constitution, which should be a fundamental principle and
something accepted by the citizens as a whole? There is
something wrong when a country is ashamed of its constitution.
Why is it wrong? Let us not forget what happened during the
patriation of the constitution which governs us currently. One
player did not sign, and this player is Quebec.
I know a few people will say “Yes, but separatists will never
sign anything”. They should remember that for nine years there
was a federalist government in Quebec. Even the main federalist
party, the Quebec Liberal Party, does not intend to sign the
Constitution as it stands today.
This does not seem to worry too many people. On the contrary,
the federal government is forging ahead with administrative
framework agreements, such as the one on social union, to
further centralize decision making in Canada. This is along the
same line. It could not care less that one of its components,
which it sees as a major, beneficial, essential part of Canada,
did not sign the Constitution.
Let us go back to specific examples, such as culture. If there
is one thing that sets Quebeckers apart, it is of course their
cultural characteristics.
The Government of Quebec is rightly claiming, and in practice
now, the ability to represent itself internationally. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister reacted
hysterically to its doing so and to its promoting its unique
qualities internationally.
How can these people not understand even such basic things as
these? They are, however, the very people who, with meaningless
resolutions, would have us believe they recognize the vaguely
distinct character of Quebec.
They will not agree to our promoting even the most obvious
elements of our distinctiveness. This is a cultural element.
There is also our ability to do things differently. The
Government of Quebec has made decisions regarding the education
system in order to give students better access to post-secondary
education, saying “We must have more graduates, therefore we
will lower fees as much as possible”. Our policy on tuition
fees is very different from that of Canada. They are much
lower.
Outside Quebec, tuition fees are very high, less than in the
United States, but still a lot higher than in Quebec.
Obviously, that creates a debt problem that is heightened when
students have difficulty finding a job.
I understand there is a problem and a need that is greater in
Canada than in Quebec.
The government creates a scholarships program for students and
says “We will help them, we will reward excellence. There has
been this whole debate on elitism. Therefore, we will back off a
bit. We will go back to the issue of financial need and help
students in this way”.
So, the government came up with a coast to coast program. Yet,
needs are not the same everywhere. If we could have control over
that money, our priority might be to provide tools that could
benefit all students, because in Quebec the primary issue is not
students' indebtedness, as is the case in the other provinces.
For example, we might use that money to modernize the
technological equipment used in our CEGEPs and universities. In
this communications era, this might be a greater priority than
scholarships.
However, these choices cannot be made because, with its taxation
power, with its huge power to collect revenues, the federal
government dictates its decisions, or uses the tax system to do
so, thus setting priorities that are not necessarily the same as
our own.
Because it is incapable of getting along with the Government of
Quebec, the federal government does not even want to come to the
negotiation table. Instead, it gave that mandate to a private
foundation run by BCE's president, and told him “We are sending
you $2.5 billion. In addition, you will get two year's interest
before starting to deal with issues. You will settle them by
negotiating with the government”.
1120
There is a very big accountability problem there, but they are
washing their hands of the whole thing by hiding behind a
foundation. That is a problem. In the meantime, our
educational system cannot define priorities as quickly as it
needs to be able to do.
Quebec held a summit conference on
priorities in postsecondary education. But the federal
government does not see this as important. One morning, the
Prime Minister had a bright idea and told the House that that
was the priority because he believes that Canada has a role to
play in this.
In the few minutes I have left, I want to look briefly at
regional development. It is the same thing.
Our RCM in Témiscamingue has managed to develop a genuine single
window approach. Higher levels of government having had
difficulty reaching agreement, we created a single window with
one board of directors for the federal, provincial and municipal
programs.
Who barged in? The federal government. Having lost its
visibility in such a structure, it made us dismantle it. Now,
we are going back to two boards, two directors general and, in
the long term, two different development visions. Locally, it
was a success, but because the federal government had lost its
visibility, it decided to make us go back to the earlier system.
This is not conducive to economic development. This agency
should be called Propaganda Canada, not Economic Development
Canada.
The government takes the attitude that Quebeckers do not know
how good they have it and should be shown. But our presence in
the House, and the presence of others who are not satisfied with
this system, shows that there are serious problems that the
members opposite have historically been unable to resolve.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
listened with a great deal of interest to the words of my
colleague. I believe he is absolutely right. There are
particularities to the west as there are to Quebec, but I
believe the Liberal government would be well advised to announce
its intentions when it is travelling in the regions,
particularly in Quebec.
I have an anecdote to relate in this connection. Over Easter, a
minister decided to come to the Charlevoix region, one of the
loveliest regions of Quebec. Did he come to the casino, or to
visit his relatives? Of course, in order to justify his travel
allowance, the minister had to meet the press, or a mayor, or
visit an arts centre.
He ought to have given the MP for Charlevoix a call to say “I
would like to consult your area of the riding, I would like to
meet with local unemployed people in order to see whether the
$27.3 million in cuts in Charlevoix are doing much harm.
I would like to meet the people of Charlevoix in order to see
whether they are frustrated by our unkept promises made in 1997.
I would like to meet the people of Charlevoix to see what
effects our transfer payments to the provinces have had on
health and education”.
I would have liked to have got a group of women together so that
they could tell him how the President of Treasury Board is
refusing to give public servants pay equity. I would have liked
to have got a group of young people together to tell him how the
federal government is refusing to withdraw from collective
agreements the orphan clause which penalizes very young workers.
But no. When ministers travel to the regions, they do so solely
to raise their profile. We have seen that the problem is the
same in the west, as the Reform Party pointed out this morning.
Quebec is recognized as a region. I believe that Quebec has
been calling for that right for some years now. The Bloc
Quebecois has been doing so in the House of Commons since 1993.
There is a problem of duplication and overlap, and I would like
the hon. member for Témiscamingue to give us some other
examples. He has already mentioned the millennium scholarships,
to demonstrate that the Government of Quebec is acknowledged by
the Canadian government as a region, as a kind of board.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot of time
left, but we could have talked, for example, about the
environment of pulp and paper companies or others that have both
the federal and the provincial standards. Sometimes the higher
standards are federal and sometimes they are Quebec's. If a
criminal offence is involved, the weight is in favour of the
federal standard. Conversely, if it is a civil matter, the
weight is in favour of the provincial standard. It is a total
administrative mess.
However, as regards what my colleague from Charlevoix was saying
recently, a well-intentioned individual working for the federal
government at home with the Department of Human Resources
Development said to the stakeholders “The regional office
analyzes that”. I knew that by “regional office” she meant
Montreal.
But the people in my region, when they heard “regional office”
understood it was managed in Rouyn-Noranda, because that is where
the regional office is.
So at one point I spoke up and said “We will clarify one thing.
In Ottawa, when you say 'region', you mean Quebec entirely. If
you say Abitibi—Témiscamingue, you are referring to—” I would not
even use an adjective for fear of having it used against me.
For us, Abitibi-Témiscamingue is our region. We would like the
government to think this way.
1125
What sets us apart is the number of mines we have. There were
tax incentives, which still exist, but have been cut
considerably by the federal government, which led to a lot of
exploration. Northern Quebec still has extraordinary potential
for mining exploration, but the reduction in the worth of
natural resources, particularly metals, and the Bre-X crisis and
other incidents, have discouraged exploration.
The fact that the federal government did not restore that
program in its original form was very prejudicial to our region.
When that flow-through shares program was at its peak,
unemployment in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region was at 7%.
However, from the federal government's perspective, a tax
measure that applies to just one region of Quebec clearly does
not have enough of an impact to justify an extended program.
This is unfortunate because that initiative was specifically
targeted to the needs of our region. I could list many more that
do not specifically meet regional needs. It is not the economic
development agencies, which often do promotional work, that
identify these needs. These agencies exist primarily to sell
Ottawa to people in the regions, not to take regional issues and
get the federal government to do something about them.
There may exceptions, but this is how it works in my region.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I must say I always welcome the
opportunity to talk about topics such as why those of us who
represent the regions sometimes feel alienated from the central
part of the country and why there are concerns in the regions of
Canada. I say this today with a certain discomfort in light of
the events that have surrounded us. We are in a state of war. We
are in an offensive operation against a sovereign nation.
The news reports this morning are of Serb infantry troops
crossing into Albania and seizing Kamenica, a village in northern
Albania. There seems to be an expansion of the war. There are
topics we could talk about in terms of welcoming refugees in
particular those with family connections here in Canada and the
use of spent plutonium on the bullets of weapons from certain
countries. We could talk about a whole number of items, but
today we are talking about alienation particularly from a western
perspective. Therefore my comments will focus obviously on that.
There is a school of history which is called the heartland
hinterland school. It is where we try to describe what goes on
in our country in terms of recognizing that the heartland of
Canada is mainly parts of Ontario and Quebec and the rest is a
hinterland and the relationship between the heartland and the
hinterland.
It is important when talking about the alienation of regions to
recognize that we are talking about western Canada, British
Columbia, Yukon, the north, Atlantic Canada. But there is also
northern Ontario, the Gaspé and other regions which feel very
alienated from the centre, meaning the central triangle in
Ontario and Quebec.
There is no question there are serious problems in the regions
of Canada. One of the reasons I suspect these concerns and
problems go unaddressed in any serious way is the result of
simple demographics. There are more MPs in the city of Toronto
than in all of British Columbia. That tells a bit of the tale.
When we look at representation by population the vast majority of
Canadians are focused in central Canada, their representatives
are from central Canada. The regions are a long way away in
geographic terms. I suspect they are a longer way away
psychologically also.
As a representative from western Canada, in particular British
Columbia I want to toss out a challenge to my Liberal colleagues
across the way. Over the years there have been shared programs
between the federal and provincial governments. Recognizing that
British Columbia has a little over 12% of the population of
Canada, I have yet to determine a single shared program where
British Columbia gets 12% of the benefits. There is not a single
one.
I would like to be contradicted. Therefore I am challenging my
Liberal friends opposite to identify for me a single program over
the last 20 years where British Columbians have simply received
their fair share.
1130
We do not want more than our fair share. We do not want an
excess. If we have 12% of the population and highway funds, for
example, are being divvied up, we should get 12% of the funds.
What do we get? Nothing, absolutely zip.
When we look at the money the federal government collects from
gasoline taxes and where it invests that money in highways, is a
single cent invested in western Canada? No, not a single cent.
Is it any wonder western Canadians feel somewhat alienated?
We could talk about the north, about Yukon. Yukon has been
dealt devastating blows by the federal government. It lost its
weather station. This is a part of the world where the weather
is crucial but the weather station is gone. It is the one part
of Canada where the stay in school program has been most
successful, but it has been yanked out of the territory.
There have been major cuts in crucial health programs
particularly for aboriginal peoples. Then there is the
privatization of the airport which has a particular impact in the
north. Those of us who travel and use airlines have to pay a
certain fee in some airports. In Whitehorse a fee for cargo has
to be paid as well. As a result of the fee that is added on in
terms of this airport user fee there is a huge extra cost for
bread and milk in remote communities.
I could go on and talk about the Devco fiasco in Nova Scotia,
the Sable Gas disaster or the shipyards on the east and west
coasts that are crying for work. The unions come forward with
very complicated, complex and thoughtful programs in terms of how
to develop our east and west coast shipbuilding industries and
are virtually ignored by the federal government.
To someone from British Columbia one thing symbolizes the
frustration we feel. It is fair to say that as we have attempted
to diversify away from the resource based industries that are
known to have built British Columbia, we have been developing the
film industry. We now have the largest film industry in Canada.
Yet when we look at the number of dollars the federal government
invests in the film industry in British Columbia compared with
Ontario and Quebec, it is infinitesimal.
When there is a significant effort to diversify away from the
resource based economy, is there any serious help from the
federal government? The answer is no. I am not here to say that
there is no help, that there is absolutely nothing, but it is
pretty close to that.
The economy of that region of Canada to a large extent is based
on the resource sector, on agriculture, mining, forestry and the
fishery. Members should come to British Columbia and have a look
at the fishery industry. A disaster is unfolding. Granted, the
federal government has come up with a few dollars to help out but
not very much. Whole sections of the British Columbia coast are
absolutely devastated economically because of lack of support for
the west coast fishery. I do not even have to talk about the
east coast fishery because we know what has happened there.
We could look at agriculture, the struggling sector in all
regions of Canada, and see where the federal government is taking
us in terms of support. It is relatively abysmal.
Mining has been essentially abandoned. We could consider the
importance of mining for the north, for British Columbia, for the
northern parts of the prairies, for northern Ontario, and for the
regions of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
It is a critical sector that has by and large been bypassed by
the federal government.
I know it is not terribly romantic. The romance now is in the
high tech sector, the information technology sector and so on.
That is where the investments are being made. Not surprisingly
those operations are by and large located in central Canada,
again to the abandonment of those of us from the regions of
Canada.
I want to point out that the issue of water diversion concerns
us. Water diversion and the sale of freshwater are probably not
huge issues in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal, although
they are probably issues with some people. For those of us who
represent the regions of Canada they are major issues.
A little while ago a motion was passed in the House which called
for an immediate moratorium that the government should announce
on freshwater exports to the United States and northern Mexico
eventually.
It also called for the government to bring in policy as quickly
as possible to safeguard that very crucial resource for the
future.
1135
We passed that motion unanimously. That should send a pretty
clear signal to the government that the House of Commons,
representing every part of Canada, wanted action immediately on
the preservation of Canada's freshwater resources.
What did the government do the next day? It went to the United
States and asked the Americans what they thought about it and
what they suggested it do in terms of our freshwater. From where
did that initiative arise? Who suggested that we go to the
Americans and ask what they thought about exporting water,
diverting rivers into the United States, and that sort of thing?
That is where we are today.
I challenge my Liberal friends across the way to identify for
those of us in the opposition parties a single program where
British Columbia gets its fair share, one program where British
Columbia which represents 12% of the population of Canada gets
12% of the action. I see the minister from British Columbia is
here. I know he will be standing in a moment or two to list
those particular programs. I look forward to those comments.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would gladly yield to a Liberal colleague answering my friend's
question. None rose to their feet, so I will do my best to fill
in.
I know for a fact that there are no programs that give British
Columbians their fair share, even though they contribute more
than their fair share in terms of revenue to the federal
government. The same applies to my home province of Alberta. I
think that is why people in the west in particular, but in all
regions of the country, find good reasons to feel alienated from
the federal government and from central Canada.
My friend touched on the important issue of the government's
lack of respect for democracy. We saw that in the water debate
and again more recently. On many occasions in this place we have
seen the Liberal government whip its majority into place to vote
against a particular bill. We must remember that the Liberal
Party has 101 seats of the 103 seats in Ontario, or at least most
of them. There are only two provinces in the whole country in
which is has majorities.
I wonder if one of the big reasons people feel alienated is that
they do not see Liberal backbenchers standing up and representing
points of view that are held strongly across the rest of the
country. Would my friend care to comment on that and on the
whole idea of the democratic institution of parliament being
fundamentally broken and not working well to reflect the
interests of the rest of the country?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can use an
example to respond to my hon. friend. A little while back there
was a byelection in Port Moody, British Columbia. The individual
elected used to be mayor of the community of Coquitlam. During
the election campaign he said he would come down to that town and
raise hell. He would speak up for British Columbia. He would be
on the floor of the House of Commons and even speak out against
the government if he had to. He said that time and time again
during the campaign. People listened to him, believed him and
elected him. I ask members if they have ever heard this hon.
member speak in the House?
An hon. member: Lou who?
Mr. Nelson Riis: I hear somebody saying “Lou who?” To
be fair, he may have spoken but the reality is he has sat in the
back row and has not said a single thing on a single issue
publicly about British Columbia. That is why British Columbians
feel short-changed.
The fact that the Liberals have put together this little
travelling road show to go about western Canada unannounced
seeking the reasons for grievances is another abuse of this
institution. We have representatives from western Canada here
that well know the concerns. They could easily be sought out in
terms of advice. Instead of using parliament as a tool, they
twist the partisan part of this place and send out a group of
Liberal backbenchers and Liberal senators. If there is one thing
that will alienate western Canadians it is that.
1140
I know from my own riding that the Liberals sent out a certain
individual. I will not name the person, but when she arrived in
Kamloops I can tell the House the response she received. I can
tell the House how people feel about it. They had an elected
representative from British Columbia, an elected representative
from Kamloops. They wondered why somebody from Ontario was being
sent out there to find out their views when their representative
could have been asked about them.
She goes out there regularly. I do not know who she talks to
but she talks to a few folks. I know what people are saying on
the street about these visits. I suspect it is the same as they
are saying about the delegation that visits certain parts of
western Canada in secret.
That is the reason there is a feeling of alienation. We elect
people and then the government ignores the individuals concerned.
We elect individuals and they are completely ignored by the
government.
I say with reluctance that its arrogance will grow and grow so
that in another two years from now it will be almost intolerable.
The level of arrogance will be almost intolerable as we move
toward the next election. It seems to be a pattern that develops
in this place. That arrogance is reflected in the fact that when
the government wants to know what is going on in British Columbia
it sends out a group of senators and Liberal backbenchers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
normally when I rise to debate an issue in the House I start my
debate by saying that I am very proud and very pleased to stand
to debate a particular issue. Unfortunately I cannot say that at
this time because quite frankly I find that the motion put before
us by the Reform Party is basically taking up very valuable time
of the House. The motion is totally partisan and quite frankly
an opportunity, I suspect, to put forward a face that is kinder
and gentler for the Reform Party. Perhaps the Reform Party has
too many supply days if it has to go this level to put forward
important issues to the House.
I have spoken in the House on numerous issues from the hepatitis
C situation that we found the Liberals ignoring to health care. I
have spoken to the budget, which I was very pleased to do. I
have spoken with respect to defence issues, very important issues
that resonate out there in our country today and are very
important to Canadians in general. I cannot put this motion in
with the other issues we have debated.
As I say, I am always proud to be a representative of the
constituency of Brandon—Souris in the House. I must say that
speaking to this motion does not instil a lot of pride in myself.
Certainly it should not instil a lot of pride in the people who
put forward the motion.
Yesterday in the House a very important debate took place, a
debate of great significance to Canadians, the Canadian military
and our responsibility with respect to NATO. The Reform Party
and the leader of the Reform Party justifiably took offence to
the fact that we as members of parliament did not have the
opportunity to vote and make our mark or have the ability to come
forward and suggest that what the government was doing was right
or wrong.
Perhaps the Reform Party would have been much better served if
it had put forward that motion today and if the Reform Party
leader had some conviction as to whether he wished to have that
vote on the floor of the House. Then we would have been much
better served than with the motion before us.
I find it a rather perverse irony that the Reform Party would
come forward with a motion that actually speaks to alienation.
Alienation is synonymous with the Reform Party. To bring it
forward now obviously is the Jekyll and Hyde of the Reform Party.
It is trying to snow Canadians at this point in time.
Let us make no mistake that Reformers have alienated the rest of
Canada. We can see that on their benches. They have alienated
Ontario. They have alienated Quebec. It does not take much for
me to speak to that with the advertising campaign that they had
in the last election, as well as comments that were made by their
members just recently with respect to anti-French, Frenchified
and anti-francophone.
1145
The members of the Reform Party have alienated eastern Canada,
Atlantic Canada. They have done it many times in suggesting that
Atlantica should be an amalgam of all the Atlantic provinces.
They have alienated Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward
Island and Newfoundland.
At any point in time if the Reform members would like to come to
me, I can introduce them to my colleagues from Ontario, Quebec
and Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
The Reform members cannot do the same. I would love for them to
introduce me to their colleagues in those other regions of Canada
that they now so passionately speak of as being alienated, not
only by the Liberal government, but by other members of this
parliament. They do not speak of their own alienation. Let me
speak to that briefly and then I will get into the alienation the
Liberal government has also allowed in this great country.
What about Atlantic Canada? A member of the Reform Party stood
up recently and spoke very eloquently to the fact that there are
issues in Atlantic Canada that have to be put on the floor of
this House, which the Liberals and the government should be able
to deal with immediately. Let me deal with some of those issues.
I quote: “The Leader of the Reform Party of Canada does not
like special income assistance programs for fishermen and plant
workers. He would wipe out regional development initiatives like
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and he is opposed in
principle to the special bailout of Cape Breton coal mines”. Not
only is that an irony, it is a complete flip-flop from a comment
that was made recently by a member of the Reform Party. He talked
about Devco and about the Sydney mines. That quote, by the way,
was made on July 25, 1996. Those are the chameleon policies of
the Reform Party.
I have another quote: “The kind of fiscal shock treatment the
leader of the Reform Party favours may eliminate the deficit, but
would also abandon thousands of Atlantic Canadians to a cruel
fate”.
I find it rather ironic that they speak so eloquently on issues
of Atlantic Canada on the one hand, but do not tell the truth on
the other. They are saying something totally different. I would
like to add another quote: “Canada should slash its universal
social program and return to a bygone era when families and
charities looked after the elderly, the unemployed and the poor,
the Reform Party says”. That was in the Chronicle-Herald
on February 22, 1995.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that the Reform members would
talk about the alienation of a region when in fact they are the
ones who have alienated the majority of the regions in this
country. It is the wrong thing to do.
We should be debating something of consequence here in this
House, but we are not.
I would like to speak to the motion because perhaps there are
some items the government would like to hear about from the
Progressive Conservative Party to try to improve upon its record
in western Canada. The government has alienated in its own right
and its own way, as have we. I take some consequence of 1993
when the Progressive Conservative Party had alienated Canadians.
Perhaps we all do it at some point in our political careers.
That is why they are not necessarily long careers, but they are
valuable and viable careers.
On January 7, 1999 the Prime Minister announced the creation of
what he called the Prime Minister's task force on the four
western provinces. I have to admit my first reaction was that it
was definitely a political manoeuvre to try to get additional
support in the western Canadian provinces.
I have no doubt in my little mind that is what this particular
task force is all about. It is to go out and gain some public
relations and some media attention. It is to say that the
government is listening, that it cares not only about western
Canadians but also about eastern Canadians, Atlantic Canadians
and the Quebecois who are still very strong Canadians.
The task force is a bit of a make work project for little
Liberal backbenchers. However, it is doing it for whatever it
feels are the necessary reasons.
In fact, the chairman of the task force is a colleague of mine.
He is also the chairman of the agriculture committee on which I
sit.
I find it rather amusing. The member who is from the Manitoba
riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, and heads the task
force is the very same member on the agriculture committee when
we were trying to put forward some very well thought out changes
to legislation, Bill C-4, which had to deal with the Canadian
Wheat Board, who said that Canadian farmers want what we are
putting forward and we are not prepared to make any changes.
1150
That is not the way governments are to listen to the people who
represent Canadians in those areas. I wish that particular
individual had made some of the changes. We would not be in the
position we are in now with the alienation of Canadian farmers.
Did the government consult with not only the stakeholders but
also the premiers of the provinces of western Canada when it put
together the AIDA program? No. It developed a program of its
own design and then it went out and forced premiers to come into
the program. It is the absolute wrong way to do it. Of course
in doing that people are alienated and the government is learning
from that.
I wish that Canadians would better recognize this country as
being ten provinces and three territories. Perhaps we could all
learn from our mistakes. Perhaps by working together as opposed
to driving these wedges between the regions of the country we can
become a much better country.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development)(Western Economic Diversification),
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his
positive attitude. Let me give a few examples.
He acknowledged that any activity which a political party takes
has a political dimension. When I go to Brandon and make an
announcement which I have done, obviously it has a political
dimension. When one undertakes an initiative such as the one we
are discussing this morning, out of necessity it has some
political ramifications. There is no question about that.
I am particularly pleased that my colleague pointed out that if
we look at the country today, indeed if we look at the world,
there are some questions we could have been discussing today,
debating and exchanging information on which could have benefited
all Canadians. I am not sure that is going to happen.
Would my colleague agree that an initiative such as the one that
has been undertaken, which he has discussed, could have some
potentially positive benefits for western Canadians and western
Canadian provinces? I indicated that the Government of Canada
was fully integrated into western Canada. There are a lot of
services which many people do not know about, but I acknowledge
the fact that a couple of colleagues have identified how helpful
those have been.
Let us strip away the politics. Let us strip away the other
dimensions. Is there some potential benefit in having people
from not only western Canada but from eastern Canada, MPs as well
as senators, meet with groups to talk to them and to try to
understand better than they do now what this country is all
about? In this case it happens to be western Canada.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I thank the Secretary
of State for Western Economic Diversification for his question.
I would suggest that he does not make enough of those
announcements in the city of Brandon. Perhaps he could expand on
some of those announcements and I would be very happy to be a
part of them.
I do not think there is any doubt that it is always to our
benefit to listen to Canadians. The Progressive Conservative
Party has a task force under way that is listening to those
people who are homeless and who are dealing with poverty. We
deal with that task force from coast to coast. We would not be
able to learn the issues and to better deal with them if we did
not listen to the people who are at the root of those issues.
I have no doubt there will be some good that comes from this
particular task force. I have no doubt the task force initially
was developed and designed to try to elevate the Liberals'
profile in an area where their profile is very limited. Will it
work for the profile? Probably not. But the members of the
committee should well learn something from the people whom they
listen to. The people they are talking to certainly know the
areas better than the Liberal members do.
As was mentioned once before, I believe by a member from the
NDP, I too have some very strong opinions on those issues. I have
had the opportunity on occasion to share those opinions with
members of the government. Unfortunately they do not implement
those opinions as much as they should. They would do a much
better job if they did.
1155
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I really
would like to have a good one on one with the member. He spoke
about alienation and that the Reform Party has alienated the
country, which is absolutely silly. As a matter of fact if it had
not been for his party and the degree to which it alienated
Canadians, there would be no Reform Party. If the Progressive
Conservatives had not created the vacuum, there would be no
vacuum to fill. Really, they are experts in alienation.
Today we are trying to bring to parliament the concerns of
people across the entire country. I would hope the member would
use this occasion to enter the debate by showing us the concerns
from his part of the country and from his constituency. In my
riding around 60% of the people voted for me. The reason they
did is because of the fact that we have promised, and this is
true for candidates in our party right across the country, to
represent the riding. What is it in the member's riding which
causes people to feel alienated from Ottawa? That is the real
question we should ask.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, needless to say, the
people of my riding do not feel alienated because they have
elected me to represent them in this House. They did not elect
Reformers so I do speak in glowing remarks to the residents of my
community who had a very reasonable decision to make and made a
reasonable decision in not having Reform represent them.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as it has just come up, why are we here today? Why are
we debating this motion? We are giving the government members an
opportunity to hear the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast
to coast. That is what it is about, listening to their concerns.
Why do people want to be heard? What are their frustrations
right now? No matter where we go, people consistently tell us
over and over again that the Liberals are not doing their job. I
listen to dozens of people in this country. In Ontario people
are feeling alienated and frustrated and likewise in Nova Scotia.
These people are coming up with the same concerns that I hear in
British Columbia.
Last week I spoke with dozens and dozens of British Columbians.
I asked them if they had something to say to the government what
would it be. One response came up over and over again without
prompting them. I told them they had an opportunity to say
something to the Prime Minister, so what would they like to say?
They said there was contempt for parliament and a lack of
democracy. That came up in virtually every conversation.
One gentleman said to me that 38% of Canadians gave 100% of the
power to one man. He said that every four years we
democratically go to the polls to elect a dictator. There is no
question that far too much power centres around the Prime
Minister. They went on to say that there are numerous examples
in parliament that the Liberal backbenchers are nothing more than
sheep. They might as well send trained robots to Ottawa to do as
they are told. We have heard that over and over again. It is a
rubber stamp for these guys.
I spoke with Irv Koombes from Burnaby. He expressed alienation
that stemmed from the government's fundamental lack of respect
for members of parliament and the democratic process. He said
that he feels parliament treats British Columbians more like a
nuisance and at its worst its attitude borders on contempt. He
went on to say how can one help but not feel alienated from a
government that treats its own MPs like sheep. That came up over
and over again.
There are lots of examples. Members have been kicked out of
government for not voting with the government and now sit on
their own as independents.
1200
The most recent issue that comes to my mind, an issue respecting
crime, concerns the member from Ontario who brought forward a
private member's motion dealing with consecutive sentencing. To
make a long story short, this private member's bill was sent to
committee but the trained sheep were sent to committee to delete
the entire bill. It was outrageous and a contempt of parliament.
It was was absolutely inexcusable. These examples happen over
and over again.
Last year the member for Vancouver Quadra suggested to the Prime
Minister that the government should consider funding the legal
expenses for some of the protesters at the APEC trial. All he
was suggesting was a fair process.
Did the Prime Minister consider that suggestion? No. What did
he do? He punished the member by removing him as committee
chair. At the end of the day, the government came around so the
process could be fair, but because the member disagreed with the
government and the Prime Minister, out came the heavy club. These
are people from the Liberal member's own riding who are telling
me this information. This is the level of frustration we have.
The whole country was shocked earlier this year when Justice
Shaw struck down the law with respect to possession of child
pornography. Seventy Liberal members, MPs and senators from
across the country, including those from British Columbia, sent
the Prime Minister a letter asking him to immediately bring into
parliament legislation that would reinstate the law and make it
stronger or use the notwithstanding clause.
The Reform Party put its motion forward to deal with this as
expeditiously as possible. When this motion was put forward we
were not even aware of this letter. The letter came up after the
fact. What did the government do? It again brought out the
heavy club.
The Liberal members from British Columbia feel frustrated and
alienated because they cannot stand up and represent their views.
The government has no concern for them at all.
I personally witnessed it as a member of the fisheries
committee. In my very first year in parliament our committee
went out and did excellent work. When we were sometimes critical
of the government, how did it respond? It fired the chairman,
the member for Gander—Grand Falls, Newfoundland.
The member for Gander—Grand Falls, right now as we speak, is
speaking to the fisheries committee on the seals issue. Does any
member know whose time he is speaking on? He is speaking on
Reform's allocated time because the government does not provide
him with any. The Liberal member for Gander—Grand Falls, a
member of parliament for 24 years, is at the fisheries committee
speaking on the allocated time of the Reform Party of Canada. He
does not have a lot to offer because the government will not
provide him with anything. The government punishes him because
he is not a trained sheep. This is absolutely disgraceful.
I could speak here all day on the things I have heard from
British Columbians. A member from Victoria, a member who works
in the minister of fisheries' riding, told me that the government
considers British Columbians to be parasites; they literally suck
the life out of us and give nothing back. That is what a
parasite actually does. It literally sucks all the life out of
something and offers nothing in return. That is how this member
described the government.
According to the Liberal government, if British Columbians are
making too much noise, it throws them a bone once in a while to
keep them quiet and slow them down a bit. It thinks of British
Columbians as nuisances.
These are the exact comments, word for word, coming from British
Columbians that I have spoken to. It is an opportunity for the
Liberals to listen.
The government is also aware of this. What did it do? It knows
this is out there but is not dealing with it. It created a
committee called the western alienation committee. That
describes it in itself. When we have to create a committee
called the western alienation committee what does that tell us?
It tells us that there is no representation.
1205
There are opportunities for the government to act for British
Columbians. The federal government could push to renegotiate the
software lumber accord with the U.S. Two out of every five jobs
in British Columbia come directly or indirectly from the forestry
industry. It is suffering terribly partly because of the federal
government's policy with the softwood lumber accord. No, it is
not taking it to task. It is sitting on its hands and doing
nothing.
I heard throughout the province that the forestry communities
throughout British Columbia are devastated. Where is the
government? How come it is not standing up and fighting for us?
Let us be absolutely clear that when it negotiated and agreed on
the quotas with the U.S. in the softwood lumber agreement, it was
a Liberal member on the committee who negotiated that.
Ironically, the quotas for British Columbia went down while the
quotas for Ontario went up.
If I had to sum up the issues which are frustrating British
Columbia, the first issue would be the contempt of parliament and
the lack of accountability and democracy. That issue resonates
everywhere we go. They want people to come to Ottawa to
represent their views. They do not want Ottawa to tell them what
they think.
The second issue is taxes, taxes, taxes and tax fairness for the
family. They are outraged that the government could not support
a very simple motion. It only confirmed in their minds that the
government has its own agenda. It refuses to listen to the
people of Canada and, more importantly, the people of British
Columbia.
I spoke with a family from Surrey. This women received an
increase of $1.24 per hour 13 months ago and not one extra dime
has shown up on her pay cheque. It was all going into taxes. I
hope the government is listening.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's
comments, particularly with respect to the alienation in British
Columbia and its concern about the abuse of parliament. I
thought I would point out a couple of things and then ask him a
question.
Canadians have had three opportunities since the general
election to speak in a byelection. We seen how much they have
supported the Reform Party in that respect. Not only has it lost
all three, but as recently as last night the Reform Party went
down in its vote in Windsor—St. Clair. In fact, I think it got
a little more than 6% of the vote. That shows how its message is
resonating to Canadians.
What I found more important was the comment about the abuse of
parliament. I sit here every day and look across at the hon.
member who used to be the Reform Party defence critic. He had
the audacity to make his own decision about an issue that his
leader and the Reform Party did not like. What happened? The
Reform Party leader said that he had to be sentenced to sit out
of caucus and go into purgatory. That is Reform's new way of
discipline.
Several members on the other side are not particularly enamoured
with the united alternative initiative of their leader. My
goodness, they had the audacity to say it publicly and to have a
discussion on how concerned they were about it. What happened?
The whip of their party came out with the big hammer and sent out
a letter stating they must cease and desist.
I wish the hon. member would explain to me how those examples
are examples of the great new Reform way of not disciplining
members, of not ensuring that it has to be the leader's way?
Maybe the hon. member would like to explain that to me.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I will gladly explain. Our
party emphatically believes that we must represent the wishes of
our constituents, which we do all the time.
The member has mentioned the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla who
at one point in time was the defence critic and then the justice
critic. This member resigned his position as a critic on his
own. I am not going to go down there. He resigned on his own
and I will leave it at that.
1210
Let us talk about the member for York South—Weston who took a
principled stance on the GST, on a promise made by this
government. Again we are talking about accountability. He was
the only individual who voted against the government. It does
not matter whether it is hepatitis C or child pornography. Here
we had one on taxation. He voted against the government and
where does he sit? He sits on this side of the House. The
Liberals kicked him out of the party. They would have nothing to
do with him because he voted by his conscience and by the people
who sent him here.
I have been in Ottawa for two years. People ask me how I like
it and what is happening here. The only thing I can tell them is
that it is a disgrace to see that there is an absolute
dictatorship there. It is controlled by one individual. The
people out there are equally frustrated and the Liberals are sent
in here like trained sheep to heckle. They will not listen and
it is very unfortunate.
We need to change this institution. It is dysfunctional. Both
Chambers, the Senate and this one, do not represent the views of
Canadians. We need to ensure that all members of parliament have
more input. That is what we are talking about. We are talking
about true representation and true accountability so that the
views of Canadians are actually represented here.
There is no question that there are times when we want to
collectively be a force, but that should not cause people to be
fired and thrown out of their party into the opposition. It is
absolutely outrageous and a contempt of parliament to treat
people like that.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my
privilege to stand before the House today as the regional critic
for Alberta, to speak on behalf of Alberta and to explain how I
arrived at the questions I will be posing to the House today.
I got those questions by canvassing 26 ridings in Alberta. I
have enough to fill the rest of the afternoon with what they feel
has alienated them from the federal government.
First, they are insulted that a task force has to be sent to a
province where there are 24 MPs who would be glad to tell the
government and the Prime Minister of exactly the sorts of things
that alienate the people of the province I live in and represent.
I got involved in politics because I believed the message had to
come from the constituents to Ottawa and that all MPs should have
the opportunity to express themselves and to be listened to.
Just last night we were here talking about Kosovo. As the
foreign affairs critic, I have many points of view that I believe
Canadians would like to have expressed here. Of course no one
was here to listen. It was a take note debate. The motion had
no substance and of course there was no vote at the end of it.
That is the sort of blatant abuse that just disgusts people from
the province of Alberta.
I have the list that will save the Prime Minister and the member
for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia from having to visit our
province. Here are some of the things on the list that have
alienated our province.
First, we feel the federal government has become too intrusive
in provincial affairs. That is a claim that could come from most
provinces, specifically Quebec where a whole party was formed
that said it knew it could not make any changes so it was going
to separate. What a terrible option. Many people in my province
are saying that if the government keeps intruding the way it is,
they will not put up with it forever.
The millennium scholarship is an example. The provincial
education minister was not even consulted. There have been
health care cuts of 40%. The federal government continually
wants to blame the provinces for those cuts. On the environment,
the endangered species act keeps floating around this place,
again without consultation with the people who will make it
happen. Farmers, grassroots people, will save endangered
species. It will not be those on high in government. People are
responsible and do want to have input into legislation.
1215
We could go on. The flag money was mentioned many times in many
ridings, the waste of money by Ottawa and of course the Kosovo
situation and the vote which I have already alluded to.
The second item that was most often mentioned by the 26 ridings
in Alberta was the whole tax situation. The federal government
just does not get the message that taxes cost jobs. Taxes cost
this country in lost productivity. The incentive to work is
destroyed by high taxes. The government just does not get it.
Of course Alberta has led the way. We have the lowest taxes. We
are going to an 11% flat tax in 2002. That is leadership. The
federal government could learn a lot about that.
Taxes on petroleum and not on hydro has been brought forward by
many petroleum producers. There are taxes on private utility
companies like TransAlta while government run utility companies
are tax free. That is a penalty against the free enterprise
system which Alberta practises.
Then there is Kyoto and what that will mean for our province, as
well as the GST promises on which the government reneged. We do
not have a sales tax in our province and we do not want to have
the GST either.
There is unfair taxation on families. The EI surplus is being
taken as a tax. When only 38% of people can actually receive EI,
the rest is just tax money. Small business after small business
talked about the EI and the CPP. They said “Just be honest
about what you are doing”, but the federal government is not
doing that at this point. It is taxing us to death.
Third, there were many mentions of patronage. The CF-18 bill is
not dead yet in Alberta. We still remember that. I often have
said that in Alberta there are two things to be mentioned if one
wants to get elected. One is to mention the name of Mr. Trudeau
and the national energy program. Immediately individuals say “I
won't vote Liberal”. Then one has to mention the name Mr.
Mulroney and GST. That means “I can't vote PC”. We have
eliminated two parties right away just by saying those words. It
becomes pretty easy.
There is blatant patronage everywhere. Candidates who are
defeated end up on parole boards and all kinds of other boards
simply because they decided that they would be a Liberal
candidate. We have example after example. It makes people
furious that the Liberals are using taxpayers' money to reward
their friends.
The fourth is the judicial system. Albertans are concerned
about victims' rights. They are concerned about the soft Liberal
approach to justice. They are concerned that when a judge in
B.C. said it was okay to have child pornography the government
did not slam into that judicial system and say “That's wrong”.
That is wrong in anyone's books. They cannot understand how any
government can agree with child pornography. They just do not
understand how anyone who cares about anything could go along
with that sort of thing. It infuriates them.
Albertans are fed up with the very fact that the Young Offenders
Act is tampered with a bit, but that the real recommendations by
the committee are not looked at. The judges are making the laws.
The Prime Minister says that it is okay for judges to make laws,
that parliament should not have any say in that area.
Albertans find fighting for criminals' rights, whether they be
in Brazil or in Texas, distasteful.
The fifth is gun control. I received 13,000 letters in my
riding from people who wanted to talk to me about Bill C-68. They
are disgusted by it. I asked the justice minister to come to my
riding. I said that I would book the Centrium, which holds
approximately 10,000 people. I would pay the bill if she would
come to explain to me the justification for Bill C-68.
She has not said no. She has said she is very busy. But she
should come. She is our Alberta justice minister. If she is so
certain that the law is good, why will she not appear in front of
10,000 Albertans to justify it? Why will she not do that? What
is she afraid of if the law is so good? Again I challenge her to
accept the invitation, which she has now had for two months, to
come to Red Deer. I will make sure the crowd is there for her.
1220
I also noticed someone in an Edmonton paper reporting that they
bought an $800 dinner. It was donated by the minister. She now
has decided not to give the dinner because it was someone opposed
to gun control who bought it.
As far as the wheat board is concerned, let farmers have their
say.
There should be Senate elections. It is a slap in the face of
Albertans because we elected two senators and we want them to be
appointed, not some political hacks.
Then we had the Prime Minister's comments about the UN and not
being Canadian.
The message is “Wake up”. Albertans are entrepreneurial. We
are gaining population. We are gaining influence and we will
roll over the government if it does not start listening to us.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development)(Western Economic Diversification),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think an error was made by previous
speakers, which I am sure was unintentional. The official name
of the task force which has been referred to is the Prime
Minister's caucus task force on the four western provinces.
My question is very simple. I want to ask my colleague if he
personally has ever made any positive comments about the
Government of Canada's contributions to western Canadians or to
Alberta in particular.
I will give him a couple of examples that I think might be
useful.
He may not be aware that there are 14 centres of excellence in
Canada and that the University of Alberta is involved in 14 out
of 14. I think the University of Calgary is involved in 12 out
of 14. That is a pretty good score.
He may not know that since 1993, 1,790 schools and 72 libraries
have been connected in Alberta.
He may not know that the Small Business Loans Act backed 20,957
loans, valued at $1.4 billion, to Alberta SMEs.
He may not know that the National Research Council, through its
IRAP program—and these are people in the field working with
industry to try to bring ideas in order to commercialize
manufacturing as quickly as possible—provided support to 838
clients for 1,319 projects worth $26.7 million.
He may not know that the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada has invested since 1993 $132.6
million.
He may not know that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council has invested since 1993 over $24 million.
He may not know as well about the $40 million partnership that
Canada has with the province of Alberta that is going very, very
well.
Are these the kinds of things that the hon. member shares with
his constituents, with other Albertans and with other western
Canadians? Perhaps he could enlighten us.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon.
member for his comments, but I think he just proved the very
point, the very message that Albertans are sending. We want
government out of our lives. We do not want government giving
this and handing out that and taxing us more and more so that it
can spend our money for us. Leave the money in our pockets. We
are entrepreneurial. We are creative. We can take care of it.
The 1960 socialist philosophy of “government will take care of
everything” did not work anywhere. If it had the eastern bloc
countries would be leading the parade in the world today. But
they are not. They are collapsed and in decay because they had
too damned much government.
Get the message. Get out of our hair.
Let us run our province. We are proud Canadians. We want to be
Canadians. The government should not tax the very incentive out
of us and then hand it back through all of the programs that have
been so kindly mentioned.
1225
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, time has a
way of arranging things.
When the Bloc Quebecois formed the official opposition, its
members were making the same comments that Reformers are now
making. We said the same things in 1997.
Reformers are talking about overlap, duplication and federal
intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. That is what the Bloc
Quebecois was condemning, and continues to condemn.
The problem is that the federal government is making
increasingly deeper cuts in transfer payments to the provinces,
while intruding in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as
health and education with the millennium scholarships.
When the federal government intrudes in our jurisdictions, this
adversely affects regional development.
The Bloc Quebecois has been condemning such intrusions since
1993. Could it be that Rodrigue Biron influenced the Reform
Party during the united alternative convention? Is the Reform
Party motion the result of the convention to establish a new
united alternative party?
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, certainly Quebecers and
Albertans have a lot in common. The one difference is that we
have decided to try to change the system from within. That is
the big difference. Quebecers have decided that they cannot do
that and have taken another option.
I am saying to the government that it has to start listening to
regional concerns. That is the purpose of the supply motion
today, to give every province an opportunity to have its
grassroots views expressed and recorded, and hopefully the
government will respond.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
It is indeed a pleasure to take part in the debate today and to
say a few words about a topic affecting not only the regions of
the country but Canadians as a whole.
The opposition motion speaks about a government alienated from
the various regions of the land. My contribution to the debate
will be to offer a concrete example of federal presence in every
province, a positive presence that is a force for economic
growth, environmental sustainability and prosperity in all parts
of the country.
I am talking about the Government of Canada's nationwide system
of scientific research and technology development which
represents a significant contribution to the success of Canadian
agriculture. This network has a proud history of over 100 years.
It has given Canada new crops and scientific advances that have
transformed this nation and continue to contribute to our
economic growth.
This includes Marquis wheat, canola, the Shepody potato and the
new frontier of plant biotechnology, just to name a few. Marquis
wheat transformed the Canadian west by giving Canadian farmers a
variety suited to the harsh winters and short growing seasons of
the Canadian prairies.
The impact of canola on Canadian farmers, particularly in the
west, cannot be underestimated. It has made a tremendous
contribution to the prairie farm economy by providing an
alternative to King wheat. Not only has it provided an
alternative, but this year, for the first time ever, it has
outperformed wheat, as far as grains are concerned, in western
Canada. That is the first time in history that has happened.
The Shepody potato is one of 23 potato varieties developed by
federal scientists. It alone accounts for 15% of Canadian potato
production and is ranked number two among varieties for french
fry production. This variety and this particular research is the
underpinning of the economy of my province of Prince Edward
Island and also contributes greatly to the economies of the
provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta, as well as to
the economies of many nations around the world to whom we sell
our seed potatoes.
Canada's pioneering federal researchers have put Canada in the
lead to develop new products and processes that will make
Canadian agriculture more productive and environmentally suitable
and sustainable.
1230
These are some of the tangible benefits of federal agricultural
research. The Government of Canada spends $350 million a year to
conduct this research in all regions of the country for the
benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast.
Agriculture and agri-food's 18 research centres have formed the
backbone of Canadian agri-food research. There is at least one
research centre in every province. These centres represent a
system that is both national in scope and regional in focus.
These centres also collaborate with their counterparts in the
industry, academia and provincial governments to form a powerful
research community with links across the country. Each federal
centre has a specialized research focus reflecting the industry
strengths of the region in which it is located.
Federal researchers and scientists have well earned
international reputations for their skill and expertise which
they use to help all Canadians regardless of region.
The livestock research in Lethbridge and Lacombe is helping
producers in more than just Alberta. Biotechnology research in
Saskatoon is helping create jobs well beyond Saskatchewan. Food
research in Quebec and Ontario is creating opportunities for
growth in every region of this country.
Research efforts and resources are meeting regional needs
through the matching investment initiative as well. This is a
program that brings government and industry together in joint
research projects.
In 1998-99 the Government of Canada and its partners in industry
collaborated on over 860 projects with a combined investment of
more that $58 million. Investment through this initiative is
projected to reach the level of $70 million by the year 2000.
Federal research in agriculture also focuses efforts in the
vital area of sustainability. Work done by both the research
branch and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency aims to improve
the environmental performance of agriculture in areas such as
integrated pest management, conservation tillage and animal waste
treatment.
Federal research is also focusing on ways to use water and
fertilizers more effectively. This means improved soil
structure, better conservation of water and a reduction of
so-called greenhouse gases that are behind global warming.
Federal agricultural research is helping to shape the future of
agriculture. In many ways it is helping to ensure that there
will be a future for agriculture. That is what makes the
research done in federal research centres so important to
Canadians whether they are farmers or consumers.
The agri-food industry is responsible for 9% of our gross
domestic product and provides jobs for 1.8 million Canadians.
These people are found in B.C., on the prairies, in central
Canada, in the maritimes and in the north.
Our nationwide network of federal research centres and expertise
is the foundation on which this essential industry is built.
The Government of Canada is indeed responding to the needs of
Canadians in all regions. One of the ways we are doing it is
through our investment in research and technology development.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the speech that was just given and I am somewhat
puzzled.
In a province like Alberta the Liberals had very little support
in the last election. All of these programs which the Liberals
like to crow about really do not deliver that much support.
I recommend to the Liberal members that they listen to
Canadians. I guess we are all guilty of this to a degree. I
think it is human nature. We tend to see things, read things and
interpret them based on our own experience and our own
predisposition to what we believe is true. That is one of the
foibles of human nature.
If the Liberal members really listened, they would find that
people in western Canada, and this is probably true across the
country, want fewer programs and less government interference in
their lives. We want the government to give us freedom.
The government does not know how offended people in western
Canada and in the prairie provinces are when there is a distant
government in Ottawa with an Ontario majority. Ontarians are not
subject to the rules of the wheat board act but the government
imposes a wheat board on western farmers. It takes away their
total freedom and forces them to sell their grain through that
one agency when what they want is freedom.
1235
When the government puts a referendum out with two options,
neither of which is their first option and then claims that they
have listened to the people, that is the stuff of which
alienation is made.
I would like to hear the response of the member to that kind of
thing, the programs and just not listening to the people.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I think we will recognize
that question is a very peculiar one.
The member seems to imply that we should not be spending any
money in Alberta because they did not support us electorally as
much as he thinks they should have. As a national government we
do not do these things for the support we may garner here or
there, but for what is good for the whole country as a nation
from coast to coast.
If the member is suggesting we should not do anything in Alberta
because we only have two or three members there, then that is a
very peculiar way to think about how a national government should
be running the country. We are as concerned about the problems
in Alberta as we are concerned about the problems in the north or
in Newfoundland or in my own province of P.E.I.
That is the way a true national government looks at things. This
is why the previous speaker from the Conservative Party was
saying this party represents alienation itself. They grow fat on
alienation. This is why we have this topic here. They should be
looking at ways where we can share and co-operate and be partners
as the Fathers of Confederation envisioned it many years ago.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, just as a follow up, it is not
that the Reformers feed on alienation. Wrong. Just stop to
think. Had the Liberals and the Conservatives before them and the
Liberals before them done a decent job for Quebec, had they done
a decent job for western Canada, there would be no Bloc party,
there would be no Reform Party.
How could we possibly have told the people to vote for us
because we are going to do for them something they were already
happy with? Why would they switch their allegiance? On the
other hand, if we came up with something that they are not happy
with, they would most certainly stay with the party that they had
been supporting and would not support a new one.
The new party is not a cause of the problem. It is a symptom of
the problem. As far as I am concerned, those members are missing
the point.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the
Liberal Party of Canada has been in existence since the beginning
of this country and will still be here for many more decades,
long after that party is but a figment of somebody's imagination.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to enter the debate today on this very important
topic. I want to emphasize a federal presence in one of our
regions, that being the west.
Frankly, I am a little astounded at any insinuation that the
federal government is alienating itself from the regions. It is
really all quite silly on the part of the Reform Party but I
suppose in that sense it is not surprising.
I wonder if my hon. colleague from the Reform Party who is
proposing the motion has had an opportunity recently to look in
the phone book. The presence of federal departments and agencies
is quite astounding and remarkable. We are in all the places
people would expect us to be, for example in the metropolitan
centres like Winnipeg and Vancouver, but we are also as a federal
government in communities like Bruno, Saskatchewan and
Bonnyville, Alberta. All key federal departments have offices
throughout western Canada.
It is much more than just that. Using our own department,
Western Economic Diversification Canada as a primary example let
me highlight how wide reaching this government's efforts are in
this area.
First of all, with respect to western Canada business service
network, I note that western diversification and its partners
have over 100 points of service across western Canada serving
urban and rural communities from Lac du Bonnet to the Queen
Charlotte Islands. In that sense we are still growing and that
is important to note. The headquarters are in Edmonton and there
are offices, four of them actually, in Vancouver, Edmonton,
Saskatoon and Winnipeg, and satellite offices in Calgary and
Regina.
1240
Western diversification plays a unique role in helping the
western economy to grow. That is its purpose. It works closely
with the people of western Canada. This includes aboriginal
peoples, youth, communities and industry leaders throughout that
part of Canada.
We advance the interests of the west. We advocate on behalf of
businesses in the west. Our government provides integrated
services to small business in that area, for example, advice on
financing options, help with business planning, exporting, and
selling to government. All of these are important things and
aspects to western Canadians.
We work with financial institutions to provide loans to new
economy sectors. Western diversification contributes to loan
loss reserves to lever small business loan capital. We also
provide up to $57 million toward a lever for a total of $439
million in small business loan capital. This represents a
leverage ratio of nearly 8:1 which is important to note.
The international trade personnel program and first jobs program
match small businesses with recent graduates, all in the effort
to help our young people. We provide small businesses with the
cash flow to hire young people and provide young people with a
first job opportunity. It is also important to note that since
1995 our government has provided over 900 jobs to young people in
western Canada.
It is also important to highlight at this point the existence of
four women's enterprise centres, one in each of the western
provinces. There are five satellite offices. This meets the
needs of women in business. It offers financing, counselling and
advice. Over the course of time, 17,000 women have trained and
1,600 loans worth over $10 million in the last four years have
been made evident. This supports and shows the difference we
make to the lives of western Canadians.
There are also 90-plus community future development corporations
across the west. Seven are aboriginal exclusive. This program
provides focal points for the delivery of western diversification
services outside the major cities covering all non-metropolitan
areas in western Canada. I also want to point out that between
1995 and 1998, 8,100 loans worth $171 million and over 28,000
jobs were created as a result of this. That too underscores our
commitment.
There also are four Canada business service centres, one in each
of the western provinces, which provide one-stop shopping for
business services. Thousands of entrepreneurs have made this
their focal point of contact for business services each year.
Expansion of services to rural areas are part of this with 97
regional access sites being established.
Over 1,000 volunteers are part of the western Canada business
service network. This month in Jasper, Alberta western
diversification is participating in the first ever pan-western
conference which will bring together international and other
partners in this area and volunteers. That too is important to
note.
Let me turn now to the role of regional agencies in western
Canada. Western diversification and its counterparts represent
the interests of all regions in the west. Through regional
partners they develop an in-depth understanding of the needs and
requirements of their region. They deliver national and regional
programs on behalf of the federal government. For example, it
administers infrastructure works programs in western Canada and
it partners with provinces and municipalities to upgrade
transportation and local services.
We have noted over the past while $747 million in funding with
over 5,300 projects and over 35,000 jobs. They are agents of
economic development and job creation. All of this says that we
are flexible, responsible and accessible in this very important
region of Canada.
In the process, there is a focus on client needs and local
people responding to local concerns. Our government has also
shown the importance of responding to communities in need, for
example the Manitoba flood. Total federal funding of $224 million
in assistance was provided for flood relief and flood protection.
The response of western diversification was immediate and
creative. Our government put teams of personnel on the road to
search out affected small businesses and provide them with
start-up money to resume their operations.
1245
I would now like to talk a bit about aboriginal initiatives. As
the federal government in this important region we provide
integrated services to our aboriginal people. I should note that
63% of Canada's aboriginal population resides in the west. Last
week our colleague, the Minister of Industry, announced a $21
million package to improve business development opportunities for
aboriginal peoples with western diversification contributing
one-third of that funding.
The aboriginal business development initiative is expected to
result in 900 new businesses and 2,000 new jobs, and many of them
will in fact be in western Canada.
I should also point out that an aboriginal business services
network was built on existing infrastructure and will provide
enhanced business services to aboriginal entrepreneurs. This
initiative will also see increased access to capital for
aboriginal businesses.
We have over the course of time made a $950,000 contribution to
the Aboriginal Business Development Centre in Winnipeg to
encourage entrepreneurship among urban aboriginal people. For
example, $5 million recently was set aside to establish the
Saskatchewan Indian Federation College, the only native
controlled college in Canada.
I also want to point to technology and innovation in this very
important region in Canada. First of all let me say that
knowledge and innovation is a revolutionizing industry. Even
traditional resource industries of the west have become high
tech. We are marking a new era of scientific research and
technological innovation in Canada as we move into the 21st
century, and much of this is in fact taking place in the west.
I want to turn for a minute to the Canada Foundation for
Innovation. Through the Canada Foundation for Innovation the
federal government is modernizing research infrastructure at
universities and research hospitals. Two weeks ago, for example,
the foundation approved a $56 million contribution to the
Canadian light source project at the University of Saskatchewan.
It will become one of the largest scientific projects ever built
in Canada. It will enable Canadian scientists to conduct world
class research at home. It will enhance the reputation of
Saskatoon and the country as a whole, I should point out. It
will create an expected 500 jobs and millions of dollars in
economic activity.
With respect to connecting Canadians, I want to point out that
the government has made connecting Canadians one of its primary
goals. The aim is to make Canada the most connected country in
the year 2000. We are establishing public Internet sites in
rural and remote communities across the west. We have connected
183 community access sites in Saskatchewan alone.
Finally I would point out the National Research Council and the
industrial research assistance program, IRAP, need some
discussion. Under the National Research Council we have $31
million in additional investment earmarked for the next three
years. An extensive network of IRAP contributors and research
institutes across the west is also in place.
All these things provide an overview of what we are doing in
western Canada. They are important initiatives.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
during his speech the member mentioned that the government was
responding to the needs of aboriginal peoples in the west. The
fact is that the government completely ignored an enormous amount
of input that came from aboriginal peoples with regard to the
Native Land Management Act, to the point now that the bill has
gone to the other place, the Senate, and the Senate has to amend
it.
With credit at least to the member for Vancouver Quadra, he
admitted there was a problem with the bill. In fact he publicly
stated that it was badly flawed, but he failed to follow through
at vote time.
How does the member think his constituents feel when their MP
speaks out against something and then votes the opposite way in
the House? No wonder there is alienation. It is not the least
bit surprising.
The member also said it was silly to say that the Liberals did
not understand what was happening in the west. I have to ask him
why then set up a task force. Why did the Prime Minister do
that?
In addition, it seems that basically all the government can do
is talk about its western economic diversification program as if
it somehow answers all of the frustrations in the west. What a
pathetic and pitiful example that is. I doubt that western
diversification appears in the top 500 concerns of people out
west.
1250
Where is the discussion about criminal refugee problems? Where
is the discussion about the Young Offenders Act? Where is the
discussion about the lumber quota problems out there?
Let us have some real substance instead of this nonsense about a
diversification fund that might help some business somewhere. The
businesses in my riding and out west would rather have tax relief
and get rid of the western diversification fund.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I want to reply to the
question in terms of what we as a government are doing in western
Canada.
We talk about the variety of issues that hon. member raised. We
do so on a continuing basis. It is important to engage the
Canadian people wherever they may live in this great country of
ours in the kind of debate that is necessary to provide good
government.
We are very proud of economic diversification and what it does
for people in the west. It is a very good foundation upon which
to build. Businesses, aboriginal people, young people and all
kinds of western Canadians benefit as a result.
I am very proud of what our government has accomplished in this
area. I will repeat what I said at the outset. I find it quite
silly that members of the Reform Party, in their usual extremist
views and their usual attempt to alienate people and pit people
against each other, would go to this extent. It is a kind of sad
reflection on them in terms of how they think, but I guess it is
the reality of where they are coming from.
I am more for our government being an inclusive government, as
opposed to the Reformers who exclude people, who want to break
people apart and who do those kinds of things to the detriment of
Canada. I do not want any part of that and most Canadians do not
either.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, there has
been a massive withdrawal of federal presence in the north. The
privatization of Navigation Canada has meant that where food has
to be flown in it is now incredibly expensive. There is a
withdrawal of flood watch warnings and the weather station. The
air traffic control tower will completely leave Yukon.
On top of that we now have three territories in the north with
roughly equivalent populations, but Yukon gets $200 million a
year less in transfer payments than either of the other two
territories.
It is a sense of almost not belonging because the federal
presence has been so withdrawn from the north. I can understand
the difference in the geography and wanting to compensate the
other two territories so that they have the extra money, but I
cannot justify a difference of $200 million. I would like the
hon. member to comment on that.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I emphasize that the
Government of Canada continues to want to provide and will
continue to provide the kinds of services that are required for
any of our regions no matter where they exist in Canada
including, and especially in the north, Yukon and the other two
territories.
It is fundamental that we as a federal government ensure that
there is a federal presence to make sure that the quality of life
for people, not only in the north but across this great country
of ours, is sustained in a fashion that we have taken for granted
over the years and is consistent with the values that we share
and cherish as Canadians.
I know that the federal government will continue to do that in a
manner that is meaningful for people wherever they may live.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the motion before the House today reads:
That this House condemns the government for alienating itself
from the regions of Canada by failing to identify and address the
concerns and issues of those regions, and as a symbolic first
step towards taking responsibility for all of the regions of
Canada, the government should rename the Liberal committee on
western alienation the “Liberal Alienation Committee”.
The depths to which western alienation goes are so deep that I
do not really know where to begin or where to end. Let me start
with the Liberal alienation committee.
I represent the constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt in the
province of Saskatchewan. The Liberal government did not even
bother to appoint a single person from Saskatchewan to the
Liberal alienation committee.
1255
Worse than that, three of the ten members of the task force are
senators. Ironically one of the biggest sources of western
alienation is the unelected, unaccountable and unequal Senate.
With these senators there, it makes me wonder exactly how the
logistics will work. Will they fly a plane in from Mexico, pick
them up with a bus and stop by the penitentiary on the way to the
consultations? Exactly how will it work?
Sending senators to Saskatchewan to find out why we feel
alienated is like sending Bill Clinton to consult with sexually
harassed women. It does not make a lot of sense. They are the
source of our alienation. They are the reason we feel resentment
and we feel alienated.
The fact of the matter is that southern Ontario and southern
Quebec have more members of parliament than all the rest of
Canada combined. The modus operandi of those MPs is to pacify
the rest of Canada with lip service. We do not have any
meaningful representation either here or in the Senate. Policy
after policy is passed contrary to the wishes and the interests
of western Canadians.
If the Liberal government were interested in addressing the
alienation, why did the Prime Minister appoint a senator from
Alberta despite the fact that Alberta had already elected the
senator it wanted to be appointed? That is a slap in the face.
Then he has the audacity to strike a committee to come out there
to find out why we feel alienated. What kind of leadership is
that? We know there will be another Senate vacancy because a
current Saskatchewan senator has been convicted of an infamous
crime and his removal from the Senate is imminent.
Since there is an upcoming election in Saskatchewan why does the
Prime Minister not offer Saskatchewan the opportunity to elect
its senator and appoint the democratically elected person? He
will not though, will he? He is the prime minister in control of
the direction of the country. Why does he not reform the Senate?
We have been asking for that for years.
I could use many examples, but I will just pick a couple to
illustrate the point. There is the language policy of the
federal government. I accessed numbers from the public accounts
of Canada which showed that last year the federal government
spent a quarter of a billion dollars, $250 million, to fund the
official languages program.
I find it absolutely incredible that it tries to justify this
kind of expenditure while in Saskatchewan hospital waiting lists
are growing, our nurses are not paid well and are on strike right
now as I speak, ordinary Canadians are having trouble making ends
meet, and our taxation levels are absolutely burdensome. The
government does not have a problem throwing a quarter of a
million dollars into a program that quite frankly alienates and
irritates us.
I will give another example. There is currently an income
crisis among farmers in Saskatchewan. In January, while the
House was not sitting, the eight Reform members of parliament
from Saskatchewan conducted an extensive series of town hall
meetings throughout the entire province to hear from farmers, to
hear their views. It was publicly announced and open to
everybody including the agriculture minister, but where was he?
He was on vacation in the sunny south.
I do not begrudge the minister taking a vacation once in a
while, but did he have to do it at the exact time we were facing
a crisis which falls within the purview of his responsibilities
as minister of agriculture? Why was he not out there listening
to the concerns of farmers? Nonetheless, I do not mind doing it.
That is my job and I was pleased to be part of that process.
The eight Reform MPs from Saskatchewan put together a two page
letter which outlined the concerns of farmers and suggested ways
the agriculture minister could change the program to meet the
needs of the farmers it was supposedly designed to help. That
letter was written on February 4 and there was no response from
the agriculture minister.
1300
On February 22 I sent him another letter asking for a response,
and there was no response. On March 29 I urgently appealed to
him. I pointed out that spring was right around the corner, that
farmers were in a crunch, and that more deficiencies in the
program had revealed themselves since he has made it official and
the forms were now available. The program is fraught with
problems and difficulties. He responded yesterday, the day
before we had the debate on western alienation. Is that not
ironic?
The Liberal government wants to know why we feel alienated. We
are consulting the people. As an elected representative I write
letters to the minister. I come before the House of Commons to
explain and debate the issues, and it falls on deaf ears. He
would not even respond to my letter.
I will use another example, that of the minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board. All the times last year we were before
the House of Commons to debate reforms to the Canadian Wheat
Board which we advocate must happen, we spoke on behalf of the
farmers who elected us and sent us here. The minister for the
Canadian Wheat Board was not here once to hear us. He was here
when he spoke at the outset of consideration of the bill and then
he was gone.
We were here talking to the walls and they wonder why we feel
alienated. Every day we come before the House to explain the
feelings of westerners. I am a westerner; I represent
westerners. They ignore us and then strike a Liberal alienation
committee to find out why westerners feel alienated.
The government will not table its schedule of where the Liberal
alienation committee will be. It does not want the people to
know where it will be because it will get flak.
I definitely speak for the vast majority of the residents of
Saskatchewan. Perhaps it is not unanimous but it is close.
Firearm registration, as everybody knows, will do nothing but
target law-abiding owners of firearms. They look to me for
leadership and ask me to do something.
I had a motion before the House in September to repeal the
legislation and replace it with legislation that targets the
illegal use of firearms. The Liberals voted against it. Last
month I tabled a private member's bill that targets the criminal
use of firearms, the 10-20 life law which will be debated
Thursday evening in the House. What did the Liberal committee
do? It was deemed non-votable.
I see my time is running short. That is unfortunate because I
have many examples; I am barely getting started. In closing, I
did not have an opportunity to speak to the last Liberal speaker.
He mentioned the Canada Foundation for Innovation fund and the
Synchrotron light source of Saskatoon. I would like him to know
that when the former Liberal MP from that riding was defeated the
next day she said that Saskatchewan would pay for not re-electing
a Liberal MP.
Damage control went in and some Liberal strategists negated
that. At a press conference last month when the decision was
announced, her name and the name of another former Liberal MP
from Saskatoon were mentioned. Talk about a political ploy. The
Minister of Industry and the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board, the only Liberal MP from Saskatchewan, were
there.
If this is an arm's length fund that administers funds for basic
research, which is good and which it should, what are the Liberal
MPs and ministers doing there? They are making political hay out
of it and westerners resent that. We do not need our votes
bought. We want accountable government.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development)(Western Economic Diversification),
Lib.): Madam Speaker, first I want to know whether my
colleague believes that the decision taken by the Canadian
Foundation for Innovation, an independent organization which
makes decisions based upon the evaluation of peers, the very best
in the field, determining whether or not something should be
supported, was a good decision for Saskatoon and a good decision
for Canada.
My second point concerns the Official Languages Act. I have two
questions in this regard. Does my colleague realize that when he
quotes figures it provides translation services for our
colleagues from Quebec who want to express themselves very often
in their first language.
[Translation]
They want to speak their first language, French.
1305
[English]
Does he realize as well that it involves services that we
require in order to speak to people who do business with Canada
from other countries? It is not simply money that is tossed
away. Why is it that he and the Reform Party are so irritated by
the French language? What is with them?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, his first question was
whether the decision of the CFI was a good decision. I assume
that it must have been because I believe an independent arm's
length body made the decision. Since this has been done and it
is an independent arm's length decision, why do Liberal MPs have
to be there to try to take the credit for it?
People in Saskatoon are not stupid. They saw right through
that. It is insulting for them to have even been there. Why did
they not send the officials from the CFI to make the
announcement, as it should be?
On that topic I point out that basic scientific research funding
is a reasonable role of government. It is something that private
industry cannot do or is unwilling to do.
When government spends $500 million to fund special interest
groups, the grants and giveaways to all its millennium projects
and regional development funds that it hands out all the time,
that is not a legitimate role of government. That is another
source of western alienation: the size of government and the
waste of money. More money could be spent on good projects like
the Synchroton light source if the government did not mismanage
its finances such as it does.
His second question with respect to the Official Languages Act
asked whether I realized that some of the money was spent
for translation purposes and doing business with other countries,
et cetera. Of course I do and I think that is wonderful. We should
go to whatever extent we can to accommodate members in the House
whose first language is not English. That is not a problem, but
does it have to cost $250 million a year? The hon. member knows
full well that only a small fraction of that money is spent on
legitimate government language services.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am not exactly the youngest member in the House. I
have lived in my home province for a long time. I have never
seen more of an irritant in my province, and I am sure in the
other provinces, as the AIDA package that just came out.
I am keeping track of this and I will make a pronouncement right
now that the agitation in the west is so great there will be more
of these forms thrown in the wastepaper basket than will be
returned to the government. It costs up to $500 for those who
are not computer based to get the forms filled out.
In the experience of my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt, are
his farmers as irritated as mine? I have only had two farmers
admit that they filled out the forms. I wonder what will be the
result in the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, I have spoken to several
accountants and accounting firms to find out how many farmers are
actually filling out their forms. As near as I can tell it will
be about 15%, and about 20% of them will actually qualify for
assistance. Only a small fraction of farmers harmed by the
failure of the Liberal government to address the trade
deficiencies internationally by which all farmers are harmed will
actually receive any compensation.
The end result of what my hon. colleague refers to is that
western alienation will increase, and calls for Senate reform and
for the heads of Liberal MPs will continue to increase.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to today's supply motion. My point is
to qualify clearly that the Liberals have lost complete track of
the electoral populace and that constituents have lost faith in
them.
Yesterday we heard the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia state that task force members met with over 60
individuals and organizations across Manitoba. I congratulate
those individuals for even being able to find the elusive Liberal
task force. Nobody even knows what its schedule is.
1310
If the committee actually listens to western Canadians its ears
will be burning. However I doubt that the Liberal caucus will
learn much of substance from this task force for the Liberal
disposition for not being able to face the truth will likely
reign supreme.
I am certain many people from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British
Columbia are very pleased to learn that the Liberal alienation
committee plans to come to their province. I know numerous
people in my home province of British Columbia who would love to
meet with this task force and explain the facts of life in
Canadian politics to them.
I challenge them to release its schedule and ensure that all
members of the public are welcome to explain why they feel
abandoned, taxed to death and sick over the current state of the
health care system among many other things.
For the first 31 years of my life I lived in southern Ontario. I
recently spent a good deal of time particularly in southwest
Ontario. In this Liberal dominated province one would think that
constituents would be pleased to be a part of the government
majority. Family, friends, acquaintances and even perfect
strangers have been telling me about their very strong concerns
about how the government operates.
I would like to offer the top 10 concerns the people of Ontario
have given to me about the Liberal government. These are not my
words but what they would like conveyed in the House today.
Tenth, the Liberals have little or no grassroots involvement.
The concept of actually having a bottom up form of government and
ensuring that the people, the voters, the electorate, the ones
who sent them here, actually have a say in what is going on is
unheard of in the Liberal government. The concept is lost in the
House.
Ninth, the Liberals are not accountable for their actions. As
often as questions are raised on issues of the day, the Liberal
government refuses to be accountable for its actions. A classic
case in point is the hepatitis C debacle. Clearly the Liberal
government erred in only including some of the hepatitis C
victims in its compensation package. It was an obvious error and
many of its backbenchers felt so. Yet the Liberals refused to
account for and correct their past mistakes.
Eighth, the Liberal government is arrogant. The Liberal
government knows no bounds. The decision making process in the
House of Commons is an insult to democracy. The Liberal
government has limited debate in one form or another 50 times
since it was first elected in 1993. No other government in
Canada's history has reached this number so quickly. I find that
absolutely appalling.
Seventh, the Liberals run roughshod with aboriginal affairs. The
people of Ontario are dismayed with the callous way the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deals with
people, native and non-native alike, in Ontario.
The people of Chatham—Kent were recently outraged when the
Liberal government initiated a new reserve in their area. The
outrage was not aimed at the need for settlement of aboriginal
claims but was aimed at the Liberals for not working with the
local residents. The residents wanted to be assured that the
planned reserve would be compatible with current land uses and
that an environmental impact assessment was completed.
In 1995 Dudley George was shot and killed at Ipperwash. The
dispute around Ipperwash Provincial Park has been ongoing for
some time now, yet the Liberal government insists that it knows
what is best. The people of Ontario are still waiting for
answers from the government for actions taken at Ipperwash four
years ago.
Sixth, the Liberals have poor ethics. In the 1993 Liberal red
book the Liberals stated that they would appoint an independent
ethics counsellor who would report directly to parliament.
Here we are in 1999 and guess what? The ethics commissioner has
been appointed by the Prime Minister but he reports only to the
Prime Minister. This in itself creates a conflict since the
current debate over ethics concerns the Prime Minister's
shenanigans in Shawinigan. The office of the ethics commissioner
only works when it is viewed as being unbiased by all. This is
not the case today.
1315
Fifth, the Liberals disregard the auditor general. Only in
Canada could the office and authority of the auditor general be
so blatantly ignored. At this time the auditor general has not
signed off on the past two budgets of this government. The
accounting method for balancing the federal budget has been
called into question. New accounting methods have been invented.
Other recommendations by the auditor general's office are
blatantly ignored.
Although the auditor general recommended more intensive efforts
of consulting with parliament be made with regards to
federal-provincial equalization payments, no such efforts have
ever been made.
Fourth, the Liberals are not trusted. For many people of
Ontario the level of trust for the Liberal government is at an
all time low. While the bank accounts of the average Canadian
decreases, the finance department dips into the EI surplus in
order to help balance the budget.
The conclusion drawn by Ontarians is that just prior to the next
federal election being called, all sorts of election goodies are
going to be carted out. The people of Ontario are not blind to
this action. This sort of chicanery is obvious and will be
remembered by the electorate when they have their say at the next
general election.
Third, the Liberals gag their backbenchers. Pavlov would be
proud with the lever of control that the Prime Minister has over
the Liberal backbenchers. The Liberal backbenchers are not
allowed to speak out on behalf of their own constituents. It was
sad to watch as Liberal members in an obvious conflict with their
conscience, were not given the opportunity to vote as their
constituents would have mandated on motions such as hepatitis C,
child pornography and assorted private member's bills.
The Liberal backbench is under such tight control that these
Ontario members must dread returning to their ridings and
answering to the concerns of their own electorate. I cannot
imagine how I would feel if I could not look a constituent in the
eye and tell him or her that I was able to vote on any given
issue with a clear conscience.
Second, the Liberals have destroyed the health care system. The
Liberals have done more to institute a two tier health care
system than any other government in Canada. Since 1993 the
Liberal government has reduced the Canada health and social
transfer by over $21 billion. Then the government had the
audacity to put token amounts back into the CHST and ask to be
thanked. One of my hon. colleagues has described this as like
thanking the mugger for bus fare after he stole your wallet.
While the federal Liberals were taking money out of the CHST,
the Ontario provincial government was putting money in. Between
1995 and 1998, it actually increased provincial health care
spending by $1.2 billion, more than any other province. Why did
it do this? It had no other alternative in the face of the
massive Liberal gutting of the health care system of this
country.
These are indisputable facts and yet the Minister of Health
criticizes the Harris government for reducing taxes instead of
spending more on health care.
The number one reason Ontarians do not trust the Liberal
government is simply because of overtaxation. No matter who I
talk to or where I am in Ontario, people are concerned with the
high level of taxation they have to endure.
Why is it that a family earning what should be a reasonable
income can just make financial ends meet? If they live frugally
they can just get by. Single income families face greater
taxation than the dual income family earning the same amount. EI
payroll taxes are higher than the actuary recommends. Bracket
creep sucks millions of dollars out of the national economy and
into the federal government's coffers. Yet the Liberals just do
not get it.
As this motion states, I hope that if nothing else the Liberals
will heed the call to listen, not just here but actually listen
to what Ontarians and other Canadians are saying. Communication
is a two way process and right now Liberals are not listening.
Ontarians and Canadians are not satisfied with the Liberal
government for the Liberals have successfully alienated every
part of this country.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite why his own party has
been ignoring the growing western alienation that the Reform
Party is facing by its grassroots supporters.
As an example, I want to draw the attention of this House to a
radio broadcast that was on CBC Radio as I drove from my riding
of York North to Ottawa yesterday.
There were two grassroots members of the Reform Party and one
member representing GUARD, a group that is very concerned about
the demise of the Reform Party.
1320
I cannot begin to tell members how absolutely appalled and upset
these individuals were that the leadership of the Reform Party
was trying to foist a united alternative on their grassroots
memberships without even the slightest bit of consultation or
understanding of some of the issues that westerners face.
I ask the member opposite, why is his party ignoring alienation,
lacking consultation and not listening to the people in his own
party whom he professes to represent?
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled
to be able to get up and answer that question. It is obviously
apparent that the Liberals have no idea about what is going on in
the Reform Party today. The reason they do not is because such
an open process of democratic decision making is total foreign to
them. They have no idea of this huge grassroots exercise that is
going on in this country to determine the future of the Reform
Party and ultimately the future of Canada.
There has never been a more transparent process of trying to
bring together like-minded Canadians across the country than what
is going on with the united alternative today. If the hon. member
ever cared to, she could come out and be an observer at these
meetings and see what is actually going on.
Rather than listening to the radio, why does the member not get
out there and really see what is going on in the grassroots
because that is what Reform is all about? We are proud to have
that kind of dissent in our party. At the end of the day, we
will go forward to make this country a better Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I kind of got a kick out of listening to the question
coming from the other side. I would like the hon. member to know
that he answered it quite correctly.
I am not afraid to stand in the House and say I am in
disagreement with the united alternative. This does not mean I
am in disagreement or at odds with my leader. It just means I am
not afraid to come out in public and state my concerns because I
know I will not have to sit in some far off place like the
members of the Liberal Party, or ex-members of the Liberal Party,
after they have talked about the government. The members in that
democratic party across the way either agree with what their
leader says or they shut up.
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, this hon. colleague of
mine standing up and saying what he has said is just an absolute
example of what I was saying previously.
It is an open and honest debate in our party. We brought this
motion to the floor of the House today because we do not believe
that Canadians across the country are well served at all by the
undemocratic attitudes and actions of the Liberal Party which
controls the Government of Canada today.
We would not have this kind of open debate in the country today
if the Liberal Party was doing the same thing as we are.
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of the government and especially as Secretary
of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the
Reform Party motion which, as my colleague, the Secretary of
State for Science, Research and Development mentioned earlier,
can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Basically I understand that this Reform Party motion is a
further illustration of the attitude adopted since 1993 by
opposition parties as a whole, but more particularly by that
one, a negative attitude, which runs contrary to the democratic
meaning of constructive opposition.
1325
I respectfully submit that we and Canadians as a whole should be
entitled to constructive opposition. Unfortunately, the
opposition parties as a whole tend too often to play petty
politics. The interests of Canadians are too important for the
government to put up with such rhetoric.
Since 1993, the government and the members of the Liberal Party
have worked hard to manage public money in a responsible manner
and to develop our regions' economy according to the realities
in our country.
This morning I went to the archives to read a speech given in
1969 by Jean Marchand, a famous politician we are proud of as
Quebeckers and Canadians, when what was then called the
Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established. It
was obvious from this speech that the government wanted every
region to have equal access to economic development
opportunities.
It tried to take all disparities into account and be
sufficiently flexible to meet the very special needs of each
region.
Mr. Marchand's vision was realized. We began with a national
department and, at the time, this national department was
required to consult with all other federal departments in the
interest of improved co-ordination. Today, we have three
economic development agencies. My colleague, the Secretary of
State for Science and Technology, also mentioned another
structure in Ontario.
These agencies have maximum flexibility.
They are there to operate in terms of the economic realities of
each part of this country and, as the Secretary of State
responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada, my
mandate is to do what is in the best interest of Quebeckers. In
order to take the particular features of each region into
account, the Prime Minister made sure that agencies could derive
the maximum benefit from economic development policies during
the latest government reorganization.
We put the three agencies under one umbrella, Industry Canada,
so that the agency and its economic development policies would
be adapted to what the regions were facing and so that there
would be a sense of family, the broader co-operation people had
in mind when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was
created, which makes it possible to derive the maximum benefit
from economic development policies designed with the entire
country in mind while still taking into account the realities,
needs and viewpoints of each of the agencies.
Today, I am proud to say that Canada has always been seen as an
international leader in the area of regional economic development.
Especially under the Liberal Party of Canada, this country has
been able to create an approach which has made it the envy of
many OECD member countries.
In our effort to adapt to changes and to a variety of
requirements, we have also had a program review, which
represented a major turning point for all of my colleagues.
When we speak of re-examining the way the Canadian government is
involved in various areas of jurisdiction, we are also referring
to the economic development of the regions.
1330
In this connection, those of us at Economic Development Canada
had, if I remember correctly, some 42 or 43 programs. As a
result of program review, we created one program for SMBs,
initially called IDEE-PME.
We also rethought our mandate on involvement in the regions,
stressing the core of economic development which, as you may
have guessed, is small and medium size business.
At the same time, taking advantage of program review, we
re-examined our role. That exercise brought us to the conclusion
that Economic Development Canada's activities would involve
multiple roles.
I am proud to say that Economic Development Canada is the main
gateway for any SMB that wants to have dealings with the federal
government, the Canadian government. When they want information
on all of the programs available in the departments, Economic
Development Canada is the main gateway.
One of the important roles of myself and my team is the
responsibility to represent within the federal machinery all the
various issues relating to economic development that concern
Quebeckers.
Another facet of our mandate, and an important one, is promoting
to the entire population of Quebec the various services of the
Canadian government.
I would like to mention that we set up in 1997 what we called
small and medium business fairs. This is a Government of Canada
event that travels to all of Canada's regions. As regards my
mandate, obviously, we are talking about Quebec. These fairs
travel around to inform business people and those who will be in
business of changes we have made since 1993 and of the various
services available.
I am proud to tell you that, in 1997-98, there were eight small
and medium business fairs in Quebec, and 11,000 business people
or future business people had access to these services of the
Government of Canada. They had access to major seminars on ways
to set up a business, how to export and new economic realities.
They also had access to our services.
In 1998-99, five fairs were held and 5,345 present or upcoming
business people attended and had access to this source of
information. The fairs are a mine of important information. We
business people know we are living in a new era. Often ready
access to information means a capital gain that makes us more
competitive.
In all, our concerted intervention has enabled 16,345 people in
business to understand or better understand the federal machine
and, in many cases as well, I hope, find programs that suit
their needs. Or perhaps they met people, experts, who could
help them with certain problems.
Another equally important aspect of our role is to resolve
special mandates, hence the flexibility. The flexibility we
sought in 1969 continues to be reflected in the Canadian machine
today.
Here are some examples of special mandates: the management of
the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program, which was given to
Canada Economic Development for the province of Quebec, and the
strategy for the Greater Montreal, on which I will report in the
near future. During the July 1996 torrential rains, initiatives
were also taken to help affected regions, and a liaison office
was set up.
I should also mention the implementation of an economic recovery
program following the ice storm. There is also a special and
specific initiative for communities affected by the groundfish
crisis called the Quebec coastal fund.
1335
This is an important initiative because we know that there is
currently a groundfish crisis affecting certain regions of
Quebec and, of course, of Atlantic Canada. As a government, we
reacted quickly and very matter-of-factly to these new situations.
Our goal is to help all the individuals affected, but also the
communities affected, in terms of their economic development.
The specific initiative regarding the groundfish crisis includes
an economic development component. The responsibility for that
component was given to Canada Economic Development.
We are currently talking about a fund of close to $20 million—and
I recently had an opportunity to see the situation first hand in
the affected regions—that was put at the disposal of Canada
Economic Development. This organization manages that fund along
with its other responsibilities. From March 1996 to December
1998, investments of $9.1 million were made in Quebec. The total
investments generated in Quebec regions to help people rethink
their economic safety net are of the order of $30 million.
A total of 203 projects and 560 jobs were either created or
maintained in the regions that experienced particular problems.
This regional development policy is one that reflects the
Canadian way of doing things and which, to some extent, is
despised by opposition parties.
Thanks to this policy, these regions finally got a chance to
take another look at how they did things and to rebuild an
economic net so that their communities could again hold their
heads up, create jobs and generally get back on track.
There are a great variety of projects, including the one in
support of the Pied du Vent cheese factory in Havre-aux-Maisons in
the Magdalen Islands, which received $80,000 from the Quebec
coastal fund; of fisheries such as Marinar Limitée in
Rivière-aux-Renards; of Ghislain Tanguay Complexe and Chez Maxime
Enr. on the Lower North Shore, and at Baie-Johan-Beetz, where we
have also invested in some very special projects.
These are some of the things we are doing that show the Canadian
government's flexibility.
I could also mention some of the results.
Earlier, I mentioned the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program run
by Economic Development Canada. This program has had amazing
success across the country and which has also shown that when we
work as partners, when the parties and the various levels of
government set aside their purely political interests and look
at what is best for the public, together we can accomplish quite
extraordinary things.
We funded 3,250 projects under the Canada-Quebec infrastructure
program. The Canadian government contributed $633 million, and
$2.7 billion in investments were generated. An estimated 35,646
jobs were created or maintained through this partnership. That
is our role.
There is also the programming of Economic Development Canada,
which we have tailored to the new economic realities. The
IDEA-SME program enables us to intervene within the limitations
of our jurisdiction and our expertise and to provide to all
regions of Quebec an attractive partnership with the federal
government.
IDEA-SME is an intervention in the areas of innovation, design,
research and development. It encourages entrepreneurship in all
regions of Quebec and of course helps them develop export
markets.
The second program we created a little over a year ago is the
Regional Strategic Initiatives Program.
Its purpose is, if I may put it that way, to push to the
limits—although there will perhaps never be any limit—the
government's desire to work in partnership with all regions and
to ensure the structuring of programs which truly correspond to
the realities and needs of the local people.
1340
Thus the Regional Strategic Initiatives Program enables us in
each region of Quebec to structure an intervention which did not
originate in my office but rather is prepared in a partnership
with the stakeholders of economic development in each region.
Its results truly speak for themselves.
Where the east of Quebec is concerned, we have announced a
Regional Strategic Initiative called Technopol Maritimes. And
in the greater Quebec City region, there is another RSI aimed at
developing a techno-region with an international outreach. In
Chaudière-Appalaches there is RSI-Amiante.
Through these specific initiatives, we have so far allocated
$72.4 million to the regions of Quebec.
Today, when we talk about economic development, we refer to
initiatives that involve public moneys, but it is important to
realize that, in the context of globalization and the new means
of communication, the role that governments must play has
changed completely.
When we talk about regional economic development, we must think
in terms of partnerships, of the networks that we can provide to
a region, and also at the international level. We must include
the expertise, experience and economic development tools such
as, for example, Industry Canada's Strategis web site, which is
the largest commercial site in Canada, if not in North America.
With regard to partnerships, we have also created special links
with the community futures development corporations in Quebec.
These 54 corporations do a remarkable job and I believe they
will play an increasingly important role within the great
Canadian family, in terms of delivering services. Community
futures development corporations have existed for 20 years in
that format or in another and they currently provide good
expertise that complements the input provided by the Canada
Economic Development.
When governments want to work together, when we recognize that
the concept of economic development has evolved over the last
decade to encompass expertise, partnership and networking, when
we recognize this together, I think there is an opportunity for
all those who want to help do something about economic
development.
This government's strategy is working and respects the
legitimate aspirations of the regions, and under no
circumstances will members on this side of the House sit back
while the opposition parties trivialize the very important
things we have done for all regions of Quebec and of Canada.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, the Secretary of State for economic development for the
regions of Quebec criticized at the start of his speech the so
called petty politics of the opposition parties. I would ask
him to talk about the grand policies he intends to follow in
partnership with the regions, by responding to three questions.
Can he assure us that he does not manage his portfolio according
to partisan criteria? Is the money provided in Quebec ridings,
apart from for the ice storm and catastrophes provided fairly as
was the case with the infrastructure program, because the
Government of Quebec at the time had a say in it, as did the
municipalities, naturally?
I would also ask him why, since he wants to work in partnership
with the regions—he has said nothing of the Government of
Quebec—he does not consider the strategic plans of the regional
development councils in Quebec, in providing the money?
1345
Why does he not allow to sit on the CFDCs the regional
organizations funded by his department, someone from the
regional development council, an existing structure, whose
representatives he has up to now refused to consider?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Speaker, I am most happy that the
member for Lévis asked this question. The only thing that
saddens me is that I have little time to answer it. I could
speak on the issue quite easily.
As regards petty politics and since my colleague has raised the
issue, I must admit the idea crossed my mind, more specifically
in reference to members of the Bloc. Why? Because some two or
three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to deliver the main
speech during a small and medium-size business fair.
Presentations were followed by a period of questions from
participants.
Common sense commands us to give the floor, not for a political
debate but to give participating entrepreneurs a chance to put
questions to their elected representatives and to those up front
who have expertise and some knowledge to offer.
At the fair I mentioned I was amazed to see that a
representative of the Bloc held the floor during the whole
question period—which was short—in order to denigrate the Canadian
government whose goal was to inform the population about
services it can offer.
This is rather a peculiar way of doing things. I want to assure
Canadians that this is not the way Liberal members do things. We
defend the interests of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member opposite talked about the role and
flexibility of his government.
Being the former critic for CIDA, the Canadian International
Development Agency, I discovered that 90% of CIDA money goes to
two provinces, leaving only 10% for eight provinces and three
territories.
With respect to immigration settlement dollars, British Columbia
receives approximately $980 per immigrant, whereas Quebec
receives approximately $3,333 per immigrant.
There is an unequal distribution of senators in the Senate,
which is not very efficient as we know.
With respect to trade issues, the government is sitting on its
hands, doing nothing about the Pacific salmon issue, the softwood
lumber issue or agriculture. These issues affect my province of
British Columbia.
The government has closed CFB Chilliwack, leaving British
Columbia without emergency preparedness.
All of these issues indicate that this government is playing
cheap politics with my province and other provinces, and the
people are suffering.
Why does it not sink into Liberal heads that all provinces are
equal? Why is there discrimination?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Speaker, that is a subject on
which I could talk for hours.
When this motion was tabled this morning I realized that members
of the Reform Party have a bad understanding of what economic
development is all about. That is why I have been explaining it
for the past 20 minutes. Following the question of the Reform
member, I realized that they do not only have a huge
misunderstanding of economic development, they also have a huge
misunderstanding about what a federation is.
We are working together to help Canadians across the country. Of
course when we talk about a federation, some parts of Canada they
will get more for specific portfolios. Certain parts of Canada
they will get more for immigration, for instance. Central Canada
may get more in terms of economic development.
1350
The beauty of a federation is that at the end of the day, when
one looks at the federation as a whole, one makes sure there is a
good balance of priorities and needs for the whole country, in
all of its regions.
I am proud to stand in the House to say that our federation is a
beautiful federation. It is probably the best in the world. We
have the equalization system, which is there to help the
population, the provinces and the municipalities.
I thank the hon. member for the question, but it is a pity to
see such a lack of understanding.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I know what the minister's answer is to economic
development. He mentioned it in his speech. He said it was
intervention based on taxpayer dollars.
The Liberal government's idea is to take taxpayer dollars and
redistribute them in an unequal way, as my hon. colleague from
Surrey just mentioned.
I want to ask the minister a specific question. He talked about
having an open attitude in his speech. The Liberal task force
will be going to the west, and perhaps to Atlantic Canada and
Quebec later on because they are lacking seats there too. This
question was asked earlier of his colleague, the minister
responsible for western economic diversification. If this
government has an open attitude, why does it have closed
meetings? If it is going to find out what people want to hear
about and why they are feeling alienated in these regions, why
does this government, with an open attitude, have closed meetings
instead of open public meetings to have real input from people
and not just selected groups of people for manufactured consent?
Why does it not have open public meetings?
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Speaker, the media were at the
meeting to which they referred.
We are obviously interested in proceeding with western economic
diversification on an equal basis, and we all know that.
There is something that is annoying. The hon. member of the
Reform Party spoke in terms of public money being invested in the
economic development of a region, but it is a whole vision.
I mentioned in my 20 minute speech that we are proceeding in
terms of repayable contributions, but today economic development
is more than that. It is expertise. It is net worth. It is
making sure that our industries in the regions across Canada have
access to export markets.
There is a whole vision and that is why I am glad the Liberal
Party is sitting on this side of the House.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in the debate today on the alienation
of most of this country or, better put, how Canadians perceive
Ottawa.
The Prime Minister's task force was to seek out information from
Manitobans on the future of Manitoba. Manitobans know about
their future and they also have a vision for their future. What
we want from this government and all federal governments is more
transparency and accountability.
Manitobans speak daily to their members of parliament.
Hopefully their members of parliament echo their concerns in the
House. Does the government listen to the concerns that are raised
in the House?
Let me do a quick review of some of the concerns that are raised
by Manitobans: Bill C-68, the wheat board monopoly, unfair
justice appointments, the use of federal spending powers to
interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the giveaway of
our rail assets to CNR, the rail abandonment issue, little return
of $5 billion in fuel tax paid by consumers, waste and
mismanagement of Indian affairs, and repayment of the flood
compensation given to Manitobans. Most of these issues have been
debated in the House over the course of the last two years. If
only the government would listen.
Here is what the municipal leaders of Manitoba are saying about
regional alienation and how their constituents perceive Ottawa.
1355
Mayor Bill Schneider of the village of Benito said:
They don't worry one way or another. We are too far away. The
people of Benito don't have too much say. The power is eastern
based. The reality is that the population is in the east. They
have the votes, which means that they have the seats.
Mayor Lorne Boguski of the town of Roblin said:
I think the further away you are from Ottawa, the less input one
has. The decisions are made without the interests of the people
from that region. The solution to reducing alienation would be
to have more members of parliament interacting with the municipal
leaders on a regular basis, from all parties. This would develop
rapport. One would feel that they were becoming part of the
total team, rather than feeling isolated as we are today from
Ottawa.
I am also dissatisfied that the Minister of Natural Resources, a
westerner, is not echoing the needs of farmers.
Mayor Michael Spence of the town of Churchill said:
I applaud the Minister of Foreign Affairs' intervention and
assistance in privatizing the rail line in the port of Churchill.
This gives Churchill the opportunity to look after its own
future. Ottawa is too far away. Currently Churchill has
embarked on a tripartite partnership with the Winnipeg Airport
Authority and Omnitrax to develop future business for the rail
line, the airport and the port of Churchill.
The federal government, when it comes to airports, lacks vision
for the future. It can only think of saving money for the
present. It bewilders me that the port is not utilized to its
potential. The Canadian Wheat Board must ship more grain through
the port of Churchill instead of east-west. We are up against
the big business of east and west coast terminals.
Reeve George Richardson of the rural municipality of Dauphin
said:
They don't know that we exist. It has always been, being in the
hinterland, that we are the resource base for the east. That is
the real attitude of the rural municipality of Dauphin. The east
has had all the power and still does today. The only way to
resolve this is to get rid of the Senate as it operates today or
make it equal.
Take a look at the present farm aid program and you will see why
we feel alienated.
Mayor Wally Yanchycki of the village of Erickson said:
We don't get our fair share. When I fill out my income tax, I
know where our money is going; right into the big pockets of
Ottawa. I don't think we get our fair share on transfer
payments. Being far away doesn't help the feeling that we are
alienated from Ottawa. We feel that Ontario and Quebec get
preferential treatment over everyone else in this country.
The Speaker: It is almost 2 p.m. and I want to leave the
member with enough time to get into the body of his debate. We
will proceed with Statements by Members and the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River will have the floor after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WINDSOR—ST. CLAIR
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently Statistics Canada announced that
the unemployment rate across Canada has fallen from 8% to 7.8%,
its lowest rate in eight years. Canadians are happy about this
trend.
The results of yesterday's Windsor—St. Clair byelection
revealed that support for both the Conservative and the Reform
Party has fallen to just over 6%. That is a drop for both
parties. Canadians are also happy about this trend.
Apparently the fine voters of Windsor are less than impressed
with newly recycled Conservative Party. They are even less
impressed with the united alternative, since they demoted Reform
to fourth in yesterday's byelection.
I predict that we will continue to see steady decreases in both
unemployment and the political fortunes of both the Reform and
Conservative parties.
* * *
CANADIAN SIKH COMMUNITY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Surrey Central has the largest concentration of Sikhs in the
world outside India.
On this day 300 years ago the 10th Guru Sri Guru Gobind Singh
Ji created Khalsa. He gave Sikhs a name, a visible identity, a
code of conduct and discipline based on equality, love, justice,
peace, courage, hard work, honesty, community service and
universality. These values are important to all human kind and
as a community Sikhs have easily fit into Canadian society. In
the last 100 years the Canadian Sikh community has made a
significant contribution to the social, cultural and economic
prosperity of our great country.
Sikhs around the world are celebrating the tri-centenary of the
creation of Khalsa and Vaisakhi. I invite all members of the
House to join me in congratulating Sikhs and wishing them great
success.
* * *
1400
ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Canadian Air Force was officially established 75 years ago
on April 1, 1924.
In the second world war, Canadian pilots flew with dedication
and heroism beside our allies to establish peace. Canadian
aviators flew in the Korean War and served in Europe throughout
the cold war. In 1991 our pilots tasted battle again, flying a
variety of missions during the gulf war.
At home the air force conducts a number of missions, including
search and rescue, med-evac operations and fire evacuations.
Abroad, air crews have provided support to peacekeeping missions
in the Congo and Kashmir. Canadian pilots have brought critical
supplies to the displaced and dispossessed after natural
disasters. In Rwanda, for a time, we alone provided airlift. We
were one of the nations providing the humanitarian air bridge to
besieged Sarajevo.
At this very moment, Canadian aviators are flying in the Balkans
with 12 CF-18s, two Hercules and personnel aboard NATO AWACS.
The air force motto is as relevant today as it was 75 years ago,
“Through adversity to the stars”.
* * *
ERINOAK
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1971 a group of parents and community-minded individuals in
Mississauga established the Credit Valley Association for
Handicapped Children.
Their goal was to recognize the special needs of individuals
with physical disabilities, to help them be the best that they
can be.
In May 1979 they opened the new Credit Valley Treatment Centre
for Children, which they had raised funds to build. Today that
centre is called Erinoak. With a staff of over 100, services
have been extended to schools and homes. They have made a
profound difference in many people's lives.
On March 25, Erinoak honoured its volunteers and supporters at a
donor recognition evening.
I have seen first-hand the wonderful work this centre does. I
salute the more than 200 dedicated volunteers of Erinoak and I
thank them for their enormous contribution to our community in
Mississauga.
* * *
YOM HASHOAH
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Just over 50 years ago atrocities were committed against men,
women and children because of their race and culture.
A few short minutes ago I stood before you to honour Holocaust
survivors. I also did that when they were here in the House
several months ago.
The Holocaust was an act that Canadians and people around the
world must never forget. I feel privileged to serve in a
government where my leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, was our
first prime minister to visit a Nazi death camp, accompanied by
Mordechai Ronen, a survivor.
Particularly at this time of the bombings in Kosovo and given
the current state of world events, I would like to remind all
Canadians of the following words of wisdom “Never forgotten,
never again”.
* * *
CODE OF ETHICS
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has continually
defended questionable actions of various members of his cabinet
by saying that the ethics counsellor, Harold Wilson, judged that
they were okay since they fall within the code of ethics.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister steadfastly refuses to
disclose what the rules of this much vaunted code of ethics
really are.
One of the many Liberal red book promises not kept by this
government was to appoint an ethics counsellor who would report
directly to Parliament; that is a counsellor to oversee the
actions of the ministers.
I urge the Prime Minister to at least make good on this one
promise and, at a minimum, to reveal to the House and the
Canadian people his highly secretive ministers' code of ethics.
* * *
TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURE OFFICE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
representatives of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office
visited Oxford county.
Along with county Warden Mark Harrison, Woodstock Mayor John
Geoghagen and Zorra township Mayor James Muterer, we toured the
county with our Taiwanese visitors. We visited a hydroponic
tobacco greenhouse in Norwich township and a working dairy farm
in Zorra township.
The day included a visit to Embro where we were able to visit
the sites associated with Reverend George Lesley Mackay.
Reverend Mackay was born in Embro and went to Taipei as a
missionary in 1871. He set up Oxford College in Tamsui in 1882
with money donated by Oxford county citizens. The college and a
large hospital founded by Reverend Mackay continue to serve the
people of Tamsui.
It is my hope that this visit will lead to future beneficial
exchanges between Oxford and the Tamsui region of Taiwan.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new Bloc
Quebecois researcher, Jacques Parizeau, is travelling around
Quebec saying loud and clear to all those who will listen that
he could not care less about the brain drain in Quebec.
“Leave”, he told them frankly last weekend.
1405
To those who fear Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada,
he said, I repeat, “Leave”. A brilliant remark, when Quebec is
doing everything in its power to keep the young people it
educates at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Brilliant too, when the young people would like to stay and do
the job they were trained for. They are looking for an
appropriate environment to show Quebeckers that there is still a
way to contribute to improving the quality of life in Quebec and
Canada.
The new Bloc Quebecois researcher is clearly totally
irresponsible. The Bloc should terminate his contract
immediately.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 1, 1999 the long-awaited ceremonies took place for the
new Nunavut territory and in Iqaluit the Nunavut flag, the coat
of arms and the legislature mace were revealed to a worldwide
audience.
I would like to congratulate and thank all those who
participated in the design and creation process of these items.
Elders were consulted by the artists with the result that Inuit
culture was incorporated into the design.
The Inuit culture was also very evident in the first sitting of
the legislative assembly. The Inuktitut language was used in all
aspects of the celebrations and was a welcome change.
The evening gala revealed the tremendous musical and acting
talent of the north. Overall, the show was fabulous.
Thank you, Canada, for celebrating with us.
* * *
[Translation]
THE FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks ago, in Saint-Hyacinthe, the world francophone community
experienced an unparalleled and unique moment. Over 2,000 young
francophones from some 40 countries and every continent around
the world met to celebrate the Grande Fête de la jeunesse, de la
culture et du français.
“Vivre le monde de la francophonie” was an incredible success.
Just imagine bringing over 2,000 young people together in a huge
event.
The exploit is primarily the handiwork of Gaston Vachon of the
Saint-Hyacinthe school board, who not only set up a flawless
organization to look out for the young people, but gave them the
gift of an experience they will never forget.
The wrapping of this superb gift took the form of the national
grand prize for the best Internet site awarded to Marie-Josée
Tôth, who was in charge of the Internet site created for this
event. The prize was awarded by the Association canadienne
d'éducation de langue française.
I offer my heartiest congratulations to Ms. Tôth and Mr. Vachon
and to the hundreds of volunteers who contributed directly or
indirectly to the extraordinary success of this event.
* * *
[English]
SPECIALTY WOOD PRODUCTS
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, thousands of letters have
been sent to B.C. MPs to urge the government to strongly oppose
the U.S. attempt to restrict the import of specialty wood
products by reclassifying them as softwood lumber.
When lumber was freely traded, we paid duties on these very same
specialty products. Now these duties are phased out because of
NAFTA but lumber is no longer freely traded because of
restrictions brought in by the 1996 softwood lumber quota system.
Specialty wood products are a $3 billion industry for Canada.
We need the strongest political action from our government to
oppose new restrictions.
So far, the Liberals are just going through the motions and
responding to U.S. measures on technical grounds alone.
We need strong political representation. When can we expect to
see the government giving this issue the political priority it
deserves?
* * *
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ASIA-PACIFIC
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, during his
recent mission to Indonesia in October, raised the issue of human
rights with President Habibie.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
secretary of state for his initiative, not only in Indonesia but
in raising human rights issues wherever he goes at every forum
which is open to him.
I must say that Indonesia's President Habibie was defensive
about these issues. Our secretary of state refused to be
intimidated by President Habibie. I understand that his October
visit enabled Canada to obtain first-hand information on the
situation in Indonesia with regards to human rights, the social
impact—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys.
* * *
SIKHISM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, these are very special days for Sikhs in
India, in Canada and throughout the world.
Three hundred years ago the 10th Sikh Guru, Gobind Singh,
restructured the Sikh community known as the Khalsa. The first
baptism ceremony took place on April 13, 1669 in Andapur South,
Punjab, India.
It was the first day of the Festival of Vaisakhi and since then
Sikhism has grown to be the fifth and youngest of the world's
great religions.
1410
Founded by Guru Nanak, it evolved through the 10 living gurus
until Guru Gobind Singh passed the rule of the religion on to the
devout followers of the religion and the Guru Granth Sahib a
collection of holy scriptures of all the gurus and of other
enlightened persons.
This year we celebrate the inauguration of the Khalsa and today
we acknowledge the first baptism ceremony of a religion from
which we all have much to learn.
* * *
WINDSOR—ST. CLAIR
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the results
are in. We finally have an answer to that mysterious question
that has been vexing us all year: Which party on the right do
Canadians like better, the Reform Party or the Conservative
Party? The voters in Windsor—St. Clair gave us their answer.
Neither.
Both parties received just over 6% of the vote yesterday. Even
if we combined both parties, as some are suggesting, they still
would not have had enough votes to get their deposits back.
Who did voters from Windsor—St. Clair elect as their federal
member of Parliament yesterday? I am proud to say a
hard-working, dedicated Liberal by the name of Rick Limoges.
This victory is a testament to Rick's talent and fine record as
a Windsor city councillor and is also a testament to the legacy
of Shaughnessy Cohen.
I congratulate Rick, his campaign team, his family and friends
for this hard fought by-election victory. We look forward to
working with Rick as a great addition to our Liberal team.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC BENCH
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that the Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to the
appointment of Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré as a judge in the
criminal and family divisions of the Quebec Court.
Madame Justice Westmoreland-Traoré was awarded the Ordre national
du Québec in 1991 and has been an ardent defender of minority
rights. The first black woman to be appointed to the bench in
Quebec, she is currently dean of the law faculty at the
University of Windsor in Ontario.
The appointment of this talented jurist is a sign of the
openness that characterizes our society and marks an important
moment in our collective history. Cultural communities are now
represented and well represented at the highest level of the
Quebec judiciary.
Through her openness, tolerance and generosity, Ms.
Westmoreland-Traoré is representative of the Quebec of today and
the future.
We offer her our heartiest congratulations.
* * *
[English]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister asks the people of Canada to trust him. He asks
Canadians to believe in his claim of no inappropriate conduct in
the Chateau Shawinigan affair without any corroborating evidence.
He asks Canadians to have faith in the little guy when his
cabinet ministers and backbenchers do everything possible to
prevent all the facts from coming out. Meanwhile, the Prime
Minister refuses to use section 11 of the Auditor General Act to
conduct an independent audit of the Thibault and Duhaime deals.
This afternoon the industry committee will be asked to vote on a
motion I tabled to summon the manager of the Prime Minister's
blind trust to appear before the committee in camera. If there
are no grounds for further investigations, then surely the
Liberal majority should support my motion.
I urge the Prime Minister to ask his Liberal committee members
to support my motion to prove that his integrity is worth more
than a cup of coffee.
* * *
CONSOLIDATED GROWERS AND PROCESSORS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday agriculture in Canada received good news.
Consolidated Growers and Processors, an international company,
announced plans to build the world's largest, most sophisticated
industrial hemp processing plant to be located in my riding of
Dauphin—Swan River. CGP, the Hemp Growers Association, the City
of Dauphin, the rural municipality of Dauphin and ARDI deserve
credit for putting this project together.
Canadian farmers can be proud to be at the threshold of becoming
world leaders in a new global market for hemp products. Hemp is a
model crop that is environmentally friendly. Its uses are many:
medicine, clothing, perfume, insulation, making automobile parts
and food. This is good news for Canadian agriculture.
I ask all members of the House to support this initiative as
Canadian farmers prepare to take the first steps to lead the
world in industrial hemp.
* * *
DAFFODIL MONTH
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April is daffodil month in Canada, an event formerly known as
cancer month.
Annually, the Canadian Cancer Society organizes a countrywide
fundraising campaign for cancer victims, sending thousands of
volunteers door to door to collect donations for a very worthy
cause. Last year in Ontario alone donations from generous
Canadians provided more than $25 million for cancer research.
The sad facts are that 129,200 new cases of cancer were
discovered in Canada in 1998, along with 62,700 cancer related
deaths. The most frequent cancers continue to be breast cancer
for women and prostate cancer for men.
During their lifetimes this is a real problem and research will
help us combat cancer.
1415
The daffodil, which the Canadian Cancer Society has chosen as a
symbol, gives a sense of hope and renewed life. During the month
of April I urge all Canadians to be generous and to contribute to
the Canadian Cancer Society effort to combat this terrible
disease. The reward is wonderful.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in a debate that began yesterday and lasted until early
this morning, all members in the House voiced their support for a
Canadian role in the Balkan crisis.
We support the fight against ethnic cleansing, the diplomatic
efforts, the NATO air strikes, and of course we support our
Canadian Armed Forces personnel.
Why will the Prime Minister not allow us to show our support
with a vote, clarifying Canada's role in an expanded activity in
the Balkans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have explained that we made an agreement with the
opposition parties that there was to be a take note debate. We
have had that and hon. members carried on until this morning. I
was told that some would like to speak later today and I said
fine. It is the best way to express our support.
I want to thank all hon. members and the leaders for their
participation in the debate. It was evidence of their support.
The procedure has been established that there were to be take
note debates in those circumstances. Yesterday the Leader of the
Opposition asked me, if we were to send troops into a combat
position, if we would have a vote. I said that if we have to
face that problem, and I hope we never will, I would consider it
at that time, but for the moment it is hypothetical.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, last night Canadian pilots flew their 100th sortie
in the Balkan crisis. Today the Serbs occupied a town in
Albania.
The possibility of NATO ground troops being used in the Balkans
is not hypothetical. It was raised by the Prime Minister's own
defence minister and cannot be discounted by the House.
When will the Prime Minister bring a votable motion to
parliament establishing a mandate and conditions for an expanding
Canadian role in the Balkans? Will it be before the decision is
made, or will it only be after?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not confronted with this problem at this time.
I want to say to the House of Commons that when if ever we are
confronted, and I hope we will not be, I will try to have a
debate in the House of Commons as quickly as possible.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking debate. We are talking about
votes. I want to read something:
My deepest concern is that they will simply be using parliament
to try to rubber-stamp or ratify decisions already taken as
opposed to letting parliament be the forum in which those
decisions are formulated.
Those are not my words. Those are the words of the current
Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1991 when the Liberals were in
opposition.
Would the Prime Minister care to tell us when he and his
Minister of Foreign Affairs lost their faith in parliamentary
democracy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had three debates so far on Kosovo, three take
note debates according to the rules established and agreed upon
by all opposition parties.
I am informed, for example, that in Great Britain there was a
statement by the prime minister, no debate and no vote. Here we
have had three debates so far.
I think that we are giving opportunity to everybody to speak.
Even tonight those who want to express their views will be able
to speak. That is democracy.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know that the Yugoslavian army crossed the border and took
control of an Albanian town. It has since been driven back. This
is yet another sign that this conflict is escalating.
The government clearly has a responsibility to plan for all
possibilities. Last week the Minister of National Defence
admitted that preparations were under way for the possibility of
sending ground forces into Kosovo. Will the Minister of National
Defence tell the House specifically what these preparations
entail?
1420
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we do not know about the alleged
incursion this morning into the Albanian border, but the matter
is being looked into and we hope to have information on it soon.
With respect to the matter of ground forces, of course ground
forces have always been a part of the peace implementation plan
which would come after a peace agreement has been signed.
With respect to any other alternative uses or any other options,
military planners always look at all options at all times. That
is a normal thing to do, but as far as it has gone we have one
plan and that is to continue the air campaign in Yugoslavia.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the defence minister should take note of the British prime
minister's comments. Tony Blair today announced that Britain
would be sending another 2,000 troops to the Kosovo region, and
some specialized troops at that.
Mr. Blair has taken note and informed the people of Britain as
well as the military of what their plans are. They are preparing
so I am asking the defence minister again to tell Canadian people
exactly what the minister and the government are doing in
preparation for sending Canada's—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member did not
note that Prime Minister Blair did not have a vote on his
decision.
We already had a discussion in the House going back to February
17 when we decided that indeed, with the support of all parties I
might add, that 600 troops should be part of a peace
implementation force. That continues to stand. We have not at
this point in time been asked for any other additional resources.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
situation in the Balkans is evolving rapidly.
Could the Prime Minister give us a brief rundown on the
humanitarian, diplomatic and military situation, particularly in
light of the meeting between the American Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, and the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Igor Ivanov?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I said in the House yesterday, it is very desirable that the
Russians be involved in any attempt to find a solution. I hope
that the meeting that took place yesterday between the American
Secretary of State and the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs
had positive results.
Naturally, the best solution would be a diplomatic one. As I
said yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the UN
ambassador are working on such a solution in New York.
I myself wrote to Russia's president. I hope that the meeting
that took place between the two individuals mentioned earlier
will have positive results.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Serb attack this morning on two villages in Albania is perhaps a
turning point in the conflict, for it raises the probability—I
repeat, the probability—of ground military action to dislodge the
Serb army in Albania and Kosovo.
Will the Prime Minister admit that today's events in Albania
make the likelihood of a land war, in which Canada would be
called to participate, not just hypothetical but probable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is going a bit far.
Insofar as possible, we are hoping to avoid—and this is NATO
policy as well—sending troops to Kosovo. We want President
Milosevic to agree to the conditions proposed by NATO and
approved by the UN secretary general so that peace can be
restored in the region and the Kosovars allowed to return to
their homes throughout Kosovo.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a
NATO communiqué stated that it was unacceptable for the
territorial integrity of Albania and Macedonia to be threatened.
The communiqué announced that NATO would react if this
occurred.
I am asking the Prime Minister whether he considers the Serbian
intrusion of today to be purely and simply a provocation of
NATO. Is it not a response to the position taken in yesterday's
statement?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are not exactly aware of everything that went on yesterday at
the Albanian border. The Minister of Defence has just now
mentioned the possibility that Serbian forces did cross the
border. Apparently they turned around.
Was this strictly a mistake, or was it provocation? I am not in
a position at this time to pass judgment, because I do not have
sufficient information.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
participant in all of these discussions, I am asking the Prime
Minister whether this possibility of a Serbian invasion of
Albania had been envisaged by the Canadian government, and how
the Canadian government plans to react to what took place this
morning.
Have discussions been undertaken, as we speak, in reaction to
this?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the NATO ministerial meeting the matter
was raised about any potential incursion across the border.
The best answer was given by Secretary General Solana when he
said that any attempt by Milosevic to destabilize the frontline
states along current borders would be taken with great
seriousness by NATO itself, and that we would be expecting him to
respond to the very clear letter of responsibility he has not to
cross those borders.
The matter was addressed, the warning was issued, and we would
take this very seriously and ask the Milosevic government to
cease and desist any further incursions.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the defence
minister insisted that Kosovo peacekeepers be a NATO led force.
Just hours ago the Russian foreign minister dismissed that
position as a non-starter. Canada's foreign affairs minister
showed some flexibility yesterday when he stated “NATO will be
heavily involved but it will not necessarily be exclusively
NATO”.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what is Canada's position: a
NATO dominated force or a truly international force?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I replied to this point yesterday. The leader of the
the New Democratic Party approved of what I said yesterday. I
said that we hope it will involve more than NATO.
I have always spoken about the involvement of others, especially
the Russians. I said that in the House and the same thing was
said in Brussels by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
position of this government is very clear, but, as I said
yesterday, if we cannot have an agreement to have more than NATO
we will have to go with a NATO force.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
not a question of what the government hopes; it is a question of
what the government is doing about it.
It is clear that for Russia a NATO dominated force is out of the
question. For France, a key NATO member, Russian involvement is
absolutely essential. The Prime Minister says that Russian
involvement is hoped for. Other NATO members are speaking up.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that Canada too is
speaking up in favour of a truly international force?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke about it yesterday. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs spoke about it yesterday. I wrote to President Yeltsin
last week asking the Russians to get involved and saying that it
was very important for them to get involved.
The position of the Canadian government is clear and was stated
before any question was asked by the leader of the NDP.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Yugoslav infantry occupied the village of Kemenica, Albania.
I have just confirmed that briefings were held in Kingston,
Ontario, that offered three ground force options for Kosovo: one
for a small observer force, one for a 500 to 800 person group
built around an armoured squadron, and one for a much larger
force of 2,000 soldiers.
Will the minister confirm that there are plans in existence to
deploy 2,000 soldiers to Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only plan in existence and the only
plan that is approved is the plan that involves some 600 troops
that would be part of a peacekeeping implementation force
following a peace agreement.
1430
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
has the minister or any other minister in the government already
agreed to send Canadian ground troops to Kosovo for offensive
military operations? Is this why the Prime Minister will not
allow a vote in the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
before the finance minister took off on his “I am not running
for leadership” tour, the government released an astounding
number. It pointed out that the EI surplus will hit $26 billion
by year's end, $1,800 per worker is what that works out to. That
number is absolutely outrageous.
How much more money will the minister rip off from workers
before he is satisfied?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we took office the EI premiums were at $3.07. They
were going to rise to $3.30 in that time period. Since we have
taken office they have dropped to $2.55. That is over $4
billion. It is the largest decrease in EI premiums in the
history of employment insurance.
Regarding the trip to British Columbia, the people of British
Columbia in the ridings of the members opposite were delighted to
see me.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the finance minister just told another whopping rival. We
have the tape running.
The unemployment rate is 85% higher in Canada than in the United
States. We know the finance minister recently admitted that
young people are leaving Canada to go to the U.S. because they
are paid better wages. Certainly the minister should not be
proud of that fact.
Given these facts, why is it that the minister continues to
refuse to lower taxes in a significant way so that Canadians can
see their standard of living improve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that we have cut taxes by $16.5 billion over
the next 36 months.
We could have cut taxes more but we did not because our priority
in the last budget was health care. That was the priority of
Canadians. It was not the priority of the Reform Party.
Yesterday Canadians in Windsor—St. Clair told the Reform Party
what they thought about its priorities.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, to explain his refusal to deal with the possibility
of ground warfare in Kosovo and the possibility of Canadian
troops participating in such operations, the Prime Minister said
the whole issue was hypothetical. Now, there is every indication
that it is becoming less and less hypothetical.
Would the Prime Minister agree to have a motion put before
parliament today to allow for an emergency debate on the latest
developments, with the intrusion into Albania this morning of
Serb troops and the implications—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's debate is not over. It will continue this evening.
If the hon. member wants to make representations, he can do so
this evening. We have agreed to extend the debate this evening
if there are members who want to address this issue.
Therefore, I do not see the need for a new debate, particularly
since there have been no significant changes since yesterday in
the conflict in Kosovo.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think the Prime Minister just surprised his parliamentary
leader, because there is no debate on Kosovo planned for this
evening. If the issue is being dealt in such cavalier fashion,
this is worrisome.
Our colleagues from the Reform Party would gladly agree to
postpone their opposition day to hold a debate on sending ground
troops into the Balkans if this is necessary, and particularly
to vote on such a measure, instead of being put before a fait
accompli.
Will the Prime Minister wake up and find out what is going on in
the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at this point, as the Minister of National Defence mentioned,
the strategy approved by the 19 countries is the air bombing
phase in Kosovo.
1435
The only commitment made by Canada during the talks in
Rambouillet is that we are prepared to send 600 Canadian troops
to take part in the peacekeeping mission, if an agreement is
reached to allow Kosovars to return to their homes in Kosovo.
This is not the time to discuss sending in troops, because this
possibility is not being mentioned at any level in the
discussions.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is bad enough that the EI overpayment will reach a
whopping $26 billion this year, but even more disturbing is the
fact that half of that amount will come from Canadians who earn
less than the average wage.
I ask the finance minister, does it bother him that it is low
income Canadians who really bear the brunt of his EI rip-off?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the single most important part of any
government's policy is job creation.
If the hon. member will take a look, it is low income Canadians
who have benefited from the fact that over 1.5 million jobs have
been created since 1993, that over 500,000 jobs have been created
in the course of the last year. Low income Canadians and high
income Canadians are benefiting at the same time.
If the hon. member looks at the policies of the government, the
policies of my colleague the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the child tax benefit, those are directed to low
income Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is nice to have a job. It is also nice to keep the
income that one earns. The finance minister keeps taking more
and more of it. It does not have to be this way. The finance
minister knows very well that the chief actuary of the EI fund
told him that premiums could go down by as much as a third, not
the pennies that the finance minister grudgingly put back in the
last budget.
Everyone but the finance minister agrees that relief in the EI
overpayment is long overdue. How much longer will Canadians have
to wait for EI tax fairness?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, $4 billion to $4.5 billion may be pennies to the Reform
Party, but it happens to be real money to Canadians.
The real issue is if the Reform Party members are so concerned
about low income Canadians, why did they vote against the child
tax benefit? Why did they vote against the prenatal nutrition
program? Why did they vote against CAPC? If they are sincere in
what they are saying, why have they voted against every single
legislative measure brought to this House to help low income
Canadians?
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, Milosevic's Serb security forces crossed the Yugoslav
border to continue their attacks on Albanian soil, even taking
the village of Kemenica in the process.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the
possibility the conflict may spread into the region, does the
Prime Minister not consider it essential now to raise this
possibility with the UN security council?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday there was an important meeting of all the
NATO ministers of foreign affairs.
We decided unequivocally to continue the air campaign against
the Milosevic regime. This is the best way to fight the actions
of Milosevic. I call on members to support this decision. It
is vital to have the support of all Canadians and all members of
this House.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
and remain concerned about having the UN involved in this
conflict so that this international organization does not become
extraneous.
There is another question and that is whether specific security
measures will be taken to protect the Kosovar refugee camps on
Albanian soil in the light of last night's events.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we also are very engaged in having the United
Nations play a responsible role. That is the reason just a week
ago I was at the United Nations to meet with the secretary
general. It is why we had G-8 meetings this week to discuss with
the Russians how we might establish some joint initiatives at the
United Nations. Those talks are ongoing.
As for the second part of the question, NATO troops are in both
Macedonia and Albania for the very clear reason to help secure
the position of refugees in those countries.
* * *
1440
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
see that the Prime Minister is exploring other job opportunities.
He has taken to writing fiction for the National Post. On
Saturday I see that he wrote a public letter to the National
Post and he said that he is an ordinary, humble MP who just
happens to be helping fortunate business folks who just happen to
live in his riding.
If that is the case and the Prime Minister has nothing to hide,
will he release all the documents surrounding his involvement
with helping these incredibly lucky people who just happen to
receive incredibly generous grants and loans from the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the letter I have written. I have given all the
facts. I will ask permission to table the letter in both French
and English in the House of Commons.
As a good member of parliament I will still work to help my
constituents.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have already read the letter. That is not the problem. The
problem is all the documentation that surrounds the issue of the
loans to these incredibly fortunate people. One had business
dealings with the Prime Minister, another was a convicted
embezzler and another was a three time convict.
Canadians want to know the facts. If the Prime Minister has
nothing to hide, and if he did not personally benefit from these
business arrangements, then why does he not table all the
documentation, cancel the white-out, and just table all the
documents here so we can all have a look at them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I replied to the question. I stated the facts. I note
again that the members opposite make statements in the House of
Commons and are chickening out. They never repeat the words they
use in the House of Commons outside because they know—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: And the people of Windsor told
them that they do not like cheap politics.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order. No one's courage is being questioned
in the House of Commons so please stay away from words such as
chickening out.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no way
that the chief of the defence staff has not considered from the
beginning the possibility of having to send ground troops to
Kosovo. With a call from NATO possible at any time, they had to
be prepared.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: Is the Canadian
army ready or not to send in troops? And, if so, what role will
they play?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, yes, the
Canadian forces are ready to send troops in support of a
peacekeeping implementation plan that has been previously
discussed in this House. We are preparing 600 troops at the base
in Edmonton for deployment into the area.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL FORUMS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Recently, PQ minister Louise Beaudoin wrote the Minister of
Foreign Affairs about the status of the Government of Quebec in
cultural and economic forums throughout the world.
What is the Government of Canada's response?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I recently wrote Ms. Beaudoin to remind her of our
commitment to defend and promote the interests of all Quebeckers
as Canadian citizens.
That being said, we are counting on the Government of Quebec to
join our Canadian delegations, without departing from the rule
whereby a sovereign country has only one representative.
* * *
[English]
BUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, issues of public ethics are not settled behind closed
doors, or by manipulating which facts are released to the public,
or for that matter which facts are tabled in this place.
When a money losing hotel venture in the Prime Minister's riding
receives numerous grants from the federal government, Canadians
have a right to know all of the facts. We ask again, when will
the Prime Minister release all of the documents without the
gallons of white-out? When will he table them in this place?
1445
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only the Reform sees
problems in these particular cases.
The Prime Minister, as the member for Shawinigan and
Saint-Maurice, has done what all MPs do. He was consulted, as
Reform MPs are when they do their work for their ridings and when
the unemployment table is high.
The provincial member of the national assembly, who happens to
be a Péquiste, also supported the project. The matter is crystal
clear. It has created 40 real jobs in a region of high
unemployment.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has used my support of a project in
my riding to defend his actions. The difference is that when I
was asked for my support I had not sold a money losing business
to the applicant, nor did I even know the applicant. So there is
clearly no conflict of interest in my case.
I have tried to table all of the relevant documents involved in
the project in my riding—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to table all of
the relevant documents involved in the project in my riding in
this place, but the Liberals have refused me to do so.
When will the Prime Minister clear the air and table all of the
relevant documents involving the projects in his riding?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process followed in
every case is always the same. It is a very transparent process
which has been supported by everyone in the riding, whether at
the municipal, provincial or federal level.
The Prime Minister did his job. There was no more intervention
than necessary to do the job of a member of parliament where the
level of unemployment is high. It has worked and it has created
real jobs.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians are watching with growing horror the unfolding
disaster of NATO's bombing campaign in the Balkans, with innocent
civilians dying on a passenger train yesterday, cross-border
attacks in Albania and a growing flood of desperate refugees.
Will the minister now show leadership and join with Russia in
calling for an emergency meeting of the G-8 nations, and will he
call for an immediate end to NATO bombing and Milosevic
atrocities and a return to UN brokered negotiations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the communique issued
yesterday at the NATO meetings, we in fact had a very specific
proposal to reach out to the Russians, to work with them to try
to find a solution.
Just today the secretary of state of the United States met with
the foreign minister of Russia to determine whether there would
be grounds for a G-8 meeting. We are certainly not opposed to
that, but there must be Russian acceptance of a basic fact, that
there must be an international force in Kosovo to protect the
refugees. Without that no agreement is worth having. We must
protect those innocent people.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, no one disagrees that we must protect the innocent
civilians and the refugees in Kosovo.
The question that the minister does not seem to understand is
that NATO troops who have been involved in bombing in Serbia
cannot then be involved in a peacekeeping force in Kosovo.
Does the minister not understand and will he not take to the
NATO council the reality that a peacekeeping force in Kosovo must
be made up of non-combatant troops under UN command? Will he not
take that to NATO?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I understand, which apparently the hon. member
does not, is that right now there are hundreds of members of the
armed forces of NATO countries who are involved in doing exactly
that, protecting the life and dignity and integrity of people in
Kosovo against the repressions of the Milosevic government.
1450
That is the fundamental fact that we are facing. We will not go
into any agreement until we can have the assurance that there
will be an international force in which countries of that good
intention are represented to make sure that protection is there.
Otherwise we will simply have a repetition of a—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, a
number of things confirm that the Kosovo conflict is spreading
to more regions, perhaps even to others countries, which means
that sending ground forces would appear to many to be
increasingly necessary, if not the only solution.
Yesterday, we learned that the Yugoslav government has voted in
favour of the federation joining the union of Russia and
Belarus. This morning, through the media once again, we learned
that the Serbian army had crossed the Albania-Kosovo border, in
order to confront the Kosovo Liberation Army in three villages
and put an end to the fighting between the two.
Today, my colleague for Compton—Stanstead tells us that Canada
has moved far further ahead than planned.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Does he
deny that a meeting of officers was held in Kingston in order to
prepare an offensive—
The Speaker: The Minister of National Defence.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous response to
the other hon. member of the Progressive Conservative Party, we
only have one plan with respect to the deployment of Canadian
troops.
With respect to the skirmishes on the border, we are still
awaiting confirmation as to what took place.
Certainly the plan of NATO is to have troops, as it does now in
Macedonia and as it will have in Albania, to protect the
refugees.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that the minister call Kingston.
On a related matter, whether we like it or not, the Kosovo
Liberation Army is, and will continue to be, an increasingly
important player in the conflict in Kosovo and in the possible
solutions to that conflict.
That is why I would like to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs
tells us what he thinks of the Kosovo Liberation Army, commonly
known as the UCK. In his opinion, is it a real or potential
ally for NATO against Milosevic, is it too extremist to be an
ally, or is it a group of no importance which might do more harm
than good?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the NATO meetings yesterday we had the
opportunity to discuss what could be a transition period once
there is an agreement made.
It was very clear that we all felt that it was very important to
encourage the moderate leadership among the Kosovars who can help
in the redevelopment, help in the rebuilding of government and
help in the re-establishment of a social society.
I want to go back to one central point. That will only happen
when the Milosevic regime agrees to the principles which say that
it has to withdraw its troops, it has to quit harassing and
exploiting refugees, and it must stop using armed force against
its own citizens.
* * *
WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification.
Today the official opposition has accused the federal government
of alienating the west. Clearly women play a major role in the
development of the western economy. What is the secretary of
state doing to help women entrepreneurs in western Canada?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday on behalf of the Government of Canada I had
the pleasure of renewing the mandate of the Women's Enterprise
Centres, one for each of the western provinces, which amounted to
a $17.5 million renewal.
Why? Because independent evaluation showed that they did
exceptionally well.
In what areas? Providing advice and counselling, access to
funding, education, training, networking, mentoring and
partnerships with government and non-government agencies. Women
have been extremely successful in business. They need to be
supported—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a seal crisis in Atlantic Canada. The minister's top
seal scientist has confirmed today that the seal population is so
large that the seals are eating at least twice as many fish than
our fishermen have ever caught before in the history of Atlantic
Canada.
We all agree that a mass slaughter is not the answer. We
believe that increasing the quotas would go a long way to solving
this crisis in Atlantic Canada. As the minister is opposed to
increasing these quotas, we want to know what is his solution to
this crisis.
1455
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
announced the total allowable catch for this year of 275,000. He
has said that he will make his decision based on sound science.
That is in part what the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans was doing this morning. It was hearing witnesses so that
the committee can be helpful in recommending advice to the
minister in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Prime Minister said that our suggestion to use Canada's voice at
the UN security council to promote the idea of an international
protectorate in Kosovo would be useless. However, according to
the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, NATO members are giving
more and more thought to this solution and are calling on the UN
and Russia to help settle the crisis.
Does the Prime Minister still think that getting the UN security
council involved in the establishment of an international
protectorate in Kosovo would produce no results?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
did not say that the involvement of the United Nations in this
issue would produce no results. At this point, there is not much
the United Nations can do, because the Russians do not want to
participate.
As for the policy suggested by the hon. member, it is one of
numerous options that we can discuss once peace is restored and
the Kosovars have gone back home.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
office of the Minister of National Defence confirmed my fears
that NATO is using depleted uranium in Kosovo.
This radioactive blight continues to cause stillbirths and birth
defects in Iraq and is thought to be partly responsible for the
gulf war syndrome.
Will the government begin work immediately to convince NATO
allies, especially the U.S., to cease any and all use of depleted
uranium in Kosovo before we share in condemning more innocent
civilians to radioactive poisoning?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, no Canadian
munitions are using depleted uranium.
There may be use by other NATO allies, including the United
States, and that matter is being looked into.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, April 2 Canada was not accepting refugees from Kosovo.
On Saturday, April 3 we were accepting 5,000 refugees. Then on
Friday, April 9 we were only accepting refugees with special
needs. On Sunday, April 11 the minister said that she was
granting ministerial permits to refugees with special needs. At
the same time our ambassador was saying that what we were talking
about was not temporary protection, it was immigration.
Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us if we
are talking about immigration or are we talking about treating
these people as refugees?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think is was very clear
from the High Commissioner for Refugees for the United Nations
that the first appeal was for temporary protection of people.
The second appeal, when Mrs. Ogata spoke last Friday, was for
resettlement, which is on a permanent basis.
Right now we are waiting for referrals from the High
Commissioner for the resettlement of some individuals who have
specific needs or for family reunification.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister has indicated in the media and in the House that
persons fleeing Kosovo with families in Canada will be welcomed.
Could she share with us as to how this is to happen? My office
has been trying to get assistance for two families in my riding
and has been told on more than one occasion that these families
have to go through the usual process of application.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, right now we have
immigration officers there trying to identify possible family
reunification cases.
For the families that are in Canada, there are special forms
available from my department which they can fill out. We will
also send these forms to our officers there to see if it will be
possible to reunite families.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vladimir A. Torlopov, leader
of a delegation of Speakers and Deputy Speakers of eight
legislatures of Northern Russia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1500
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a letter that
the Prime Minister referred to earlier this day during question
period in the House of Commons. Pursuant to the rules of
Beauchesne's I am now tabling the letter.
[Translation]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during oral
questions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to a letter
he had sent to the Quebec minister, Mrs. Louise Beaudoin.
I ask that a copy of that letter be tabled in the House.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to table in both official languages
my letter to the Quebec Minister of International Relations.
[English]
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government House leader just tabled in the House a letter
from the Prime Minister.
I think there has been some misunderstanding. What my colleague
was asking for in question period was not just a letter, but all
relevant documents to an issue. I hope the government does not
take our acceptance of the tabling of the letter as all relevant
documents because it is not.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—REGIONS OF CANADA
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
prior to question period, on the debate on the alienation of all
Canadians I was quoting what municipal leaders in Manitoba were
saying about regional alienation and how their constituents
perceived Ottawa. I will continue.
Reeve Maxine Plesiuk of the rural municipality of Ethelbert
said:
We do feel alienated from Ottawa. Look at the distance. We are
or appear to be out of reach of Ottawa. What made my blood boil
was when I heard that the Liberal government task force on
western alienation would meet with only Liberals by invitation.
We sure were not contacted by them.
1505
Mayor Gary Hopper from the town of The Pas:
You're never really part of the system if you're west of the
Ontario border. The provinces do the same thing. They tend to
alienate communities if they're located too far from Winnipeg.
Distance doesn't help feeling you're a part of something. The
solution is that the federal government needs to demonstrate a
willingness to work with the provinces on all fronts. The feds
can surely do something about levelling the playing field so that
aboriginal businesses don't have the upper hand over
non-aboriginal businesses. We need more free votes in the House
of Commons so that local issues can be brought to the House for
debate.
Mayor Bud Oliver from the city of Selkirk:
The perception, whether true or not, is that decisions are made
in the best interest of the population base of the east, and not
the west. People have not forgotten the CF-18 decision made by
eastern politicians.
Mayor Bill Comaskey from the city of Thompson:
Alienation by Ottawa is evident by the frustration municipalities
have in dealing with the federal bureaucracies. Case in point,
Ottawa has broken off negotiations with Thompson in dealing with
the transfer of the regional airport. The federal system has
little credibility. Look at the GST promise, the Airbus scandal,
the cancelling of the helicopter deal, the cancellation of the
Pearson airport deal. The federal system needs fixing.
Mayor Reg Atkinson from the city of Brandon, which was one of
the stops of the task force:
My solution for the federal government on the issue of alienation
is that Ottawa needs to treat all parts of the country equally.
We all know that discrimination causes only conflicts within our
country.
Reeve Dwayne Lawless from the rural municipality of Rossburn:
Ottawa is far removed from here. They don't listen to our
concerns. Case in point, with the reorganization and cutback of
the local RCMP, why is it always that the locals are at the
receiving end of the cutbacks? I'll bet that the RCMP in Ottawa
isn't reduced. They should be cutting at the top, not the bottom
where real policing needs to take place. We've lost control over
government. They do as they want. Another case in point, the
gun control Bill C-68. They keep pouring good money after bad.
It would be better to put that money into the pockets of farmers
who are about to go broke instead of into registering long guns,
which will do nothing to reduce crime. People feel alienated
from big government and are not happy.
I have received numerous calls on the farm aid package. These
calls were very negative. These farmers, the likes of Richard
Cleland and Ken Caldwell of Rossburn and John Puchailo of Gilbert
Plains, are very disillusioned about the AIDA program. The
method of calculation will ensure that very few, if any, farmers
will receive assistance at all.
Farmers are smart businessmen. They write off most of their
earnings into future business capital needs. Farmers are
frustrated with the AIDA program. Farmers are being informed
that it will cost them between $500 and $800 to get the
applications filled out.
The task force of the Prime Minister started on the wrong foot.
When the task force was first announced in Manitoba in January,
the chairman, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
indicated to the Winnipeg press that the Liberal task force would
not consider any recommendations for change to the Firearms Act.
How ironic. On the one hand the task force was to listen to
Manitobans and on the other hand the task force would not listen
to any concerns about the gun control Bill C-68.
No one objects to consulting Canadians. It is the process we
object to.
Governments at all levels are elected to serve all their
constituents. We are all Canadians and want to be treated
equally. Manitobans have said to me that Ottawa does not treat
them in an equal manner. This of course creates the feeling of
alienation. I believe the only solution is for Ottawa to start
listening to all members of parliament in this House and to start
treating all parts of this country equally irrespective of
political parties. All Canadians deserve good government.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure I heard something
wrong from my hon. colleague but I will take the opportunity of
asking him a question in a moment.
1510
The gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister's task force on the
four western provinces of which I am proud to be a member. Last
week I visited Manitoba and I returned on the same airplane as
this gentleman. I have been visiting the west for 45 years and I
enjoy every part of it.
I understood the hon. member said that only Liberals were
invited to appear before the task force. We had the chamber of
commerce and municipal representatives. For example, in Brandon,
Manitoba council members were present. I understand that the
mayor was out of the city. I believe most of the members were
there and I can assure everyone that they were not all Liberals.
After we broke the session we had some conversations with these
people and they were critical of our government. It was an
opportunity to listen to people and to hear their concerns.
We met with the Women's Institute representing rural Canada. We
met with economic development groups. We met with the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture. We met with the Keystone Agriculture
Producers organization of Manitoba. We met with these people and
listened to them. They gave us ideas to bring back to share with
our colleagues.
I ask the member, did he put on the record that the witnesses to
our task force were only Liberals by invitation only?
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the question.
I actually quoted the reeve from the rural municipality of
Ethelbert. She said that she had heard about the Liberal task
force.
I can certainly explain the real workings of what happened with
the task force. My staff in my riding in Manitoba have followed
the works of the task force since January. We called the office
of the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia several times
to get a schedule for the meetings and information on how one
would access the meetings. We received requests from
constituents in terms of how to access the hearings.
Unfortunately right up to the week previous we could not get a
schedule of the meetings and no one seemed to know how to access
them. It certainly was one of the best kept secrets of the task
force. I would have appeared before the task force just to
listen to the concerns of Manitobans. That is the reality of how
the task force worked in Manitoba.
It is not that we do not support public consultation; we all do
it. We need to do it, but it is how this Liberal government is
doing it.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I want to mention to my
hon. member colleague that these were public consultations.
Members of parliament did not appear before us. We did not have
any members on this side of the House or on that side of the
House appear before us. It was not a political exercise.
As far as my colleague saying that he did not have access to our
program and schedule, I was not in charge of that. I certainly
would not want my colleague to say to Canadians that we were
there only to listen to elected members. Yes, we listened to
municipal people who are elected but we did not have any of the
provincial people there.
It reminds me that just before the break, Tony Clement, the
minister of transport for Ontario, came to one of the standing
committees. The Reform Party brought the minister into the room
and wanted him to appear as a witness.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of this task
force I believe was to consult the public. We cannot consult the
public if we do not tell the public where we are going to be and
do not give them the access.
I am not talking about asking members of parliament to go before
the task force. The grassroots people are the ones. I spoke to
probably 15 different mayors and reeves. I called them on the
telephone and asked each one of them what they knew about the
task force. Other than a few of the big city mayors, they did
not know a thing about the task force.
1515
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before we go on
to the next speaker and just so people understand, as long as
there is someone on their feet representing a contraperspective
to the debate and not from the same party, the other party will
be recognized. It is just the way debate is.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is good to participate in the debate today and to move from
western Canada which my colleague just spoke about to New
Brunswick.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was attempting to ask a question and the debate was
going back and forth.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is still good to get
move to the east coast now and talk about New Brunswick.
I would like to share with the House a few comments on some of
the trips I have made to New Brunswick and how people in the east
end of the country are feeling just as frustrated with the
Liberal government as they are in the west. Maybe the Liberals
can get a little task force together to look into the alienation
of Atlantic Canadians as well, because I am sure they would get
some news from that.
It is spring. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have just come back here
from Edmonton. The snow has gone there and we have fresh clean
air. It is wonderful that spring has hit Canada. It would be
terrific if spring and some fresh air were to move through the
House of Commons. It would be just super. It is certainly time
for spring in Ottawa.
We have to look at a new country. The next spring that this
country sees will be in the new millennium. It would be terrific
to do some spring house cleaning as well and see a new government
in Ottawa so that we could bring about some real changes, serious
changes that would make Canadians from coast to coast feel proud
to be Canadian again. I was speaking with someone last week who
does not feel proud to be Canadian any more. That hurts all of
our hearts, regardless of what side of the House we are on.
I wanted to ask the people of New Brunswick for some of their
feedback. I am a westerner. Although I spend time in Atlantic
Canada from time to time, I do not understand everything about it
and never pretended to. I thought the best way would be to go to
source and talk to New Brunswickers.
I sent out a form to several people asking them to distribute it
around New Brunswick. I put two comments on the form asking for
responses:
1. Here's how one Liberal policy in Ottawa has severely affected
me and my fellow New Brunswickers.
2. Here's how I would fix that Liberal policy.
People had an opportunity to send in real comments and say this
is how Liberal policy has affected them in New Brunswick as a New
Brunswicker. I have had several responses from people. It is
amazing the feedback that came from them. I suggest the Liberals
should listen to this also because they will find some incredible
parallels to the task force on western alienation.
Number one was no surprise, taxes. People were concerned about
taxes. They say taxes are grossly unfair, discriminatory and too
high. That is no surprise, no matter what corner of the country
they live in.
The Liberals promise job and wealth creation and they keep New
Brunswick back from its potential. What a sad story it is to see
people from across the country faxing MPs to say that taxes keep
New Brunswick back from its potential. That is the saddest thing
to me.
What federal taxes do New Brunswickers want reformed? Their
biggest concern was about extending the tax deduction to single
income families. We know this has been prevalent in the news
lately, but we have seen a lot of people come forward like
Kimberly Oliver who said:
I feel single income families are unfairly taxed. A stay at home
parent cannot get a part time job because they lose it all at tax
time at year end.
Here we are in mid-April. Everybody is working away on their
taxes and they know the price that they are paying in the high
taxation of the government. She continued:
Stay at home parents are ignored and put down for their services
and unfairly taxed.
Here's how I would fix that Liberal policy.
A tax break for single income families and allow a dependant to
earn more before penalties.
What a smart, practical idea that is. Somebody else, Innis
McCready, wrote:
Taxes were too high for the average home owner and wage earner.
As a parent, and now a grandparent, I am saddened to see young
New Brunswick mothers (some of my relatives, friends and
neighbours) being forced to leave to others the care of their
preschool aged children to work outside the home in order to make
ends meet, all because of the careless indifference of this
government and its discriminatory tax laws.
1520
How would this person change it? He said he would cut taxes to
low income families and cut business taxes. What a great idea it
would be to cut taxes; not just the way the federal finance
minister talks about cutting taxes because he picks and chooses
little areas here and there, but complete tax breaks across the
country.
Lower payroll taxes. We have gone around and around in the
House about that as well. The government might just bubble forth
here and tell us how it has dropped the EI rate, but it forgets
to tell us the part about raising CPP taxes so much. That must
have been just an oversight. I am sure it was an accident on its
part.
Allan MacMillan and Bernie Conway from New Brunswick have said
we need to establish a flat tax. Bernie Conway wrote that he
was:
—a second year law student at the University of New Brunswick in
Fredericton. I will be entering the workforce in the year 2000.
The amount of money that I will be paying in taxes is very
disconcerting. I have invested both time and money into my
education in hopes to make a better life for myself, my family
and Canada. Yet the governing party in Ottawa (and its
predecessors) have seen fit to saddle me (and all Canadians) with
a tax system that will make this very difficult.
These letters from frustrated people go on and on. They want to
work. They want to pay taxes but not high discriminatory taxes
so they are burdened to death.
Lower taxes on retired people and pensioners. I go back to the
CPP issue again. Our plan is to rescue the Canadian pension plan
from bankruptcy through guaranteeing full benefits to Canadian
seniors and creating super individually vested RRSPs that will
allow Canadians to secure their own retirement without being
taxed to death, perhaps before their natural time.
Revenue Canada must treat custodial and non-custodial parents
fairly. I have comments from people who say there is no justice
in the tax system when it comes to child maintenance and access.
The HST should be dropped from second hand sales. We do not
have to live with the HST in western Canada. Maybe the Liberal
task force has not come up with that yet. On second hand sales
Susan Baxter from St. George, New Brunswick, wrote:
We are overtaxed! We just bought a second hand camper trailer.
We had to pay sales tax on this item even though it was used (15%
tax). There's no limit to the taxing.
The potential is that after several sales and resales of this
old camper trailer the government gets HST. Somebody sells it
again and the government gets HST. That is scandalous.
The second issue that people were concerned about was health
care and education funding. Eric Banks from Second Falls, New
Brunswick, wrote:
The health care and education are in real trouble because of
federal government cuts. Nurses are leaving our country for jobs
that are not here...The education department has been cut year
after year. They call it amalgamation.
What a nice word. I also heard the words partnerships and
networking. They sound so glossy, but basically it is a knife in
the back. The Liberals are cutting them but if they dress it up
with a fancy name and it will be oh so painless. That is
scandalous and the government should be ashamed of itself,
especially when it announced in its budget all the wonderful
billions of dollars going back into health care. It cut $20
billion and put $11.5 billion in. Then it tries to tell me,
an English major, that this is good math. Even I can figure
out that it does not make much sense.
The third major issue that New Brunswickers talked about was gun
registration. The present plan will not work. We have raised
the issue that the wonderful firearm centre that is doing such
tremendous work is sending out firearm acquisition certificates
with somebody else's picture on it. As good looking as you may
be, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not want your picture on
someone else's FAC. It would not be a good thing. Nor would
your twin. I know he would be equally scandalized.
The fourth issue is about protecting the east coast fishery.
What a devastation. We talked about the seal hunt today and how
many cod seals are eating. Again, Eric Banks from Second Falls
wrote:
The fisheries of the east coast is in a terrible mess and most of
that problem is due to policies that destroy small fishing
villages.
What he would do to fix that policy? He wrote:
Would it not be a novel idea to have people in those industries
being able to advise government?
The fifth issue is EI reform for seasonal workers. Many people
in New Brunswick are seasonal workers. I have information from
people there who said there was a problem with EI, and
specifically the intensity rule, for people to be able to say
that they work seasonally. Some of these industries are
seasonal. There is no other way to cut it. They have seasonal
employment.
1525
In conclusion let me wrap up by saying that people in New
Brunswick, the same as people in Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward
Island, Newfoundland and all across the country, are saying “All
right already, we are being taxed to death. Lay off. We do not
mind paying taxes but just back off and quit asking us for more
and more and more”.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's task
force was very well received across Manitoba, always a warm
reception by the wonderful people of western Canada.
We held public sessions in several ridings, in several centres
across Manitoba. We started in Winnipeg and we went north. We
were in several ridings. Actually we were in ridings that were
represented by at least three parties in the House. We were not
there to lobby one group or another. We were there to listen to
Canadians.
I tell my colleague who just spoke that we are a party that
represents all parts of Canada. We did not just target ridings
held by one group of people. Is this not evident in the results
in the Windsor—St. Clair byelection yesterday? We got more
votes. I feel for some parties because they will not even get
back their deposit.
Does this byelection result not reflect the fact the Reform
Party is a very regional party that is just unable to break out
of the confines of representing a few people?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the
meetings were so well attended in Manitoba. In fact I have been
talking about New Brunswick.
It seems to me those meetings were by invitation only. It seems
as though we have to be members of a secret society to get in on
some of these meetings that the Liberals are holding.
It would be really smart to put a general advertisement in the
newspapers. If the Liberals are so concerned about finding out
what westerners think, because he is back to the west now, surely
to goodness they could make sure those meetings are well
publicized and get everybody out to listen to their concerns.
When the hon. member talks about Liberals being the national
party across the country, I might remind him of the seats that
they lost in New Brunswick, to which I was just referring, and
Nova Scotia. I must remember one of his friends, Doug Young, had
some EI policies in New Brunswick. He knows exactly what
happened to him, a very senior minister in cabinet who was gone
after that.
Let us talk about the west because the hon. member seems
obsessed with that. Let us talk about the seats that were lost
in Manitoba by the Liberals. Let us look at Saskatchewan for
just a minute. There is one lonely Liberal soul left from
Saskatchewan. He has a wonderful tan today and he sits on the
front bench, but irrelevant is irrelevant.
Let us move on to Alberta. Let us have a little look at Alberta
for Liberals. They did not have a seat for a generation. They
managed to squeak out four seats, probably purely by accident, in
the 1993 election. Then we cut that in half to two seats, one of
which I snapped away from a Liberal on June 2, 1997. It was a
wonderful night in my life.
Let us look at B.C. if we are talking about a national party.
There are precious few Liberals left. I dare the member and his
Liberal friend from B.C. to put a public advertisement in the
paper and invite people far and wide; not like the Minister of
Justice, one of the two Liberals left in Alberta, who had a
fundraising event recently and someone paid $800 to have supper
with her.
What a steal, $800 to have supper with the justice minister.
Guess who is not coming to dinner. It is the justice minister
because she found out that one of the people who paid $800, one
of the guests, was going to be the president of the National
Firearms Association, a perfectly civil, polite fellow. Then
Link Byfield was coming to supper too, the editor of the
Alberta Report. What do we think happened? Guess who is
not coming for supper. One of those Liberals.
They paid $800 to have supper with her, but because she only
wanted to have supper with Liberals, she would not have supper
with them. If it is a truly national party and if it is proud of
its stuff, it ought to have supper with anyone and brag about it.
1530
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to hear the travelogue of the member from Edmonton
North who, I guess, was obviously on some kind of a vacation in
New Brunswick. I did not know Reformers actually travelled east
of the Manitoba border except to come to this place. Obviously,
they are out campaigning on their own, talking to New
Brunswickers, doing what I am sure they are accusing us of doing,
looking for candidates.
Maybe the member should have spent some time in the byelection
in Windsor where this party did not even get its deposit back,
where this party came fourth, where this party got a message from
the voters in Ontario that some day it is going to wake up and
understand that those voters have no time for the Reform Party.
I have been advised that I am splitting my time with my good
friend from Vancouver Quadra.
What I find astounding is the fact that we are debating what
could only be called one of the silliest motions that I have ever
seen in this House.
Last night through until 8 o'clock this morning, members of all
parties stood in the House and talked about the war. Like it or
not, this country is involved in a serious conflict and all we
get from the member opposite is her travelogue from New
Brunswick. Members should instead be standing up in the House
and talking about important issues such as the war. What do we
get on an opposition day?
Last night in a question period, the members opposite berated
the government for not having a vote. While the lives of our
fighting men and women are at risk, they wanted to play politics.
They wanted to have a vote. That is terrific. This is the vote.
We are going to vote on whether or not we should join our
partners in NATO. Once we have had that vote, then we will send
the message over to Mr. Milosevic, who I am sure will be busy
listening to C-SPAN to hear exactly what we are saying.
If they wanted a vote on any of those issues, why would they not
take that opportunity today? It is their day. The Canadian
people should know that this is opposition day. The Reform
Party, as the official opposition, has the option of putting
forward almost any motion it wants, save and except a spending
bill, for debate in this place, and then at the end of the day we
would vote on it.
Why would the Reform Party not stand up in this place and
introduce a motion to have a vote, in whatever way it wanted to
frame it, surrounding the issue of the war in Kosovo? Why would
it not do that?
Today of all days, when we awake this morning to the news that
the Yugoslav army has invaded Albania with ground troops, we are
talking to a motion that says we should rename a government
caucus task force, the liberation alienation committee, something
about alienating the west.
Why would we not be debating the issues that Canadians have on
their minds today? Canadians are worried about the men and women
who are in Europe defending freedom and democracy, defending the
refugees in that part of the world. Canadians are worried about
the potential influx of thousands of refugees and how we are
going to take care of them. They are calling all of our offices
as MPs and opening up their hearts, wallets and homes to try to
help these people, and the best the Reform Party can do is come
up with some cockamamie motion about renaming a government task
force.
I guess its nose is out of joint because the task force has
found it necessary to go into the ridings represented by
Reformers in western Canada and meet with people. We get phone
calls from those people telling us their member of parliament has
not told them about the details of the millennium fund, or their
member of parliament has not told them about the details of the
tax cuts in the recent budget.
Why would the Reform Party not do that? I believe it is not
doing its jobs.
1535
I really do not care whether the members opposite agree with the
millennium fund program. I really do not care whether or not
they agree with the western diversification programs that are
going on in western Canada. Whether they care or agree is not
the point.
Once members of parliament are elected, they are obligated to
represent everyone in their constituency whether or not they
voted for them or carry the party card. They are not allowed to
be partisan when it comes to representing the constituents in
their communities. They are not allowed to display partisan
material in their offices. There is a good reason for that.
When I was elected the member for Mississauga West, it was my
duty and sworn responsibility to represent everyone whether they
voted New Democrat or Tory. I know they certainly did not vote
Bloc. A few in my riding voted Reform, although I do not
believe they got their deposit back. This is a message that some
of them should think about.
The battle cry of the Reform Party when it was formed some years
ago was that the west wants in. Let me give some examples
because the Reform members do not think that the west is in.
We have representatives doing terrific work and actually
handling constituency complaints from ridings represented by
Reformers because they are not doing their jobs. We have a
dedicated, honest and hard-working woman in Vancouver Kingsway.
Members will hear shortly from the member for Vancouver—Quadra.
We have a former mayor of Coquitlam who is a terrific,
hard-working member for his constituents. We have the member for
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. We have the members for
Winnipeg South, Winnipeg North—St. Paul and Provencher. The
west wants in. How much more in would it like?
We have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has stood up
and made sure, for the first time, that somebody is doing
something about the fish. Is that not a revolution? Is that not
a reform? This motion is about the west, but the truth is that
our fisheries in eastern Canada were destroyed by former Tory
ministers. This minister is fighting for them as he is for the
salmon in western Canada.
The Minister of Revenue has changed the collection agency to
make it a responsive agency. The Minister of Multiculturalism
and the Status of Women stood in this place and defended single
parents and single stay at home moms. The Minister for
Asia-Pacific is representing and fighting on behalf of human
rights issues all around the world. The Minister of Justice
recently introduced amendments to the Young Offenders Act that
are being lauded across the country. The Minister of Natural
Resources is a fighter on behalf of the changes in the Kyoto
agreement. The Minister of External Affairs, who nobody can say
anything negative about, is one of the greatest parliamentarians
in this place. He is a man known around the world for leading
the fight to ban land mines. The west is clearly in.
The Reform Party should be looking at the Minister of Western
Economic Diversification who is trying to find a way to funnel
energy and economic growth into western Canada. All of these
ministers are at the table on behalf of the people in western
Canada. The additional members are in caucus fighting every day
on behalf of their constituents and are doing the job that
members in the Reform Party fail to do for their constituents.
1540
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the member. The business of this House is to discuss
the important issues of the day. Therefore, I ask my hon.
Liberal colleague why it was the Reform Party that initiated the
discussion on hepatitis C compensation? Why was it the Reform
Party that initiated the discussion on child pornography and the
Young Offenders Act? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated
the discussion on tax relief when it did not come, despite
election promises? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated
the discussion on APEC and whether or not students were going to
be able to have access to funding and what was going to happen
with the suppression of freedom of speech?
I wonder why it is the Reform Party that is talking about those
issues. I wonder why it is the Reform Party that is asking for a
debate and a vote on whether or not we send troops into Kosovo.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I was neglectful in not
mentioning the member for Saint Boniface who is also the
Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification.
It is interesting that the member would talk about all these
issues. I will agree with him on something. The Reform Party
has stood up and mentioned many of those issues in the House, but
generally it was the afternoon after it came out in the Globe
and Mail or the National Post, which is where it does
its research. It was not because it was on any kind of cutting
edge or that it was being proactive.
The Reform Party members are reading the newspaper over morning
coffee and saying, “Look at this, APEC. We had better talk
about this. Holy smokes, there is a scandal. We had better talk
about this”. That is where they get their research.
If they would spend more time taking care of their constituents
and giving them the information that comes out of this government
in western Canada, just maybe there would not be a need for a
task force to travel across the west.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the hon. member first stood he said that this was a silly motion.
I guess if it is such a silly motion it makes the member pretty
silly for joining in.
If the member would not mind standing and feeling silly once
again, I would ask him to explain how anything he said in his
speech, anything at all, had the slightest bit of relevance to
the alienation of the Liberals in the west or anywhere else in
the country because of their ignoring of the concerns across the
country.
For the member's interest, I would like him to know that a Mark
Trend poll taken in B.C. and Alberta in mid-March found that the
tax relief he puffed up as being something important that the
Liberals were all calling him about, did not even receive favour
with a fraction of a percentage of the people. The persons
responding to the poll said that the average amount of tax relief
they would like to see would be $2,600 a year not the measly few
hundred the government granted.
He talked about the Young Offenders Act being lauded across the
country. It is being criticized across the country as tinkering
around the edges as usual, nothing worthwhile and certainly
nothing worth having.
He thinks, as many of the hon. members on that side have said
all day, that throwing money at the west or anywhere else through
diversification funds somehow responds to the concerns. What a
lot of bunkum. The importance of the western diversification
fund does not even appear as a blip on the radar screen in
western Canada.
I would like the hon. member to get up, be silly again and tell
us what relevance his speech had to the whole debate.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the
hon. member to understand anything that I have said. I would not
expect him to agree with it by any means, but I would tell the
hon. member that as the Prime Minister's chair of the task force
on youth entrepreneurship, which I have not seen him criticizing,
I have travelled western and eastern Canada. I have met with
representatives of western diversification. I have met with the
service delivery people. I have met with the young entrepreneurs
in western Canada.
To hear this member stand hear and say that the western
diversification fund is not important to western Canada simply
reinforces my view that the members of his party have neither
their feet on the ground nor their ears to it. They are not
representing their constituents in ensuring that they have access
to government plans and government information. The reason why
the Prime Minister has seen the need to strike a task force of
parliamentarians who will travel through western Canada listening
to the needs and concerns of western Canadians is because the
Reform Party is not doing that.
1545
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also was puzzled by the choice of the topic of today's debate,
but I am puzzled with all political parties at a certain time.
Two weeks ago we might have debated all night the Kosovo
intervention but another party chose to debate something else on
domestic politics. I do not criticize that. Then all parties
decided to adjourn a day early and we had the debate two weeks
later. The committees which are all-party committees, defence and
foreign affairs themselves did not have any initiatives from
government or opposition members to come back earlier than a week
ago. The House sometimes chooses its business in ways that may
seem strange to outside people but we do get our work done.
I assume that spring has arrived early in the west and that
explains perhaps the tone, perhaps the thrust of the present
debate. I hope you will allow me in that spirit, Mr. Speaker,
simply to send a message to that well-known western raconteur and
wit, Malcolm Parry, based on information he derived from the
political chattering class.
Every party has its political chattering class. They hang
around party headquarters. They do not get out in the trenches
like the hon. members opposite or those around me.
Let me put the record straight. I do not intend to quit
parliament. I am not about to be named roving ambassador for the
Balkans. I am not about to be elected to the college of
cardinals. I am not even the next general manager of the
Vancouver Canucks. I might wish such a fate upon some of the hon.
members opposite, that is to say the Vancouver Canucks. But we
are all optimistic in the west. We may find another Pavel Bure
and we may somehow win the golden chalice again.
Some comments have been made and I am always complimented when I
find members opposite listen to my speeches or in some cases read
my householders, my letters to constituents. The member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands is a very promising younger member of this
House. In fact, Professor Sandra Anderson, who is an
environmental specialist and I believe the wife of someone close
to the present members of the House, has regarded him as one of
her most promising, if unpredictable, students. He has made some
comments on the issue of APEC funding. I would think that this
would perhaps direct attention to the special role of western
members. I include my colleagues opposite in this.
We are interested in getting results. We do not have to take
the essay in imagination that a New Brunswick scholar has made in
today's Globe and Mail on the transformation of the
parliamentary system, nevertheless getting results in parliament
is a matter of hard work. We have to research a file; we have to
meet the parties concerned. If we make propositions, we have to
quantify their social cost, their financial cost and we have to
lobby people, ministers, our own caucus and others.
I feel very happy that after 15 months I was able to produce a
result in the APEC funding issue that I felt to be the correct
one and which I had recommended in the first place. I am glad to
have hon. members opposite join me in that. I take the comment
of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in that light.
I would also say to the hon. member for North Vancouver who has
given me the benefit of his advice, and it has been valuable in
many ways on certain matters involving native leaseholds and
other things, that I have given about 150 hours of time since
early December to the issue he discussed today, Bill C-49. I do
not have the exact transcripts of his remarks, but I believe
there is progress being made there.
There were issues in which I felt the legislation could be
tidied up. I have been proceeding by quiet diplomacy, meeting
with lawyers, meeting with the parties, the stakeholders and
meeting with ministry officials. I am hopeful that a resolution
which I would think would be satisfactory in terms of the
constitution, the charter and the interests of the conflicting
stakeholders will be reached.
In other words, I think it is an opportunity for correcting this
simplistic view of parliament that our main work is making
speeches and that it is sometimes good to make charges to the
opposite side of the House and back, Don Quixote style.
1550
Most of our work, and this applies to people in government and
opposition, is hard slugging work. It is research. Sometimes I
think I am doing a half million dollar private lawyer's work for
an MP's salary. I think that is true of all members of the
House.
Some remarks have been made on the west. I would have to cavil
with my colleagues on that. I understand the west is a large
concept but I have argued since I was first elected in 1993 that
B.C. is separate and distinct in itself. We are a fifth region,
which is not to say we cannot coexist peacefully with the three
prairie provinces and that we cannot co-operate as we are doing,
as is obvious in the task force that has been referred to. But
we are a distinct society and the Prime Minister recognized this
in the joint resolution of both houses of parliament.
It has implications of course, concretely. For example, if we
ever get around to reform of federal institutions and an elected
Senate, I want a fifth of the seats in the elected Senate for
British Columbia. I think the hon. member for North Vancouver
would not disagree with me on that. I want to see proportional
representation in federal institutions.
Since we contribute 13% of the national revenue from B.C. and
five or six years ago got only 7% of federal funding for sciences
and research and development, I am delighted to say that it has
gone up. When it gets beyond 13% I think we will ask for 20% as
a region.
In these areas the west has its own distinctness, but within it,
I would argue B.C. has a distinctness more so even than Quebec
has in relation to Canada as a whole. The miracle in our case is
that we made the transition to a multicultural society without
too much pain, with a great deal of optimism and goodwill, to the
point where the ethnic communities are no longer a monolithic
block, if they ever were one such block of people.
They are plural also. They have differences of opinions,
differences of attitudes and anybody would have to be wary to
take the vote for granted. For example on the issue of the
intervention in Kosovo, different ethnic communities within my
community of Vancouver take different positions and ask me to
explain why I might take one position or the other. That is good
and healthy.
In a way our charm in B.C. sometimes is an embarrassment to the
rest of the country, but not to us. We produce interesting
political leaders. I have sometimes had to rescue my province
from its activities in giving counsel in various places,
promoting peaceful transitions from impossible situations, from
impossible political leaders, but I value the interesting variety
and heterogeneity of our political personalities.
Our role is a little like that of the 19th century MP in Great
Britain or perhaps the continental European politician today. One
of my constituents said to me “We vote for you. You are part of
your party but we do not like you to be 100% for your party. We
like you to dissent sufficiently when we feel our interests our
involved”. There is an art in doing that. You recognize the
gain you have from an affiliation with the party. You also have
made the pledge when you accept membership that you in general
will abide by its principles and its program but the dissent
within the party, the argumentation, the presentation of a
reasoned case, the diversity of treatment, is there and
opportunities are available.
When we do our job well, this is when we really do establish the
western personality and in particular, if I may say again, the
B.C. personality. There is nothing like it even in New Zealand,
Australia, or anywhere else. We are distinct and we are very
proud of it.
The pluralism within a party is something we have to ask for
more and more in a period when presidential prime ministerships
are the rule of the day. A French friend said we have a
monarchical president.
I said that sometimes it is an imperial president. Nevertheless
the countervailing power in our society with an unreformed Senate
and various other things is coming within the parties. That is
where the give and take is. That is where the legislation is
made and it is a healthy development. I think it has lessons for
this side of the House and for the other side of the House.
1555
I take it that it is in this spirit, the spirit of spring which
came early to Vancouver as it always does, that this motion was
put forward by the opposition. I accept it in that spirit.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was a very civil speech, although I am not sure how much
relevance it actually had to the motion. A couple of interesting
points came up in the speech. I do appreciate the member
mentioning how he supports proportional representation.
I wonder if he has done the numbers, as I have. He certainly
would have discovered that Reform would come out with 60 seats,
but the Liberals would drop dramatically and would no longer be
the majority government that they are today. I thank the hon.
member for that endorsement of a process which would certainly be
more representative of how people vote in the country. The
situation that gives 100% of the power with 38% of the vote to
that side of the House is really not healthy for the country.
I gave him credit earlier today and I do again for actually
speaking out publicly from time to time, contrary to the will of
his party, and representing his constituents. He is to be
congratulated for that.
I wonder if he would mind speaking to the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, who did promise to speak out
regularly and correct all the ills of the world, who never has
said a word in this place and thinks that everything is fine with
the land management bill. I wonder if the member would mind
having a little chat with him and setting him straight.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we can enroll
the member for North Vancouver in the process of parliamentary
reform. It will be more complex I think than many members
envisaged in 1993 when first elected.
The presidentialization of the prime minister's power in Great
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada is a phenomenon of our
times. It cannot be reversed, but we can develop countervailing
checks and balances, constitutional checks and balances, much as
they were developed in Westminster in the 18th century, but they
are more likely to be within the political parties themselves. I
wish the hon. member would direct his very fertile mind and
imagination to that task because he may have a good deal to offer
us.
On reform of the electoral system, each electoral system begets
its own practices and we could live with PR. I could myself. I
have a feeling in some ways that it would be a more interesting
House. Again, it would change the constitutional system and we
would have to make corresponding changes in other institutions. I
could suggest them, but it is a large test and we would be into a
decade of work.
As for the business, the give and take between colleagues, the
give and take across the House, it is one of the things I value.
This is a continent widely divided. This country is the distance
from Moscow to Vladivostok. One of the experiences on that long,
five and a half hour flight twice a week from Vancouver to Ottawa
and Ottawa to Vancouver, is that I meet with constituents and I
meet with the opposition parties. There are more than two
parties in B.C. federally. I have conversations. I believe
there is a process of give and take and it is beneficial.
I think it was in that spirit, if I may say so, that it was
suggested I was not speaking to the motion. But if the motion
was whimsical, not perhaps serious, I put it down to the spring
and the arrival of the daffodils. It was in that spirit that I
attempted to offer a prairie rose to the hon. member for North
Vancouver.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention during his speech that
if and when his government gets around to it, he would like to
see some democratic reform, especially with regard to the Senate
having better representation of what is existent in B.C.
population in the Senate. His government has been in power now
for over six years and we have not seen any movement on
democratic reform. There have been provinces, for instance
Alberta, which have made an effort to try to change the Senate.
I would like to ask the hon. member a simple question. Will the
government get around to democratic reform maybe before the end
of the next millennium or some time sooner? When may that
happen?
1600
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, we have to establish our
priorities by considering the ways and means that are available.
Unfortunately, Senate reform is virtually impossible, except
marginally because of Part V of the 1982 Constitution Act, which
I advised against incidentally. The only way we are going to
change the Senate, other than marginally, is with a constituent
assembly.
I have the feeling that the generation of Canadians coming into
political power very shortly will want to have a constituent
assembly and will want an act of constitutionalization. But I
would advise the hon. member that I think he could use his
talents and energy in other areas of constitutional reform where
we do not have that constitutional straightjacket that Part V of
the Constitution imposes. It is a pity.
My friend Rafe Mair and I agree that we would like to be United
States senators. There is no more beautiful job than that. But
it is just unforeseeable for another 10 years here. Give us a
constituent assembly and all will spill. But the country has to
be ready for it and it is not quite ready yet.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join with my colleagues today in a discussion of the
important issue of national alienation, in particulary that of
Quebec.
I am not a Quebecer myself, but I wish to point out that I
respect and admire Quebecers. I have learned French, and
continue to do so, because I wish to acquire a better
understanding of Quebecers and of the francophone culture.
I asked for the national unity portfolio in our caucus in order
to be able to help ensure that Quebec remains within Canada, by
giving Quebec and the other provinces true equal powers and not
mere symbols.
I want Quebec to stay within Canada, and I am prepared to fight
the Liberal style federalism of the status quo, which continues
to alienate Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.
Consequently, although not, of course, a Quebecer, I hope I am
in a position to understand the feelings of alienation felt by
the citizens of Canada living in that province.
The Liberal government understands that education is an area of
provincial jurisdiction protected by the Constitution. It also
understands that when it encroaches on areas of provincial
jurisdiction protected by the Constitution, Quebeckers become
increasingly frustrated, and the feelings of alienation intensify.
Yet, the Liberals' instinct to meddle in everything is so strong
and their condescending, paternalistic, interventionist, big
brother attitude is so pronounced that they continue to get
involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, in spite
of the resulting damage to Canadian unity. The millennium fund
is a prime example.
This fund is nothing but another inefficient and costly Liberal
policy. For our friends from Quebec, it is a constant reminder
that the current government refuses to recognize the division of
powers provided under the Constitution.
Bloc Quebecois members, like Reformers, are just as interested
in education as the Prime Minister is. They simply want the
federal government to respect provincial jurisdiction, and they
also know that provincial governments are in a better position
to administer the programs than the federal government, which is
far away.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not care about national
unity or constitutional issues. He is only interested in leaving
his mark.
Instead, he will join the long list of federalist politicians
who are advocates of the status quo and who turn a deaf ear when
Quebeckers are urging the current government not to get involved
in provincial jurisdictions.
Before concluding, I want to ask the House to remember the
debates on Bill C-36, dealing with the millennium fund.
1605
All Quebecers should remember that the Reform Party put forward
a recommendation that the provinces and territories be allowed
to opt out and to conclude agreements with the millennium
foundation, to use their share of the funds based on their own
priorities for post-secondary education.
Our party has always recognized Quebec's right to determine how
its education needs should be met.
[English]
I would like to shift to the topic of health care and the social
union. The social union is about health, education and support
for people in need.
When federal transfers to the provinces were cut by $7 billion,
when hospitals were closing and when 1,400 doctors left Canada in
the last two years, we needed to address health care in the
social union. But this government's solution was to play a money
game and pit provincial premiers all across the country against
Quebec. It was a shame because that in itself created even more
alienation in the province of Quebec.
There was a real effort, for once, from the point when the
Calgary declaration began, all the way through the talks on the
social union, when we saw that provincial premiers were making
progress in trying to come together and work together to put
pressure on the federal government to address problems in the
balance of powers in the country.
However, the government and the Prime Minister did not take that
seriously. Instead they played the money game. They cut money
out of transfers, especially to health care and education, and
they left the provinces with really no choice. When it came to
the crunch, they had to put that money back into health care and
education. In the end they had to buy into a deal that was just
not fair to the provinces, creating even more alienation in the
province of Quebec when all of the other premiers had to take the
cash. They had no choice because they had people to take care of
in their provinces.
Unfortunately Quebec once again felt that it was left out of
the process because there just was not a solution to take care of
the balance, which we in the Reform Party have been trying to
meet right across the country.
That is the success of this government. That is why it has been
relegated to a majority in central Canada. It continues to
succeed by pitting one part of this country against another. Then
it asks the question: Why is there alienation in this country?
It really is no surprise.
Another issue I would like to touch on very quickly is that of
taxation. My hon. colleague from Edmonton North talked about the
issue of taxation in the east.
In Quebec people are concerned about the high level of taxes
they pay. I discussed with people from the Economic Institute of
Montreal, a new think tank, the issues of high taxes and what
they do to the economy of Quebec. They are a lone voice trying
to talk to the federal government.
When we take into consideration the tax factor of the federal
government and the provincial government, Quebecers unfortunately
pay some of the highest taxes in the country, if not in North
America.
That is another factor which the government has failed to
address. At the end of the day, regardless of where we live, we
want to make sure we can put food on the table. We want to make
sure we can provide for our families. The tax rates are so high
that even Quebecers feel alienated that no one is listening to
them at all when it comes to that particular problem.
[Translation]
Canada has a national unity problem because Quebecers and other
Canadians feel profoundly alienated, and this problem will not
go away until honest discussion and real reforms replace the
present empty rhetoric and divisive symbolism.
The Reform Party and most Canadians seem to understand that. In
our opinion, the debate on national unity must be open to
scrutiny and to public support, and the dialogue must be real.
This is why, as Reform critic for intergovernmental affairs, I
am proud to defend the Reform Party's new law on Canada, a
positive and creative measure to rebuild a Canada based on
equality among people and provinces.
The distribution of powers must be reviewed to put an end to
Canadians' feeling of alienation.
1610
In our opinion Quebec and the other provinces must have the
same real powers. This will bring out regional diversity. What
is needed is a new distribution of powers giving all provinces
greater autonomy in areas constitutionally under their
jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the issue of the CHST cuts continues to come back. I remind the
member that the cuts which the federal government made to its own
fiscal expenditures were more than the cuts it made to the
provinces. There was a sharing of the burden. There was a
lesser percentage of revenue.
The member probably knows, and would probably like to confirm,
that at a time when he admits the provinces were cutting health
care and education because of the transfer cuts, was not the
province of Alberta running surpluses and still cutting health
care? Was not the province of Ontario actually giving 15% income
tax cuts while cutting health care?
The cost to the province of Ontario of the tax reduction was in
the order of $1.2 billion. The reduction in transfers from the
federal government was in the neighbourhood of $400 million.
There was a significant difference.
If the actions of the provincial governments were taken into
account at the same time they were cutting health care and
education, it would be very clear that the priorities of the
provinces were not the same as the priorities of the federal
government and the people of Canada. The priorities of the
provinces were to either accumulate surpluses or grant tax cuts.
The member also should acknowledge that in any analysis like
this he cannot ignore the reality of equalization payments in
Canada, of which Quebec is the single largest recipient.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I will address the hon.
member's question briefly. As he knows, I was discussing
alienation in Quebec, not in Alberta or Ontario.
However, with regard to the cuts in transfers from the federal
government, the hon. member has to realize that there were
targets and plans which the provinces had put into place for the
money that was to come from the federal government. The fact is
that in Alberta, if we look at the way it managed health care, it
made the sacrifices it had to make. However, alongside the cuts
made by this government, it actually has more money to put into
health care, plus, something which is totally foreign to this
government, it actually paid down debt, giving more tax relief to
Albertans, which overall is a much more positive move than this
government will ever commit to.
In the province of Ontario the same thing happened. Harris
actually put more money into health care over the time it was cut
by the government but still balanced his priorities of debt
reduction and tax relief; again something which is foreign to
this government.
With regard to Quebec, the question of alienation was even more
significant when it came to the cuts. Then, to come back,
especially with the case of the millennium scholarship fund, and
force Quebec to implement a program that it was not in favour of
after the cuts were made by this government was outrageous.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the last speaker
from the Reform Party and I heard some conciliatory words from
him regarding the good province of Quebec. That is pleasing to
my ears because all parliamentarians should always reach out to
every part of the country.
I am sure the member remembers those embarrassing election ads
in the election campaign of 1997 when the Reform Party actually
said that it did not want any more prime ministers from the
province of Quebec.
That is what those ads said. Does the member remain embarrassed
by those election ads almost three years hence?
1615
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed for the
hon. member's question and how he has twisted the whole direction
of those ads.
I spend a lot of time travelling in the province of Quebec and
talking with people. The actual message I hear from many
Quebecers is that it would be nice to have representation in the
highest office from somewhere else in the country, maybe from the
west, to get a different balance of ideas.
When people in Quebec are agreeing with the message of those ads
and wanting representation from across the country, I think the
hon. member is completely out to lunch.
[Translation]
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 Acadie—Bathurst, Health; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance; the hon. member for Markham, The Economy.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just returned from a meeting of the House leaders and I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Industry be authorized to travel
to St. Hubert, Quebec on Monday, April 26, 1999 for the purpose
of visiting the Canadian Space Agency, and that the necessary
staff do accompany the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion presented by the deputy government House
leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—REGIONS OF CANADA
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once
again the opposition has tried to address an issue, the idea of
alienation, which the government does not seem able to bring
before the House of Commons. The government is willing to strike
committees to recruit candidates across the rest of the country,
but is it willing to discuss the issue and generate debate on it
in the House of Commons? No. Unfortunately that job is up to
the opposition just like it was on a number of other issues.
I feel lonely in the House as many Liberals have poured out the
door. I wonder if it is to go and talk with constituents in
Newfoundland. Why do Newfoundland and Labrador feel alienated
from the government? Since 1949 Newfoundland has been part of
Canada and since 1949 the Government of Canada has mismanaged the
fishery of Newfoundland.
In Alberta we have had many scuffles with the federal government
over the control of natural resources. Predominantly oil and gas
are the ones that come to my mind. Nonetheless we have still
been able to have those fights because Alberta has some
jurisdiction over those issues.
In the case of Newfoundland, because we do not have an
implementation of the Law of the Sea, foreign draggers and
vessels pillage the ocean depths and destroy the fishery in
Newfoundland. Newfoundlanders rely on the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and it does not allow the numbers to be accessed by
the public. It is a secret organization that deprives fishermen
of the numbers they need to sustain the fisheries in
Newfoundland.
While the federal government is continuing to do this, and it
must therefore accept responsibility, foreign vessels are fishing
off the coast of Newfoundland, the Grand Banks and the
surrounding areas. These foreign nations have quotas and are
taking tens of thousands of fish. They are depriving
Newfoundlanders of their jobs. The government says that it does
not understand alienation and that it represents Newfoundland.
That is a crying shame. It is a joke.
1620
What does the government do? It goes ahead and tries to buy
votes. It tries to hold it over people's heads. Instead of
allowing the government and the people of Newfoundland to decide
what happens with their fishery, the federal government lords it
over them. It says that if they do not vote for the Liberals
they can expect to get even worse. It threatens people. It is a
shame that this is even carried over to the provincial
government.
To obtain a licence in a province, whether it be for a
restaurant or a liquor establishment, people basically have to
beg forgiveness from provincial Liberals so that their small mom
and pop operation are not shut down because they do not agree
with the government in power.
Shame on the government that it does not have control over the
fisheries. A number of governments over a period time have
talked about the idea of Newfoundland having control over the
fisheries and the resources of that province. The fisheries are
not the only resource.
I will talk about some of the other resources over which the
people Newfoundland and Labrador do not have control. As a
result they continually have that held over their heads by this
government which demands votes from them in order not to be taken
advantage of any more than they are now.
Offshore oil could be a great boon for the province of
Newfoundland. Once again the federal government went ahead and
said that it was not within the jurisdiction of the province. I
will talk later about what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did to that
province in some of his early discussions with regard to
jurisdictional issues.
There is also the issues of natural gas and hydro electricity
which should fall under the purview of the province. Instead,
because of federal intermingling on these issues, the government
stripped the ability of Newfoundland to provide, to look after
and to control its resources. As a result the fishery collapsed
in 1992.
It is sad that when there is no control there is little or no
hope. People lose hope if they cannot be expected to have an
actual say and a direct impact on resources that are close to
them, and if the federal government goes ahead and lords it over
them, takes control of those things and does not let them run
things as they should be run in order to make sure the resources
are sustainable. That is exactly what has happened.
What does the federal government do? Rather than solve the
problem so that 5, 10 or 20 years from now young people will not
be leaving Newfoundland and seeking work elsewhere, it comes up
with programs like NCARP and TAGS and keeps people beholden to
those programs. It doles out its pennies and nickels. It keeps
the people dependent and does not allow them local control over
their resources. Shame on the government for depriving the
people of Newfoundland of hope, control and opportunity.
We are talking about the whole issue of natural resources. What
about the Churchill Falls travesty? The federal government could
have had and should have had a responsibility to get involved in
that situation. Once again it did not take Newfoundland's side.
It did not step in when it was supposed to do so. As a result,
Newfoundland loses $600 million in annual revenues. If that were
divided by every person in Newfoundland it would be some sort of
an economic benefit, but the federal government did not take any
responsibility for that.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau refused to cede any jurisdiction to the
province in offshore oil, claiming that it fell under the federal
government's power to regulate the territorial waters of the
country. As a result Newfoundland has been suffering and the
fishery stocks collapsed in 1992.
Let us look at some other islands that have been able to succeed
with regard to their fisheries. Iceland, for example, had a
crisis with its fishery and foreign fishing. It was able to come
back because it had control of its resource. It was able to make
the decisions. The government and the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador have not even had the support of the federal government
to go ahead and turf out any of the foreign fishers.
1625
It is a crying shame that there are ships fishing offshore when
the people of the Newfoundland cannot earn a living from
something that had sustained them for hundreds of years. It is a
crying shame that the people of Newfoundland have to put up with
a federal government that alienates them in that way. It is
ridiculous.
The feds have mismanaged the largest resource in the province.
They had better take responsibility for the fallout when it
comes, unless it is willing to give that responsibility back to
the province. That is what the people of Newfoundland have been
asking for and that is what they deserve.
Newfoundland recently had its 50th anniversary of joining
Confederation. Some would say it was treated with some
ambiguity. That is a shame. It is because of the alienation
that province feels with regard to its control of natural
resources and how the federal government has run roughshod over
it.
Newfoundland and Labrador have a seal population to the tune of
six million to eight million. According to DFO statistics each
seal gobbles up 1.4 tonnes of fish per year. That alone accounts
for two years of fishing on the coast of Newfoundland and
Labrador. They should be allowed to go ahead and look after the
seals. They are not even allowed to make their own decisions in
that regard.
I have talked about Churchill Falls. I could talk about Inco
and the Voisey's Bay dispute. I could talk about the Innu land
claims or virtually any other dispute where the federal
government does not directly benefit. It shoved Newfoundland and
Labrador out of the picture and did not allow them to make local
decisions on these issues. They are hurting.
If the government wants to see a solving of the problem and
fewer young people leaving the province, it has to look at the
long term and not just at the next election. That is where the
federal government has failed the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I leave it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to decide.
If they want more of the same, they can continue to vote for the
Liberals who have alienated them and have not allowed them local
control. They should vote for change.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am really
worried about the massive withdrawal of federal presence in the
north. I do not see it so much as an alienation but as sort of
an abdication.
The head of the military in the area made a statement about how
vulnerable we were in terms of our sovereignty in that space of
land. We do not have the kind of protection in the north that we
used to have. I thought of it earlier more in terms of people
backing up a big tanker and hauling water away. We would never
know it. In fact the military officer said that we could not
even detect that by radar.
With the developments in Kosovo I am really concerned about how
safe we are, considering Canada's proximity to where the danger
lies and how short a distance it is over the pole. I would
appreciate the member's comments on that.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, this issue touches on the
idea of the abdication of responsibility and sovereignty. The
hon. member is referring to the north. My speech was directly
related to Newfoundland and Labrador. As far as I can talk about
abdication of responsibility and sovereignty, I will try to
address that question.
Where the territory does not have a responsibility how can it
possibly have any control or say over what is being done? If the
federal government takes responsibility and sovereignty away from
a province or territory, or does not grant it in the first place,
it has no local control. We have seen that in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In terms of the abdication of responsibility in Newfoundland and
Labrador, I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would
like to see more local control. They are willing to take with
that control sovereignty and responsibility for those resources.
They certainly have not been managed well over the last 50 years
by the federal government.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, alienation is certainly the
word of the day and the password of the Reform Party.
1630
We are in this Chamber talking about this foolishness of the
motion that was put forward today. The Prime Minister even urged
the Reform Party to put forward a motion on Kosovo today if that
is what it wanted, but instead we are debating alienation. It is
what members of the Reform Party know. So often they seem to
look at the dark and dismal side of life, rather than what most
Canadians enjoy.
Alienation is the only thing that the Reform Party knows. How
else could one explain the blatantly anti-Quebec ads that party
ran in the last federal election.
I think back to the time of the referendum in Quebec. People
phoned my office and I talked to people on the streets, people
who voted for the PC party, people who voted for the NDP, people
who voted however they voted and they were all concerned about
keeping this country together, but this party understands
alienation.
The Reform leader has admitted that the Reform Party in its
present form cannot form government because it alienates too many
Canadians. Perhaps the best name for the new party would be the
Reform alienation party. Now it appears that the Reform leader
has managed to alienate at least 12 of his own members. Having
run out of normal Canadians to anger and alienate he has turned
to his own caucus.
I have a serious question to ask the member from cow town, which
is a great town. I love Calgary. It is one of the finest parts
of Canada, located in the foothills. I love all parts of this
country. I have travelled it for the last 50 years. I drove it
for 40 years before I came to this Chamber and I respect all of
its parts.
My question for the member is: Do they not share the desire to
represent the issues of all Canadians? This is a party that
wants to alienate and be a regional party. I am proud to be a
member of a party which represents all Canadians.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I felt some love in the
Chamber when the member rose to say that he wanted to be tolerant
and inclusive, but then he went ahead and accused me of being
from cow town.
Let me tell him a bit about alienation, as the hon. member
raised the issue. I will change subjects for a second and talk
about tax and spend Liberal policies.
Let us talk about Transport Canada controlling the St. John's
Port Corporation. Oceanex, a company that does 84% of its
business in that particular vicinity, said “Don't go ahead and
put money into a new building, put it into a port facility; put
it into the actual structure so that we can do a better job with
what we have”. But, no, indeed, a Liberal appointed hack, Sean
Hanrahan, went ahead, tore down the old building and put up a new
one.
There are only 18 employees. The building has 10,000 square
feet, leaving each employee with an office bigger than that of
the premier of Newfoundland. The premier has to be jealous.
Deep down in his bones I know that the premier of Newfoundland is
jealous.
Why did they build a new building? One could say that maybe St.
John's has almost no vacant building space. As a matter of fact,
the vacancy rate is higher than 20%. Yet we have a Liberal
appointee who went ahead and took all that money to build a new
structure to give everybody in that particular corporation an
office bigger than the premier's.
That is alienation. That is Liberal tax and spend policies.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part
in today's debate. As the chairman of the Prime Minister's task
force on the four western provinces I must admit that I rise to
speak today with mixed emotions. On the one hand I welcome the
extra publicity that this debate will give our efforts to consult
with Canadians across the prairies and in British Columbia. I
did not expect this kind of a gift from the Reform Party of
Canada.
On the other hand, I cannot imagine a more frivolous use of
parliament's time. At a time when our nation is engaged in the
most assertive military operation since the end of the Korean war
the members of the Reform Party come forward with a motion that
can only be described as silly. I strongly believe that
Canadians do not appreciate silly stunts and that perhaps
explains the Reform Party's dismal performance in yesterday's
byelection in Windsor—St. Clair.
1635
Simply put, the Reform motion claims that this government has
not addressed regional concerns and calls upon the government to
rename the task force which I am honoured to chair.
This motion, however, speaks to much more than renaming a task
force; it speaks to a fundamental difference between the Liberal
vision of this country and the Reform Party's vision.
The Liberal vision is of one Canada, stretching from sea to sea
to sea, with all Canadians confidently working together to build
the greatest country on earth.
The Reform vision is one of petty regionalism, a vision in which
one region competes with another for attention, a vision in which
the politics of division are more important than the politics of
unity.
We, as Liberals, seek out the common threads that strengthen our
nation, not the device of shards that would tear us apart. We
recognize that as the national governing party we have a
responsibility to all Canadians, regardless of where they live.
I suspect that the timing of this motion has something to do
with the fact that the Prime Minister's task force on the four
western provinces recently spent a very rewarding Easter break
consulting and meeting with many Manitobans.
As I mentioned yesterday, the response to the task force was
indeed overwhelming. In just three days task force members met
with over 60 individuals and organizations from across my home
province. Manitobans shared with us not only their concerns, but
also their dreams for tomorrow. So popular were the meetings
that we found it necessary to break into two teams to cover as
much ground as possible.
The response we had throughout Manitoba and the number of
requests we had for meetings in other western provinces proves
one thing: western Canadians reject Reform's parochial
regionalism.
Canadians in the four western provinces, in fact Canadians right
across this great land, want a national government, not a bunch
of regional ones. They want a national government that reaches
out to all Canadians, regardless of where they live.
It is interesting to note that whenever the regional parties, be
it the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, realize that they are
becoming increasingly irrelevant to most Canadians, they try to
play the regional card. That is what we are witnessing today.
The Reform Party is sitting still in the polls. In fact, in
yesterday's byelection, as I pointed out earlier, Reform placed
fourth overall, behind the third place Tories. Combined, those
two parties received a paltry 4,000 votes, compared to nearly
14,000 for the winning Liberal candidate. So much for the
so-called united alternative. Rather than uniting it is
splitting apart.
The Prime Minister's task force is being well received across
western Canada. I can only conclude that the Reform Party feels
so threatened that once again it is trying to divide Canadians
into “them and us”.
The Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces
was established to meet with and listen to western Canadians. It
is a mandate to build on the work of the government's western MPs
and senators by simply providing western Canadians with another
opportunity, one of many, to shape the national decision making
process.
Despite what the Reform Party wants us to believe, there is
actually really nothing new in the government's approach. It is
simply the time honoured practice of consulting, talking to
people, listening to people and hearing their concerns. There is
no hidden agenda. There is no radical departure from what this
government has done in the past.
1640
While we were meeting with Manitobans a similar caucus task
force was meeting with and listening to Quebecers. Another
caucus task force was meeting with and listening to young
entrepreneurs from across the country. In fact we heard from the
chairman of that task force about an hour or two ago in the
Chamber.
Since 1993, the year that we came to power, the government has
established no less than nine such caucus task forces to meet
with Canadians on issues as diverse as the impact of information
technology on Canada and the future of our aging population.
The Liberal government has made a regular habit of consulting
with Canadians from every region of the country and it will
continue to do so.
Why have we made it a habit to consult with Canadians? Simply
put, it is because the Prime Minister understands that we cannot
run a country as large as this and as diverse as this from behind
a desk here on Parliament Hill. We have to get out and meet with
the people. We have to understand their concerns. We have to
understand their dreams.
The Reform Party simply does not understand that government has
to consult with the governed. That is why we are government and
they are the opposition. That is why they are wasting
parliament's time today with this silly motion.
The government's record shows the influence that Liberal
parliamentarians from across the west have in setting government
priorities. Every week western voices speak for the west in our
national caucus meetings. Western Canadians told us that we had
to restore faith and credibility in the nation's finances. The
government listened and acted. We introduced the first balanced
budget in 30 years, reduced taxes by $16.5 billion in our last
two budgets and began paying down the national debt.
Western Canadians told us that we had to do something to ensure
better access to education and improve the health care system.
Again we listened and we acted. The government introduced the
millennium scholarship program and increased health care spending
by $11.5 billion. My province of Manitoba will receive $425
million in increased health care funding. When the farm income
crisis erupted on the prairies we listened to western farmers and
we acted. We introduced a $900 million farm aid package.
Are these the actions of a government that is indifferent to
regional concerns? I do not think so. As someone who was born
and raised in western Canada, as someone who has lived and worked
most of his life in western Canada and as someone who represents
over 77,000 western Canadians in this place, I can assure members
of the Reform Party that western Canadians are not interested in
playing regional games. They want a responsible national
government that will help them create opportunities for the
future.
Western Canada is a vibrant and exciting place. The region has
experienced strong economic and population growth. The people
have confidence in themselves and in their future. They are
comfortable with their regional identities, but consider
themselves Canadians first. The sooner the Reform Party
recognizes this, the sooner the Reform Party will stop wasting
parliament's time with silly motions.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have heard a lot of arrogant things said in the House, but I
think that speech really takes the cake.
We are seeing more Liberal arrogance, from the top down,
suggesting that a motion brought forward by 60 MPs who represent
western Canada is somehow wrong because it does not show their
silly alienation committee in a good light. We are very sorry,
but the fact is that if that member wanted to know how western
Canadians feel he would listen to the debates in the House.
Sixty Reform MPs were elected to tell the Liberal government
exactly how the people in the west feel.
I think the hon. member from Winnipeg should give his head a
shake and simply look across the way. We have told the
government over and over again that we oppose its tax and spend
policies. We have told the government that we oppose its
mandatory gun registration, which will do absolutely nothing to
stop crime. The hon. member knows that we are very upset about
the wheat board issue in the west.
Over and over again we bring these issues to the attention of
this government and its solution is to take a committee across
the west to ask if there is anything wrong.
He should know that they lost eight seats in the last election
because they would not listen.
1645
After all that has gone on before, why on earth does he think
that sending a travelling road show around the west will somehow
fix the problem?
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I just love the rhetoric.
Let me tell the member for Medicine Hat something.
Last Friday we in the task force went to Brandon, Manitoba. I
will tell him about a couple of witnesses we heard from.
There was one gentleman by the name of Bob Friesen from the town
of Wawanesa, Manitoba. I grew up 19 miles from Wawanesa. Who is
Mr. Friesen? He happens to be the president of the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture, the largest farm organization in the
country. I can say that Mr. Friesen appreciated the opportunity
to spend more than an hour with us talking about farm issues,
very relevant agricultural issues. And he did not raise one word
of concern about the Canadian Wheat Board.
Who else did we meet at lunch in Brandon? A gentleman by the
name of Don Dewar. He is from the community of Dauphin, Manitoba
and he is hardly a Liberal. As far as I know I have never seen
him walk in Liberal corridors. Who is Mr. Dewar? He is the
president of KAP, Keystone Agricultural Producers, the largest
farm organization in the province of Manitoba. Does the hon.
member think that he did not appreciate meeting with the Prime
Minister's task force? You bet your britches he did. He
appreciated every minute.
That is what these meetings are about. That is what
consultations are about. This is what we mean by going out and
meeting people directly.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member has indicated that his own task force is not important
enough for us to discuss in the House, I will ask him two quick
questions.
First, will he give a commitment that tomorrow his government
will introduce the motion he wants to debate along with a full
vote on the Kosovo situation?
Second, will he table in the House right now the schedule for
the upcoming meetings of his task force if he is truly serious
about consultation instead of releasing it a week after the
meetings have happened?
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely flattered
that this gentleman from North Vancouver really thinks I can
table a motion which would have to be properly tabled by the
Prime Minister of Canada. I am quite sure that when the
appropriate motion has to be tabled, the Prime Minister will do
that job very adequately.
Let me tell the hon. member for North Vancouver that all of the
task force will be going to the beautiful province of British
Columbia, a province where I lived for three wonderful years. We
will be there during the break week in the month of May.
We are still taking requests. We are still taking submissions
from people who want to appear before the task force. When we get
the schedule all together, I will be more than happy to share the
schedule and itinerary with the hon. member for North Vancouver.
Let me say that if the hon. member for North Vancouver does not
have an opportunity to make an oral presentation to the task
force, I would be delighted to receive a letter from him. I am
sure that he can write.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite offers a hope that there will be some reason in my
remarks today. I am afraid I may be a little less crisp than I
like to be in the House as I have just gotten off a plane from
Geneva. It is a bit of a shock. I am feeling a little bit of
culture shock right now as I have been away from Canada for the
last three weeks, and to drop back into the middle of this debate
is a bit jarring.
1650
Before I address the substance of the motion put forward, I
would like to say one thing. I had the opportunity over the past
three weeks to travel to China. I am in China frequently these
days. I followed that up with some time in Delhi and in Geneva.
In Geneva I had the opportunity to spend some time with the
people who are working on the human rights commission.
One does not have to get very far out of this country to realize
what an absolutely incredible country this is and what a
privilege it is to be a Canadian and how we are admired all
around the world by almost every other country. People in every
other country want to be here.
We show leadership. I was absolutely astounded in Geneva to
note that a little country like Canada provides almost 10% of the
resolutions that are debated in Geneva in a community of 123 to
190 countries.
We hear about disunity and division in our country but Canadians
outside the country are doing an incredible job on behalf of all
of us. We all benefit from it enormously.
I think about the sense of the regional divisions. In Geneva
there are young francophones from Quebec working very hard and
energetically. They are very proud of their country and are very
proud to be representing Canada in the very important work they
do.
There are western entrepreneurs in and out of China all the time
working hard to build relationships and expand trade. I was
pleased to note that there are New Brunswickers and Nova Scotians
in China trying to forge some new pathways. I even heard talk of
some port building. I believe there is some accommodation for
the post-Panamax ships which will carry large quantities of
containers into the Pacific Rim.
They are Canadians from all over the country who are working
hard. They are building upon the goodwill all of us have built
for all of us to enjoy.
I was a little surprised to note the kind of querulous tone in
the House today. If the concern is that the government is not
sensitive to the regions, one would think that with a task force
going into western Canada and one going into Quebec people would
be celebrating and saying that it is wonderful we are doing that.
Perhaps some of the concern about it comes from something my
friend from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia is a little too
modest to talk about, which is the tremendous success of the task
force. He mentioned that the task force he chairs will be going
to B.C. in May. The B.C. caucus has been touring the province. We
all do that. The Manitoba caucus holds meetings right around the
province every three to four months. It hears submissions from
people, as members do in their ridings every day.
That information comes back and forms part of the information
that builds the kind of consensus which allows the government to
do the work it does. The government has done some pretty
remarkable things over the last five or six years.
An hon. member: I wouldn't brag about it.
Mr. Reg Alcock: The member says he would not brag about
it but I do. I brag about it quite often and without any
hesitation whatsoever.
There is a desire in the kind of heated atmosphere which is
created in this chamber to solve every problem immediately. I
used to enjoy debating some of my colleagues in the Reform Party
by quoting a poster a friend of mine has in his office. It reads
“For every complex problem there is a simple answer and it's
wrong”. That is my feeling when the Reform Party raises the
kind of debate it does in this House, quick, glib, easy
criticisms to complex problems.
I admire our Prime Minister. If you think about it, politics is
one of the few businesses where we tend to devalue experience.
What we are reminded of every day is that we have a leader who
understands the country better than any other person in this
House and who has served the country longer than almost everybody
else in this House.
1655
When confronted with an issue he knows when to act and when to
watch. He knows how to listen very carefully, not in a flashy
way, not with a lot of bells and whistles, but very carefully
step by step, issue by issue. He has gone about the work with
the full support of this caucus in continuing to build upon the
foundation that makes this the best country in the world.
When I was first elected in 1993 I recall that we had a very
serious economic problem. We now have a surplus. That did not
come about easily. It did not come about quickly. It did not
come about magically. A lot of hard decisions were taken one by
one, sticking to our guns and carefully keeping our eye on the
target budget after budget. Even when we got into a surplus, we
continued to exercise restraint and continued to be careful.
Look at the question of lack of co-operation with the provinces.
Again, there was no national referendum. There was no big task
force running around. We sat down and went issue by issue. When
we needed to look at a national child benefit we sat down and
negotiated a way that we could do that in co-operation with the
provinces and the provinces signed on. We needed to look at the
issue of training. We sat down an negotiated a series of
agreements. Co-operation improves services to everybody.
I believe this was the crowning achievement. I worked in social
services for a great many years. The social union framework
represents to me the first time in as long as I have been working
that we put aside all of the bickering and wrangling about
jurisdiction and created an environment within which we could sit
down, discuss, negotiate and come to an agreement on how we
together can provide better services for the people in this
country.
That basically is what Canada is. Canada is a partnership. It
is a partnership of regions. It is a partnership of people.
Partnership works extremely well.
Our government is able to do that because of the kind of work
that is done by the member from Charleswood. Members in Quebec
are doing this as well. The member from Mississauga is doing the
one on youth entrepreneurship. We have had them on small
business and on gas pricing. Members are constantly talking to
Canadians, listening to what they have to say and trying to
incorporate those ideas in all of the other opinions which they
receive from all over the country. They bring that to caucus
every week.
The Prime Minister sits in caucus every week to listen to us. He
insists that people be there. He insists that it be an important
forum for us to debate and discuss. Every single week we hear in
that forum members saying what they are hearing in their regions
over and over again.
I am a little saddened. I have to make some comments to my
friends to the Bloc as well as my friends in the Reform. When I
meet with my friends in the Bloc and with people in Quebec, I
meet with people who are very interested in providing services
and enhancing the quality of life for people living in their
province. They are energetic, smart, interested and not afraid
of the challenges in this world.
In western Canada we see the same thing. The picture brought
into this House by the Reform Party is not the western Canada I
know. Two of the wealthiest governments in the country exist in
western Canada. The front page of the Globe and Mail
showed my province of Manitoba as having the lowest unemployment
rate in the country.
We are doing very well. We are doing very well in western
Canada right now. We are doing it because people have found a
way to put aside the bickering and the battling. They are
focusing on making this an even better country.
1700
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech given
by my colleague, with whom I worked on the human resources
development and transport committees.
Although his vision of Canada is a bit heavy on sweetness and
light, I would still like to ask him a question to do with the
fact that the disparities between the various regions of Canada
have not in any way been eliminated, not since I have been an MP
in any event.
One thing that could be said is that the disparities have grown
more pronounced under the present Liberal government, one reason
being EI reform.
If the Liberal government's attitude towards Canada's regions
and the various provinces were truly open-minded—and I am not
talking about the second part of the Reform Party's motion
referring to a committee, as this part of the motion concerns me
less than the first part, which says that the federal government
has trouble identifying and addressing the regions' problems—would
it not, when introducing the EI reform, have ensured rapid
adjustment mechanisms?
I am thinking of such notorious problems as the intensity rule,
which penalizes seasonal workers.
Could it not have come up with a regional economic
diversification policy so that the gas pipeline project would
have had to go through the maritimes and eastern Quebec and play
an important economic development role, rather than leaving
things up to the market? The gas is now going directly through
Nova Scotia to the United States and we are left with the short
end of the stick again and prevented from enjoying the benefits
of this development tool.
If the Liberal government were truly interested in the regions,
it would not have replied, as the Minister of Natural Resources
did to me, that it was up to the market, that other factors
could not be taken into account.
Does this sound like a central government sensitive to needs and
concerns, that would allow the regions to develop equitably,
which would avoid the present disparities?
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out
that we worked together. He, the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and I served on the committee
that looked at reforms in employment insurance.
Travelling with them, meeting and knowing these members, gave me
some very important and valuable insights into Quebec. I have
talked about some of the strengths and energy that I see in
Quebec. These things encourage me and excite me. They make me
feel positive about what is happening in Quebec. It is through
knowing members who contributed forcefully and effectively to
that committee that I feel that way.
Two things went on at that time. I remind the member that took
place in 1994-95 when we were at the height of battling the
deficit. We were in the midst of trying to get government
spending under control. There were some very definite changes in
the benefit levels. Also a philosophical change took place which
talked about active rather than passive measures and doing things
to help people gain employment rather than simply sit in
unemployment. I think we have seen some of that.
Contrary to advice that was offered by members of other parties
about what the unemployment rate would be doing by the turn of
the century, we have seen the unemployment rate come down rather
substantially over the last few years.
It is not nearly enough. I share the concern of the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. My
friend from New Brunswick has been on his feet many times raising
the concern about seasonal workers and the unemployed in rural
areas of eastern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.
These issues should be brought to the floor of the House.
Frankly I would sooner be standing here debating that issue today
than spending time digging around in the entrails of this
supposed alienation.
1705
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin by indicating that I am going to be
sharing my time with the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion of the
hon. member for North Vancouver, whom I met this summer, and who
spoke to me of his region. Speaking as the Bloc Quebecois
critic for regional development, on first examination the first
part of the motion by the hon. member for North Vancouver
strikes me as worthwhile, in that the Bloc Quebecois can share
his point of view about the feelings, the perception we have
concerning the Liberal government's neglect of the regions.
Of course, with regard to the Liberal committee on alienation, I
shall leave that part for his comments. Mine I shall reserve
for regional development.
There are three Liberal secretaries of state responsible for
regional development agencies, as they used to be called. Now
they are Economic Development Canada. In the case of Quebec,
the changed occurred last year, not for the sake of regional
development but to give the Liberal Party better visibility, as
it insisted on adding the word Canada all over the place. Now
the trend is not to refer to regional development but to
Economic Development Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
If the government were serious in its efforts on behalf of the
regions, it would be putting more money in if for no other
reason than to offset inflation and so on. When we look at the
figures, we can see this is not the case for these three
agencies. I will not provide details for each of the programs,
but in the case of the agency for Quebec, the current budget is
reduced by some $27,636,000.
In the case of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, this
year there is a $40 million cut, since last year it was $320
million and this year it is $290 million. For the west—and here
I must express my agreement with the Reform member—the budget for
western Canada economic diversification, which was $313,626,000
has been reduced this year to $195,055,000, a difference of
$118,571,000. That means a significant reduction in this year's
budget. That is the budget for the three agencies.
In the case of the west, a look at the changes in per capita
income since 1961 according to Statistics Canada data, reveals
that the Liberal government is not entirely mistaken, if we use
the per capita income criterion. I am looking at the figures
between 1961 and 1986. If we compare the west to Ontario, it
went from 84% per capita to 98%. By the west we mean the three
central provinces and British Columbia. In 1996, per capita
income was within 2%, and now most observers say that all the
western provinces have caught up with Ontario in economic terms.
What about the Atlantic provinces? In 1961, their per capita
income was 49% of Ontario's and since then it has risen slightly
to 69%.
Per capita income in Quebec, which was 76% of Ontario's in 1961
had increased to 82% of it by 1996.
1710
Now, if we look at the figures for the agencies I mentioned
earlier, we see that, between 1994 and 2001—since we are already
dealing with the 2000-2001 budget—per capita federal spending on
regional development in the maritimes is $1,074.40. In western
Canada, per capital spending is $285.30. Quebec, like
Ontario—which was at 82% in 1996—still has a lot of catching up to
do, since our province is only getting $325.20 per capita, or
three times less than the maritime provinces.
I can understand the concerns and representations of western
Canada.
However, based on these two figures provided by Statistics
Canada and on the official budget figures, we can see that
Quebec and the maritimes are even worse off than western Canada.
In our opinion, Quebec still has a shortfall of $749 per capita,
compared to the maritimes. The federal government is treating us
even worse than the maritimes.
Let us now look at the situation inside the province. Is the
money properly distributed in Quebec by the Canada Economic
Development for Quebec Regions Agency? We have figures from last
year, since this data is released three months after the money
is spent. We can see that, in Liberal ridings, investments
totalled $41,546,973, or an average of $1.5 million per riding.
In the case of ridings represented by Bloc Quebecois members,
the average amount is $1.38 million.
I could go on and on, but time is quickly running out. Earlier,
I heard the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic
Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec say that
he did not want to indulge in petty politics, something he
charged the opposition parties with doing. He wanted to take
the high road. I therefore asked him whether he could assure us
that he was not using the regional development budget to make
political hay.
When I look at the numbers for some ridings, it makes me wonder.
The riding in Quebec that receives the most money is
Westmount—Ville-Marie, the riding represented by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. Westmount is in downtown Montreal.
Questions are in order.
The riding that gets the most federal regional development
dollars is smack in the middle of Montreal, in Westmount, the
richest area in Quebec.
There is more. In the two minutes I have left, I would like to
mention that I asked the Secretary of State responsible for the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
why, if he was going to talk about partnership, he was not
trying to reach agreement with the provincial governments,
Quebec in particular, which has a federal-provincial agreement.
It has been ages since that was renegotiated.
I asked him why he was not undertaking to respect the strategic
plans of regional development councils in Quebec.
Why does he not do so? More locally, why does the Secretary of
State for Quebec regional development obstinately refuse access
to the boards of the CFDCs, these corporations that loan money
to small businesses, to members of local development centres,
which are structures on which all Quebec stakeholders, including
the municipalities, are represented, and all other sectors. He
refuses to do so.
Instead he is looking for a parallel policy
in order to ensure visibility, for example by making
arrangements to provide local chambers of commerce with
computers so they can provide the federal programs with
information, instead of seeking to join forces with structures
that really represent the population.
A government that wants to reach agreement so as to forge
partnerships ought to respect provincial policies first of all,
second regional council policies, and third the agreements of
citizens at the local level, who have joined forces with the
local development centres in order to carry out projects.
1715
Instead, the federal government is after visibility and wants to
develop technology projects with no concern for strategic plans.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have listened to the member opposite's references to the
CFDCs.
There is one thing he neglected to mention. These were created
with the key companies in Abitibi—Témiscamingue in 1983 and put
in place by the government in 1984. Quebec turns up 15 years
later with the CLDs. Are there volunteers?
Quebec Minister of Agriculture Rémi Trudel described the CFDCs a
number of years ago as “he finest forum in the regions for
concerted efforts; it comes from the federal government”.
Today, I have a question and this is what I want to ask the hon.
member: After 15 years of efforts by the CFDCs using federal
funding and the money of Quebeckers, this is the finest forum
for concerted efforts and yet the member speaks of duplication.
They are the ones who want to duplicate.
Quebec wants to duplicate what the federal government is doing.
The member referred to the CLDs, which have just been created.
They have virtually no funds, while the CFDCs are well
established throughout the province of Quebec, Abitibi in
particular.
I ask the member whether all this has to be done away with?
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I
notice the member wants to recover go back some 15 years, to the
time he spent as a Progressive Conservative member. It is a fine
effort, and we see what he is up to. The words are the same, the
party is different.
The member knows very well that the CLDs are a replacement
structure, with an expanded mandate, which serve as a complement
to the existing economic councils, even those existing 15 years
ago.
The member speak of duplication by the federal government. It
existed 15 years ago and still exists. The efforts of the
Government of Quebec through various departments responsible for
regional development mean the work done by the SADCs is
recognized. They do an excellent job, no one is criticizing
them. They act as volunteers on the boards.
They have expertise we want to promote, on the condition that
the minister agrees these people can work on a co-operative
basis. He is the one currently blocking things now. He is
busting his britches looking only for visibility for the Liberal
government, for his party and for federalism.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
followed the debate and accessed some of the research points, and
I think this goes to what the member has been saying.
Let us consider some of the examples respecting the western
provinces like federal funding for Tri-University Meson Facility
in B.C., $166 million; $670 million in Alberta in infrastructure
projects; $359 million in Saskatchewan for infrastructure
projects and another $1.5 billion for an aerospace industry
initiative; and another $224 million in Manitoba in federal
assistance to the Red River Valley fund.
When we look at the different initiatives the federal government
has taken with regard to the provinces I have just talked about,
we recognize very clearly the diversity of Canada. Certainly
Quebec has had its share of difficulties. The federal and the
provincial governments have come together to address the needs of
the people of Quebec, especially at times of need and natural
disasters.
Would the member, in the brief time remaining, comment on the
significance to him of the social union, and particularly the
health accord to which the Premier of Quebec is a signatory?
Would he view that as a sign of federal provincial co-operation
which benefits all Canadians?
1720
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the member said a lot of things.
It is very easy for anyone in this House to take a series of
figures, financial support here, a contract there and maybe a
loan somewhere else. It can make different impressions.
We are mixing apples and oranges. Today's discussion is not
about all the federal programs, but about regional development.
The figures I quoted earlier are in the budget.
For fifteen seconds, I am going to comment on the social union.
It is an agreement in which the provinces other than Quebec,
wanting more money, sacrificed principles and jurisdictions for
it, something Quebec was not prepared to do. It values its
jurisdictions, it values its principles and its objectives and
it will not be bought.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate
on the Reform Party motion, at the end of this opposition day.
I partially agree with the motion, particularly its first part,
which provides that this House should condemn the government for
failing to identify and address the main concerns and issues of
the regions of Canada.
With regard to that first part of the motion, there are many
issues, many realities which show that in Canada, since the last
two elections, that is since the Liberals took office—and the
membership of this parliament is a prime example—regional parties
have a strong representation.
These are parties that represent Canada's regions, because there
is a great deal of frustration among our fellow citizens. Let me
give you a few examples to support my point.
First, there is the whole issue of employment insurance. A few
years ago, the government decided to completely change the
unemployment insurance program and to transform it into what was
called the employment insurance program. However, this is much
more a program used by the government to fight the deficit, to
try to pocket money as quickly as possible, without any regard
for the impact on regional development.
In Canada, a kind of social pact had been in place for quite
some time, in fact for several decades. There was a major
seasonal industry in resource-based regions, such as those living
off the agricultural, logging or fishing industry, since there
were no permanent jobs in those industries.
An EI system was introduced that allowed people to work during
periods when there were jobs and to have supplemental income
during periods when there were none.
A forestry worker cannot cut down trees year round. It is the
same for fishers; there is a period of the year when it is not
possible to work. Those who harvest peat, an industry in my
region, have the same problem.
The federal government decided to scrap this social pact. It
tightened up the EI program to the point where many people have
no income at all for five, ten or fifteen weeks every year.
Another result is that someone earning minimum wage will receive
EI benefits that are actually less than welfare, and thus less
than the minimum required to get by.
These are not hypothetical examples. I am talking about folks
we see in our ridings. Recently, I met with someone in this
very situation, a 51-year-old man who had always had a seasonal
job and was therefore being penalized. He was losing 1% of his
benefits for 15, 20 or 25 weeks every year. This is completely
unacceptable.
For people such as these in our regions, the federal
government's behaviour shows that it has no understanding of or
sensitivity to regional development needs.
We have other similar examples. If the federal government were
concerned about the needs of the regions, it would already have
introduced a pro-shipbuilding strategy.
It would listen to the suggestions of the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and this industrial sector could be
revived in the regions where it once throve.
Through its inaction and failure to understand what is needed to
put things right, the federal government continues to ignore the
needs of the regions, to stand in the way of their full
development.
1725
Another example is the millennium scholarships. Some will say
that scholarships are far from being regional development. In
Canada, however, there are people, federalists, who consider
Quebec to be a region of Canada. They tell the Quebec
government, which is responsible for education, “Your loan and
scholarship program, the best in Canada, will be shunted aside
and we will create a plan for merit-based scholarships which will
directly finance the university studies of certain students but
this will be according to their academic success and not their
financial need”. This is in direct contradiction with the basic
principles of the Quebec program.
This is one more way for the federal government to show that it
has solutions for everything and must, in order to raise its
profile, trample on people's needs.
Earlier there was a debate on the CFDCs. No one has said that
all federal government ideas are bad ones, but what is certainly
bad is to have put in place and perpetuated for decades two
regimes for local development, side by side. Even if today
there are the Community Futures Development Corporations, with a
mandate and a community base, there are also CLDs, local
development centres. Why both, when each region could manage
very well with just one? Because the federal government insists
on being involved in regional development, a sector clearly not
its responsibility.
There are many examples of how the federal government violated,
if you will, the social pact that united Canadians. We witnessed
this with the income sharing program and the changes to
equalization rules.
The first part of the Reform Party motion obviously refers
to people living in the various regions of Canada. Now, national
policies are dictated by bureaucrats. This is not necessarily
because elected representatives act in bad faith, but because of
the huge bureaucracy that the government has allowed to develop
in Ottawa over the past 20 or 25 years. Very quickly, those
appointed to cabinet start speaking primarily on behalf of these
bureaucrats, instead of representing their voters and the
various regions of Canada.
We must root out this evil in Ottawa. In that sense, the Reform
Party motion is right on target.
I can understand why the Liberal Party of Canada is desperately
trying to establish roots in various parts of the country,
because there are some regions where no Liberals have been
elected for a long time, which is also a reflection of public
discontent.
For example, how could people in Quebec's eastern region elect a
Liberal candidate when, in recent years, the Liberal Party has
reneged on its principles regarding how the unemployed should be
treated, preferring instead to pursue the policies set in place
by the Conservatives? People are not stupid. They know what they
are doing when they vote. They are sending a message to the
government, and the government should listen.
I will conclude by describing what I think would be the way the
federal government could show clearly it is listening to the
regions. Let us take the very real example of the gas pipeline,
whose route, which was decided last year, could have been
through eastern Quebec and northern New Brunswick and on to
Sable Island. The decision was to let market rules apply.
This is what the Minister of Natural Resources blissfully told
me in a letter “We have decided to leave the market
rules,—to ensure the natural gas finds its way as quickly as possible
to the United States—to let these people have a significant
competitive edge”. However, had the entire region between
Bernières, the Rivière-du-Loup region and New Brunswick been
provided with natural gas, there would have been a significant
competitive edge that would have attracted business.
Either market rules prevail, and gas service is provided
where business exists, or the government plays the role of
financial lever of economic development and gives the regions
appropriate tools. This is the sort of action the people in our
regions are waiting for because at the moment there is deep
dissatisfaction which is expressed in this House by among
other things the first part of the Reform Party's motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Mr. Speaker, it being
5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the
motion have expired.
* * *
1730
[English]
BANK ACT
The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and
Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial
institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 24, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at second reading stage of Bill C-67.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
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)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 212
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 60
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TRANSIT PASSES
The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March
24, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on Motion No. 360 under Private Members'
Business.
We have been through the private members' voting procedure
before. We will take the vote starting with those in favour in
the back row on my left. All those in favour of the motion will
please rise.
1810
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Herron
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 240
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Elley
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Mark
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Pillitteri
|
Richardson
| Solberg
| Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 25
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1815
[Translation]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of Bill C-27, an
act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada
Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to
the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries
treaties or arrangements, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 25, 1999,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of Bill C-27.
[English]
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I would vote against this motion.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the
last vote and I would like to be recorded as voting with my party
on this vote.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, as I abstained on the
previous vote I would like my vote recorded as opposed to this
one.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, since I abstained on the
last vote too, I would like my vote recorded as being opposed to
this one.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| 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
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 76
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 196
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
1820
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
motion now before the House, and to Motions Nos. 4 and 8.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| 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
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 76
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 196
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you would find unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion currently before the House, with the
Liberals voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the members
of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of this excellent
motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of
this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 127
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 145
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| 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
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 76
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 196
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 8.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| 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
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 76
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 196
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 defeated. Therefore
Motions Nos. 7 and 12 are also defeated.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 10.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the
member for Hamilton East had to leave, if the House would agreed
I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Before I ask the hon. whip to tell us what
he will do, I remind members that we are voting on the amendment.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote
yes to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the members of my party will vote
yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I would vote yes to this motion.
1825
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 88
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
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
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
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
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 183
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to Motion No. 10
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 13.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion
now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 88
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
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
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
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
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 183
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost. I therefore
declare Motion No. 13 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I would vote yes to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brison
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
| Herron
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 38
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 233
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 16 and 18.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion currently before the House, with the
Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members agree
with this motion and will vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in
favour of the motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casson
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 271
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 carried. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 16 and 18 carried.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
1830
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion unless instructed otherwise by our
constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes one more time.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Party members
vote yes to this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have been convinced by
my friends in the Reform Party to vote no to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| 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)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 181
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| 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
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 90
|
PAIRED
Members
Dumas
| Finestone
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Paradis
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that
Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order
to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March
25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill
S-11 under Private Members' Business.
Since this is a private member's bill we will vote as we usually
do. The mover of the motion will be the first to vote and then
we will proceed from my left to the last row coming down and then
go to my right.
1840
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Caccia
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Coderre
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Graham
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Herron
| Ianno
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Minna
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Peric
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 100
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Casson
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Longfield
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 162
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
It being 6.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
* * *
1845
CODE OF ETHICS
The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate was
suspended the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had five
minutes remaining.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the House, as we finish this
debate tonight, that my colleague and I are not holding any
malice or prejudice. We want something that Canadians are asking
for.
All of us in this House were elected to represent the people. If
I did not go back often to my constituency and report to my
constituents, I can imagine what their reaction would be.
When somebody has the honour of not only being elected but being
appointed to the cabinet, which is an additional responsibility,
we want and Canadians want that person to not only follow the
code of ethics as an MP, as a cabinet minister and as someone
serving in Her Majesty's government, but to also be more
accountable to the people they serve.
All members of parliament are here to adhere to a code of
ethics, a code that should be and is available to the public.
However, the code of ethics which belongs to the executive
branch, or the cabinet, is not made public. We believe that to
be a disgrace.
There is a national trend around the country. School boards and
businesses are publishing a code of ethics. We believe that it
would be in the interest of not only the government but all
Canadians to have a public code of ethics.
In the last two weeks my office was able to obtain a ministerial
code of ethics from the following countries: Brazil, Germany,
Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the
European Union.
We have been asking the Prime Minister for over five years for a
ministerial code of ethics. Some great democracies have made
their codes of ethics public. As a matter of interest to
members, many of these codes of ethics from our fellow
democracies are on the Internet. However, our country is keeping
company with countries like China and North Korea who do not
release any information.
I suppose the question that Canadians are most often asked is
the question I want to ask the Prime Minister. What about
openness? If he does not want his personal ethics and honesty
called into account, why does he not just release the ministerial
code of ethics to the public?
In today's world one not only has to be honest but one has to
appear as honest. We could do a lot of good in this country and
have a better image of this institution, parliament, if indeed we
had this code.
I want to quote from an article in which the Prime Minister said
the following:
I respect those who disagree with decisions I have made as Prime
Minister. I welcome honest debate about the policy directions
set by my government. But I will never countenance unwarranted
attacks upon my personal ethics and honesty.
We believe that to be a fair statement. However, in the same
article the Prime Minister goes on to say:
For 36 years I have conducted myself in an honest and ethical
fashion and have tried to do my best for the people of my riding.
That is an admirable statement. This Prime Minister could go
down in glory.
The Prime Minister could leave with real credibility when he
retires by introducing a code of ethics. It would be to his
honour, to the honour of Canadians and certainly to the honour of
all elected officials, including myself.
1850
He is now in the position of not only being a Prime Minister who
is responsible to his constituency, but he and his government is
also in a position to make a significant change in how Canadians
view their government. He is in a position to make a significant
change in how Canadians should want to see their cabinet.
There are two basic questions which must be asked. First, is
there a separate code of ethics for the cabinet? Second, like
other democracies, will the Prime Minister make that document
public?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain
for his motion and his remarks.
There has been much talk of ethics in politics of late,
particularly in the United States, and I think it is something
that bears discussion. We know that when it comes to
transparency and openness, these are just empty words to this
government, and particularly to the Prime Minister. They are
about as worthless as red books No. 1 and No. 2.
The arrogance of this government truly knows no bounds. The
Liberals cried foul toward the previous Conservative government
for years. The howls rained out from the Liberals, when they
were in opposition, about patronage, conflict of interest and
unethical behaviour. Now that they are in government they
continue to act in a completely irresponsible manner. They
continually distract the public's mind from their own public
record by further perpetrating previously unoriginal untruths.
They also continually make concerted efforts to soil the good
names of their former political adversaries.
I only need make reference as truth to this of the continuing
national and international embarrassment known only as the Airbus
affair. This ill-conceived and maliciously politically motivated
witch hunt continues and costs Canadians millions of dollars. We
know that the acts of omission or commission perpetrated by
members of the government will eventually be exposed. That is
the only solace we have.
Given the actions of the Prime Minister and his minister, it is
absolutely hilarious that we are in the House today debating a
code of ethics that would apply to them. However, if we consider
it ethical to maliciously attack a former prime minister with
unsubstantiated legal accusations, or if we consider it ethical
to shut down a democratically elected House when it is trying to
have a debate to decide whether to upgrade or continue our
country's participation in a foreign conflict, that perhaps might
be ethical.
Please pardon my sarcasm, but it seems to me that it is an
oxymoron when we even try to mention the word “ethics” in
respect to the Prime Minister and this government.
The fact is the code of ethics that does exist, if it does
exist, is not made public. I will repeat that. A public code of
ethics does not exist when it comes to the Prime Minister. What
are some examples of strict ethical guidelines that would govern
the conduct of our esteemed ministers? Nobody knows. I suppose
Canadians could simply listen and watch the government and decide
if their ministers and the Prime Minister are acting ethically.
Upon looking at the action of the ministers, I guess one could
say once again that for the Liberals an incident such as their
decision on the Kosovo debate, or inaction on the Kosovo debate,
might be deemed ethical, or perhaps we could look at the Prime
Minister's own actions. I think a leader should lead by example
and allow his party members to follow in his footsteps.
I wonder if, for example, Liberals would follow in the footsteps
of their leader when it came to purchasing a money losing hotel
in the Shawinigan area and then unloading it to convicted
criminals who then receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from
taxpayers? I wonder if that would be an example.
Perhaps there would be a chapter in this code of ethics that
says it is morally and ethically acceptable to skip the funeral
of a beloved and respected world leader. Perhaps the Liberal
supporters could tell us about Pierre Corbeil. Maybe he could
come in and lecture the cabinet about business ethics when it
came to fundraising in the Quebec area.
1855
Last, but not least, the Prime Minister could give an ethics
class on the proper and ethical manner to use the national police
force when it comes to furthering personal political vendettas.
These moral and ethical standards that are not reached by the
Prime Minister and the government are truly to the country's
detriment.
All sarcasm aside, it is obvious that a code of ethics for
ministers should exist and it should be open and transparent to
public scrutiny. I humbly submit that if, in fact, the Liberal
code of ethics does exist, then why would it not want to make it
public? As the previous speaker mentioned, why would it not want
to benefit from the support the public would find in knowing this
document does in fact exist?
Why would the Liberals not want to try to increase the level of
public confidence? Why would they not want to bolster somehow
the public confidence, or try to do away with some of the
cynicism that in fact exists? That is truly the situation in the
country right now when it comes, unfortunately, to most
politicians.
Canadians might then begin to have faith in their government and
they could hold governments accountable for their actions by
weighing in against the government on their own ethical conduct
that they hold out as an example.
I commend the hon. member again for bringing this motion
forward. It is high time that we started discussing things like
this when it seems apparent that the public has lost so much
faith in its elected representatives. Once again, I support the
hon. member in his efforts thus far.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I understand that my speaking position on this motion actually
closes the debate. Are there no other members to speak?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Since we just had a
Reform Party member, and since we still have a fair amount of
time left in debate, we will go to the Liberal side and then to
the hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Motion No. P-31, presented by the hon. member
for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. It requests that the Prime
Minister table in the House his ethics code for ministers.
We have made integrity and ethics a top priority for our
government, as we promised in the 1993 and 1997 election
campaigns. We have done this by keeping our promises for new
policies and legislation and for new standards of ethical
behaviour. We have delivered on our election commitments to meet
the needs of Canadians through new policies and programs. Allow
me to point out a few.
We promised to improve prosperity for Canadians and the
unemployment rate is now at the lowest level since 1990. In
fact, in my area of Niagara, it is less than the national
average.
We promised to reduce the budget deficit and we did. In fact,
it is the first time this has occurred in almost three decades
that we have a surplus. It speaks to the commitment this
government has to Canadians.
The recent budget also contained important initiatives to
develop Canada's international competitiveness in a
knowledge-based global economy. These are promises made and
delivered on by the government.
The integrity demonstrated by the government toward Canadians is
not a paper exercise. It is a reality. It is an ongoing
commitment we show Canadians each and every day.
The leadership the government has shown in creating a government
Canadians are proud of sets an example of what integrity in
government really means. We have kept our election promises
about specific actions on integrity. Allow me to elaborate.
The Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for
public office holders in the House on June 16, 1994, early in our
first mandate. It sets out principles and clear rules for all
public office holders, ministers, secretaries of state,
parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time
governor in council appointees.
1900
We also strengthened the Lobbyists Registration Act and a new
ethics councillor was appointed in 1994 with responsibilities for
administering the code and investigating complaints about
lobbying activities.
We have kept our election promises about new standards of
ethical behaviour. The conflict of interest code has clear rules
for public office holders, including ministers, and the
government is committed to upholding it.
I oppose Motion No. P-31 which requests that the Prime Minister
table his ethics code for ministers in the House. As noted, the
Prime Minister has already tabled the conflict of interest code
in parliament. It sets out principles and clear rules which
apply to all public office holders, including ministers.
All parliamentarians have a responsibility to gain and keep the
trust of Canadians in government institutions. This is an
obligation that we take seriously. It is an obligation that I
know my colleagues across the way also believe is a pillar of our
democracy.
Let us cut through the smoke. This motion is really about
access to the Prime Minister's personal advice to ministers on
government issues. The Prime Minister provides personal
instructions to his ministers on a wide range of governance
issues. Communications between the Prime Minister and the
ministers by the nature of our system are confidential. This
type of advice is protected as a cabinet confidence under section
69 of the Access to Information Act. Parliament itself, in
passing the Access to Information Act, decided that documents
which constitute advice from the Prime Minister to his ministers
are cabinet confidences and would be protected under the act.
The heart of the Canadian system of government centres around
collective responsibility. This means that the government is
responsible to parliament. The government must maintain the
confidences of the House in order to govern, but for ministers to
fulfill their collective responsibility to parliament and
Canadians they must be able to discuss their views frankly and
fully. Cabinet confidentiality allows ministers to debate issues
openly among themselves and to concentrate on the objective of
our system of government, which is to take good policy decisions
for the benefit of Canadians.
The government has already responded to the motion that we are
debating by stating that information sought by the hon. member is
considered a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and in
keeping with Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 446(2)(i) and
section 69 of the Access to Information Act, I would ask the hon.
member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I want to clarify the remaining time left in this debate
because my colleague from Elk Island, as I understand it, wants
to speak.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have exactly 12
minutes left in debate. After 12 minutes have expired the member
for Prince George—Bulkley Valley will have five minutes. So
exactly at 7.15 p.m. the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley
should be ready to spring to his feet.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, just out of
curiosity, if the member for Elk Island takes only seven minutes,
can he share another five minutes with me so that I may have 10
minutes in total for closing?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No.
An hon. member: By unanimous consent?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We can do anything
we want by unanimous consent, but there could very well be other
members who would wish to participate in the debate and the sands
of time are running through the clock.
I want to make it clear that the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley will have the last five minutes of debate;
no more, no less. I will make sure that I call him at the
appropriate time.
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have not completed my comments, but I am very close. I
just made a request to the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
He has not acceded to my request. Therefore I wish to advise the
House that I have no choice but to call upon my hon. colleagues
to oppose the motion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
subject which is very important to Canadian people. It has been
one that has consumed me in my parliamentary life since I was
elected in 1993.
1905
Some hon. members here are new, so they may not know that in the
previous parliament I was the Reform Party member on the special
joint committee which studied a code of ethics for senators and
members of parliament. Of course, as we all know, members of
parliament include senators. We are all included in the term. I
had the extraordinary privilege of serving on that committee.
Needless to say, it is another of those issues which is not
black and white. It is not a simple issue. It is a very
complicated issue in terms of what it is that we require public
officers, cabinet ministers and, indeed, even ordinary members of
parliament to disclose. Generally, the principle, in my view, is
that there should be no hidden features of one's life.
I remember when I was a young man and my wife and I moved into a
little town in Alberta. There were some 200 people in that town
and some people said to me “How can you stand to live in that
little town? Everybody knows what you are doing”. I said “I
don't plan on doing anything bad, so it doesn't matter”.
That really is the essence of it. Generally speaking, people
only want to have secrets if they are going to do something bad.
However, I am aware that there are exceptions. When people have
business dealings, for example, sometimes there are things they
do not want their competitors to know. That is valid. However,
we have a rule in this country that members of parliament who
become cabinet ministers have a higher code. They must divest
themselves of their interests. They may not directly deal with
government.
We have had a couple of issues with the Liberal government since
1993 which have consumed us and have really put into question the
whole integrity of it. We have had a few issues lately with the
Prime Minister himself.
I remember in the previous parliament a situation where there
was an inappropriate use of a credit card by a cabinet minister.
That puzzled me endlessly. If a person has credit card
statements which prove that what they did was not wrong, why
would they not disclose them?
We asked for them under access to information and they were
denied. In fact, they were not denied. We got pages and pages
of blank paper. The heading was at the top and then everything
was whited out. Then there was a little code that said we could
not have the information because it was personal.
That was the point exactly. A public credit card was being used
for personal reasons, but we could not find out the details. It
was really very bad.
It seems to me that one would be eager to disclose. That is
what I said to reporters at the time because I was grilled on
this. I said that the easiest thing in the world would be to
simply bring out all of the statements. They are all on record.
Bring them out and make copies of them. Show the reporters the
originals. Let them have a copy of them. Here it is. There is
nothing wrong. But as long as they are not disclosed, then the
suspicion remains and there are all kinds of protestations.
They went through this motion of tabling stuff in the House.
When we looked at what they tabled, it had no relevance at all to
the question. It was just a snow job, if you will pardon the
expression.
Now we have the question about the Prime Minister's code of
ethics for his ministers. This is a very important issue. We
know that it exists. We know that we have not seen it. It is
not the public office holders' code, which is public. The reason
we know that is because in the debate with the Prime Minister
over this issue at various times he has said “My ministers have
seen it. They have read it. They understand it. They obey
it”.
One cannot read nor understand that which does not exist. So we
know that it exists. There was also a very clear indication that
it was not just simply the public office holders' code.
What this motion for the production of papers calls for is
simply that the code be made public. For the life of me, I do
not know why anybody on this side of the House, whose job it is
to hold the government accountable, would be against this motion.
Of course we want to know what that code is.
I would think that every Liberal member on the other side who
really believes in the Liberal red book and its promises to
increase integrity in government would also want to vote in
favour of this motion. Of course they would want to have
openness in government. They would want the people of Canada to
know what the rules of engagement are for ministers of the crown.
That is an essential part of rebuilding the trust of government.
1910
We have had some 30 years of Liberal and Conservative
governments where the integrity of government has been questioned
by Canadians. That is why there is so much cynicism. I think
that is one of the reasons less than 50% of the people turned out
in the recent byelection. They are so cynical that they say
“What difference does it make?” It is time we restored to
Canadians faith, trust and confidence in the integrity of the
Canadian government.
I urge all members on both sides of the House to vote in favour
of this most important motion. It is probably one of the most
important motions that we will debate this evening.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had not intended to speak to this motion. It is just
happenstance that I happen to be here. However, I will say that
I always like to support any motions or legislation which call
for greater transparency.
However I do have to make a comment here because the flaw in the
motive behind this motion, is basically that there is no
code of conduct for MPs.
I was amazed when I came to this House from a background in
journalism to find that there was no written code of conduct for
MPs, in the same sense that there is for journalists. At the
Toronto Star, for example, there is a binder which contains
page after page of descriptions on how expensive is an acceptable
gift, how expensive is an unacceptable gift.
I have been incredibly surprised that there is no questioning
whatsoever when MPs go on very expensive trips around the world
which are financed by corporations. It is one thing to travel
with a parliamentary committee when one is supported by one's
whip, but when one accepts freebies on the part of corporations
one has to question the ethics of the individuals who are
accepting those freebies. Yet many in this House would see
nothing wrong with accepting those freebies. I can assure
members that when it comes to gifts in the world of journalism
there are very strict rules.
I think the problem with the reluctance to disclose a prime
ministerial code of ethics is that we do not have a minimum
standard of ethics that applies to MPs in general. If we had
that minimum standard I would suggest to the hon. member who is
proposing the motion, whose intentions are very good, that there
would be no need for the motion because then we could appreciate
that the prime minister, any prime minister, might have a
different level of ethics that he applies to his cabinet that
pertain to the political ethics of the way members of cabinet
conduct themselves both within this parliament and in the
community.
I would never like to find myself on the side of not supporting
a request for transparency, but the reality is that we cannot put
any prime minister in the position where his code of ethics,
which deals with politics rather than fundamental ethics, would
put him in the situation where he would be disclosing what indeed
are potential cabinet confidences. I think there is a real issue
which pertains to the Access to Information Act.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am impressed that the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington has demonstrated that he can think for
himself. I appreciate that.
I know that in his heart of hearts he sees merit in this motion.
I also know that in his heart of hearts he does not truly
believe the argument which he just put forward because it does
not hold water. The fact that there apparently is no code of
ethics for regular MPs has no bearing on the responsibility of
our Prime Minister, the leading political figure of Canada.
It does not exempt him in any way from showing leadership and
producing a code of ethics which would apply to the most powerful
decision makers in the country. We cannot compare the cabinet
member's decision making powers with those of other MPs in this
House. There is no comparison.
1915
This motion is all about putting in place a code of ethics that
would give Canadians confidence that the most powerful decision
makers in this country, which are the cabinet members, have a
code of conduct or guideline which they must adhere to in the
performance of their duties and in their decision making
exercise. This code of ethics should be transparent so that on a
daily basis Canadians can observe whether these powerful decision
makers are operating in a manner which is respective and
indicative of their jobs. That is not rocket science to
understand.
The first reaction of most people who hear the opposition to
Motion P-31 might be that the reason Liberal members of
parliament and other MPs would oppose it is that they themselves
lack a little trust in how the government's cabinet members
conduct their jobs and how they conduct themselves in the
performance of their duties. If they had full confidence in the
ethics and integrity of their cabinet members, then what on earth
would they have to fear about having a very public code of
ethics? They would have no fear of their members breaking that
code.
Liberal members are standing up to oppose the public
presentation of a code of ethics for their cabinet ministers. For
what reason? One has to assume they fear that their cabinet
ministers may not be operating in an ethical manner. That is the
only conclusion Canadians who are watching this debate tonight
can draw. If they have nothing to hide, then put it out in the
public. That is what Canadians understand.
The flaw is not that there is no common code of ethics for MPs.
The Prime Minister has stood in the House and told us time and
time again that there did exist a special code of ethics for his
cabinet members, that his cabinet ministers have read it and they
understand it. The big flaw in the government is that the Prime
Minister is not going to let the public know exactly what that
code of ethics is. How can the Canadian people have any trust in
a Prime Minister who would withhold a code of ethics for his
cabinet ministers?
I urge all members to support this motion, including the Liberal
members who will want to show the Canadian people that the
government has an ethical cabinet.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty to
inform the House that the time provided for the debate has
expired.
[Translation]
Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, all the questions
necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and the
recorded division is deemed requested and deferred until
Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at the end of Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1920
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February
11, 1999, I asked a question in the House about the situation in
Montreal, where people had to wait 48 hours before getting a
hospital bed. In Toronto, authorities were thinking about
transferring sick children to the United States. In British
Columbia, $10 million were allocated to improve the situation.
In Quebec, the figure was $20 million.
The Minister of Health said that we had to be patient, that the
budget was coming, that funds would be available, because health
was a priority for the Prime Minister. We did as the minister
suggested and waited patiently.
In 1969, it will be remembered, the federal government paid up
to 50% of hospital expenditures in the provinces. This year,
before the budget was brought down, the federal contribution for
hospital costs was down to 11%. With the new budget, it has now
gone up to about 15%.
The situation is becoming difficult for the provinces. Since
health is such a priority for Canadians, it is important to put
the emphasis on this issue and to review the cost sharing
formula between the federal government and the provinces.
I am sure the federal government will say that it has invested x
number of billions of dollars.
Yet, at the same time, there are people waiting in the hospital
corridors for care. People go to the hospital and have to wait
until there is a cancellation to get an operation. Sometimes
they have to wait as long as nine months for heart surgery, for
example. This is inhumane. It is totally unacceptable.
This is why I put the question on February 11 on behalf of
Canadians throughout the country, so the government would invest
a lot more and find solutions so that people—our parents, our
grandparents, children needing health care—can get a hospital bed
and are not put in the corridor. We must have proper care. We
must make sure people with heart problems, cancer, or any other
health problem, are treated as humans.
It is hard to see people waiting as long as 48 hours in a
hospital to be seen by a doctor and receive appropriate care.
This should be given high priority.
Government members themselves said that health was a priority
for Canadians. I wish to remind the House again that, in 1969,
the federal government paid 50% of each province's hospital care
costs. Today, it pays around 15%. This is unacceptable. It is
difficult for the provinces to administer health care systems if
they do not receive the transfer payments from the federal
government to which they are entitled and which they need in
order to be able to help people.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Let me remind the hon. member that health is a shared
jurisdiction. The federal government is responsible for the
Canada Health Act, health protection and promotion, and the
safety of Canadians when it comes to health. The provinces design
and deliver health services to the people of their provinces.
When the Minister of Health answered the member's question in
the House, he gave him a very good answer. He said that in the
budget we will be making a very important significant investment
because health and health care is a priority to this government.
1925
In the budget we saw the biggest single investment this
government has ever made. It went to increased transfers to the
provinces and to the territories for health care very
specifically. Other large investments as well went into many
areas within the federal government's jurisdiction, our own
programs which support the health of Canadians.
The budget demonstrated the government's commitment to defending
medicare in the country. We are defending access to quality
care, ensuring that care is available to all who need it
regardless of their ability to pay. We have listened to the
concerns of the people and to the provinces, and to the many
groups who share as we do the concerns about the future
directions of health care in the country.
Canadians have told their governments they are concerned about
health care and it is a priority to them. We have responded. We
have listened. We have acted because health care and the health
of Canadians is a priority to the government.
We listened and increased the Canada health and social transfer
payment by $11.5 billion over the next five years. The hon.
member neglected to mention the important tax points that have
been transferred to the provinces which generate growing income
every year. There are now billions of dollars available from the
tax points that have been transferred to the provinces for health
care.
This budget is—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry. I did
not realize the hon. parliamentary secretary was just winding up.
I thought there was another page to go and it seemed like a good
time to interrupt.
[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 7.26 p.m.)