36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 243
CONTENTS
Friday, June 11, 1999
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion that debate be not further adjourned
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1055
(Division 563)
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-49. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1100
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL EVENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1105
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL ORDER OF THE KING'S DAUGHTERS AND SONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE SARAH NINGIURUVIK
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THYROID DISEASE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR AND ARMY CADETS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOUTH AFRICA
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1110
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROCH NAPERT
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1115
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1120
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1130
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1135
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1140
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLAARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1145
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
1150
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOMELESSNESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1155
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1200
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTI-GANG LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1205
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1210
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Senate Security
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1215
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-88. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Constitution
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1220
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLITICAL PARTY ADVERTISING
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1250
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1305
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Official Languages
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1320
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLITICAL PARTY ADVERTISING
|
![V](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 243
![](/web/20061116185444im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 11, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion
regarding the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-49, an act
providing for the ratification and bringing into effect of the
framework agreement on first nations land management, I move:
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1055
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Crête
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Grewal
| Guay
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| McNally
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Obhrai
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Proctor
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
– 45
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Bonwick
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Finlay
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Peric
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Provenzano
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In order to enable us to conclude some government
business, I would ask that you seek consent not to see 11 o'clock
for five minutes or so, to permit us to pass a certain number of
motions and things I think the House would agreed to do. I would
ask that you delay question period by five minutes.
The Speaker: At this time of the year my eyesight does
get a little bad. Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
SECOND READING AND CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect
of the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
conclude my remarks from yesterday because I did not get a chance
to finish then.
I find it rather reprehensible that the government would not see
fit to try to pass a motion for emergency debate on a number of
very serious issues like grain handling and other matters which
we thought to be of an urgent nature.
However, government members saw fit last night to try to pass a
motion to start an emergency debate because they wanted to go
home eight days early. I find that very unacceptable.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1100
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and
concurred in)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
for the following. I move:
That, immediately after Routine Proceedings, the House shall
proceed to private members' hour, during which time the Chair
shall not receive dilatory motions or quorum calls; and
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned
to Monday, September 20, 1999, provided that, for the purposes of
sections (3) and (4) of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to
stand adjourned pursuant to section (2) of the said standing
order and provided that if, during the adjournment, any standing
committee has a report ready for presentation to the House, the
said report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and
there shall thereupon be deemed to have been tabled in the House.
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have
permission to put the motion to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The 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)
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the vast majority of the world's population is made up of young
people who will come of age in the next millennium with little or
no information about their sexual and reproductive health.
Annually two million people between the ages of five and fifteen
are introduced into the global commercial sex market, the
majority of them adolescent girls. Annually an estimated one in
twenty adolescents contracts a sexually transmitted disease.
The United Nations Population Fund Report on the State of the
World and the International Conference on Population and
Development have said both developed and developing countries
must work to remove legal, regulatory and cultural barriers to
sexual and reproductive health so that adolescents are able to
have better access to the information and services about their
health.
Since July 11 is World Population Day, I call upon CIDA and
colleagues on both sides of this House to use this occasion to
support initiatives that promote the sexual and reproductive
health needs of young people.
* * *
CULTURAL EVENTS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as we break for the summer, all members will have the opportunity
to attend cultural events in their ridings.
Canadians are proud of their culture. Canada is a very rich and
diverse multicultural society. We are the envy of the world.
Canada produces some of the best in the world, like Céline Dion.
Canadians consider her as Canadian as the maple leaf. Canadians
want to learn more about their heroes, heroes like William
Barker, Billy Bishop, Dr. George Mackay and many other Canadians.
In closing, I would like to invite all members to my riding of
Dauphin—Swan River to attend these cultural events: Canada's
National Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin; the World Lily Festival
in Neepawa; the Classic Rock Music Weekend in Minnedosa;
Dauphin's Country Music Festival; the Northwest Roundup and
Exhibition in Swan River; and the Jesus Manifest Christian Music
Festival in Dauphin.
Mr. Speaker, to you and to all members, have a great cultural
summer.
* * *
1105
INTERNATIONAL ORDER OF THE KING'S DAUGHTERS AND SONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to offer my congratulations to the International Order of
the King's Daughters and Sons who just celebrated their 110th
anniversary on Saturday, June 5.
This organization has performed countless charitable acts within
the community. They have encouraged many young Canadians through
their distribution of scholarships and bursaries to students
every year. They have also assisted the senior community of
Ottawa Centre by developing and providing a meals on wheels
service, the first to appear in the area.
Congratulations to the King's Daughters and Sons who have
enhanced our community with their kindness.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE SARAH NINGIURUVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are mourning Sarah Ningiuruvik of Kangiqsujuaq in
Nunavik. She was well known and very involved in her community.
In an accident on June 1 at a fishing camp, she received third
degree burns from head to toe. She suffered for more than 20
hours before receiving proper care for serious burns because of
transportation regulations. Six airlines were unable to get to
Kangiqsujuaq because of these regulations.
The Nunavik leaders, Pita Aatami, Johnny Adams and Jean Dupuis,
are asking the governments of Canada and Quebec to establish new
regulations for flight times and an emergency medical
intervention service on a 24-hour-a-day basis for remote and
northern regions in Quebec and Canada.
In the name of Sarah Ningiuruvik and her family and the people
of the northern regions, we must find a solution to this very
serious problem in the far North.
* * *
THYROID DISEASE
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that June is Thyroid Disease Month
in Canada.
More than a million Canadians of all ages suffer from some sort
of thyroid disease, which strikes five to ten times more women
than men. Undiagnosed and untreated, thyroid troubles can often
lead to serious physical and emotional problems.
The Thyroid Foundation of Canada, through its 22 chapters, works
to promote public awareness of thyroid disease through
publications and information meetings at the community level
right across the country.
I take this opportunity to honour the remarkable work done by
the Thyroid Foundation of Canada and its many devoted volunteers
and to wish them every possible success during Thyroid Disease
Month.
* * *
[English]
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
want a government that listens to the people and reflects their
views on issues like pornography.
They want a government that actually supports health care
instead of just talking about it.
They want a government that provides real protection for
law-abiding citizens and not just window dressing with concurrent
sentences for multiple offenders.
Most of all they want lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes.
They are sick and tired of being taxed to death. They are tired
of a finance minister bombarding them with empty words while they
are in the crunch with empty wallets.
They want a government which gives new opportunities for
economic independence and prosperity. They want a government in
which their representatives, the MPs that they elected, are
effective and not just the Prime Minister's robots.
Last night's vote shows Canadians that they do have an
alternative to this ineffective, arrogant, tax loving Liberal
government. I invite everyone who is like minded to get on board.
The train is leaving the station and Joe Clark is not on it.
* * *
AIR AND ARMY CADETS
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently attended ceremonial reviews
for the air and army cadet squadrons in my riding. I came away
tremendously impressed with the level of training displayed by
these young Canadians. The precision with which these cadets
carried out their assignments reflected their dedication to the
military.
I congratulate the 754 Phoenix Air Cadet Squadron and the 2893
Seaforth Highlanders Army Cadets. These fine young people are
setting an example for all of their colleagues and making their
parents and their peers proud of them.
Well done, cadets.
* * *
[Translation]
SOUTH AFRICA
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week,
South Africa held its second multiracial democratic election. I
wish to congratulate Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela's successor, on
his victory.
The high turnout and the peaceful staging of this election are a
tribute to the people's determination to pursue their fight for
democracy. South Africans have set an example for Africa and
people the world over in their quest for justice, equality and
reconciliation.
The challenges facing the ANC are many and daunting.
Tackling the problems of AIDS, unemployment, crime,
discrimination and the inequitable distribution of wealth are
some of the first items that will have to go on the new
government's agenda.
1110
Bloc Quebecois members congratulate the candidates of all
parties. Thanks to them and the people of South Africa, renewed
democracy in this country holds out strong hope for the future.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's housing crisis requires action by all levels of
government. On a typical night, 300 people crowd into homeless
shelters in Vancouver, 700 in Calgary, 400 in Ottawa and 4,000 in
Toronto.
There are other signs the poor are having a tough time making
ends meet in our cities. The use of food banks is up. There is
more panhandling. The waiting lists for subsidized housing are
long and getting longer. In Toronto it is estimated the waiting
period for admission to social housing is well over five years.
It is estimated that 490,000 social housing units are urgently
needed.
There is something basically wrong when more and more people
cannot afford to live in Canada's richest cities. It is time to
make social investments in housing. It is time for a national
housing program.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, terror struck the town of St. Jean-sur-Richelieu
yesterday when Ginette Samson was murdered by her husband as she
slept in a women's shelter.
Shelters are supposed to be secret havens for women and children
escaping abuse. Yesterday was the ultimate violation. How did
this happen? How did he find his wife? Most important, what can
we do to provide the needed protection for abused women?
Spousal homicides are far too common in our society. There are
on average 100 spousal killings a year in Canada. This is
horrendous. We have a duty to provide the necessary protection
to the most vulnerable in our society.
I have introduced Private Member's Bill C-494, the new
identities act, which would bring those spouses and their
children in life threatening situations under the services of the
witness protection program. I urge all members to support this
important cause.
I only hope that the tragic death of Ginette Samson is the last
time a person is murdered in this country trying to flee an
abusive spouse.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
return to our constituencies today we can all pride ourselves on
having made Canada yet a better country in which to live. We
have adopted legislation to invest in children, to rebuild our
economy, to strengthen our health care system and to reduce
taxes.
Make no mistake, our efforts are paying off. Canadians are
seeing the benefits of our government's sound fiscal and social
policies. This morning's Hamilton Spectator reports that
Canada's economy has grown at an annual rate of 4.2% in the past
three months, well ahead of our U.S. neighbours. Fueled by the
news of our outstanding economic performance, the Canadian dollar
rose by nearly half a cent yesterday.
Thanks to the sacrifices made by my constituents and all
Canadians, thanks to the leadership of the right hon. Prime
Minister, the Minister of Finance and to this government's
policies of balanced budgets, low inflation, low interest rates
and job creation, we all benefit from our strong economy.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
1989 the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to end
child poverty in the year 2000. As we approach the 10 year
anniversary, are we any closer? Are children in poverty any
better off?
The answer is a resounding no. Kids are worse off. Families in
poverty are worse off and the number of people and the depth of
poverty is increasing. What a disgrace. And what an absurdity
and insult that the Liberal government speaks about ending child
poverty yet every action, program and cutback has taken us in the
opposite direction.
There is one sign of hope. The report from the subcommittee on
children and youth at risk is raising the issues that need to be
addressed and is questioning government policy. As we end this
session, I want to thank all the witnesses and the organizations
who spoke boldly and plainly about the deficit of social policy
in regard to children.
Addressing inequality and growing poverty in a rich country like
Canada must be our priority. I look forward to the committee
continuing its work.
* * *
[Translation]
ROCH NAPERT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to congratulate Roch Napert, a retired teacher, on the
publication of his second collection of poetry.
His first collection, Partir est ailleurs, was published in
1997. I will read just a few lines: “He was a man contemplating
the emotion of living: first, a young man reconciling authority
with his search for meaning; then, a man looking to the object
of his love for his own and the other's identity; and, finally,
a man overtaken by Time, and robbed of his dream”.
1115
The collection is a snapshot of life, the language a melange of
the reticent and the bawdy. His most recent collection, La nuit
voyage seule, is a universal tapestry rich with experience.
Inspired by the collection's title, painter Denis Nadeau stopped
off at Lac Saint-Pierre to create the cover page.
Through his poetic endeavours, Mr. Napert is helping to enrich
the culture of Quebec and we thank him.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is official: two days ago, the Bouchard government kicked off
Quebec's referendum campaign in good Le Hir style with a series
of partisan studies on social union.
Not surprisingly, the overall solution proposed was the
separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. Anything less
would have been a bombshell. As in the 1995 referendum, the
public will obviously be left to pick up the tab for these
studies, which comes to approximately $66,000.
Clearly, the PQ government has no intention of working to
improve the Canadian social union. Once again, the separatists
would rather launch Quebec on a path of political uncertainty,
which does not augur well for the coming months. It is a sad
road ahead.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, moments
ago in the House I heard the word “reprehensible”. I can tell
the House what reprehensible is. Reprehensible is the
misinformation and innuendo spread by the hon. member for Skeena
about Bill C-49.
The hon. member for Skeena yesterday railed against the 25%
benchmark required for first nations to approve their land codes.
He misled parliament by omitting the fact that a 50% approval
rating is needed on the first vote. That is what reprehensible
is and it is time that it stopped in the House.
Let us look at the Reform's own record. It has 70,000 members
and 32,000 members voted in the UA process. That is 46%. The
first nations need 50%. Of the 46% of Reform members who voted,
27% approved the UA. It would seem that 27% is good enough for
Reform, but 25% is not good enough for first nations. That is
what reprehensible is.
The Speaker: I advise hon. members to please be very
judicious, especially in the use of “misleading”.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
did you ever hear such fear in your life over there?
Last night Canadians saw a remarkable display of democracy in
action as the Leader of the Opposition announced the results of
the first united alternative vote.
While the results of the ballot will no doubt be the focus of
the media and political pundits, to me the real winner last night
was the democratic process. This was not a top-down, backroom
deal forced on the grassroots members of our party. This was an
open, honest debate followed by a free vote for every Reform
member from coast to coast, and boy do they not like it in this
place.
The membership has spoken and given the leadership a clear
mandate to explore a new principled alternative to the governing
Liberals who were elected by default with a meagre 38% of the
vote in the election.
Canadians want change and the Reform Party is leading the way
once again.
I might add that the fear with the status quo people in the
House is obvious today, is it not? Here we come from the Reform
Party.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently 13 Jewish Iranians were arrested in Iran on charges of
espionage.
They are accused of working on behalf of Israel and the United
States, charges which are denied by both countries. I understand
that charges of espionage in Iran, particularly related to
Israel, carry the death penalty.
The arrests include a number of rabbis and leaders in the Jewish
community in Iran. The arrest of these individuals is
unwarranted and unacceptable. I believe that because of their
religion, the accused will not receive a fair trial.
Canada must do everything within our power to assist these
falsely accused prisoners. I would ask that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs immediately investigate the situation and add
Canada's voice to others around the world in demanding the
release of these political prisoners.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is almost silly season again in Shawinigan, is it not? The
summer is coming and the Prime Minister will be travelling to do
his rubber chicken barbeques and giving rubber chicken speeches.
The Prime Minister will be wandering around the ridings shouting,
“Grants, come and get your grants”, or “We take your
cheques”.
1120
In an effort to aid the citizens of the coincidence capital of
Canada in their summer budgeting, I would like to ask the Prime
Minister what this year's price is for a $1 million dollar grant,
including the GST.
The Speaker: Because the hon. Deputy Prime Minister is on
his feet, I am going to permit the question. I do not know how
that was exactly connected to administrative responsibility, but
I will permit the Deputy Prime Minister to respond.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question is unworthy even of the
Reform Party.
I think they want to deflect attention from the good economic
news that in the first quarter of 1999 real GDP rose at a 4.2%
annual rate for the first quarter of 1999. Exports of goods and
services increased by 2.1% while personal income also grew.
Consumer spending showed renewed strength while the housing
market grew at an incredible pace.
If the hon. member was serious about serving Canada, he would
ask me about this himself and not wait until I gave these facts.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we would have better economic news in the country if
these guys would stop giving grants out to all their buddies.
The Prime Minister has done it all wrong in the past. His
current chief salesman is under investigation by the RCMP. I
think it is time he enlisted the help of a real marketing
professional. Oh no, he cannot do that because he will be in
Milan on another patronage job. Perhaps the heritage minister
could help us out? She is making a career out of spending
millions of dollars of taxpayers' money selling Canadians a
culture they already own.
Why will the Prime Minister not just change the focus of this
summer's campaign to truly help his constituents by giving them
better health care and lower taxes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is so immersed in his desperate attempt
to prevent the disintegration of the Reform Party that he has
missed the fact that we are already working with $11.5 billion to
give Canadians better health care. We are already working toward
general tax reductions by giving Canadians $16.5 billion in tax
reductions over the next three years.
I know the hon. member is desperate to prevent a revolt among
his Reform Party members, but why does he not ask me about this
instead of waiting for me, again, I say, to give these facts?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it would not matter what I asked them, I would not get
answers to it anyway.
In fact, if they asked the young people today how good a job the
government has done, they would say that it was pathetic, quite
frankly.
The Prime Minister has been excellent at raising money for
himself and his cronies. He has even managed to boost the value
of his own company using his little marketing scheme.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon.
opposition House leader to go directly to his question, please.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, why will the Prime Minister
not do what really creates jobs in the country and cut taxes for
his constituents who, by the way, are suffering from an
unemployment rate of better than 12%?
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is an inaccurate and misleading premise to the question. The
Prime Minister has no shares in the company in question. As the
ethics commissioner told the parliamentary committee, “This is a
done deal. It was over. There are no connections and no
financial connections regarding the Prime Minister in either the
auberge or the golf course”.
The premise of the question is wrong and the hon. member is
wrong in saying the Prime Minister has not been helping his
constituents. He has been doing so and doing so properly. If
the hon. member was not trying to hide the fact that the united
alternative referendum was an abject failure—only 32% of the
members voted—then he would not try to—
The Speaker: Especially on this day, my colleagues, would
we stay away from the word “misleading”.
* * *
1125
HEALTH
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's blood system has failed us again.
Mr. Joel Pinon lied about his history when he donated blood, but
his lie is only part of the problem. Someone was given Mr.
Pinon's blood before it was properly screened. Canadians are
told that their blood system is safe but we now know it is not.
How can the health minister claim that our blood system has been
fixed, when we now know that simple screening processes are being
ignored?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member knows, when people give blood they are asked
questions to identify and eliminate risk. In the case the member
refers to, someone was asked the right questions. The
appropriate and safe procedure was followed. Apparently the man
was dishonest in responding. As a result, the regulatory
agencies have acted. They have traced the blood. They have
tested it and it has tested negative. The regulatory agencies
are doing everything they can to respond in an appropriate way.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the health minister is making light of a very serious situation.
This decision became public only because Mr. Pinon was trying to
make a point.
Unfortunately, another point was made: The blood system has a
problem with its screening procedures.
What specific measures is the health minister taking to protect
the lives of vulnerable Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I assure the House and all Canadians that Health Canada and all
of those involved in the blood system are doing everything
possible to ensure a safe supply.
One thing that is not helpful is for people, like this member and
his colleague yesterday, to stand here and try to fearmonger for
political purposes about the blood system in the country. This is
nothing less than shameful.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Claude Ryan,
the former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, judges social
union very severely.
He says, and I quote “This is the third time in the past 20
years that, after committing to a joint undertaking with the
other provinces and territories, Quebec has been abandoned in
mid-stream by its partners.”
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs consider that
social union is the eighth wonder of the world, when even Quebec
federalists consider it one more step toward a highly
centralized Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we share Mr. Ryan's opinion on the objective, which is
to affirm the specific nature of Quebec within Canada.
We have differing opinions, however, on the consequences of
social union. In our opinion, this agreement is going to
reinforce affirmation of the specific nature of Quebec within
Canada, and if the unique character of Quebec society is not
explicitly mentioned in the agreement, which Mr. Ryan
justifiably regrets, that is very much contrary to the wishes of
the Government of Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the nation
builders in Ottawa are determined, in the name of an abstract
and doctrinaire vision of individual and provincial equality, to
introduce asymmetry into our federal system.
When is the minister going to quit playing with words and
concepts and tell Quebecers clearly that his vision of the
federalism of the future is an even greater centralization than
we have at present, which does not correspond to what Quebecers,
even federalist Quebecers, want?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one can seriously claim that Canada is a centralized
federation. Even Mr. Parizeau, the shadow leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, has acknowledged that it was the most decentralized.
I shall take the hon. member literally, however. He is calling
for clear questions to be asked of Quebecers. If he asks
Quebecers clearly whether they want to renounce Canada in favour
of Quebec as an independent state, what the Prime Minister of
Canada said in 1995 to the then Leader of the Opposition and
leader of the Bloc Quebecois is really extremely true “If you
ask a clear question, you will take quite a beating”.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Fine opening
message, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is impressed by
authoritative arguments. Yet, he quoted Claude Castonguay this week
in defence of the social union. Here is what Claude Ryan thinks
of Mr. Castonguay's remark, and I quote “He is the only one to
express such a favourable opinion”.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Does the minister realize he does not have many friends left in
his camp to share and defend Ottawa's centralizing vision of
Quebec?
1130
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a centralizing vision. The Government of
Canada now has additional constraints on the exercise of its
spending power.
I do not like authoritative arguments, but since the hon. member
has invited me, I want to point out that the leader of the
official opposition in the National Assembly said “Today's
agreement is more than the status quo. It represents
improvements in areas that are vital and sensitive to Quebec's
interests”.
I would like to say as well that I have an Angus Reid poll here
that shows 42% of Quebecers supporting the agreement, 26% of
them opposing it and 21% undecided.
Quebecers are not sheep. They have varying opinions. They must
be given good arguments, something the Bloc never does.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister may put on fancy airs here in the House, but he
must consider it very disappointing to find himself isolated in
his abstract and doctrinaire concept of nation building,
according to the words of Claude Ryan himself.
Could the minister admit for once that apart from a few ultra
federalists, no Quebecer supports the centralizing and unitarian
vision of Canada his government is pursuing?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we are talking about Mr. Ryan, I would like to
stick to arguments, so it is difficult to discuss with the
member.
I would like to point out that, although we can disagree with
Mr. Ryan, there are points on which we do agree.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Please. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, all the Bloc does is hurl
insults.
An hon. member: You are the one hurling insults.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: I would like to say one thing. When the Bloc
leader was the member for Roberval, this sort of thing did not
occur, all to his credit.
Back to the argument now. Mr. Ryan did say things we agree
with. If I may—
An hon. member: He is saying any old thing.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: —I will quote him, with respect to federal
spending power.
[English]
I am not inclined to question this power in principle for two
reasons. First, the spending power is an essential power of
sovereign states. Second, in the past this power was necessary
or very useful, to say the least, in situations of serious
economic and social difficulty in the promotion of equal
opportunity for all Canadians.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister is set to tour southeast
Saskatchewan and southwest Manitoba later today.
If the minister were serious about understanding the real
conditions faced by farmers, he would already know that more than
two million acres of farmland are under water. Farmers are not
interested in the media splash. What they really need is urgent
cash.
When will the government stop persecuting western farmers and
start helping western farmers?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday hon.
members were saying that they wanted to see the minister of
agriculture beyond the borders of Ontario. Now that he is going
beyond the borders of Ontario, they do not want to see him. They
cannot have it both ways.
The minister is going out to talk to producers to see firsthand
what the problems are and he will take steps to solve those
problems.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, farmers have been facing one disaster after another:
depression level commodity prices and then the slashing of
domestic subsidies like the Crow benefit which led to last year's
farm income disaster. Now flooding is causing a natural
disaster. In response to these disasters, we have another
man-made disaster, the government's AIDA program.
Will the government listen to prairie farmers who have spent
about 30 hours each filling out their AIDA application forms,
only to find out they are not eligible? Will the government fix
the AIDA program and truly help western farmers? Or, will
farmers be facing a third man-made disaster from the Liberal
government by themselves?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
has responded to every disaster that has occurred in western
Canada. It has responded with a $1.5 billion program to help
those farmers.
What we ask the farmers to do and what we ask hon. members
opposite to do is to spend their summer helping their farmers
fill out their application forms, because every other farmer in
Canada is doing it and they are getting money for it.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, serious allegations of wrongdoing involving private
holdings, campaign donations and questionable use of taxpayer
money continues to plague the Prime Minister.
As evidence mounts and the plot thickens, the grey fog rolls in
to present the Liberal spin to cloak the facts and cover the
tracks.
1135
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, when will the government
withdraw this spurious letter of baseless allegations against Mr.
Mulroney sent to Swiss authorities and call an end to the
ill-founded airbus investigation?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite has a hard
time understanding the answers we give day after day to his
questions, which are always the same.
I will repeat for the 51st or 52nd time the same answer: the
federal government has no intention of meddling in the decisions
of the RCMP, of conducting an inquiry or of stopping an inquiry.
It is not our role. Ours is a legislative role. The RCMP's is an
investigative role.
We have no business meddling, especially since this
investigation was recognized in the agreement reached with Mr.
Mulroney at the time.
I really do not understand why my colleague opposite cannot
comprehend that.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have come to expect stonewalling and delay
every time they come in conflict with the Liberal government.
When issues arise citizens face a barrage of government lawyers
intent on foot dragging and legal manoeuvring.
A second named party in the airbus debacle now has a $50 million
lawsuit pending against the Canadian government. My question is
for the architect of airbus, the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the
Liberal government intend to settle this matter the way it did
with Mr. Mulroney, or does it intend to be dragged kicking and
screaming through the courts before facing a final costly,
humiliating verdict?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the lawsuit to which the hon. member referred that was
settled involved Mr. Mulroney absolutely dropping his claim for
damages. Second, what was paid was simply the legal costs.
In the written minutes of settlement signed on behalf of Mr.
Mulroney, he recognized that the RCMP had a perfect right to
begin the investigation and to carry it out.
The hon. member ought to read the minutes of settlement and pass
on to some other matters of real concern to Canadians.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the immigration minister continues to use refugees as a revenue
source. The minister claims that in the fall she will examine
the $975 right of landing fee which she forces refugees to pay
when they apply for permanent residence status.
The Canadian public, all opposition parties, and indeed members
of the Liberal cabinet, are calling for the elimination of this
fee now. Why will the minister not act today to stop taxing
refugees, vulnerable people who are seeking the protection of
Canada?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say
that the member is wrong again. He seems to be a rather slow
learner. We went through the same process in the House last
night.
If we take the question of the refugees, particularly the ones
from Kosovo right now, let me inform the member that the
government has no fees for any of the refugees coming in. As a
matter a fact the government has put forward $100 million to take
care of these refugees.
For the member to stand in the House to try to create an issue
where there is none does a disservice to the generosity of
Canadians.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is anybody who is wrong it is members of the
Liberal government. They are the ones that continue to impose
the head tax on refugees. In fact, they had an opportunity to
remedy the situation yesterday in committee and instead voted
down a motion to remove the head tax. They continue to tax
refugees and they know it.
In 1996 the Liberal Party called for the elimination of the head
tax. Why is the government intent on ripping off refugees? Why
does it not do the right thing and eliminate the head tax here,
now, today?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me
categorically say that there is no head tax in the country.
For the member to stand and trivialize a very tragic time in the
history of the country when Chinese Canadians suffered is
despicable. I understand that the Reform Party has an identity
crisis. It does not know if it is coming or going. However this
party is for refugees and this party is for immigration, unlike
the Reform Party.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLAARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as an example of
doctrinaire and rigid nation building, it would be hard to
improve on this government's approach to the millennium
scholarships.
After a battle in parliament and in the media, the minister has
given way a little and is talking with the Quebec minister of
education, but just on the phone as he refuses to meet with the
Quebec minister.
With this obstinacy and rigidity, has the Minister of Human
Resources Development not just demonstrated that Quebec is
doomed to a never-ending battle to protect its constitutional
areas of jurisdiction from a system which—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House of one thing:
our government is very vigilant about not encroaching on areas
of Quebec jurisdiction. We have been saying that for a year
now.
We have negotiated agreements with Alberta and Ontario, and now
all of Quebec is calling for them as well, the students and the
universities, to such an extent that the Government of Quebec
has finally agreed to sit down and negotiate based on the
Gautrin resolution.
Here I see the Bloc Quebecois trying to play petty politics at a
time when we are trying to serve the students of Quebec who
will at last be able to take advantage of Canadian government
assistance in funding their studies.
They are our priority, not those people over there.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development is still doggedly insisting on
defending the indefensible and at throwing out meaningless
slogans and platitudes.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development, Claude Ryan's
former chief of staff, not moved by the words of his former guru
to reflect on the severe judgment his former boss has made on
his behaviour, his government and the evolution of Canadian
federalism?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the members of
the Bloc Quebecois to read my book Pour une politique de
confiance. They were not willing to engage in a true
substantive debate. I think they would notice that there is a
consistent thought and a constructive proposal, which young
people throughout Quebec are beginning to appreciate
considerably, because it opens up their futures.
We are not proposing the status quo. We are not proposing the
Quebec model of the 1960s. We are proposing an open society.
The narrowness of the past, which is the obsession of the Bloc
members, holds no interest for young Quebecers. We are helping
them finance their studies in a dynamic society that is not
stuck in the past.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general claims to be getting serious about drugs in the
prisons.
Three inmates from the women's prison in Kitchener were recently
convicted for conspiring to traffic in the penitentiary. One got
nine months and the other two got one day each to be served
currently with sentences already being served.
If the solicitor general is so serious about the prison drug
problem, I ask the parliamentary secretary if his boss considered
speaking with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, about
mandating sentences for drug trafficking in prisons to be served
consecutively to sentences already being served.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to
point out briefly that the inmates who tried to bring drugs into
the penitentiary were prevented from doing so by the
institution, which is a tribute to the work that has been done
to keep drugs out of the penitentiary.
Second, I thank my hon. colleague for raising the issue of drugs
in prison, because I would like to bring something important to
his attention. The following are currently in place to try to
eliminate the drug problem in prisons: prerelease program for
addicts, random urine testing, the ALTO program in Quebec, the
CHOICES program pretty well all over the country, the national
awareness program designed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade is mandated to conduct a review
of the Export Development Act.
All indications from his department and the law firm contracted
to perform the review were that the report would be presented to
parliament by the end of May.
I ask the minister where is this report.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): It will soon come, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
1145
[Translation]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the eve
of the 1995 referendum, this government passed a distinct
society resolution. If it wants to do more than pay lip service
to this resolution, now is its golden opportunity.
My question is for the current Minister for International Trade.
Does the minister intend to give Quebec a spot on the World
Trade Organization delegation?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the last federal-provincial conference
for ministers of trade, not only did the minister of trade for
the province of Quebec agree with the entire agenda, he actually
complimented the federal government on how it had been able to
consult, not only with Quebec, but with all of the provinces.
“If it ain't broken”, the Quebec minister said, “don't fix
it”.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
we learned that the government intends to abandon the principle
of cultural exception—for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I
repeat that that was cultural exception—at the next WTO
negotiations. This confirms what Quebec feared, namely that it
cannot count on others to defend its special character.
Does the current Minister for International Trade not think that
this is one more reason that Quebec should have a spot at the
WTO negotiations?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human Resources
Development said moments ago, there are two reasons that the
Quebec culture has flourished. First, it is because of Quebecers
themselves and, second, it is because they have been able to live
in the best country in the world which promotes diversity and
uniqueness.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni the RCMP are being short funded
by the federal government. The province, on the other hand, is
paying its fair share.
The RCMP cannot operate the coastal boats on a regular basis,
the drug squad has been shut down and officers have been moved on
to general duty. All of this is occurring because the federal
government is not holding up its side of the bargain.
When will the solicitor general reinstate core funding for the
RCMP?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is a
bit out of touch. In the budget just brought down, an additional
$37 million was set aside for the RCMP. The British Columbia
division received an additional $10 million and $115 million was
earmarked for the CPIC.
A study is under way to ensure that the RCMP's funding levels
are adequate. An independent firm is helping us carry out this
study. The member opposite is fearmongering and he does not
have a leg to stand on.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, of the $10 million that was given to the RCMP, this
government clawed back $8.5 million.
The federally run RCMP DNA testing lab in British Columbia has a
six month backlog of investigations, for some of the most serious
crimes committed in the province, due to lack of funding. DNA
testing is the most effective, contemporary crime fighting tool
that we have.
Why is the government spending millions on bogus grants and
handouts rather than fully funding DNA testing?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since I could not finish earlier,
I will do so now.
A memorandum of understanding was signed by the solicitor
general, the RCMP and the Treasury Board to ensure that all new
contract positions with the RCMP are filled by the Treasury
Board and not by the RCMP. The member neglects to mention this.
As for the DNA bank, I am happy to report that the backlog in
British Columbia has been reduced by 30% in the last six months.
If the member opposite had bothered to consult his own
colleagues, and find out what is happening here at RCMP
headquarters with respect to the DNA bank—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
* * *
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 8,
1987 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs demanded that the
Progressive Conservative government obtain the agreement of the
provinces before signing the free trade agreement because, as he
put it, this agreement affected areas under their jurisdiction.
1150
The minister even said that when they formed the government
they would be happy to conduct all negotiations with agreement
of the provinces.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs keep his promise and obtain
Quebec's agreement on anything it negotiates with the WTO?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that on the
federal-provincial scene, when it comes to international trade,
this deal and partnership works harmoniously well.
The Government of Canada, in the case of asbestos, has had more
telephone conferences, more meetings and more get togethers with
the industry in Quebec and with province of Quebec officials than
on any other issue. There has not been one complaint registered
to me by the Quebec minister for trade concerning asbestos or any
other interest.
There is a national interest within which the provinces
certainly participate, consult and advise.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour.
The Peel Regional Task Force recently completed its final report
and recommended ways to deal with the problem of poverty and
homelessness. Can the parliamentary secretary reassure me that
this important report and others like it will be looked at by the
federal facilitators co-ordinating programs for the homeless?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member
that the Minister of Labour will review all of the
recommendations of the Peel Regional Task Force.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Wing
Construction is out $2 million and is on the verge of bankruptcy
because of the fraudulent actions of Sagkeeng Chief Jerry
Fontaine.
I asked the minister about this in the House a few days ago and
she said that what precipitated it was when a partnership between
the Sagkeeng Indian Band and Wing Construction was dissolved.
What she did not tell us was that the partnership was dissolved
on the instructions of her department.
Why did the minister's department instruct the Sagkeeng Band to
dissolve its partnership with Wing Construction?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am
confused by the line of questioning of the hon. member. In fact,
I find it bizarre and absurd that the so-called defenders of
accountability are asking me to bail out a private sector company
for a contractual relationship it has with a first nation, in
which I have no legal obligation or partnership, and for work
that was undertaken outside the accountability measures of my
department.
This just does not seem to be consistent with what they believe
to be important and what we believe to be important, which is to
ensure that there are fair and accountable activities and
practices between the federal government and first nations. That
is really what we are focusing on.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that department is good at leaving people hanging out to dry.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
remained aloof from the dispute between the Musqueam Band and the
non-Musqueam leaseholders who now face lease rate increases of
over 7,000%.
Yesterday the standing committee finally received a
recommendation. It came from one of the Liberal members and it
called on the government to get involved in settling the dispute.
A previous Liberal government was present at the birth of this
flawed deal. Is this Liberal government going to abandon the
parties to the lease at the end of its life?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange
indeed that the opposition is asking for us to get involved in
circumstances in which the federal government has no partnership.
An hon. member: You broke your word.
Hon. Jane Stewart: These contracts are private
arrangements, whether it be a lease arrangement or whether it be
a construction arrangement.
Let me say that on this side of the House today we are
celebrating the passage—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are getting close to the
end. Please be very judicious.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to
recognize that today, on this side of the House, we are
celebrating the passage of an extremely important piece of
legislation, Bill C-49. We are joined by every other party in
the House, save the Reform. Again we see them standing alone
against the first nations people of this country, standing
against progress for aboriginal people, for jobs, growth and
development. The first nations have always known that the Reform
Party is against them, but now all Canadians know.
* * *
1155
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 800,000
unemployed workers do not qualify for employment insurance
because of cuts by this government and the previous Conservative
government.
After touring the country to assess how people were affected by
the changes made to the EI program by the Minister of Human
Resources Development, I made 13 recommendations to the
minister.
I ask this minister whether the government will make changes to
employment insurance, yes or no, and when will it do so?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in reforming employment
insurance, we wanted to adapt an extremely important social
system.
We are aware that adaptation is sometimes difficult for certain
communities and certain individuals. However, the NDP member is
asking pretty much the same thing of us as the Bloc does—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: They keep wanting us to turn back the
clock. They want us to go back to the 1960s model. This is the
essence of what Premier Bouchard wants.
As the government, we want to help people with active measures
to enjoy a better future, rather than stay put with passive
support.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
way backward is the Liberal government's response thus far to the
200 page report entitled “The Way Forward” given to the
Minister of National Defence by Canada's new Canadian forces
ombudsman. Over 135 days later the minister sits silent.
With well over 350 complaints waiting and over 8,000 expected,
when will the government respond to the report and let the
ombudsman begin his work? Or is the minister being silenced by
the top military brass?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a pioneering effort in our
department and within the context of a military organization for
us in Canada. We want to make sure that we get this office set
up so it is able to do an effective and good job and that we get
the terms of reference right.
When the ombudsman came forward with a set of recommendations,
many of them involved other departments and other areas of
jurisdiction outside the control of the Minister of National
Defence. It has taken some time to process that through. I
think we are getting to the end of that discussion and I expect
to have that office up and operating very shortly.
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Liberal government
hid behind legal technicalities to avoid releasing 363 pages of
documents withheld by HRDC to my access to information requests
on Yvon Duhaime and Pierre Thibault. I have appealed to the
information commissioner.
If the government abides by the Access to Information Act, will
it respect the information commissioner's decision on my appeal,
yes or no?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question
is absolutely wrong. The government respects the laws of this
land concerning access to information. All documents have been
released in compliance with access to information guidelines,
which of course protect commercial confidences and the privacy of
third parties. That is what the law says and we respect it.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today will
likely be the last day the House sits and we are still no closer
to the truth on Shawinigate. Yesterday the Prime Minister
refused to admit that he has the power under section 11 of the
Auditor General Act to independently investigate specific
projects. The Prime Minister claims he is innocent but offers no
independent corroborating evidence.
Why will the government not take politics out of this affair and
use section 11 of the Auditor General Act to get to the bottom of
these projects?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are taking politics out of this matter by leaving the
role of the auditor general to the auditor general himself, to
exercise his independent authority in the way he sees fit. The
Canadian people and this House are rejecting the call of the
Conservative Party for political interference in the matter
involving the role of the auditor general. I think that is quite
appropriate.
The hon. member should bear in mind that the comments he has
made about innocence are totally contrary to the premises of
Canadian and British justice which say that he who asserts must
prove. There are no charges that demand a response from the
Prime Minister with respect to innocence.
1200
He has acted with the utmost integrity. He has answered every
question clearly, carefully and fully. The ethics commissioner
has appeared before the parliamentary committee and confirmed
that the Prime Minister acted in a perfectly proper manner.
* * *
KOSOVO
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Cooperation.
All Canadians are gratified that a peace agreement has been
reached in Kosovo. However, there are still hundreds of
thousands of refugees in neighbouring countries and still more
actually inside Kosovo. Many homes and villages have been
destroyed and crops have not been planted for next season.
Will the minister tell the House how Canada will be assisting
the Kosovars to return to their homes?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, much needs to be done.
The internally displaced people must have access to supplies and
medical attention as they have received nothing so far. The
externally displaced, the refugees, need organizational support
to return. They all need help to get ready for next winter.
To meet this challenge, I have allocated $5 million to the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from the original
moneys earmarked for Kosovo.
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice mailed
a rather incredibly insulting document flogging the government's
strategy on child custody in the Divorce Act and urging MPs to
use it in their summer householders.
It said the best interests of children must be the highest
priority, but nowhere is there mention that the minister will
delay this so-called high priority well into the next millennium.
That is the real story.
Why is the minister willing to wait three more years? Why is
she willing to let thousands of children suffer in needless
custody disputes? The joint committee gave the plan. Where is
the legislation?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
custody and access are very complex and difficult questions which
require complex solutions.
The report by two Queen's University law professors emphasizes
how difficult, complex and challenging the issue is. We want to
take the time to do it right, not to do it quickly, as the Reform
Party is suggesting.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTI-GANG LEGISLATION
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
several months now, the Bloc Quebecois has been working to
strengthen the anti-gang legislation and make it more effective.
This is a good thing too, because the police in Quebec is
concerned about new biker wars.
My question is a very simple one. Can the minister tell us
whether the government is prepared to work with us and, more
importantly, whether the Bloc Quebecois can count on the
government's support in introducing more effective and
enforceable anti-gang legislation that would take effect before
the end of the year?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his question.
I will simply remind the House that the present government,
under the former justice minister, passed anti-gang legislation
in 1997. This legislation was greeted warmly by the legal
community. If any amendments to this legislation are necessary,
the minister and this government would be very pleased to
examine suggestions from the Bloc Quebecois or from members from
other parties in the House.
We are anxious to improve the legislation we ourselves
introduced, precisely in order to do something about this
serious problem in our society.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, women in the
country are facing increasing violence. There is the case of a
woman whose children were kidnapped, smuggled into the country
and stay here on a minister's permit.
Women are killed. They are abducted from their workplace. Now
they are even killed in women's shelters. Women are most likely
to be murdered when they try to leave a marriage.
Will the minister responsible make sure women's shelters are
secure? Will the minister responsible make sure that the
kidnapped children go back to their mother? Will the minister
also make sure that a murderer cannot use the defence of
provocation to excuse murder?
1205
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
violence against women is a very serious matter. The government
has in fact taken measures.
Obviously the problem has not yet been alleviated. We will continue to
make progress on the government side of the House through our gun
control legislation and through measures by the minister
responsible for the status of women.
Violence against women is unacceptable and has zero tolerance in
terms of our society. We will continue working with all
departments of the government to ensure that this type of
scenario does not continue.
* * *
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I
asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether the Canadian
Coast Guard was considering removing Yarmouth's emergency
helicopter service as a means of cutting costs. The response
suggested that the department was indeed concerned with the
safety of our fishers.
Will the minister demonstrate this concern by agreeing here and
now to keeping the emergency helicopter service fully staffed and
operational in Yarmouth?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with reference to
the helicopter, no specific decision has been taken on it. I can
assure the hon. member that search and rescue are definitely a
priority of the government.
The Canadian Coast Guard has a proud Canadian heritage. We have
tried to build on that heritage by making better use of limited
resources and ensuring they are more efficient. The bottom line
is ensuring safety for boaters and fishers in the country.
We as the Canadian government want to build on the strong
Canadian Coast Guard heritage.
* * *
[Translation]
CANCER
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all
aware of the devastating effects of cancer, and we all have a
relative, friend or colleague who has been affected by this
disease. Research has a definitive part to play in beating
cancer.
Could the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development tell us what the government of Canada is doing to
encourage research in this area?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are numerous initiatives throughout Canada, in
our universities and in our hospitals. However, I would like to
particularly mention a partnership agreement signed yesterday
between Pasteur-Merieux-Connaught Canada, along with its worldwide
network, the private sector, and the National Research
Council representing the government.
They are focusing their unique expertise on what I believe is
the greatest challenge of our time, namely to beat cancer,
breast and prostate cancer in particular.
This initiative shows that Canada has the brains, the expertise
and the knowledge to do leading-edge research comparable to what
is—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. secretary of
state.
Dear colleagues, it is very possible, if not probable, that this
will be the last day of sitting.
[English]
It gives me a chance, since I missed it the other day, to wish
all of you a safe and profitable summer in whatever ways you can
make it, but especially in terms of spending some time not only
in your ridings but with your loved ones.
I hope we all come back here in good health and well rested for
the fall session.
I have notice of a question of privilege which I will hear.
However, a member has asked that we shift the rules so that he
can present a report from the committee on a pressing matter.
1210
Is there unanimous consent for the member to present the
committee report before we go to the question of privilege?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House,
in both official languages, the report of the Canada—Europe
Parliamentary Association, which represented Canada at the
meetings of the second session of the Council of Europe's
parliamentary assembly from April 26 to 30, 1999 in Strasbourg.
[English]
The Speaker: I will now deal with the question of
privilege and then we will revert to Routine Proceedings.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
SENATE SECURITY
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to invoke your
judgement and that of those in the House on a matter which I
believe infringes our privileges as members of parliament and
threatens our ability to dutifully carry out and fulfil our
obligations to represent our constituents.
It has come to our attention that the management of the Senate
security circulated a memorandum to the security guards earlier
this week featuring the picture of the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle and five other members of the House. The memo
includes photographs of the following members: the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, the member
for Calgary West; the member for Matapédia—Matane, the member
for Charlevoix, and the member for Québec East.
The question is why these members were singled out from all
other members. It is true that none of them has offices in
Centre Block or East Block or the Senate buildings. However,
that is also true for many other members of parliament.
Why then are they being singled out? We can assume that such a
memo was not circulated as the lead-up to a beauty pageant. No,
I understand that in the realm of security protocol such a memo
featuring the photographs of selected individuals serves as a
warning to security staff.
It is my contention that these members are being singled out
because of their activities this week in a rally that was held on
the hill on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, to raise publicly issues
surrounding the other place and the modernizing of parliament.
These members were involved in this rally and have been involved
in other activities surrounding the Senate.
It is a serious matter when certain members are singled out for
different treatment because of their activities or beliefs. It
is also extremely serious when the security force of the other
place, indeed parliament's own security, suggests that certain
members of the House should be treated differently for whatever
reason.
I submit that the sending of this memo of photographs of certain
members to the Senate security is wrong and puts into question
the privileges of the members in the memo. Furthermore, I submit
that the singling out of these members because of their
activities works to undermine the duty and privilege of all
members to freely represent their constituents.
If you find that I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I
would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer this to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I investigated this issue
earlier this morning and received the following explanation for
the action. It is that the administration of the Senate wanted
to be certain that all members in question would be treated with
particular courtesy if they appeared in the precincts of the
other place.
It is entirely logical and rational that they would do this
since the last member of the House of Commons who regularly voted
against the Senate estimates later experienced a remarkable
conversion and was himself appointed to the Senate. I am
referring to Senator Eugene Whelan.
I take it then that Senate authorities wish to get off on the
right foot with future prospective senators such as the member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I wish him good luck in his appointment
to the Senate in the future.
The Speaker: We have an allegation and we have an
apparent explanation for it. This is not a debate. This is a
question of privilege that has been raised and I think both sides
of it were presented.
I do not know who issued the particular memo. However, it is the
end of the session and I will take it upon myself to look into
the matter and, if it is necessary, I will get back to the House
of Commons.
In the meantime we will revert to Routine Proceedings.
* * *
1215
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-88, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act,
a related act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court
of Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There has been consultation among the parties with respect to a
travel order for the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages.
I should explain to members of the House that this consultation
took place some days ago. All parties except one agreed to it.
My understanding is that the party concerned has also agreed to
it. This is not some trick or anything of that sort.
I would ask that you seek unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), and specifically to
the study of part VII of the Official Languages Act, that the
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, six members of
the committee and the necessary staff, travel to Moncton, New
Brunswick; Summerside, P.E.I.; St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax,
Nova Scotia; and Gaspé in the fall of 1999 in order to hold
public hearings, visit sites and meet with officials and that the
necessary staff do accompany the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my honour and privilege to present a petition for 50 of my
constituents from Nepean—Carleton dealing with the concept of
marriage as a voluntary union between a single male and a single
female.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I am presenting
on behalf of my colleague from Medicine Hat. The first one asks
that parliament take all necessary measures to ensure that
possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal
offence and that federal police forces be directed to give
priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is that parliament
enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define the statute
that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male
and a single female.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of constituents from the riding of
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca I present a petition on behalf of 3,500
Victoria area residents who want God left in in the preamble of
our constitution.
The petitioners from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca humbly petition
parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms or any other legislation which will provide
for the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our
constitution and laws.
These 3,500 signatures were collected readily on June 6 and 7.
* * *
1220
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With all these questions being allowed to stand, does that mean
we do not get to hear any answers at all until the fall?
An hon. member: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Ken Epp: That is incredible.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
POLITICAL PARTY ADVERTISING
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, political parties should in
their advertising or promotion refrain from using the name or the
likeness of any individual without having first obtained the
written consent of that individual.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here in the
last hour of the last day of what will certainly end the spring
session. Probably, as most people assume, there will be a
prorogation and a new speech from the throne in the fall.
There is a certain closing of the circle on this motion. I
presented it for consideration on the first day I had the
privilege of sitting here as a member which was September 23,
1997. I want to take the House through what the developments
have been since then.
To get into what has transpired and what led to this motion, one
has to go back to December 1998 when the Prime Minister of Canada
participated in a town hall debate on CBC television. People
from various parts of the country were flown in to put questions
to the Prime Minister.
One of those questioners turned out to be someone who is a
resident of the city of Regina and the federal constituency of
Palliser who asked a question on unemployment. The answer from
the Prime Minister triggered a lot of interest and controversy
for several weeks. As a result, a clip of that was seen on
national and regional television. There were pictures in the
paper and so on for several weeks thereafter.
Then we move forward to the election campaign that was called on
April 27, 1998. About two-thirds of the way through that
campaign, the individual was astonished to be told that her image
and a voice-over of the question she had asked of the Prime
Minister was being used in television ads by a particular
political party. She immediately went to the party and was told
that the ad would be withdrawn in a couple of days. She wanted
to know how they had managed to run her likeness in their
advertising without first obtaining any consent from the
individual in question. Her name is Lori Foster.
Without putting too fine a point on it, it is fair to say she
felt that she was given the runaround. There were commitments
made that the ad was going to be withdrawn in a couple of days,
that it was only running in western Canada and some other places,
all of which proved to be untrue.
The ad ran right up until the end of the campaign, the last day
of advertising prior to the June 2 election. It was certainly
running nationwide because Ms. Foster was getting phone calls
from her friends and acquaintances who live in Atlantic Canada.
They said that they had seen her on television and had seen her
picture in newspaper ads.
She had contacted the party in question. It was the Reform
Party that ran that ad. She thought she had received assurances
that the ad was going to be withdrawn immediately or very
quickly. It was not true.
1225
After the election on June 2, Lori Foster was one of the first
individuals to contact me in my new role as member of parliament
for Palliser. She said that she did not want what happened to
her to happen to anyone else ever again. She thought it was a
terrible invasion of her privacy. She had not been consulted in
advance by the party in question before her likeness and her
words were used in a television ad. She came to her new member
of parliament and I took the matter to the House of Commons on
September 23.
I want to quickly go over the technicalities. It is true that
Ms. Foster did not sign a release at the time of the news
broadcast on CBC television. She was advised by the corporation
that segments of the program might be rebroadcast for news
purposes as they subsequently were.
In her letter to me following the June 2 election, she wrote
“By using my likeness and identifying me by name and city, the
implication was that I was a supporter of the Reform Party. I do
not want what happened to me to happen to others”.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by Ms. Foster in
her letter. But I also want to say very clearly to the House
that I do not want this to be interpreted as an embarrassment of
one political party at the expense of all the others.
In my lifetime I have worked in the backrooms of my political
party, the New Democratic Party. I know that in the life of an
election campaign things happen extremely quickly. One party
presents an attack ad. The focus on the party that was attacked
in that ad is to get out a counter message as quickly as
possible. Shortcuts are taken. I do not think we can take
shortcuts when it comes to the privacy of ordinary Canadians. I
would make a differentiation between what Ed Broadbent called
ordinary Canadians and people who choose to run for elected
office, once they have entered the theatre, have put on the
greasepaint or whatever.
This motion is not to suggest that if a political party wishes
to run a picture of a rival and show him or her in a poor light
that that is a judgment that should not be accorded to them.
That is a right that they should have and this motion therefore
should not apply.
For example, if somebody wanted to run an attack ad against the
Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition or the
leader of our party, that comes with the territory. It does not
come with the territory to single out or give the impression that
someone who is in a clip on a news broadcast is identified in an
ad, in this case a female whose likeness was identified in an ad,
and singled out for fame or infamy as the case may be, at least
not without the consent of the individual.
One of my purposes in addition to bringing this to the attention
of the House today is to appeal to all of us as practising
politicians. We have an obligation to work with our political
parties and with the folks in our backrooms, all five parties in
this instance, to ensure that certain rules and procedures are
followed. Lord knows that political parties and politicians are
not exactly at the top of the social scale these days. We need
all the help we can get in terms of doing our job to the best of
our ability without infringing on individual people's rights and
privacy.
1230
I am pleased that the chair responsible for House procedure is
here and I believe will be participating in the debate.
Following Ms. Foster's notice to me and advice on this matter, I
did manage to have a hearing with that committee in January 1998.
This is the committee that oversees Elections Canada and would
be, I suppose, the committee that would be charged with making
any changes to our electoral laws.
I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that committee has
reported on its deliberations since the 1997 election and in
anticipation of the future general election. I hope the debate
today will focus attention on this particular issue. If the
committee has not seen fit in its draft report to do something,
that it would take this under serious advice and bring it forward
at the earliest opportunity.
As far as I am aware, this is the only time that this particular
issue has been raised in this parliament. It has certainly not
been discussed in any way, shape or form here.
As I have tried to explain, I believe the matter is of
significant public interest because the privacy of all Canadian
citizens could well be at risk during election campaigns if we do
not do something about this and do it quickly.
It is certainly true that electronic media are becoming more and
more prevalent, some would say invasive, in covering election
campaigns. The media, in the course of a day's work, approach
thousands of ordinary citizens seeking opinions on electronic
town hall meetings, news clips, streeters, full interviews and
participation in documentaries. For the most part, citizens
agreed, as Ms. Foster did in this instance, to participate in
news programming, but would be surprised, as deeply surprised as
Ms. Foster was, to learn subsequently that their image and
likeness appeared on an advertisement for partisan purposes.
What is involved is indeed the question of privacy of citizens,
the faith in the impartiality of the media and trust in the
political process itself.
The issue is of importance in Regina. It received a lot of
publicity just days before the June 2, 1997 election. Obviously
what happened in Palliser could happen anywhere in the country.
I was pleased that when I appeared before a committee that looks
at motions and considers whether they are deemed to be votable or
not, I did receive a good hearing. I am very pleased that this
motion has been deemed votable. It is my understanding that
since this is the last day of this session that we will be
bringing the motion back in the fall and there will be other
members of parliament who will participate in the debate.
I want to report on what Canada's privacy commissioner had to
say last year with regard to privacy matters. He said:
Yet we so take our privacy for granted in a democracy; it is so
self-evident it has almost ceased to be evident. Respecting one
another's privacy is an integral ingredient in the glue of mutual
respect which helps hold a free society together.
I agree entirely with the privacy commissioner's remarks in this
instance. I believe that we as politicians should apply his
description and dicta to our own behaviour and that of our
political parties.
I am appealing to the House and to the sense of honour and fair
play that exists among members, to send the signal that they
believe the privacy of our fellow citizens is something worth
protecting especially during election campaigns.
1235
My intention, which is embedded in the motion, is to protect
individual citizens, ordinary Canadians, against the invasion of
their privacy, in particular during campaigns.
I am aware that no one or no political party is forced to act on
a private member's motion, and of course we accept that reality.
However, I would ask members from all sides of the House in all
five parties to admit that surely a citizen's right to privacy
should not be invaded in the way in which it occurred with Ms.
Foster in the spring of 1997.
I have, to the best of my ability, deliberately refrained from
attempting to turn the debate into a controversial and partisan
political issue, aside from stating the obvious facts. I have had
an e-mail or two from the party in question asking why I was
picking on them. That is not my intent. I think we do have to
state the historical facts. We cannot rewrite history. That is
what happened in May 1997 and that is what we are dealing with
here today.
In February, I appeared before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, which was looking at whether to make
this a votable item or not, and I did feel that I received a
sympathetic hearing at that time. I am anxiously waiting for the
committee's report on this issue.
The report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs stated:
While concerns were expressed by some members of the Committee
about the enforceability and limits of such a provision, other
members supported this proposal.
I have accepted that trying to get changes to the act may be a
rather long and perhaps futile process. It is for that reason
that, rather than attempting a legislative change, I have
prepared the motion.
Privacy to me is not political correctness. It is not a flavour
of the month. It is a bedrock human value, which a former
Canadian supreme court justice described as “at the heart of
liberty in the modern state”. It is also not an individual right
enjoyed at the expense of society as a whole. “Respecting one
another's privacy is an integral ingredient”, said Commissioner
Phillips, “in the glue of mutual respect which helps hold a free
society together”.
Whether to reveal or conceal the details of our lives are
decisions for us to make, not for others, and certainly not for
the state, except in the most limited and exceptional
circumstances.
Never has the matter of privacy been more vital to an
individual's free existence, nor more threatened, than in the
technologically advanced societies in which we live.
Political parties can respond to attack ads in a matter of
hours. They often take shortcuts that do not include obtaining a
waiver from the individual to use his or her photograph, likeness
or voice in a particular ad. People will say that there is
nothing in the rules so it can be done and the devil take the
hindmost. I do not think that is good for political parties,
politicians or for democracy in general.
I would appeal to the House to support this resolution which I
firmly believe is as non-partisan as it can be.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
when I rose in the House I hesitated to say that I was glad to
speak because democracy was being trampled on in the House. I
was ashamed to stand in the House in those circumstances. Today,
however, I am indeed proud to stand on behalf of the people of my
riding of Elk Island, the most wonderful riding in the whole
country, notwithstanding your riding, Mr. Speaker.
I represent my constituents and all Canadians in what I am going
to say right now.
1240
I believe that in Private Members' Business we come closer to
democracy here than in any other part of parliament. The rest of
it, unfortunately, is too often just a total sham.
I want to first congratulate the member from Saskatchewan, the
province where I grew up and received my good start in life, for
bringing the motion forward for debate. I am also very pleased
that it is votable since I am one who believes that every time a
private member brings a motion it is because he or she feels it
is important to him or her and it should be voted on. I am in
favour of that. I am also anticipating that democracy will again
work and the members here will soundly reject the motion.
I do not think this is a very well-founded motion at all, and I
will give the House my reasons. I want to first assure the
member that I am not reacting in a partisan way, even though in
the letter he sent to all members of parliament he used about
two-thirds of the letter to describe the occurrence with Lori
Foster and the Reform Party's use of her likeness in its
advertising. He then put a little disclaimer at the end and said
that the example he used was not about the Reform Party, that it
was just an example. I will take his word that he just used that
as an example, and in the good spirit of parliament's last day, I
will show him that I am not going to respond in a partisan way
either.
However, I am going to speak against the principles of the bill
because I think they are really not well-founded. It is
important for us to hear once again what the motion is. To all
of those Liberal members listening, to all of the other fellow
members on the opposition side here and to those millions and
millions of Canadians watching on CPAC, whose services we so
appreciate, I want to again read the motion.
It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, political parties should in
their advertising or promotion refrain from using the name or the
likeness of any individual without having first obtained the
written consent of that individual.
Some of the words that I have spoken show the basic flaw in the
motion. Without the exclusion of members of parliament and
others who have deliberately chosen to be in the public domain,
the words “using the name or the likeness of any individual”,
unfortunately, if this were passed, would include them.
The first thing this motion would need is an amendment to say
that any of us who dare to stand for public office, who dare to
stick our faces in the cameras or our mouths into the
microphones, are open game. I accept that. Having run for public
office, I know that my constituents are going to hold me
accountable. I know that I am going to be held accountable in
this place. I know from time to time I am going to be on
television.
I am not on television very often because I have a problem with
not saying enough controversial stuff. Unfortunately, the media
only likes to pick on controversy and seems to somehow avoid the
hours and hours of debate that we in the House engage in, which
is sound, solid and based on good reasoning and good analysis.
Consequently, I personally am not on television very much.
However, I certainly expect that, whether it is on television or
radio, in our own ads promoting the Reform Party, that even some
of my political opponents will want to say, “Guess what”, and
then they will use my name. My opponents will say, “Guess what
the hon. member for Elk Island said” and they will then use my
name and maybe my picture. I think that is fair game.
I would love the exposure that the Liberals and, if there are
any left, the Conservatives and the NDP would give in my riding
or elsewhere across the country by saying “This is what the hon.
member said”, because if I said something, I hope I meant it. I
hope I do not say things I do not mean.
If the opposition is going to give me additional exposure for
having said something that I believe, I would want thank them for
the free advertising. The hon. member over here is objecting.
1245
I repeat what I said. If I have said something that I believe
in, and hopefully I will not say things I do not believe in, then
if somebody else quotes me and says this is what this member
believes, and if that enters into political debate and helps
Canadian voters make choices on whom to support, then let them
use it. Maybe that is why they never use my particular
statements.
We need the amendment so that we do not say any individual.
Unfortunately, those of us who are in public life should not be
excluded. It is part of fair debate. He mentioned that, but his
motion does not reflect what he said in his speech.
What happens if we do make an amendment? Who draws the line?
What about one of my staffers? What if he or she says something?
I personally think that is okay because I hope my staffers also
honestly reflect the things that are coming out of our office and
our basic philosophical framework. If there is an inconsistency,
it deserves to be exposed. I have no problem with that.
What about my wife or my family? I have a little more of a
problem with that. Yet sometimes people's families say things or
become involved in certain functions or activities which are
perhaps in the public interest if the other member of the family
is running for public office.
I would speak against this motion because it is unworkable.
First, it is too inclusive. Second, it is unworkable. Who is
going to determine where the line should be drawn?
We are engaging in an exercise to reduce debate, communication
and dialogue, which is unfortunate. I really think that as
Canadians we are strengthened by dialogue.
Every year we have young people coming from other parts of the
country on student exchange programs. Quite often they come from
Quebec, but they also come from eastern Canada. One thing I have
observed is that when these young people move across the country
and dialogue is increased, we get a much better understanding of
each other. Any motion such as this, which would say that we
cannot use a person's name or likeness in a debate or in fair
comment, would reduce communication. Therefore, I again urge
members of the House to vote against the motion. We have to have
as much communication as possible to come to a fuller and better
understanding of each other.
The last thing I want to say relates specifically to the case of
Lori Foster. I know she was upset because what she said she
obviously believed in. However, her statement was used in the
promotion of a political party in which she did not believe. I
respect her for that. I think I understand why she would be
disheartened by this use of her likeness. However, the fact of
the matter is that I do not believe she was misquoted. I do not
believe she was in any way misrepresented.
I really wish that we could get away from this prejudice, and I
am not applying that statement to her. I am speaking of us as
individuals. We sometimes prejudge things, not by what is said,
but rather by who says it. That is judgmental and prejudicial.
I wish we could move away from that. I wish we could get down to
debating ideas and avoid personal attacks. I really wish the
message that was given that day on the CBC program would have
simply been used as factual information in the case of the
debate. Very frankly, I and my colleagues were among that group
which wanted to address the questions that Lori Foster opened up
on that particular occasion. We did that in all sincerity and in
all honesty.
I am looking forward to the day when unemployment in this
country is reduced dramatically, because we have a government on
the other side that does real things in this country to solve
that problem.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had not planned
initially to speak to this motion, but I have been asked to
express my thoughts. They are my thoughts and not the thoughts
of anyone else.
1250
I think the intention of the motion put forward by the member
for Palliser is honourable. I can relate to it personally. In
the 1997 general election I was at the receiving end of some
unsavoury practices used by the NDP candidate in Ottawa—Vanier.
I am not photogenic at the best of times. I recognize that. He
used a less than flattering picture of me, as well as my name.
As a matter of fact, in one of his brochures he used my name more
often than his own. That alone should give me reason to support
this idea.
I can refer to the recent election in Ontario when the Tories
used McGuinty's photo and name perhaps more often than they used
Harris' name and photograph. That too should give me reason to
support this idea.
I can also refer to the famous TV ads that the Reform Party ran
in the dying days of the last campaign with pictures of four
Canadians whom they thought did not qualify to be prime minister
because they came from a certain province.
I sense what the hon. member is trying to accomplish and I would
be tempted to support it, but I will not, for three different
reasons. I think that even the member for Palliser might agree
that what he is trying to do needs some work.
The first reason is that I think it is incomplete and somewhat
superficial because he is dealing with the visual only, or the
audio. He does not also deal with incomplete quotes. I had that
done to me by the very same NDP candidate in the 1997 general
election in Ottawa—Vanier. Something which I had said was taken
totally out of context and was incomplete to try to paint a
picture that was not a reflection of what I had said. It had
been taken out of context. Not only was it out of context, it
was incomplete. He took half a sentence. That kind of thing
would have to be dealt with in the member's motion.
The second reason I will not support this motion is because of
its angle of approach. The second half of his motion reads:
“refrain from using the name or the likeness of any individual
without having first obtained the written consent of that
individual”. It is a restrictive and negative type of approach,
as opposed to a positive one.
If the member had said something like “for all political
parties and their representatives, their candidates, the people
who work for them as volunteers, or paid individuals, to
encourage civility, fair play, decency and common sense”, and
real common sense, not the kind we are exposed to sometimes, “to
encourage honour”, to take a positive approach to what he is
trying to get us to support, then I think he might have a bit
more success in obtaining support.
Too often we forget that these are very basic matters which are
involved in all of our interpersonal relations and in society in
general. The values that we too often demean or forget, that are
too often left aside by the sensationalism, or the crass, or the
rhetoric and so forth, are the things we should perhaps be
encouraging in the arena of public policy, in the arena of
politics.
Instead of refraining from doing this and that, and obtaining,
if the member had suggested that we encourage all political
parties to tend toward decency, honesty, civility and fair play,
he would have a much greater chance of getting my support.
The third reason I will not be supporting his motion in its
current state is that when the crunch comes and we have some
people who do things that they should not be doing, such as was
done in the example he used—and I believe that he is
right—there is a great levelling factor, the electorate.
I have tremendous respect for the intelligence of the electorate.
It will see through things like that.
1255
We have seen time and again attack ads which have been so
outlandish they have actually caused the people to turn against
those who generated those ads or that literature or the
preposterous documentation that might be prepared.
I go back to my example of the 1997 general election in
Ottawa—Vanier. I really believe that the poor showing of that
NDP candidate was due in part to his kind of campaign. The
brochure he put out left a very bad taste in many people's
mouths. As representatives of the electorate, we have to rely on
its intelligence to be able to see through some of the stuff
which some people unfortunately put out.
The member for Elk Island has made an interesting point in that
if a person is an incumbent, for instance, it will be rather
difficult for the other candidates not to use that person's name
and what he or she said. It is a matter of understanding how the
system works. Yes, I would expect that at some point in
campaigns the other parties might want to refer to something I
said. If it is on the record of the House of Commons,
Hansard, I cannot see why they should not be able to do
that, and even use it in their literature or propaganda. The
member for Elk Island made an interesting point.
Having said that, the bottom line is the electorate, the people
who cast their vote, who have taken some time to look at what has
been put out by some people, either on radio, on television or at
the door, through the mail system or delivered by volunteers.
Those people who have looked at it tend to be very sophisticated,
much more so than we sometimes think they are, and they make
decisions based on the tone of what has been put out.
To summarize, I believe that the intentions of the member for
Palliser in putting forward Motion No. 97 are very valuable and
very supportable, except that it is not complete in that he only
covers visuals. He does not cover a distortion of someone's
statement to an end that is obviously not fair to the person
whose statement is being distorted. He fails to cover that. He
fails to cover other things which I am sure other colleagues will
mention.
The hon. member's attempt to correct a wrong is too far-reaching
in the sense that he is covering things which others will bring
up, and he is also failing to include certain things that should
be included, such as the use of words; the content which is
twisted to satisfy the ends.
Second, it is what I categorize as a negative as opposed to a
positive approach. He should be appealing, in my sense, to fair
play, to decency and to honour. To be able to represent people
in this House is an honour. Politics is an honourable
profession. We forget that at times and we let too many people
slander this profession without fighting back. I think we should
be fighting back.
I urge the hon. member to use a very positive approach. Let us
call on the good and the decent among us, as opposed to
restricting this and this because of this and that. Then I think
he would have much more success in getting our support.
Finally, I think that when the crunch comes, we all should be
very respectful of the intelligence of the electorate in
determining what is true and what is twisted and what has been
shamelessly used to reach one's end.
I think that members of this House all have sufficient
experience in their own ridings to know that people in the end
understand really what is going on and that they can tell the
difference and do not have to be instructed otherwise.
1300
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Motion No. M-97. The intent of this motion
is to encourage political parties to refrain from using the
likeness or name of an individual in advertising without first
obtaining the written consent of the individual.
While this motion is fraught with some flaws in terms of
implementation and enforceability, the wording of the motion is
nebulous enough that it can serve as a means to encourage parties
to refrain from that type of negative action. It would not
constrain unnecessarily or create some sort of regulatory burden
that would be excessive, oppressive and unenforceable.
The use of someone's likeness in an advertisement is an issue
far larger than political parties and should be addressed with
some study relative to advertising regulations and marketing in
general. It raises some ethics questions. Someone's name or
likeness should not be used in an advertisement not just for a
political party but for virtually anything without their written
consent. This is something the House should consider.
The motion focuses solely on political parties and on political
advertisements but I think there are wider and broader issues
involved. Companies that manufacture any product should not use
somebody's name, image or likeness without some type of written
approval first. The reference to a person's likeness is vague in
the motion and I have some concerns about that.
In my opinion the motion is vague. It basically urges parties in
this House to refrain from this type of advertising. We would do
well to support the motion because it sends out a message.
There is a more fundamental issue relative to political
advertising as it has evolved, particularly over the last 10
years. There is an ever increasing level of nastiness and
negativity in political advertising. Much of it emanated from
political campaigns in the U.S.
The first example was when George Bush beat Mike Dukakis for the
U.S. presidency. At that time Willie Horton ads were used.
Willie Horton was released from the Massachusetts penitentiary
system. He committed murder, rape or some other heinous crime.
The ad was used against Mike Dukakis and had a significant
impact. This was the first use of such overtly negative
advertising. Since then there has been an ever increasing level
of negative ads.
In the last federal election many Canadians were appalled,
shocked and disappointed with the ads that one party ran. The
ads showed the faces of Quebec political leaders with crosses
marked over them. This implied that in some way one's origin in
this great country should have an impact as to whether or not
others should vote for that individual. These were very negative
ads, particularly in the national unity context which is so
precarious.
In the national unity context, for a party to run those types of
negative and incendiary ads that were aimed purely at political
leaders from Quebec I thought was very inappropriate,
irresponsible and unfair.
1305
A broader issue that is not addressed in this motion but perhaps
should be in the future would be the negativity of political
advertising. The motion could be broadened to look at other
products as well. I do not want to make political parties
commodities any more than I fear they already have become, but we
should be looking at something to that effect.
We should also be cognizant of the trends that are occurring in
political advertising and organizing. Increasingly political
consultants and organizers are becoming almost corporatized.
There has been a growth in the political organization industry.
Ultimately that will come at a cost. The cost will be the level
of authority and power that traditional grassroots organizations
have. In the future it is going to be more and more difficult
for political parties and individual constituency associations to
run the campaigns.
In the whole electoral process it seems that increasingly
elections are being fought more by consultants, spin doctors,
pollsters, media advisers and less by constituency organizations,
poll captains and the like as was traditionally done in the past.
That is not without its risks in terms of the strength of the
grassroots democracy we all value.
I commend the hon. member for having brought forward this
motion. I do not see a downside to supporting the motion. It
sends out a sound message to political parties. It does not
unnecessarily constrain political parties with any sort of
oppressive regulatory burden or sanctions. It sends out a worthy
message. I believe the motion should be supported.
I wish all members of the House a very enjoyable, safe and
restful summer. I look forward to seeing them in the fall as we
continue the important deliberations of building a Canada that
will be prosperous and fair for all Canadians into the 21st
century.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I do not want to cast a shadow on the enthusiasm of our
colleague from Palliser, who was saying he was honoured to be
among the last speakers in this final hour of this last day of
this session, which, it seems, will end today and, in all
probability, will be prorogued.
Right off, since he will not unfortunately be the last speaker
in this last hour of this final day since fate decrees that I
will probably be the last speaker, I must unfortunately tell him
that the Bloc Quebecois will not support his motion, not because
it is not a good one, not because the reasons for it are not
praiseworthy or reasonable, since they are. The reasons
underlying this motion are totally credible, reasonable and
honorable under the circumstances.
1310
However, I think it is appropriate to clarify things to some
extent and to explain why the Bloc will unfortunately not
support the motion.
In terms of provisions, there seems to be a problem in
the text of the motion itself which provides “Political parties
should refrain”. First, they use the conditional, which means
that the motion as such will not truly be binding. Second, there
is the choice of the verb “refrain”. This is not a very strong
verb and does not say that we must not do so but rather that
we must avoid doing so. In my opinion, this motion is not as
rigid and restrictive as it ought to be.
Furthermore, I can well understand that the hon. member drafted
this motion in response to a problem that arose in the last
election campaign. A lady was greatly surprised to find not
only her image but her words as well being used without her
authorization in an advertisement. The political advertisement
was for the Reform Party.
After this rather particular case, we came to realize that, for
our fellow citizens, being used in a campaign can indeed cause a
problem.
I should state right off that there is a distinction between
ordinary citizens and public figures.
When men and women decide to get involved in public life, they
are agreeing to the widespread use of their picture, their name
and their words, and to some extent this cannot be controlled.
It must be acknowledged that during an election campaign it goes
without saying that we can use the image and words of public
figures. This motion does not take that into account.
Nor does it take into account the fact that in an election
campaign there are frequently photographs or videos with a scan
over a crowd or of us standing in front of large numbers of
people behind us. It is virtually objectively and logistically
impossible to ask each and every one of those persons to
authorize their inclusion in a promotional photo or video for
the party in question.
I think that where we see eye to eye with the member for
Palliser is when he tries to ensure that we cannot use the image
or the words of individuals as promotional tools, such as making
them appear to say things they did not actually say or take a
stand they did not necessarily take. We could agree with him on
that.
Unfortunately, as it now stands, the motion before us does not
allow this sort of distinction. It is too general. It is not
sufficiently enforceable. For all these reasons, therefore, as
I pointed out earlier, we will be voting against the motion.
I would like to point out that the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to this motion not because we feel that it
is legitimate to take the images or words of our fellow citizens
and, as I mentioned earlier, have them appear to be saying
things they did not necessarily say, or take stands they did not
necessarily take.
1315
That is not the case. During the last election campaign,
the Bloc Quebecois obtained written authorization from everyone
who appeared in any of its campaign advertising. So it is not
because we oppose the actual principles underlying this motion.
As I said earlier, those principles are entirely laudable and
legitimate.
The problem is that the wording of the motion does not remove
this obligation in the case of public personalities who have
allowed their image and words to be broadly disseminated without
requiring authorization, nor does it remove it in the case of
people who might be included in a crowd scene, and it is
virtually unfeasible to seek the authorization of each and every
member of a crowd.
For all these reasons, and with a certain twinge of regret, I
must tell the member for Palliser that we are unable to support
his motion but that we find the underlying principles entirely
laudable.
Like other members, I would not want to fail to wish
all of my colleagues a fine summer. Contrary to what our fellow
Canadians may think at times, when we say that the work of the
House adjourns in mid June or at the end of June when they think
“You are on holiday”, we know full well that we have a lot of
work ahead of us in our individual ridings.
We will be spending an enormous amount of time with our
constituents, which unfortunately we do not have the time to
do between September and June. Over the summer, we will have an
opportunity to meet them, to travel around our ridings, to take
part in events there and to be with these people who have put
their trust in us and deserve an opportunity to discuss a whole
series of current event issues with their representatives in
this House.
I wish a fine summer to each of you. Perhaps during this
period, we will each find a few days to spend with our near and
dear ones.
I wish you all a good vacation and especially, a fine summer in
your ridings.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would be grateful if you would seek unanimous consent to return
to motions under Routine Proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
I last spoke there have been further negotiations with the
parties, and I would ask you to seek unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), and specifically, to
the study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the Standing
Joint Committee on Official Languages, six (6) members of the
committee and the necessary staff travel to Moncton, New
Brunswick; Summerside, P.E.I.; St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax,
Nova Scotia; Gaspé, Quebec; Sudbury and Toronto, Ontario;
Sherbrooke and Montreal, Quebec; Vancouver, B.C.; Edmonton,
Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; and Winnipeg, Manitoba in the fall
of 1999 in order to hold public hearings, visit sites and meet
with officials, and that the necessary staff do accompany the
Committee.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the motion were to include a statement that we are approving a
sum not to exceed $117,700 that would be agreeable.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the figure in
the documents is $116,466 and that the hon. member has rounded it
off, but I certainly would accept that point.
The Deputy Speaker: To be clear, I gather that the motion
is being amended to provide that some words such as “provided
that the sum to be expended for travel shall not exceed
$117,700”.
1320
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of
the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I presume the Table will provide
words that will cover the amendment, since we do not have it in
writing, to limit the expenditure to $117,700. Does everyone
agree on the figure?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the amendment agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the motion, as amended, agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
POLITICAL PARTY ADVERTISING
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.21 p.m., the time provided
for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 1.21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
September 20, 1999 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2)
and 24(1).
I wish all members a fine vacation.
(The House adjourned at 1.21 p.m.)