36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 126
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 4, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| CANADA OLYMPIC TEAM
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1405
| BIENNALE DE MONTRÉAL 2000
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PROSTATE CANCER
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| RALPH SHONK
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| FRANCO-ONTARIAN FLAG
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| DANIEL IGALI
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1410
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| BANKING
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1415
| SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| WOMEN'S MARCH
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| SHIPPING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1440
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1445
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1450
| Hon. David Anderson |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CHILDREN
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AUTO INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| PRISONS AND PENITENTIARIES
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
|
| Bill C-45. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-46. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-500. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1510
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Food Labelling
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Iraq
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| Energy Prices
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Missile Defence Program
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1515
| Seal Hunt
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Nuclear Arms
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| World Trade Organization
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| National Highways
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1520
| Pensions
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| World Trade Organization
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Transferred for Debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1525
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-44. Second reading
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1530
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1535
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-44. Second Reading
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1650
1655
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1700
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1705
1710
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1715
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
|
| Motion
|
1805
(Division 1394)
| Motion agreed to
|
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
1810
(Division 1395)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 1396)
(Division 1399)
(Division 1401)
(Division 1403)
(Division 1405)
(Division 1410)
(Division 1415)
(Division 1417)
(Division 1420)
(Division 1422)
| Motions Nos. 4, 8, 10, 14, 21, 30, 38, 51, 16 and 49 negatived
|
(Division 1397)
| Motion No. 5 negatived
|
1815
(Division 1400)
(Division 1402)
(Division 1407)
(Division 1408)
(Division 1411)
(Division 1412)
(Division 1418)
| Motions Nos. 9, 11, 23, 24, 31, 32 and 52 negatived
|
(Division 1398)
| Motion No. 6 agreed to
|
(Division 1404)
| Motion No. 15 agreed to
|
1820
(Division 1406)
| Motion No. 22 negatived
|
(Division 1409)
| Motion No. 25 negatived
|
(Division 1413)
| Motion No. 35 negatived
|
1825
(Division 1414)
| Motion No. 36 agreed to
|
(Division 1416)
| Motion No. 39 agreed to
|
(Division 1419)
| Motion No. 54 negatived
|
(Division 1423)
| Motion No. 50 negatived
|
1830
(Division 1421)
| Motion No. 17 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
(Division 1424)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CULTURAL INDUSTRY
|
| Motion
|
1845
(Division 1425)
| Motion negatived
|
| EMERGENCY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Motion
|
1850
1855
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1900
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1905
1910
| Mr. John Herron |
1915
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1920
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1925
1930
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1935
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1940
1945
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Post-secondary Education
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1950
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1955
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
2000
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
2005
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 126
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 4, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, over the past five days Canadians were united in
their grief over the passing of former Prime Minister Pierre
Elliott Trudeau.
Canadians felt great sadness and tremendous loss when they heard
that the northern magus had left this world. Canadians of all
political stripes agreed that in one way or another Pierre
Trudeau influenced our lives, so much so that Canadians felt
compelled to pay their respects one last time to the philosopher
king.
[Translation]
Thanks to the availability of all the men and women working on
the Hill, Canadians were able to pay their respects to a great
Canadian.
Thousands upon thousands of them came to Ottawa to pay tribute
to Mr. Trudeau, and they kept coming until the early hours of
the morning.
On behalf of all the members of my party, I wish to thank the
constables, the pages and all the House of Commons employees who
made our parliament accessible to us during those sorrowful
days.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents of
Nanaimo—Cowichan.
While grants and contracts have been awarded to questionable
applicants and thriving businesses in the Prime Minister's
riding, unemployment rates in my riding are at an unacceptably
high level. Under the Liberal government taxes have moved
steadily upwards. Liberal mathematicians would have us believe
otherwise but nothing could be further from the truth.
My constituents have seen money taken from their pockets and
paycheques. There is very little support and respect for small
business development. Individual and corporate taxes alike are
forcing small businesses to move, downsize or close altogether.
The odious softwood lumber agreement and a declining west coast
fishery are only two examples of Liberal mismanagement.
The Liberals' kissing cousin, the provincial NDP government,
mirrors these same negative traits with high corporate and
personal taxes. It has created a climate of economic mistrust
that has driven investment out of my province.
The people of my riding can hardly wait for a Canadian Alliance
government which will offer real tax relief and create a climate
for investment. They want to get back to work and they want to
become prosperous again.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA OLYMPIC TEAM
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to warmly welcome our Canada Olympic team. In all, 311 athletes
from nine provinces participated in 24 events; 51% of the
athletes were women and 49% were men.
[English]
As well, I want to especially congratulate our medal winners.
Canada won a total of 14 medals; three gold, three silver and
eight bronze. We are proud of our athletes.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take advantage of the few minutes available to me to draw
attention to the exceptional measures our government plans to
put in place to contribute to reviving the Gaspé economy.
The Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State
responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada has
this very day announced a special budget of $35 million aimed at
revitalizing and diversifying economic activity in the Gaspé and
Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the medium and long term. This envelope is
in addition to the funding already allocated to the Gaspé by
various federal departments with a view to jump-starting regional
development projects.
In addition to this special budgetary envelope of $35 million,
the minister and secretary of state announced the opening of a
new Economic Development Canada office to be located in the
Gaspé itself. This is a clear commitment by our government to
the future of the Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region and to the
people of that riding.
* * *
1405
BIENNALE DE MONTRÉAL 2000
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, September 28
to October 29 are the dates for the Biennale de Montréal 2000,
the second Biennale, which is being held to mark the new
millennium, with time as the theme.
Visual arts, architecture, performance arts and multimedia will
all be represented during this event, which is a tribute to our
artists' creativity and talent.
We support this event, which covers the full cultural spectrum,
and wish the Biennale de Montréal 2000 great success.
Let us also hope that this type of event will awaken the
curiosity of young people and encourage them to explore their
culture.
Good luck to all the organizers. We hope that Quebecers turn
out in large numbers.
* * *
[English]
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, just a few weeks ago prostate cancer took the life of
Mel Smith, Q.C. Mel was a talented and well known expert on the
Canadian constitution, particularly with respect to section 35
and its impact on rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mel will be greatly missed, but just like breast cancer,
prostate cancer cares nothing about the value of its victim to
his family or to society as a whole. Members of this place are
not immune from prostate cancer, as witnessed by the death of
Pierre Trudeau from the disease last week.
The sad fact is, prostate cancer kills roughly the same number
of men each year as breast cancer kills women, yet receives
proportionately very little in terms of research funding from the
government. All Canadians, regardless of gender, should be
lobbying the government to provide more funding for prostate
cancer research.
Every man over 50 should be having an annual digital rectal exam
and PSA blood test for the detection of prostate cancer. With
greater awareness and more funding we can beat this terrible
disease.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from October 9
to 13, along with hundreds of women from 120 cities and towns in
Quebec, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be taking part in the
World March of Women to call for an end to the poverty of and
violence against women.
As we embark on a new millennium, all governments should be
making it a priority to get involved in this worldwide movement
for the equality of women, which includes 5,000 women's groups
from 157 countries.
We invite Quebecers to sign the online card supporting the World
March of Women, which can be found on the website of the
Fédération des femmes du Québec.
“Our struggle is without borders, so take your sister by the
hand; transform life; build equality”, so goes the March of
Women theme song.
May this message of hope be heard around the world, so that our
daughters and their daughters can look to the future with
confidence and serenity.
* * *
[English]
RALPH SHONK
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to celebrate the tremendous volunteer efforts of Ralph
Shonk of Burlington.
Mr. Shonk was awarded the Order of the Red Cross, Member Level,
for his outstanding and exceptional service, the first time in
the 61 year history of the Burlington branch that a local member
has received such an honour.
Among other contributions during his 41 years of service, Ralph
Shonk worked hard to acquire a wheelchair accessible van for the
agency, delivered for the meals on wheels program and was
involved in international Red Cross efforts.
He represented the Red Cross at award presentations in
Burlington schools, is a former member of Canada's air force and
a father of four. Ralph Shonk embodies the values of Canadians
from coast to coast to coast, a dedicated volunteer and a proud
Canadian.
Today I join his wife, Margaret Shonk, and his many friends and
family members in congratulating him on his dedication and
volunteerism. I am sure all colleagues join me in wishing him
many more happy healthy years.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCO-ONTARIAN FLAG
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Franco-Ontarian flag is now 25 years old. Unfurled officially in
Sudbury on September 25, 1975, this flag symbolizes
Franco-Ontarian solidarity and testifies to our desire to occupy
our rightful place in Ontario in the economic, political and
cultural sectors.
To celebrate this anniversary, the ACFO of Ottawa—Carleton, in
partnership with a number of francophone organizations,
presented “La francophonie en couleurs 2000” at the Ottawa Civic
Centre on September 29 and 30. This celebration brought
together over 10,000 francophones from all corners of the
province.
I invite all my colleagues to join with me in wishing the
Franco-Ontarian flag a long life.
* * *
[English]
DANIEL IGALI
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend in Sydney, Australia, Daniel Igali of
Surrey, British Columbia won the Olympic gold medal in the 69
kilogram class of freestyle wrestling.
He is the first Canadian to win gold in wrestling. It was the
crowning achievement for this young man from a family of 21
children. He came to Canada from his native Nigeria in 1994 to
compete in the Commonwealth Games in Victoria and opted to remain
here and pursue his passion.
1410
He became a Canadian citizen in 1998 which allowed him to
compete for Canada internationally. In 1999 he won the world
championship and set his sights on the Olympics. He has now
realized that dream.
I watched all three of Daniel's matches on Saturday. His skill,
his power, his agility and his coolness under pressure combined
to take him to victory. Upon winning the final match, he spread
our flag across the mat and then knelt to kiss it. This
emotional display of unabashed patriotism served to remind all
Canadians of the freedoms and the opportunities we enjoy that we
all too often take for granted.
Daniel Igali, a true champion in every sense of the word, your
community and your country thank you.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October
11, the women and men of Ahuntsic will march in protest against
violence, poverty and discrimination against women.
This march will unite women from all backgrounds and communities
in demanding a right as legitimate as respect.
[English]
Since the beginning of our mandate, our government has committed
resources to assisting women and children. The government has
already contributed $800,000 to the international component of
the World March of Women, nearly $200,000 to the Canadian Women's
March Committee and $7 billion to assist families with children.
We eliminated the clawback from middle and higher income
mothers. We contributed $32 million to crime prevention to
assure that women and children are a priority. We contributed
$22.5 million to the aboriginal head start initiative, as well as
$43 million for shelters for women, children and youth.
However, we have more to do. I encourage all my colleagues to
join women across Canada, to march with them, to support them in
their ridings and on the Hill and support equality across Canada.
* * *
BANKING
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the big banks are at it again, more branch closures,
more services cut, more communities abandoned and the Liberal
government stands by and lets it happen. Just when we thought
the situation could not get any worse, along come the big banks
to finish off the job.
Take Winnipeg for example. In the core of the city, the
historic north end, entire older neighbourhoods have been
virtually deserted by the banks. As we speak, residents in North
Winnipeg are receiving letters from the Bank of Montreal
announcing yet another closure and a shut down of the last
accessible branch for an entire community of senior citizens, low
income residents and working families. For this area alone, six
branches in just three years are gone. As one senior said “It
is as if we do not count”.
It is obscene for the bank to devastate the lives of our seniors
while making record profits. What is even more outrageous is for
this government to stand by and let it happen. Why do Liberals
keep putting the needs of big corporations and banks ahead of the
needs of the citizens of this land? Why does the government not
hold the banks to account, instead of letting them strip the
profits from neighbourhoods and leaving whole communities
weakened and vulnerable.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
recent months, the democracy we so cherish and for which we all
continue to fight has been under serious threat.
In any society, freedom of expression is a treasure as precious
as all the gold in the world. Freedom of the press and freedom
of speech are part of the acquired rights we are not prepared to
give up.
The elected representatives sitting in this House must unite in
a hard line stand against the actions committed by the members
of organized crime who have decided to attack our democratic
institutions.
These criminals must be made to understand that nothing they can
say, absolutely nothing, will stop us from continuing our
battle.
No threat, no intimidation, will be stronger than our total
determination to take the necessary steps to put an end to the
activities of organized crime.
* * *
[English]
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, while
this government stands idle, shipyards have been closed,
including mine in Saint John, New Brunswick, and shipyard workers
have been laid off across Canada by the thousands.
One hour ago, busloads of frustrated shipyard workers from the
province of Quebec and beyond arrived on Parliament Hill to
protest this government's neglect. These brave men came to
ensure that the government does not miss its last chance to do
what is right.
Tomorrow, the Standing Committee on Finance will review Bill
C-213. The time has come for this innovative legislation and the
time has come for the minister to endorse it. The time for the
government to defend and promote a great Canadian shipbuilding
industry has come.
We on both sides of the House must work together to resurrect
our national shipbuilding industry, to give our military the
ships it needs and to allow shipyard workers to proudly put food
on the table for their families once again.
* * *
1415
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford is a growing and
prosperous community, but as in all of Canada certain individuals
and families are not as fortunate as others. The Liberal
government and my community are committed to helping those
persons regain their footing.
The women and children's shelter in Barrie is a community
resource that helps keep certain of our most vulnerable citizens
out of harm's way. Thanks to a grant from the Government of
Canada's national strategy on community safety and crime
prevention, the twin objectives of protection and prevention may
be achieved.
The national strategy has supported more than 1,100 social
development projects at the local level across Canada. In this
way we address the root causes of crime before it develops
further and help reduce the social and economic burden that would
otherwise result if we allowed social inequities to go unchecked.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows,
apparently the auditor general will not be tabling his report
which deals with the HRDC disaster until approximately October
17. The problem is that there may be an election call before
that date.
This morning our House leader asked the other parties to join
with him unanimously to support a very important motion which
would allow at least that portion of the auditor general's
report, chapter 11 which deals with the HRDC disaster, to come
forward before the House immediately. Will the Prime Minister
support that motion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will even do better than that. I will tell you that
we will be sitting on October 17.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank the Prime
Minister for listening to our concerns for several days and now
responding to that issue.
Pardon me for sounding cynical, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to
make sure I got it right. When he said that we would be sitting
on October 17, did he mean here in parliament or is he talking
about on a bus or a plane somewhere? Is it here?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the House of Commons, when we are talking about
sitting it does not mean in our offices. It is in the House of
Commons.
Again, I did not know exactly what to do and I know that the
Leader of the Opposition is losing his confidence. A month ago
he wanted to have an election. A week after that he did not want
to have an election. Last week he challenged me to have an
election. Over lunch he got nervous and said he is not sure any
more. I want him to gain back his composure before we go out.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am gaining in composure every day
and every week because every time we ask the Prime Minister to do
something, or most of the time, he is responding on some of the
issues. I am gaining confidence in him, I really am.
1420
When the report is tabled will he be giving the government
response? Further to the report itself, in the public accounts
committee last week it was revealed that on top of the billion
dollar boondoggle that has taken place another $344 million have
apparently been mismanaged?
Will he be responding to this report and show how he will
correct these disastrous things from happening in the future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have debated all that in the House of Commons. The
auditor general agrees with the six point plan that the minister
proposed. The controversial program was eliminated.
Yes, if we were to have a debate it would be fun because I have
a list of 30 golf courses in Alberta that received money from the
Alberta government from 1996 to 1998 when the hon. member was the
minister of finance. I have another list of 19 golf courses when
he was a member there. I even know that in his own riding at one
time that government gave $23,000 to a wet suit rental company.
No, no, I am sorry—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, surely it is the Prime Minister who is all wet. He
ought to know about RCMP investigations and golf courses.
The public has invested a whole lot, as the Prime Minister
should know, in terms of the billion dollar boondoggle and some
other things we have seen that have been expensive for the
public. The public has a right to know what is in the auditor
general's report.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the public will see the
report before he calls an election? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has been in the House and she does not know
when the Prime Minister says we will be sitting that it is here.
I will not be sitting on her lap. I will be here.
I have to make a correction. It was not a wet suit rental
service. It was for upper class people, as they plan to do with
their tax cut. It was a tuxedo rental company.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it gives a whole new picture of a lap dog, does it
not?
Just a few months ago the Prime Minister was arguing that his
HRD minister had really only lost $250.51. Now the public
accounts show that oops, it is over $300 million. Which is it:
$250.51 or $344,732,360.51?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get her facts
straight. Without question, my department always tries to
collect outstanding debt.
This year's public accounts clearly show that only a very small
portion of the written off debts involves grants and
contributions. Rather, the vast majority of debts written off
relate to the Canada student loans program. They refer to old
debts deemed uncollectible because they have reached the statute
of limitations or because the borrower has declared bankruptcy or
has died.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois anticipated a surplus of about $20 billion for
the current year, while the Minister of Finance said that the
surplus would only be $5 billion.
Later on, the minister told us to wait for the opinion of the
country's top economists. He spoke to them over the weekend and
surely he must have told them about the size of the surplus.
Based on the figures that he has, and I am sure that he has some
figures, could the minister tell the House what the surplus will
be this year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
had preliminary discussions with the economists, but the Bloc
Quebecois leader must know that there are other meetings to
come. Once all these meetings have taken place and the
economists have completed their work, because it is their
projections, we will present these projections.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
year, we were quite accurate when we projected what the surplus
would be, which was far from being the case for the minister.
The top economists said that the surplus would be between $18
billion and $20 billion.
Could it be that the reason the minister does not want to reveal
these surpluses is that he knows full well that he took that
money from the unemployed and that, under the changes to
employment insurance, he will only give them back $300 million
at best?
During the election campaign, in the coming days, the minister
will talk about compassion, but could he show compassion for the
unemployed now while we are sitting in the House and take
appropriate action?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just said that a consensus will be reached based on the
projections of the economists. These projections are not yet
ready. As soon as they are, we will present them.
That being said, the reason for these surpluses is certainly our
economic growth, which is one of the strongest in the world, our
job creation, which is the strongest in the world, and the
economy in general, which is doing very well in our country.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
surpluses mushrooming at the rate of $94 million a day since last
April, there are persistent rumours that the Minister of Finance
will give in to the Bloc Quebecois' repeated requests that he
bring down a mini-budget before the next federal election is
called.
Will the minister assure us that his mini-budget will include tax
cuts to match his huge surpluses, tax cuts aimed at middle and
low income earners?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have always said that our priority was to cut personal taxes,
with priority going to middle and low income earners.
When it comes time to bring down a budget, I assure members that
I will do so here in the House, not in an airplane or bus, as
the leader of the Canadian Alliance suggested.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the Minister of Finance to be serious.
Last week, when I asked him whether he would be lowering taxes
for families earning $35,000 or less, he said it had already
been done.
How does he explain the answer he gave last week to those
families watching today, families earning $35,000 or less, who
are still filing tax returns every year and still paying taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer I gave last week is based on our budget, which cut taxes.
The answer I gave last week is entirely true, which is to say
that, according to our forecasts, a family earning $35,000 will
not pay any net taxes to the federal government.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
prescription drugs are the fastest growing health care cost. Yet
the government has still done nothing to address this crisis.
Liberals have been promising year after year a national
pharmacare plan for seniors, for hard pressed families, but they
are still waiting.
Surely the health minister will take the opportunity at the
meeting this week in Winnipeg to propose a national pharmacare
plan to his health provincial counterparts.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will there be a
pharmacare plan in place before the next election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we are tabling a bill in the House of Commons
either today or tomorrow on the agreement we signed with the
provinces which includes all elements of medical services in
Canada.
In our discussions with the provinces we discussed not only
hospitals but medication too. Part of the agreement we have made
with them is that some of the money which will be made available
to them, something like $23 billion over the next five years, is
to go toward helping the provinces to deal with the problem of
pharmaceutical care for citizens within each province.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
is not the vaguest hint of a national pharmacare plan in the
so-called agreement with provincial governments.
Canadians are sick to death of hearing vague talk about a
possible discussion, about a future proposal for a pilot project
that may or may not take place. They cannot take that to their
local pharmacy and get the prescription drugs they need.
What Canadians need is a national pharmacare plan, the one the
Prime Minister has been promising for seven straight years. Let
me ask again: Will there be a national pharmacare plan in place
before the next election?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after discussions with the three NDP premiers at the
conference, they all agreed that the agreement we reached
together was the way to cover all the elements of health care in
Canada, including pharmacare.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. I welcome his assurance that
he intends to give parliament the opportunity to live its full
life.
However, in the event that some unforeseen circumstance might
arise, I wonder if the Prime Minister can give the House his
assurance that the full report of the auditor general will be
made public on or before October 17, whether or not he goes to
the polls.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the leader of the Conservative Party
was.
I will repeat what I said before. On October 17 of this year
the House of Commons of Canada will be sitting. I do not give
instructions to the auditor general but he will be able to table
his report. If he feels there is an urgency, under the law he
can decide to table it earlier.
* * *
HEALTH
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): For the record,
Mr. Speaker, I am treating that as an assurance that the full
report of the auditor general will be made available to the
public on or before the 17th.
I have a question about the health accord, an accord which we
believe cheats the provinces out of $3 million because it is a
post-dated cheque. Will the Prime Minister give the House an
assurance now that legislation giving effect to the health accord
will pass through this parliament before a general election is
called?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the bill will be introduced today. If the government
proposes it, the opposition can dispose of it. If it wants, we
can pass the bill without debate right away: one, two, three and
it will be done. It depends on the opposition.
The money will be voted before March 31. I understand that the
hon. member is not keen to seek the advice of the Canadian people
but the Canadian people have the right to decide what kind of
society they want for the years to come.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the latest tabling of the public
accounts shows some figures that I think need to be explained by
the HRD minister.
It shows that under her watch public money was written off to
the tune of $50 million in 1997-98. That jumped incredibly to
$280 million in 1998-99. This year it will jump even more, if
that can be believed, to $344 million.
I invite the minister to explain why under her watch the
write-offs of public money have increased so dramatically.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me again say to the hon. member that
my department makes every effort to collect on outstanding debts
and money owed to the government.
I can tell the hon. member that in this year's public accounts
$547,000 of unrecovered money in grants and contributions
are being written off. I note that these files are at least two
to five years old.
With regard to the Canada student loans program, we are talking
about $294 million. In fact, I need to correct the first number.
It is $500,000, but when we are talking about Canada students
loans it is $294 million and again—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, those numbers are good and I am glad
the minister actually has them but she did not answer the
question.
The question was why the write-offs under her stewardship have
risen so dramatically over the last three years, from $50 million
to $280 million to $344 million. Where will it end? Is the
minister looking after public money or not? She needs to be able
to tell Canadians that she is.
1435
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to tell the Canadian
people that we are looking after public money.
If the hon. member were serious about the issues that she has
been raising she would have taken the time to read our second
progress report which shows that my department is a very
different place now than it was a year ago. We have implemented
organizational changes to improve accountability. We have new
systems in place that improve our monitoring and assessment of
programs. We have hired new staff to help us with project
management. And our performance tracking directorate is telling
us that we are on track to do what we told the Canadians public
we would do.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN'S MARCH
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a few
days, women from across Quebec and across Canada will begin
marching to express their demands on the subjects of poverty and
violence. At the initiative of the Fédération des femmes du
Québec, marches will be held in 157 countries.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us today whether we will see
specific measures for women, finally, in the mini budget he is
preparing in order to dispose of the enormous surplus amassed
since the start of the year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
let me say there is no doubt this is a very important measure,
and we support it 100%.
Next, it may be seen from past budgets that we have always taken
the needs of women into account, and we certainly intend to do
so in the future.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear from the Minister of Finance's response that there is a
need for specific measures.
Here are some that women have proposed: increasing international
aid to .7% of the GNP; unconditionally transferring to Quebec
money intended for parental leave, so it may be universal; and
providing the provinces with major funding to develop daycare
services.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us what kind of commitment he
is prepared to make for the women of Quebec and Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
consider the hon. member to be making representation with her
question. It was well put, and we will give it due
consideration.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, two years ago the government was handing out student
loans. Two years ago the government was handing out grants and
contributions. The only thing that has changed in the last two
years is the minister.
Why is it that in the last two years we have seen her department
increase bad debt write-offs by 700% under her leadership?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I point out to the hon. member that
the files to which he refers are sometimes six or seven years old
and sometimes even older than that. As part of good management
we look at the files and determine at what point we write off the
debt.
Let me say that on this side of the House we continue to be
committed to helping Canadians across the country by ensuring
that they can benefit from our new and growing economy. On that
side of the House it is absolutely clear that is seen as being a
waste. I would ask those members how they face their own
constituents who are involved in these programs and benefiting
from them when they are calling them a waste.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, forgive me for challenging the minister but she does not
exactly have a stellar record on these issues. The only thing we
can do is refer to the numbers. The numbers do not tell a very
good story: from $50 million two years ago in bad debt
write-offs to $344 million today. That is a horrible record by
anybody's standards, maybe even hers.
How can she justify that type of huge increase in bad debt
write-offs under her leadership? She is responsible.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that I have
taken responsibility for the administration of my department. I
think the record will show, as will progress reports, as will the
voice of the auditor general, that this government takes very
seriously accountability and management of taxpayer dollars.
I would encourage the hon. member to look at the facts, to look
at the progress reports and to recognize the changes that have
occurred in my department, and to give credit where credit is
due.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPPING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the 1993 election campaign, the Prime Minister came to
the Lévis shipyard and pledged to act quickly to help the marine
industry. Seven years later, on the eve of another election
campaign, nothing has been done.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to the workers who are
here today to hold him accountable?
1440
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is well aware that the bill is being reviewed by the
Standing Committee on Finance.
Also, we have had consultations with interested stakeholders
from across the shipbuilding industry, including shipbuilders,
shipowners and workers. We have received many suggestions and we
can look at them. Let us also not forget that there is an
excess capacity of about 40% in that industry. That is the
fundamental problem.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when he is in trouble, the Minister of Industry always resorts
to nice rhetoric and endless consultations.
How can the minister reconcile his grand speeches to marine
workers with the fact that he, along with other Liberal members,
did not support my bill, which essentially seeks to help the
marine industry and its workers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
real question from the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive
Conservative Party is: How much of the taxpayers' money do they
want to give, through subsidies, to an industry that has an
excess capacity? They are only interested in subsidies, and that
is the fundamental problem.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am wrong but I imagine that if you
were a minister of the crown responsible for administering
billions of dollars and you had a report saying that all of a
sudden write-offs under your responsibility have increased by
nine times, or 700%, you might just take the time to find out
why.
It is clear this afternoon that the HRD minister does not know
why there is a ninefold increase in write-offs in her department.
Can she explain to us precisely why there is this huge, aberrant
increase in write-offs that are costing taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might want to ask his own
leader for some details on that.
I note that when the leader of that party was a provincial MLA
he was happy to welcome $20 million in loan guarantees from the
Alberta government for Fletcher's Fine Foods in his riding,
saying that it would boost local jobs. Unfortunately this
undertaking did not come to fruition. It went bad and the
government of Alberta was left with a bill for $14 million. I
wonder if it wrote that off.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is so weak that she does not even know
how to evade a question properly. It is unbelievable.
We are asking serious, straight questions about a serious, sober
matter regarding a ninefold, 700% increase in write-offs in her
department. By responding with obvious evasions like that, she
is indicating that she does not know what happened to the missing
money.
Can she tell the House why there was a ninefold increase in
write-offs costing hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadian
taxpayers? Can she tell us, yes or no, with no evasions?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to point out to the hon.
gentleman is that in the process of governing and making
investments there are from time to time overpayments. There are
from time to time bad debts, whether it be in the Government of
Canada or in the government of Alberta.
On this side of the House we will not stop investing in young
Canadians. We will not stop investing in the Canada student loan
program for people who want to get an education and participate
in the economy. We know that is the right thing to do. On that
side we know that they will not accept it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Human Resources Development Canada has listed the amount of
$165,984 under the heading “Losses of public money due to an
offence, illegal act or accident” in the 1999-2000 public
accounts.
Since this amount corresponds exactly to the amount received by
the company which moved from the riding of Rosemont to the Prime
Minister's riding, will the minister confirm that this is indeed
the same company, 3393062 Canada Inc.?
1445
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions,
when it comes to that particular file, it is under investigation
and it is inappropriate for me to comment further.
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in recent days, to our great regret and sorrow, we have witnessed
the resumption of violence and death in certain areas of Israel,
Gaza and the West Bank.
We all fear that the recent hostilities will impede the
negotiations toward a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. The
hopes and prayers of millions of Canadians and people around the
world are with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat to give
peace a real chance for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what is
Canada's reaction to the disturbing developments in the Middle
East?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the member for a very timely
question.
I want to tell the House that yesterday I issued a statement on
behalf of the government in which we condemned all acts of
violence, especially those that affected vulnerable civilians.
The same message was repeated in the security council by a
representative. We have also given the same message to the
representatives of the Palestinian authority and the government
of Israel.
In particular, we urge all parties to refrain from any
unilateral action that would provoke further violence or further
disruption. In that case I have to say the visit of Mr. Sharon
was ill timed and ill considered in this context.
I also want to report to the House that through our office in
Ramallah we are providing assistance for emergency medical aid
and are considering other forms of humanitarian aid.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in the public accounts of Canada under illegal offences
and illegal acts, there is an amount for $165,984 that was paid
out by the Department of Human Resources Development. The
statement says it was paid to a promoter not having met his or
her requirements under the TJF program in the province of Quebec.
Could the minister please tell us who received this money under
fraudulent pretences from the Government of Canada?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, grants are public knowledge. Beneficiaries or
recipients of grants are public knowledge.
The minister already said today that she makes sure that every
effort is made to collect this money, including laying criminal
charges if necessary. Therefore I think that we are entitled to
the name of this person from the minister. I ask her again to
come clean and tell us who has been defrauding the Government of
Canada.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are parts that
the hon. member who asked the question earlier made reference to
in the context of Rosemont. The House knows that that file is
under investigation and as such I will not make further comment.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Eighty billion litres of toxic discharge from the Adams mine
threatens clean water in Ontario and Quebec and it seems that the
minister simply does not care. Toronto will vote on this contract
this week.
In March the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
received a petition from a first nation to protect its water. Six
months after that request and three years into this project, why
is there no federal environmental assessment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to tell the New
Democratic Party that we are bound by the law and constitution
which respect the division of responsibilities between provincial
and federal governments.
I would point out that the concern expressed with respect to
Quebec was in fact dealt with by a Quebec report. I quote the
press release of the Quebec government which said:
[Translation]
According to this analysis, the project will have no significant
environmental impact on Lac Témiscamingue if the conditions of
the Ontario Minister of the Environment's certificate of
authorization are met by promoters.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, with values like this, who needs the Alliance?
The minister's government signed away powers to Mike Harris in
1997. The minister has given his officials no time line to
report back to him on an assessment and he has simply ignored the
first nations impact of the mine. What a great environmentalist.
He cannot get his endangered species bill passed let alone stop
20 million tonnes of garbage being dumped into the water table.
Will the minister stop making excuses and finally announce a
federal environmental assessment?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, given the performance of the New Democratic Party,
it is understandable why the endangered species legislation is
very high on their minds.
I would suggest to the hon. member that we will not unduly and
improperly pressure agencies which parliament set up to be
independent of the executive of the Government of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
year, the auditor general asked the government how the employment
insurance commission set the EI premium rate.
My question is a very simple one. Why is this not indicated in
Bill C-44? What is the government hiding?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
should be clear to the member from the legislation introduced by
the minister that all this will be examined. A response will be provided
in due course.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The
premium rate is much higher than necessary, even according to
HRDC's own actuary. Will the government take decisive action on
this hidden tax on employment and reduce the premium to at least
$2 right now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member would take a look at the history of
decisions taken over the last number of years, he will see that
what we have done is to adopt the recommendations of the
commissioners. That is the way the situation worked. What he
should also take a look at is that each and every year since we
have taken office those premiums have come down. In the seven
years prior to our taking office, the seven years in which his
party was in office, every single year those premiums went up.
* * *
CHILDREN
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
by now most Canadians are aware that on September 11 the Prime
Minister and the first ministers reached a historic agreement on
health care. What has not received quite as much public
attention is that an equally important agreement was also reached
to help young children and support their families.
Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth please tell
the House what the government hopes to achieve with the agreement
on early childhood development?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 11 the Government of
Canada entered into a $2.2 billion agreement with the provinces
and territories. The agreement reached covers four areas:
promoting healthy pregnancy and infancy; improving family
support; strengthening early childhood development; and
strengthening community support.
Public reaction has been very positive. This new partnership
approach is social policy that will make a difference and will
bring hope to all children of the country.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to give the HRDC minister one
last opportunity to explain, giving a simple explanation, as to
why write-offs of money owed to her department have increased so
dramatically, 700%, since she became minister. We are suggesting
that she cannot do her job. Perhaps that is wrong. There may be
a good reason for this.
Would the minister please clear this up so that Canadians will
know what they can expect from the minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would let the hon. member know
that we have a two year project with treasury board to do our
best to clean up outstanding debts. That is why she has seen an
increase in write-offs.
Since she asked me the very question about whether or not I can
do the job, would she ask her leader why during the time he was
treasurer there was over $409 million in total write-offs to
companies like Centennial Food Corporation for $11.7 million, to
Gainers for $421,000, to North Saskatchewan Riverboat for
$500,000, to ALPAC, and there are more. The point is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
1455
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, again relating
to the transfer of grant money from Rosemont to Saint-Maurice,
the minister seems to be hiding the truth from us.
For some months now—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to be
very judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, in the transfer of grant money
from Rosemont to Saint-Maurice, there is one thing that appears
clear, and that is that for some months now the minister has
always refused to answer our questions.
The public accounts report is clear: there is a figure of
$165,984 under the heading “Losses of public money due to
an illegal act”. My question is a simple one: Is the minister
telling us the whole truth and what is it she wants to cover up
in Saint-Maurice?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would respond that the hon.
member knows that this file is under investigation. He full well
knows that it would be inappropriate for me to make any further
comments.
* * *
AUTO INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Despite many assurances that free trade agreements like the WTO
and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement would not affect managed
trade like the auto pact, we are now in a situation where the WTO
has ruled against the auto pact and will be making further
regulations as to how Canada can comply with that ruling.
What does the government intend to do to protect the jobs of all
those auto workers who have a right to expect that security which
they have become accustomed to and which was the backbone of the
Ontario economy? What is the minister going to do to protect
those jobs in the auto industry?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are of course extremely pleased with
the health of the auto industry in Canada. It is extremely
dynamic and is doing very well. I can tell the House that we are
absolutely confident that the industry will continue on its very
healthy progress of the last few years.
As for the WTO decision, we had asked for ten and a half months
to implement the decision. We were very pleased that we were
given eight months. We will respect that international
commitment to the WTO that protects Canadian interests around the
world all the time because we need a rules based system.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, has been very critical of the
government's health care package, saying that it is no bonanza
because funding will not be fully restored to 1994-95 levels
until the year 2006.
What is the minister going to do to address the health care
problems of small provinces like Newfoundland that cannot wait
until 2006 to have its health care funding restored to 1995
levels?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the September 11 agreement was
signed by all the provincial premiers and at this time,
the health ministers and the
federal Minister of Health are meeting in Winnipeg in order to
put in place all the provisions of the agreement as promptly
as possible.
All the health ministers are engaged in discussions with the
federal minister on the conditions for implementation of this
agreement, and things are going very well.
* * *
[English]
PRISONS AND PENITENTIARIES
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think all
members of the House know that drugs pose a real problem in our
prison system.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General just what are you doing to help deal with this problem
and prevent drugs from entering our prisons?
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member to please address
her questions to the Chair.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know
Correctional Service Canada has zero tolerance when it comes to
drugs. As a result of its good work and the work of the
Government of Canada we have done three things. The first is to
have ion scanners in place. The second is that planning is in
place for drug dogs to sniff out drugs. The third is random
searching. As a result of this great work, positive testing for
drugs has gone down from 39% in 1993 to 12% last year. This is
great news.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Geoffrey Hoon,
Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to
inform the House that Thursday, October 5, shall not be an
allotted day but that Monday, October 16, shall be.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
arising out of question period. I would seek unanimous consent
to move the following motion:
That, in the event of the presentation of a report by the auditor
general to the Speaker during any recess, prorogation or
dissolution of parliament, the Speaker would therefore be
entitled to make such reports or report public immediately upon
receipt from the auditor general.
I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the motion given
the responses from the Prime Minister today.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have unanimous consent of the
House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
* * *
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means
motion involving amendments to the Excise Tax Act in accordance
with the proposal set out in our accompanying publication,
“Legislative Proposals and Explanatory Notes”, relating to the
Excise Tax Act.
These provisions would facilitate Canada's logistics industry by
helping those who are exporting. This notice of ways and means
motion is a result of stellar work carried out by the member for
Stoney Creek. I know members from all parties would want to
applaud his efforts in this regard. I would ask that an order of
the day be designated for consideration of this motion.
* * *
CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING ACT
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-45, an act respecting the provision of
increased funding for health care services, medical equipment,
health information and communications technologies, early
childhood development and other social services and to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-46, an act to
establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-500, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
(genetically modified food).
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-500 is an act to amend the Food
and Drugs Act for genetically modified food. The bill provides
for all foods or food ingredients that are or contain genetically
modified material to be labelled to this effect, in accordance
with regulations of course.
The bill also provides for the application of the precautionary
principle in allowing the Minister of Health to monitor and
initiate research into the potential long term effects of the
consumption of genetically modified food on human health.
Finally, the bill would enable food manufacturers and consumers
to make an informed decision on whether to purchase products
containing genetically modified material.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to seek the unanimous consent of the House that Motion
No. 37 be adopted without debate. This motion concerns the
second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages, expressing a desire for Ottawa, the capital of
Canada, to be officially bilingual. I seek unanimous consent
that the House adopt this motion without debate.
The Deputy Speaker: To clarify the situation, the motion in
question is Motion No. 37, which is on the order paper. Is there
unanimous consent of the House to adopt this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have six different petitions to
present today from my constituents. The first petition is one in
which constituents ask us to maintain the definition of marriage
as a union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all
others.
FOOD LABELLING
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions is with
regard to labelling and asks parliament to enact legislation for
mandatory labelling of foods containing genetically engineered
organisms.
TAXATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the third petition is with regard to
tax relief and asks the government to institute at least a 25%
cut in federal taxes.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is with regard to
the legalization of child pornography. It asks parliament to
enact the notwithstanding clause to make sure that child
pornography is not legalized in Canada.
The fifth petition is from another group of constituents with
the same issues.
IRAQ
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents in which they
cite the devastating effects on the children of Iraq of harsh
sanctions.
They are petitioning the Government of Canada to take the lead
in persuading the UN to lift the sanctions against the people of
Iraq.
ENERGY PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr
Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House today a
petition signed by many Canadians concerned about the high cost
of energy. They are concerned that energy is the underpinning of
our economy and that there is no action from the government to
defend the interests of consumers, small business people, farmers
and our economy in general.
They are asking that the House of Commons establish an energy
price commission that would hold the big oil companies, which
control 85% of our refinery capacity, accountable for the energy
prices they charge Canadians.
It is my pleasure to introduce this petition, which I support
100%.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre does not need reminding of the point
that his views on the petition are not ones that are the subject
of a presentation of a petition. He is to present the petition
and leave it at that. I would invite him to comply in every
respect in this regard. Perhaps he forgot over the summer.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, as always you are correct.
I appreciate your advice.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition, which I am introducing in the House
of Commons on behalf of many petitioners across Canada, is in
light of the fact that there have been cuts of $400 million to
the CBC, which has caused thousands of layoffs. It amounts to
one of the largest cuts made by the Liberal government to any
agency while it has been in power since 1993.
They are asking the House of Commons and parliament to take
measures to restore adequate funding to the CBC to allow
maintenance of and improvements to current local television news
while improving the network for all Canadians.
MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition by several residents of greater
Montreal that calls on parliament and the Government of Canada
not to support the U.S. national missile defence program to be
operated by NORAD.
The petitioners say the NMD is a unilateral initiative of the
United States that no other major country supports. It would be
a step toward the deployment of weapons in space and would lead
to a new arms race. It violates the ABM treaty and is running
counter to Canada's commitment as a signatory to the
non-proliferation treaty.
1515
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to declare that
Canada objects to the national missile defence program in the
United States and that parliament play a leadership role in
banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
SEAL HUNT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to introduce four petitions today. The first
is from a local resident of east Vancouver who has collected 89
sheets of signatures of people in Vancouver very concerned about
the cruelty, waste and unlawful behaviour that are documented
features of the Canadian commercial seal hunt of harp and hooded
seals.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact
legislation to stop the commercial seal hunt in Canada.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is signed by many people across the country who
call upon parliament and the Government of Canada to end the two
tier American style health care system in Canada. They also call
on the government to take action to stop bill 11 in Alberta.
It is signed by many people across the country who are very
concerned about the state of our public health care system.
NUCLEAR ARMS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to introduce my third petition from veterans against
nuclear arms.
They draw our attention to the fact that the Government of
Canada has uncritically offered support for U.S. bombing of
Afghanistan, Khartoum, and for the further ongoing bombing of
Iraq in previous conflicts, and that this is done in violation of
international law and the UN charter.
The petitioners pray and request that parliament returns
Canada's foreign and defence policies to a full respect for and
full compliance with international law and the UN charter.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
fourth petition is signed by Canadians who are calling on the WTO
to be more open, inclusive and democratic.
The petitioners want to see an alternative model of
globalization, one that is designed to help citizens in Canada
and around the world achieve a stable rules based economy which
protects the rights of workers and the environment.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition on behalf of citizens of Grand Bend, Port Dover and
Camlachie. They urge the government to eliminate the gas
additive MMT as it has a negative impact both on people's health
and our ecosystem at large.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present three petitions, all dealing with
concerns of my constituents.
They are opposed to Alberta's bill 11 which would permit private
for profit health care in the country.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
present a petition signed by 83 constituents of the riding of
Bourassa concerning rural route mail couriers.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which deprives rural
couriers of their right to collective bargaining.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table two petitions on behalf of many Canadians who
have expressed ongoing concern about the ever encroaching
American style health care system that is moving into Canada.
The petitioners call upon the government to stop the for profit
hospitals and in particular to implement a national home care
program and a national program for prescription drugs.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of
residents of the North Thompson region of British Columbia.
The petitioners point out a number of concerns about the move
toward a for profit privatized U.S. style health care system.
They are concerned that the federal government has not stopped
the province of Alberta from moving ahead with a privatized
system.
They call upon the Government of Canada to do what it can to
ensure that health care is available to Canadians regardless of
income or where they live across the country.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from citizens
concerned about the lack of a national highway policy.
They suggest that moneys collected from the excise tax on
gasoline should be put into highway reconstruction and
construction in order to improve the highway grid across the
country. They feel that tax dollars being spent at the pump
should be going back into highway development.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I present my third petition which is also
from residents of the North Thompson Valley. They are distraught
by the lack of action in terms of changes to the criminal code.
They are concerned about the fact that violent people are being
let out of prisons, in their minds, prematurely and that there
are unsafe people in our communities.
1520
They are calling upon the federal government to amend the
criminal code to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from
being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal,
except in very exceptional circumstances.
PENSIONS
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first
one says that a small number of Saskatchewan senior women
received in 1999 a gratuitous, one time only cash payment from
the Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board with respect to the
previous death of a spouse on the job.
This money was not income but was intended to right a wrong
which had occurred many years previously. Revenue Canada clawed
back from these women the entire amount of the old age supplement
paid to them for the year 1999 and further has planned to
withhold all old age supplement payments in the year 2000-01.
Therefore the petitioners from all over Saskatchewan call upon
parliament to urge the government to immediately issue remission
orders for this clawback and to require Revenue Canada to repay
these widows the amounts of OAS and GIS clawed back and withheld.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from many citizens concerned
with the federal government's record on health care, in
particular the fact that it has allowed Alberta to pass Bill C-11
without any real protests.
They ask that we stop for profit hospitals and restore federal
funding for health care. They want a national home care program
and a national program for prescription drugs.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my final petition is from another group of citizens
very concerned about Canada's trade policy and the lack of
democracy at the WTO.
They petition parliament to insist that Canada secure binding
and enforcing rules to protect human rights, labour standards,
cultural diversity and the environment in any future trade
agreements, and that Canada work to build an alternative model of
globalization, one which will not rob us of sovereignty but
rather protect it.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 77 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 77—Mr. Paul Forseth:
For the riding of New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby from
January 1997 to January 2000: (a) what the federal grants,
loans, and other financial provisions were granted; (b) in each
case, what was the name of the associated program; (c) what was
the originating agency or department; (d) what was the amount;
and (e) what was the name of the recipient?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-39 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
That a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of
Canada's Submissions to the NATO Defence Planning Questionnaires
for each year between 1987 and 2000.
It is not the practice of the
House of Commons to request papers which if released would be
detrimental to the security of the state or its allies and to the
conduct of international relations.
This is in keeping with the spirit of the Access to Information
Act. Subsection 15(1) states that a government institution may
refuse to disclose any record that could reasonably be expected
to be injurious to the conduct or the defence of Canada, or any
state allied or associated with Canada.
According to subsections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(b) this includes
respectively the disclosure of any record relating to military
tactics or strategy or military exercises or operations
undertaken in preparation for hostilities or in connection with
the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile
activities, and the disclosure of any record relating to
quantity, characteristics, capabilities or deployment of weapons
or other defence equipment.
The requested information, if released, would be injurious to
Canada's relations with our allies and to Canada's defence and
that of our allies. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw
his motion.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion No. P-39 be transferred for
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (for the Minister of Human Resources
Development) moved that Bill C-44, an act amending the
Employment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we all know,
employment remains Canadians' number one concern.
They returned this government to office with a mandate to
continue its work to promote economic growth and the creation of
jobs. In fact, the job strategy makes these issues the main
priority of the Government of Canada.
This government rightly considers its role is to create a
context promoting investment and development of the private
sector and, in particular, small and medium business, the real
motive force in job creation in Canada's economy.
No one today can deny the enormous progress that has been made in
achieving these major economic objectives so important to
Canadians.
Since this Liberal government was elected in 1993, two million new
jobs have been created, half of which have gone to women.
The unemployment rate has dropped by over 4% across the country.
I would add with pride that in Quebec the drop in the rate is
greater than the national average. There, the rate of
unemployment, which was 8.4% in August, has dropped by five points.
Nearly 400,000 more Quebecers are employed today than were in
1993. Never have the prospects of the country as a whole for
short and long term economic growth been so good considering,
among other things, the announced reduction in employment
insurance contributions, the seventh in as many years, and the
$58 billion in reductions in income tax, which will remain in the
taxpayers' pockets.
Four years ago the government put an entirely new employment
insurance system in place with the very specific purpose of
helping people return to work as quickly as possible.
One of the great innovations of the employment insurance program
introduced in 1996 was to provide not only temporary income
support in the form of benefits but also active employment
measures to promote permanent integration of the unemployed into
the labour market.
These measures were designed to be flexible enough to meet the
specific needs of the unemployed, based on the local economy,
through partnerships with the various levels of government,
community organizations and employers.
In the year 2000 alone, more than $2.21 billion were spent on
active employment measures, including $594 million in Quebec.
People now realize that this initiative was crucial, as
evidenced by the fact that the federal government has since then
signed 11 labour market agreements with the provinces and
territories about the delivery of these active employment
measures funded through the employment insurance account.
Through this initiative, the federal government was also able to
give Quebec something it had been demanding for 30 years, namely
full jurisdiction over manpower training.
Today, we are bringing forward several changes to EI. One of the
changes proposed by the minister in this bill would eliminate the
intensity rule.
1530
As we know, the amount to which a claimant is entitled is 55% of
his or her insurable earnings. The intensity rule, which reduces
the benefit rate down to a minimum of 50%, was designed to
discourage people from using employment insurance frequently and
for extended periods.
However, we have noticed that in several regions, particularly
in those where the economy is based mainly on seasonal work,
workers who are already penalized by these annual and always
deplorable seasonal layoffs are also penalized because they have
no other choice but to rely on employment insurance to make ends
meet.
Under the proposed change, the basic rate will stay at 55% of
insurable earnings for all claimants, whether they are frequent
claimants or not, whether they are seasonal workers or not.
Needless to say this change will benefit people in fishing
regions, particularly in the Maritimes, but it is important to
note that it will apply to all frequent claimants in all
regions, throughout Canada, which means that it will apply to
much larger pools of seasonal workers. In fact, this change will
have a great impact in Quebec, where 41% of claimants are
subject to the intensity rule.
We are also proposing to change the rules governing the
clawbacks on benefits. At present, tax recovery applies to all
claimants whose net income exceeds $48,750 and to frequent
claimants whose net income exceeds $39,000.
These recipients have to pay back 30% of the amounts received,
regardless of whether these are regular or special benefits.
Those who are forced to call upon employment insurance
frequently can be required to reimburse up to 100% of their
benefits.
We are proposing that, in future, only the highest wage earners,
that is those with a net income in excess of $48,750, be
required to pay back benefits. Even then, there would be an
exemption for first-time claimants and recipients of special
benefits such as maternity, parental or sick benefits. Once
again, this will be a change that will benefit the workers of
Quebec.
Overall, we feel that the new employment insurance program has
had good results so far.
The government made a commitment to monitor the application and
effects of the new program and to remedy any possible
weaknesses. This is, in fact, what it is doing by introducing
this bill.
[English]
Let me add that we will always be working together with the
provinces and territories, business groups and communities to
diversify the economy and help generate jobs and growth.
[Translation]
All my parliamentary colleagues, along with the entire Canadian
public, acknowledge that economic development, skills
development and permanent job creation are the best solutions in
the long term, as the minister has indicated.
What all Canadians want first and foremost is jobs. They want
to work so that they can improve their situation and their own
feelings of self-worth, while contributing to the collective
effort of society.
This is true as much for seasonal workers as for all other
working men and women throughout the length and breadth of
Canada.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. When the House was adjourned on
Thursday last, it was about to complete debate and come to a vote
on private member's Motion No. 259 in the name of the hon. member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
There have been consultations among the parties earlier today
and I believe you would find unanimous consent for
the following motion. I move:
That the question on Motion No. 259 be deemed to have been put
and a division thereon requested and deferred to the time of
completion of consideration of government orders later this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. the parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1535
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an
act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand up
and give the official opposition's take on this new bill, an act
to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
In our view this bill violates three important principles.
First, it violates the principle of sound policy making based on
consultation, completeness, addressing fundamentals, all the
things that good policies do and this bill does not.
Second, the bill violates the principle of doing the most good
for the most people. Here we see a very short-sighted, very
narrow approach taken to the unemployment insurance regime.
Third, the bill violates the principle of public interest over
self-interest. I think everyone knows that the bill is being
rushed in on the eve of an election simply to increase the
political fortunes of the Liberals in some parts of the country.
That is an insult to all Canadians in those parts of the country.
As an overview, the bill purports to do six things. First, it
increases the amount that a seasonal worker can earn before his
or her EI is clawed back. It is increased from $39,000, which is
the average industrial wage, to close to $50,000.
Second, the bill puts into place a single rate of repayment for
those who are clawed back at 30% instead of a higher clawback for
more frequent claimants.
Third, it eliminates the clawback for all first time claimants.
Fourth, it eliminates the intensity rule which clawed back a
portion of benefits for all frequent recipients of EI.
Fifth, it makes it easier for parents who left the workforce to
raise children to qualify for EI benefits.
Sixth, it exempts paternal, maternity and sickness benefits from
the clawback.
Those are the six things that the bill purports to do.
As I said, we believe that the bill violates three important
principles and I would like to spend my time elaborating on that.
First, the bill violates the principle of sound policy making.
This is a very important issue for Canadians. Many Canadians
access EI benefits from time to time but more importantly, every
single Canadian worker and every single Canadian business pays
into and support the system and is therefore a very important
stakeholder in the system. If we are going to change the system,
then we need to get it right.
The House will know that about two decades ago an exhaustive
study was made of the EI system by the Forget Commission which
resulted in about 15 volumes of recommendations. Almost none of
those have ever been implemented, including in this bill. Yet
we have a bill coming forward in the face of not only the study
that I mentioned but many subsequent studies and articles by
experts and policy thinkers. The bill does virtually nothing to
address the perversities, the complexities and the things that
plainly are not working in the EI system. This is not good
policy making.
What is needed is real reform of the EI-UI system, not just this
kind of tinkering. In fact, to my knowledge the government
consulted no one before bringing in the bill.
1540
I think everyone acknowledges that this system, which is
profoundly flawed, was supposedly fixed by these Liberals in
1996. Yet those so-called reforms just made things stingier. They
did nothing to fix the underlying problems of the system.
The so-called reforms that the Liberals brought in in 1996 have
now been summarily reversed with a stroke of the pen. Why? One
can only suppose that it is to enhance Liberal electoral chances
in Atlantic Canada; shocking as it may seem that the Liberals
would stoop to such transparent tactics.
The fact is that the changes the Liberals brought in in 1996
drew an outcry from many of the people affected right away. That
was four years ago. If the concerns which the Liberals heard
about the system and about the changes they made were legitimate,
why did it take four long years, right up until the brink of an
election, for them to do something about it?
The member on the other side who just spoke did nothing to
address that question and a lot of people are wondering why now.
Why ignore concerns, outcries and discontent for years and years
and then all of a sudden decide to do something now? The present
changes have also been criticized very widely. There are some
legitimate criticisms which need to be answered by the
government.
Many people feel that these changes will simply make it
profitable for industries to gear up for short seasons. They
believe they will not be doing their workers a disservice because
their workers have the EI cushion. Instead of offering workers
long term, stable jobs that they can count on to raise their
families and better themselves in the long term, these changes
simply pour cold water on that kind of positive change.
Some people are also concerned about the fact that these changes
and others really entice young people to leave school earlier for
jobs that offer no real future. A very good article was written
by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. It was published
in the National Post on September 28. Essentially it
pointed out that two things are happening due to problems in the
system.
One is that the rule that allows people to gain about half a
year of EI benefits by catching as little as $2,500 worth of fish
has made some young people go into that industry in order to get
the EI benefits. This is damaging in two ways. It hurts the
young people who then become caught in what many in Atlantic
Canada refer to as the EI trap. Instead of going on to school,
gaining the skills and training they need to build a strong
future for themselves, they are encouraged by these rules to
leave school so they can say that they are available for work in
order to gain short term benefits. Surely this was not the
intention of the EI system. Those are the kinds of perversities
that are not addressed at all in this bill. They are hurting a
lot of young people and causing concern for a lot of families.
Also, at a time when the fish stocks are decreasing, we have
rules that encourage people to get into an industry with
declining stocks. What kind of future is that building for
people? Not much, but we have a government that is blind to
those kinds of perversities, that does nothing to address them
and still claims that this bill is helping people in seasonal
industries. Clearly that is not a claim that can be sustained at
all. In fact, it is hurting the very people that the government
is claiming it is helping.
We owe the people of Canada better than that. The bill does
nothing to give long term hope for employment and a secure future
and skills building to many people across the country. That is
what we really want to do.
1545
The minister herself has said that what Canadians want most is
to have a job. The bill does nothing to deal with the problem of
unemployment, which is severe and disabling in many parts of the
country, and the government is silent on providing the help that
it says people need, which is a secure job.
We have to conclude that these changes are really driven more by
politics than by a desire to help the people who are affected by
the EI system, who are most people in the country and
proportionately more in parts of the country with low employment.
The bill also violates the principle that government policy and
legislation should do the most good for the most people. Most of
us would agree that we have to look at the big picture when we
are making policies and bringing in legislation. We need to ask
ourselves whether the bill actually does look at the big picture,
whether it does make an attempt to do the most good for the most
people and whether it attempts to deliver more jobs for people,
not simply and solely more benefits to cushion, in the short
term, the effects of there being an absence of jobs.
The bill is also completely silent on the real needs of Canadian
workers who are chronically underemployed or unemployed. The
bill provides a few dollars more but will not give any real long
term hope. Is that the message we want to send? I ask my
friends in the NDP and PC Party, is that what we want to tell
people? I ask these people because they represent voters and
constituents in that part of the country. Do we want to tell
people that we will give them a few more dollars and make the
pain a bit less but that we will not give them any long term
hope? Is that the message we want to send? That is exactly the
thrust of the bill.
There may be some legitimate changes to the EI regulations in
Bill C-44 but the long term solution to unemployment surely is
training and skills enhancement, not encouraging people to move
into dead end jobs. Surely the real solution to unemployment is
getting the economic fundamentals right so there is economic
prosperity, activity and new jobs are created. The bill contains
none of that.
Even with what the bill does contain, which is a few more
dollars for people caught in the trap of low employment, no
employment or underemployment, it is an insult in light of what
the Liberals are taking out of the EI system.
We have a $38 billion surplus in the EI system. If we divided
that amount among all of the unemployed workers they could get a
university degree, receive training or set up their own
businesses. What does the government give them out of that $38
billion surplus that workers and businesses helped to create? It
gives them a 15 cent reduction in EI premiums. I have not
checked the minister's math, which may or may not be right given
the track record of the minister, but she says that a 15 cent
reduction will add up to $1.5 billion. At the same time there is
a $38 billion surplus. What are the Liberals doing with the
other $36.5 billion one might ask?
At the same time, with the Canada pension plan premiums
increasing by 40 cents on January 1 there will be a net increase
in taxes that workers have to pay when they do work rather than
any reduction.
1550
However, the government refuses to look at the big picture and
makes small, small-minded, small impact changes to do what? It
is to be able to pretend to people that it is responding to their
concerns and that it is providing some of the much needed help
for which people have been asking. It is a charade. It is a
scam. It is not worthy of putting before the Canadian people.
The EI surplus does not belong to the Liberals. It belongs to
thousands of business people and millions of workers. We believe
that the people who are paying the shot, putting in the money and
who have a stake should be making the decisions. I do not think
the people putting up all this money every year and who have
built up a $38 billion surplus would decide to hand it over to
the Liberals to use as they see fit.
There is even law-breaking in the way this EI premium reduction
is being managed. The law says that the government can only
charge premiums to pay out the current benefits and to build up a
little cushion in case unexpectedly high unemployment comes
along. The chief actuary of the fund himself has said that the
surplus the Liberals have built up is far in excess of what would
be needed to meet the requirements of the law. However the
Liberals simply ignore their own laws and build up enormous,
unjustified surpluses and then use them for whatever they want,
which, as we can see, is mostly for their own political gain.
The Canadian Labour Congress said that this year for the first
time more EI premiums will go into general revenues of the
Liberal government than will be paid out in benefits. In other
words, all the money that is being paid by struggling Canadian
workers and small businesses who can barely keep their doors open
is pouring into the coffers of the Liberal government. It is not
helping employment or unemployed workers. It is helping the
Liberals. The Liberals are helping themselves to it. That has
to stop.
Is there anything in the bill to address the clear violation of
what is right and proper? There is not a word. We only have the
Liberals saying “We will give you a tiny reduction. Are we not
generous? You lucky people who are paying us $10 billion a year
more than you are supposed to pay for this program, we will give
you a little back. We will give you about 15% back and you
should be grateful for that”. That is what the Liberal
government is telling Canadian workers. It is an insult and
should be seen as an insult.
We believe, and all opposition parties believe, that employers
and workers should control what is rightfully theirs. A couple
of years ago all opposition party leaders held a joint news
conference to make that very point to the government as surpluses
in the EI fund rose above any kind of reasonable level.
Opposition parties have different ideas on the types of benefits,
the levels of benefits and the rates of payment. That is
healthy. It is good to have different ideas because we come to a
balanced and proper perspective when we share those ideas.
However, we are all in agreement that the decisions about how to
spend the money that comes out of the workers' pockets and the
pockets of struggling small businesses should be made by the
people who are putting up the money.
Does the bill address that issue? Not at all. There was a
thing called the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission. It
was set up to consult with all the people who pay into the system
and advise the government on things like levels of EI rates.
What does the bill do? It simply toasts the Canada Employment
and Insurance Commission. It does an end run around them. It
says that cabinet will set the rates directly and that it will
also be done next year. What is the EI commission good for?
What is it there for? Is its mandate respected? Is the
consultation it is doing respected? No.
1555
The EI commission is actually made up of people from labour,
from employers, from workers and from all the groups who are
affected by the system and yet the commission is simply being
ignored, disregarded and an end run done around it by the
government in the legislation.
Far from the government respecting the people who are paying the
freight of this program, the government is ignoring and running
roughshod over the representatives of these groups that are on
the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission. This is a bad
bill for so many reasons, and that is just another one.
The bill will hurt in several ways, as I pointed out. It allows
companies to structure the way they operate to take maximum
benefit of EI. It does not encourage businesses to find ways to
operate in the full season and allow people to have long term,
stable jobs. It encourages just the opposite. How does this
help people? It cannot. It does not encourage the kind of break
that people are asking for from dependence on short term
assistance programs and over to what they really want, which is
long term employment of which they can be proud, on which they
can raise their families and on which they can build a future.
I recommend to the House an article by Fred McMahon who for a
long time worked with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.
This article was published on October 2 in the Ottawa
Citizen. He essentially said that the EI system has harmed
many regions of the country and that it has created a trap for
many people. Surely that is a tragedy that must be addressed
but it is not.
We need to be more compassionate than that. We need to look at
what is happening to people who have no hope other than a few
more dollars once in a while on the eve of an election from a
Liberal government. We need to look at what can be done to
provide strong economic growth and activity in parts of the
country where people are unemployed or underemployed. We believe
that the answer to that is in the Alliance's policies of actually
letting people keep the money they earn. What a novel idea. When
we earn money, the government will not actually take it away from
us. It will let us keep it to create jobs, to buy consumer
goods, to build our businesses, to invest in skills, to fund
education and to do the things that will create a strong economy.
That is not just pie in the sky. We have many examples across
the world of economies that have done exactly that. They have
significantly reduced the government grab of earnings from
companies, entrepreneurs and workers and their economies have
soared. Ireland is a prime example of that. There are many
states in the U.S. that have significantly reduced taxes and seen
a huge increase in the number of jobs available for their
citizens.
If we want to look closer to home, we can attest to the fact
that these measures do not just work in other countries. They
also work here. The provinces of Alberta and Ontario, which have
significantly cut taxes, have seen job opportunities for their
citizens absolutely go through the roof.
And what does the government do? It increases its tax take, or
reduces it by such minuscule amounts that it has no appreciable
effect on the overall level of economic activity.
1600
We believe that our policies, which we will be putting to the
people in the election, will actually secure jobs for hundreds of
thousands of unemployed and underemployed workers. They will
also pour millions of dollars into the economy in a positive way
without any political tainting, without any perverse effect on
the economies which desperately need that kind of infusion.
Instead of a few dollars in handouts mostly tied to political
patronage and political profiteering by the Liberal government,
it would be money spent in the common sense way by workers,
businessmen and entrepreneurs. That is what we need to be
working for in this country.
The bill also violates the principle of public interest over
self-interest. What we have here, as one person described to me
today, is a knee-jerk policy decision designed solely to get
votes.
I have given so many reasons today, and I know that other
speakers to the bill will give even more, why the bill does not
represent big picture policy to benefit the people most affected.
It represents an 11th hour, quick vote buying kind of initiative
by a government that should be ashamed of itself. That
government says that it cares about people, that it values
people. It did not care about the people who were affected by
the EI changes over the last four years. All of a sudden are we
supposed to believe that the bill is motivated by real caring? I
do not think so.
This is simply the Liberal government indulging in some very
cynical and reprehensible vote buying, vote manipulating policy
making. It is an insult to every person affected. It suggests
that people who are most affected and most needy, and to whom
even a few dollars would mean an awful lot, can be bought right
before an election. It is so cynical and insulting.
The Liberal government should be ashamed of itself. I appeal to
Liberal members to vote against this kind of ad hockery in public
policy making on the eve of an election. The people in the
country who are the most needy and have the biggest difficulty in
finding long term stable employment deserve far better than this
and we should give it to them.
There is also a lot of evidence which I believe must come out in
debate, in the committee hearings, in letting people speak, that
in the long run these kinds of measures will hurt more than help
regularly unemployed workers. It is a tiny, tiny bit of short
term gain but so much long term pain in a system that is
fundamentally flawed. It does not address the real needs of
workers, which are for real work, real economic opportunity and
real relief from chronic dependence on politicians and what they
may or may not give.
We have seen the politicians over there take away, then give
back a little, then take away some more. Surely we can do better
for people than to play those kinds of games with them, their
futures and their families. They deserve better. I am appalled
that the Liberal government has done such a cynical,
shortsighted, inadequate job of addressing those issues.
All employed workers are going to carry the freight for this,
whether they are part time, seasonal, or full time in low paying
jobs. The money comes straight out of their pockets and out of
the pockets of their employers who would probably like to hire
more people but simply do not have the money and resources left
after the government is done taxing them to death.
1605
The sad thing is that people who are the least able to pay,
people who are the most needy in this system are going to be hurt
by these changes. These changes help a few, but mostly those few
at the higher end of the income scale.
We have to wonder when there are so many people in the country
not able to work full time, not able to find secure employment,
why the government cares so little about the real problem that it
would insult them with this kind of last minute, short term,
small minded tinkering.
This is not a bill that should even have seen the light of day.
As the bill is debated and examined in committee, and as people
in the public start to see what is in the bill, I believe it will
draw an increasing level of opposition and criticism. And so it
should because legitimate needs that ought to have been addressed
in the EI system and in the bigger picture of employment needs of
Canadians simply have been ignored in this bill, or have not been
helped, or have been addressed in ways that can only be
characterized as mere tinkering, nothing substantive, nothing
really helpful to the people who are affected.
I invite Canadians who are watching this debate to listen to the
concerns that are brought forward by their representatives and to
examine the bill for themselves. It is a very short bill. As I
said, it is just a little bit of tinkering on the eve of an
election. Consider the bigger issues that will be affecting the
employment picture of our country in the years to come,
particularly for those that are struggling the most to have the
kind of employment prospects that they need for themselves and
their family.
This is a bill that violates fundamental principles of sound
policy making. It violates the principle of doing the most good
for the most people. It also violates the principle of putting
public interest before self-interest. The bill should not be
supported and I urge members of the House to vote against it
unless it is substantially changed. I believe it is so
fundamentally flawed that the government should simply go back to
the drawing board on this whole issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill
C-44. This is an important moment, not because of the profusion
of measures on the table, but because the Minister of Human
Resources Development is in flight.
She did not appear to defend her bill in the House today, she
gave the task to a parliamentary secretary. I think this makes
it clear what is going on. On the table, we have a bill that,
for the first time since the Liberals took office, since they
introduced unacceptable reform, and in a number of limited
measures, returns some vestige of dignity to the workers facing
unemployment. This cannot be called a victory, but it is a
significant step. Some of the measures in the bill will have to
be implemented as quickly as possible so these workers may be
given sufficient income again.
I would remind those watching us today of the whole history of
this bill. First, the former government, that is, the one
before 1997, toured all of Canada.
The present Minister of Foreign Affairs was the Minister of
Human Resources Development at the time. People throughout
Canada told the government that what was needed was a plan
providing people between jobs with a decent income, a plan that
was up to date, a plan that was open to self-employed workers,
for example, and a plan that did justice to women by allowing
them to qualify for maternity leave under decent conditions.
When all was said and done, the Liberal majority acted as though
nothing had been said during the tour. The former Minister of
Human Resources Development had his orders from the Minister of
Finance, which the Prime Minister told us about last week. These
orders were the following: “We have a deficit of $42 billion.
The ones who are going to pay it down are those who are the least
well organized, through a reform that will let me help myself to
$7 billion or $8 billion a year, so that I can be sure of eliminating my
deficit no matter who is affected”.
1610
One of the things changed was the intensity rule, which the
Liberals now want to restore. This is a terrible rule. It
amounted to telling workers: “You are economic guinea pigs. If
you are seasonal workers, it is because you do not wish to work
longer, and we are going to penalize you. Each time you go
through 20 weeks of EI, we will reduce your benefits by 1%”.
This rule became law because federal government analysts said
that our seasonal workers were deliberately avoiding work and
something had to be done.
It took three years of reform. Eight or nine months ago a
report came out saying that this was not having that effect. It
is too bad, but when the season is over for a seasonal worker, in
agriculture, forestry, tourism, the fishery or whatever, there is
no longer any work. The worker cannot be transformed into a
computer technician. A logger cannot be turned into a computer
technician overnight. Sometimes he is very good at what he does
but could never be retrained for something else.
It has taken the Liberal government three or four years, and
maybe an election in the offing, to understand this, but we must
pick up all the pieces so that workers can receive the money they
need as soon as possible.
Bloc Quebecois members have worked hard regarding this issue,
particularly over the past three and a half years, since the last
election. In June 1997, when I found out that I had been elected
in my riding, I personally pledged before my constituents to give
priority to this issue so that by the end of my mandate we
would have made gains.
We worked tenaciously. The Bloc Quebecois invested a lot of
energy in that issue and I will give a brief historical overview.
We had, for example, an employment insurance week. For an entire
week we heard from witnesses, the people who were confronted
with this reality. Women and young seasonal workers told us about
the impact of having to work 910 hours to qualify. We listened to
these people for a week.
At the time, it was the current Minister for International Trade
who was the Minister of Human Resources Development. Whatever the
question, his answer was always “Things are going well in
Canada. Jobs are being created and this is how we will get
through this situation”.
Last week we found out the true reason the government
was acting in such a fashion and why we were always given the same
prepared answer. It was because the Prime Minister of Canada had
told his Minister of Finance “We need money to eliminate the
deficit. We must have a zero deficit. You will achieve that
result by targeting those who are less organized because,
ultimately, it will cost us less in terms of votes. We should be
able to make it through if we go that route”.
The government did not put the same energy into settling the
family trust issue. The efforts made by the government regarding
these two different issues were far from being the same.
The Bloc worked very hard on the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, particularly the member for Quebec and
the member from Lac-Saint-Jean. All members of the Bloc Quebecois
from Quebec have put interesting proposals on the table. Six
bills have been introduced here in the House to deal with the
different types of discrimination. Some members even added other
elements.
For example, the member for Quebec has tabled a bill on the
requirements to qualify for benefits. We had to make sure that
people could qualify. It is all very good to abolish the
intensity rule—it will solve a small problem—but if people
cannot qualify, what good will that do? No work means no
benefits. If people cannot qualify, they cannot get benefits.
Not only do we have to settle the intensity rule issue, but we
also have to deal with the eligibility criteria.
The member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans introduced
a bill on insurable employment. The government had decided to
tighten eligibility requirements. It was trying to turn off all
the taps in order to keep all the money it could keep.
On the matter of insurability, the government started to target
very small businesses, family-type operations, and to be on the
case of people who worked hard, small businesses employing two,
three or four people who had been qualifying for unemployment
benefits for three, four, five or ten years. They were told “You
do not qualify anymore. Retroactively, you owe us $18,000,
$20,000 or $25,000 because of a mistake we made three years ago.
We should have told you that your employment was not insurable”.
1615
The present legislation allows this. It is not being
corrected here but we do have a bill that would correct the
problem.
We have also introduced a bill to make sure that specific
standards apply to the management of the EI account and the
setting of the contribution rate. We would have a system where
the contribution rate meets the needs of the system and not the
financing needs of the finance department. This is a very
important issue.
On December 31 there will be $32 billion in the EI account.
That is a lot of money. The cost of the provisions in the bill,
which the minister did not care to defend, will never be over
$500 million. For ordinary people, $500 million and $32 billion
is a lot of money. For those who have a hard time figuring it
out, it is as if a pie were cut into 60 slices and you got only
one. Someone else got the rest, while not having contributed a
cent to the system.
The EI system is financed by employers and employees. The
federal government rakes in the money because it does not care to
respect the spirit of the law, which is that the EI account
should finance the EI system only. Instead, it has been used to
finance the government's surplus with the contributions from
people who earn less than or up to $39,000.
It means that anyone earning $40,000, $41,000, $42,000, $50,000,
$60,000, $70,000 or $90,000 has not paid his share into the EI
fund.
It also means that the EI money the federal government is
spending comes from the poor because the rich do not pay their
share. It is unfair.
This is why the three measures announced in the bill before the
House are interesting, but they definitely do not go far enough.
We will ensure that the workers are not hurt by the way members
will vote in this House. We will vote for this bill but that
does not mean that the fight is over. It only means that the
fight has only begun.
I want the workers and our fellow citizens to understand that we
still have some way to go, that we will fight until we have
everything we need to deliver a decent employment insurance
program.
In some of the bills we have introduced, we talk about access
for self-employed workers. In Canada, the self-employed make up
over 16% of our manpower. These workers are not covered by EI.
One out of six workers is not covered because he is
self-employed.
Despite its annual assessment of the program, the federal
government was unable to come up with something that would allow
self-employed persons to become eligible for employment insurance
on a voluntary basis, as the Bloc Quebecois has been proposing.
This should be included in the reform before us today but it is
not.
I could give an electoral perspective to my arguments since the
Liberals are very sensitive to that. The Liberals have to think
about it. One worker in six is a self-employed worker who is not
eligible for employment insurance. Right now these people cannot
even contribute to the program. They are not eligible. I think
this should have been included in the bill.
We also proposed that the waiting period be abolished. As
members know, this is the two week period when people lose their
job. When people apply for benefits, they have no income. Someone
who earns $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year and has a steady
income may have difficulty understanding what that means. For
those who earn $500 a week, for example, or $25,000 a year,
having no income for two weeks means there is a big hole in the
family income. There is certainly room for a solution to this
problem.
In this area, Canada is dead last among developed countries. In
terms of employment insurance, we are behind the United States,
which is nothing to brag about. It is certainly not an advantage.
Several measures are missing. On November 25, 1999 we
introduced a bill that included all these reforms so we could
tell the government “You see, we are an opposition party. We
are not the government party. We do not have all the resources
the government has but we are putting forward a general
proposal”. The bill contained all the elements that should be
included in a good employment insurance program.
Today we are looking at the result. Certain measures in this
bill were included in our general proposal. Let us first deal
with the elimination of the intensity rule.
1620
For those who do not know what the intensity rule is all about,
it means that each time someone has
received EI benefits for 20 weeks his or her benefits will be
reduced by 1%. This means that a seasonal worker or someone who
relies on EI every year will get, after three years, benefits
representing 50% of his or her average wage instead of 55%. This
may not seem like much but for someone earning $600 a week 55%
of his or her wage is $330 and 50% is only $300. This difference
of $30 a week counts.
This shows clearly that the federal government is only motivated
by electoral gains. We all realized that the intensity rule was
unfair, that it did not achieve any of its goals and that it was
based on a false assumption, the assumption that people do not
want to work. To be completely fair, the government should give
back to these people the $8, $10 or $15 a week it took away from
them for three years. It was dishonest with these people, because
the government used the $8 and $10 cuts to fight the deficit.
Today we realize that it deliberately penalized these people in
a perverse and unacceptable way. I expect the government to
compensate them retroactively, as the amounts involved are not
huge.
That would be a way to show at long last that it was wrong and
now wants to do justice to these people, not so much because of
the amount involved but rather out of respect for the dignity of the
workers. It is important to do that and I think such a measure
ought to be included in the bill.
The second measure contained in the bill, the removal of the
discriminating rule of fiscal clawback for frequent claimants, is
the very principle of the bill. We have an employment insurance
system that should be funding EI benefits but a provision was
put into it that allowed for the clawing back, through income tax
returns, of EI benefits received by a taxpayer whose income was
over $39,000. That situation will be corrected, and I think it
should be. However, that is only one of 12 or 15 measures
required to have a comprehensive and acceptable system.
The same thing applies to the change in the definition of new
entrant or re-entrant to the labour force with respect to special
benefits. For example, women will now be allowed to take into
account maternity or sickness benefits received in the six
previous years to qualify for benefits under the system without
having to do 910 hours of work. However, regular benefits will
not be taken into account, only special benefits.
That means that a woman about to give birth to her first child
will not qualify under that rule. She cannot have received
maternity benefits before because this will be her first child.
This woman will not be able to qualify properly or more easily.
This will only allow the women who already have a child to
reintegrate into the labour market, and that is a good thing.
However, there may be the case of a woman who left the labour
market for several years for whatever reasons and who has a
first child. She will not necessarily qualify for maternity
benefits or be able use the hours she had worked previously. I
think this again is an unacceptable half measure.
The contribution rate will also be reduced to $2.25. What is
interesting here—and we approve of this reduction—is that it
leaves room for other improvements. In spite of this reduction,
the fund will still have this year a $6 billion surplus.
Every year, under the proposed changes, approximately $6 billion
will remain in the fund. That money will stay there and will not
be used for employment insurance. What it means is this “We
stole $32 billion from you. We are giving back $500 million. You
should be satisfied with this. So don't say a word”. That is
what citizens and workers and even employers are now being told.
In this regard, the proposed measures are quite inadequate.
As for seasonal workers, again I think that we succeeded in
convincing the government on the issue of the intensity rule.
During the last weeks and months, people have stood up in various
areas, especially in Charlevoix, the North Shore and
Lac-Saint-Jean, to let the federal government know that its
proposals were unacceptable. With their help and with the work of
those members of the House who are opposed to the Liberal
measures, we have managed to do something interesting.
1625
There is still horrible discrimination. Someone in our areas who qualified
between July 9 and September 17, 2000 had to work
525 hours to be entitled to 21 weeks of benefits. Had that
person applied after September 18, he or she would have had to
work 420 hours to be entitled to 32 weeks of benefits.
The only reason the minister gave for this was that the act
would have to be amended for those people to become eligible for
benefits retroactively. This is precisely what it is all about
today: amending the act. There was nothing preventing the
minister from introducing an amendment to remedy discrimination
against those people.
Imagine someone who has worked 460 hours being told that he is
not eligible because the required number of hours is 525. Even
worse, someone with 525 hours of work may be eligible but only
get 21 weeks of benefits, while another person who has worked 420
hours will be eligible for 32 weeks of benefits for the same
summer period. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot understand
why the government is not trying to correct the situation.
I want to say something to all those members in this House who
still do not understand what seasonal work is. I have listened to
the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance and I would really
like everyone to understand that the number of weeks worked by a
seasonal worker has nothing to do with the economic activity of
the whole country.
It is all very well to have the greatest economic growth, as we
do at present, a very strong economic growth, but that does
nothing in a sector in which there is 18 weeks work. An example
of this is the peat bogs, where digging up the peat is very hard
work, and there is 18 weeks of work. What is the point of
selling more peat, when after 18 weeks there is no more work. The
price of peat may go up but that does not make any more work.
The same thing goes for several other sectors. In the lower St.
Lawrence area, the tourist season is of a certain duration in
summer and a certain duration in winter, but in between there is
no work, nor will any pop up tomorrow morning. It will be a long
time before there is any.
I would like it to be understood that seasonal workers are not
lazy and unwilling to work. They are people who work in an
industry that is seasonal in nature.
This situation must be remedied by providing the seasonal
workers with special status, one that is the same throughout
Canada. They must be able to qualify with 420 hours worked, and
receive 35 weeks benefits, whether they live in Halifax,
Edmunston, Rivière-du-Loup, Gaspé, on the north shore, or
anywhere else. They need to qualify in the same way, because the
sector of industry in which they work has no connection with the
number of hours and the unemployment level in their region.
Since the rate of unemployment is dropping, the iniquities are
more obvious. Now that unemployment has gone down, in certain
regions, 550 or 600 hours are required in order to qualify.
Seasonal workers cannot accumulate that many hours; there is not
enough work for them.
The main theme of the present EI system is discrimination. Young
people are being discriminated against. In my area, a young
person who enters the workforce needs 910 hours of work to
qualify, instead of 420 hours. This means twice as many hours of
work.
Do you know what this means in an area like mine? This means
that young people are all leaving for Quebec City or Montreal. A
year later, when you need them, they are gone and have found work
elsewhere. This is how our regions are being emptied. Our young
people are leaving. Not only are we depriving them of an income,
but the whole region as well, while we may need them in other
sectors. Qualified workers will be needed in those sectors. This
is unacceptable because our regions are being emptied, and this
is unacceptable to all young Canadians.
A Liberal member told me “If we lower them, they will drop out
even more”. This is not the right way to help young people join
the workforce. The right way is to make sure that they get proper
training and have confidence in their abilities, not to hit them
over the head. This is not the answer. This is not how it is
done.
We must ensure that they can work long enough, without being
discriminated against, otherwise we would using the same rule as
for seasonal workers.
1630
Maybe it will take a few more months to convince the Liberal
government. We convinced the government in the case of seasonal
workers and we will do the same for young people.
We need a measure and a decision before the next election. We
could solve all these questions before the next election. We
could do it in the next few days if we wanted to. If we do not
want to solve these issues prior to the election, Quebecers and
Canadians will do so at the polls. They will send another
message to the Liberal government.
Let me quote the words of the Prime Minister.
He said: “Employment-insurance was implemented to eliminate the
deficit.” The message was very clear for all liberals and I
repeated it here in the House in several speeches. I told them:
“If you do not adopt measures to rectify the EI situation you
will get defeated with an even greater margin than the last time
in Atlantic Canada, in Eastern Quebec, and in all the regions
where there are a great number of seasonal workers”.
This warning still stands. Liberals must understand that nobody
is applauding those small changes to the employment-insurance
system. People everywhere in the country have understood that if
we want more, we must put the requirements on the table quickly,
before the next election. After that, maybe the people across
the way will pay less attention.
They may not want to listen. I have a prediction to make that may
be of some interest to the Liberal members. They will be asked a
lot of questions on this issue.
When the minister announced the three proposed changes in a
press conference, a reporter asked her three times if the changes
would eliminate all the inequities in the legislation. Not once
was the minister able to provide an answer. She was so totally
out of it that she was unable to defend her bill here today. She
had the parliamentary secretary tackle the job. That is terrible.
The message remains the same. It is always here. The stakes are
the same. If the Liberal majority believes the changes proposed
in this bill are enough, they will surely have a political price
to pay. It will be on the minds of voters throughout Canada, but
particularly in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, where measures are
needed to correct the situation.
Employment insurance is also unfair to students. Are the members
aware that the EI premiums paid by a student who earned $2,000 or
less at a summer job are not refundable?
This is totally unacceptable. People pay premiums to an
insurance program but are unable to receive any benefit, even
when they are eligible. The benefits to which they would normally
be eligible are not refundable.
The same principle applies. The prime minister wants to grab all
the money he can.
The government is going to prey on the weak, it will make sure
that students, who are not organized in that regard, cannot
recover the premiums they pay by setting a limit. It is almost as
if it were laughing at them. It is telling them they will pay
premiums but will not get their money back. This is another form
of discrimination.
That program is also out of touch with the social realities
facing workers. For example here are the coverage rates for
regular benefits since 1995. In 1995, 52% of workers were
covered; in 1996, 49%; in 1997, 42%; in 1998, 43%; and in 1999,
42%. We now have an insurance plan under which nobody is covered.
Let us look at the same percentages for young people: in 1995,
44% were covered. In 1996, the proportion was 38%; in 1997, 26%;
in 1998, 25%; and in 1999, 24%. Do you understand what I was
saying earlier? They are forced to pay premiums, but only one out
of four is eligible for benefits. They no longer think that it is
simply an insurance plan which does not work, they are under the
impression that they are being robbed by the government. That is
exactly what our young people think.
This is also true for women. In 1995, 51% of unemployed women
received regular benefits. In 1999, that percentage had dropped
to 38.4%.
1635
Will the very modest measure taken today correct the situation?
No. I can predict that one, two or three years down the road, we
will realize that that was not enough, that we kept intact a
system where the lowest possible benefits are paid out and as few
people as possible qualify, so that the government can coffer as
much money as possible.
I submit that we must read the fine print to see how the benefit
rates will be established in the future. I think that the
government is trying to pull a fast one on us. Instead of having
to put the money back into the account, as the act currently
provides, the government could say that that is just a payroll
tax and that it does not have to replenish the EI account. That
means that the government will never have to pay back the $32
billion surplus that will have accumulated by December 31, 2000.
We must keep a close eye on that. Not only was the money taken
and spend elsewhere, but the entire financial, accounting system
is being diverted. With one stroke of the pen, the obligation for
the government to put the money back into the system is removed.
Since 1994, the Liberals have accumulated a $38 billion surplus.
It will be $32 billion by December 31, 2000, but that is because
there was a deficit at the beginning of the period.
Since 1994, this $38 billion surplus has not been put back into
the plan, but has been used instead to eliminate the deficit. It
remains to be seen if the effort is the same in other areas. Let
us try to see if the same kind of demand was put on high-income
people, to make sure that they contribute. Were these people
more able, or less able, to afford to fight the deficit?
The true objective of the reform was to save money. I was
speaking about the total accumulated surplus, which was
$5.7 billion in 1996, $12 billion in 1997, $19 billion in 1998,
$25 billion in 1999 and $32 billion in 2000. Hon. members surely
recall the day when, in response to a question, the Minister of
Finance stated that the money was spent. This was a revelation
to many. This account is absolutely not managed in an open
manner.
We had to seek all the elements one by one to be able, at the
end of the day, to prove without a doubt that this program was
only a way for the federal government to keep the money in its
coffers. I think that the Liberals are really going to pay the
price for that during the next election.
Today, everybody has a clear understanding of the surplus issue
and of the fact that it was used for purposes other than those
for which the money was collected in first place. And this is
still going on. If the government does not reform this plan
completely and just makes small changes, Canadians will not be
fooled in the next election, and they will make decisions to
really show the government that they do not have to put up with
such a situation.
The plan must be totally modified. I gave some examples, such as
the universal status for seasonal workers.
The abolition of the clawback rule in the case of frequent
recipients is already in the law. We should also lower to 300
hours the eligibility criteria for special benefits, such as
maternity leave, if we want women to really qualify, so that we
can have an assurance until the federal government finally
abides by the law and gives the money back to Quebec, thereby
allowing Quebec to put its parental system in place.
Here again, our society is trailing. Between you and me, the
parental system is not a matter of unemployment insurance. It
should be an independent system that can be financed, among
other things, by the employment insurance fund as set out in the
act, but it should not be linked to qualifying conditions of
this type, to make it easier to qualify so that young couples
can have children under economically acceptable conditions.
Coverage of insured earning should be raised from 55% to 60%,
which is very important according to me. Today's society is one
of economic growth. Wealth is being created. The problem is that
those who most vigorously fought against the deficit do not
enjoy the benefits of wealth creation. They have been squeezed
like lemons. They have made sacrifices over a period of five
years and now, we are not ready to give them what belongs to
them.
The government is giving tax reductions—and I have nothing
against tax reductions—but there is surely a way to allow a 5%
increase, from 55% to 60% of their average wage, for those
making $300 a week so that they have enough money to feed their
children, support their family and enjoy a moderate level of
dignity in order to live a happy life.
1640
This is an important demand that is not found in the bill. It
will not come from the government, but it will be one of the
issues in the coming federal election. Canadians must have an
employment insurance system that provides an adequate average
benefit income, an EI system that allows people to be eligible
under acceptable requirements and that is based on the principle
that, as a whole, people want to work, are willing to work, are
looking for jobs, but when there is none, they should be able to
receive a decent income.
The discourse that has been going on here for the last five
years must no longer be heard in the House of Commons.
When we are told that many jobs are being created and this is
how the problem will be solved, we must know that job creation
is indeed important. But despite the creation of more jobs,
there will always be people who are in a situation where they
need some extra income. They do essential tasks in society that
need not be full time jobs. This reality must be part of our
experience as parliamentarians, to show Canadians and Quebecers
that we are aware of this reality.
We must also be able to suggest other measures. Some people
talked about lowering the premium rate. There is something
interesting being done in this regard. There is the creation of
the independent fund. All the problems we are facing here, the
fact we are forced to debate them here, would be solved if there
were an independent fund.
If it were employers and employees, those who finance the system,
who determined the system's conditions, there would be some
pretty heated discussions on the joint board of administration.
They could discuss and even if sometimes they were not happy with
negotiations, in the end, the rate would be determined by the
people who are financing the system.
There would not be a third party which would come and take money
from the employment fund to pay for embassies or finance other
expenditures that should be paid for with taxes collected by
government. Control by an independent fund would be an essential
measure that is not present here and that should be at the heart
of a bill making changes to employment insurance.
Judging by the way the Liberal government is changing things, I
doubt we will have a new EI law tomorrow morning. I believe we
are bound by many elements. There are the pressures we have
exerted where we have convinced people by the logic of our
argumentation that we were right and that changes were necessary.
There were public demonstrations where people from all over
Canada told the government: “Listen, you will give us back our
share.” There are also legal challenges coming up, some of them
have already begun, notably by the CSN, to ensure that, in the
end, the federal government does not act illegally.
The factor that is most important maybe for the Liberal
majority, the Prime Minister in particular, is the issue of the
next election. If the government is taking only this factor into
account, it should consider the situation seriously so that we
can settle this issue as fast as possible.
Consequently, it must put all these measures in the bill,
including delegation of parental leave administration.
The bill does not contain those measures. However, it provides a
few other things we will support because people need to have
their benefits as quickly as possible.
However, I challenge Liberal members to travel in the area, like
the hon. member for Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet,
who was in Rivière-du-Loup last week. He flew in on a government
helicopter. He said, and this is almost a direct quote “I came
here to tell you the truth, because the member for the Bloc will
twist the facts”.
In Rivière-du-Loup, the radio anchorman had this comment
“Unfortunately, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Temiscouata—Les Basques has been
saying for four years now that these things had to be changed.
You never said a word about this”.
The member for Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet had
even been travelling to the area. About a month or month and a
half earlier on TVA, he had participated in an interview with
the member of the National Assembly, Rosaire Bertrand. He had
said at the time that no changes were needed, that the act was
perfect, that things were going well and that was the way they
dealt with the situation.
Well, this defender of the established order, who talks only
when his government allows him to, was publicly rebuked by the
people in my area because this is not the way they expect their
political representatives to behave.
1645
The Bloc Quebecois has brought something new to federal
politics. Bloc members speak out and express the opinion of the
people. They act as defenders of Quebecers and of the
disadvantaged.
The next election will offer us an opportunity. I am issuing an
invitation to Liberal members: we are ready to meet them in any
forum on this issue. The government's record on employment
insurance has to be examined. When the time comes to give marks
to the Liberal government and see if it gets a passing grade,
seasonal workers in our ridings will tell those “You don't get a
passing grade.
Unfortunately, as MPs, you do not pay employment insurance. You
will cope some other way and, when you're gone, you'll find
yourselves a job. But we will not trust the government again,
because we said four years ago that it could change things, and
it did not change them”.
I think the few amendments on the table are inadequate. This is
not what people are waiting for. They expect justice in this
matter. In the end, it is a question of justice. It is a
question of those who pay, who finance the system, benefiting
from it. It is a question of enabling our society, which
claimed to have programs to ensure social equality, to make sure
the social programs exist in order to permit a better
distribution of wealth.
Today, there is creation of wealth, but no distribution of
wealth.
These people are in intolerable situations. I find it
unacceptable that people do not qualify for employment insurance
because they are short 50 or 60 hours, when they have the number
of hours that were required in the past.
A person with a family, who earns $600 a week, gets $330 at 55%
of his salary. I challenge the members to live on that much and
make ends meet. This amount is not much more than what a person
gets on social assistance.
If the government wants to encourage people to work, it will not
succeed by trying to penalize them with rules of intensity. It
has been demonstrated that this does not work. The government
has said so itself. The government put it in place. It did not
work. The government penalized people for three years, but
nothing came of it.
Mr. René Canuel: Let it pay the money back.
Mr. Paul Crête: As the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane puts it,
now that we know for sure that the government stole from them,
it should pay the money back.
To conclude, I would like to urge the people in Quebec and the
rest of Canada to consider this bill as a first step toward an
in-depth reform of the whole program. The Liberal government is
going to have a very heavy political price to pay in the next
election, if it does not go ahead with the reform.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche,
Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-44, a government bill to
amend the Employment Insurance Act.
The bill introduced last week is a big step toward addressing
the critical situation of Canadian workers, especially those who
are working in seasonal industries such as fishing, tourism,
transportation, the auto industry, construction and forestry.
As the NDP critic for employment insurance, I welcome this bill,
but I am afraid that it does not go far enough for the workers
who need help but cannot get any, because some provisions of the
Employment Insurance Act make them ineligible for EI benefits.
1650
Looking at the proposed changes, I am very happy to see that the
government has finally listened to some of the suggestions made
by the opposition. I would like to say a few words about these
changes.
The government is abolishing the intensity rule. Claimants will
therefore receive 55% of their salary. The benefit repayment
provision is being amended; first time claimants will be
excluded from this provision.
For those taxpayers with a net income of $48,750, the maximum
repayment will be 30% of the net income exceeding $48,750.
Canadians receiving sickness, maternity or parental benefits
will also be excluded from this provision.
For parents re-entering the labour force following the birth of a
second child or who were out of the labour force for an extended
period, the retroactive period will be six years.
The premium will be set at $2.25. The maximum insurable earnings
will stay at $30,000 until the average salary in industry
reaches that amount. After that, the maximum insurable earnings
will be set according to the new average salary in industry.
On May 9, 2000, this House voted unanimously in favour of my
motion M-222 calling for a review of the employment insurance
program, which has been done, according to the government.
However, these changes do not totally reflect the unemployment
situation.
It would be a great pleasure for me to rise in this House today
and to be able to congratulate the government for having finally
seen the light. It would be a great pleasure to hear it say how
it has made Canadians suffer over the last four years.
When we suggest positive changes, we are told, “What is wrong
with these people, they are never happy”. It would have been
nice to finally be able to say that we are happy because the
changes are going to fundamentally fix employment insurance in
Canada.
I took a personal interest in the issue. As many Canadians know,
I toured Canada. I visited every province of our country. I went
to 22 cities and towns. I took part in over 21 town hall
meetings.
From coast to coast to coast, as they say, from Newfoundland to
Atlantic Canada to the Pacific, everywhere I went, employment
insurance was an issue.
Whether in British Columbia, the Madawska, Gaspé or the Acadian
peninsula, a lumberjack is a lumberjack.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill said today in her speech that
employment insurance led people not to work and companies not to
create jobs. This is wrong, completely wrong. The problem with
Alliance members is that they do not understand what seasonal
work is all about.
One of my constituents whom I know quite well—I believe he is
listening tonight—Jean Gauvin, a former fisheries minister who
intends to run for the Canadian Alliance, said last week that he
talked to the Leader of the Opposition and that the leader of
the Canadian Alliance had told him he was going to make changes
to employment insurance. I am afraid, because if he makes
changes to the EI program, it will be to tighten it up.
I hope people in my riding are listening to me tonight, so they
can really understand what the message of the Canadian Alliance
is.
I am sorry to have to say tonight in the House that when it
comes to employment insurance, the Canadian Alliance and the
Liberals are not much different. It is a pity.
1655
When the government says it is prepared to increase EI benefits
by 5%, I will tell members what this means. In the Atlantic
provinces, it means that most of the people working in the
tourist industry and in the fishery are working for minimum
wage, and $5.75 an hour x 50% works out to $2.88 x 5%, or 14
cents an hour x 35 hours, for $4.90 x four weeks, which is not
even a $25 increase.
The government has not understood, or does not wish to make real
changes.
Every time we have risen in the House to ask questions about EI,
we have never been given a clear answer. The government has
never come out and said that it has hurt Canadians and that it
is going to make changes.
The minister has always boasted about her EI cuts “It forces
people to get out and work, it forces companies to create jobs.
Today, there are fewer people on EI”. This is the same thing we
are hearing from the Canadian Alliance. That is why I say today
that unfortunately I do not see much of a difference between the
two.
As I mentioned earlier, I toured across Canada and I met various
people, including Jack McLellan, of Nanaimo, British Columbia,
who had this to say:
Last fall, I attended the funeral of a co-worker, Brian Gellhoed,
who was a victim of cutbacks in social benefits.
Brian committed suicide after his EI ran out. Too proud to sell
his home and the personal belongings he had accumulated over his
lifetime in order to qualify for social assistance, he preferred
to take his own life.
Another individual, a resident of Richibouctou, New Brunswick,
told me this during the tour:
I am 22 years of age and I am affected by the cuts. I used to
need 20 weeks of work to qualify for benefits. Now, with all
the cutbacks and the tighter eligibility criteria, I need 26
weeks of work and I am unable to find anything for that long.
My parents have helped me out financially, but they have their
own problems. I am not receiving EI and I cannot pay my debts.
I need money to live and I do not have a cent in my pockets. I
am discouraged and fed up with the system. This morning, I
stayed in bed.
I seriously contemplated committing suicide and this was not the
first time. Employment insurance must be made more accessible
for young people and the discriminating criteria must be
changed. We young people are discouraged and desperate. We no
longer know what to do.
Another person told about a bill introduced by the hon. member
for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Bill C-493,
asking that a worker who voluntarily quits his or her job to
care for his or her family get employment insurance benefits.
My time is almost up, but the message that I want to convey is
that the change that is needed is the one concerning the number
of hours required to get benefits: 420 and 910 hours, this is
discrimination against young people. For women going on
maternity leave, 600 or 700 hours is too much.
There are no seasonal workers in Canada. There are only seasonal
jobs, and workers have no control over them. It is the employers
and the government who have control. It is for all these reasons
that changes, major changes, are required.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I know that we have a staunch defender of the
victims of unemployment in the hon. member who has just spoken,
a staunch defender of seasonal workers. I know that the hon.
member has studied the employment insurance legislation in
depth. The proof is that he has travelled throughout Canada to
give people the chance to express their opinions on this.
1700
I would like to ask a question of my colleague as an expert and
a neighbour of my riding in the Gaspé. Can he confirm to this
House that the Liberals already possess, in the 1996
legislation, a clause that makes it possible to reduce to zero,
or close to it, the 5% increase connected with abolition of the
intensity rule?
I will give an example, that of the dividing factor. In the crab
fisheries, in certain cases—decided upon by the federal
government—the fishery is closed, sometimes after seven weeks
because of biological factors. Sometimes people manage to
accumulate the 420 hours in those seven weeks.
However because of the dividing factor, they divide by 14 the
benefits these people get, not by the actual number of weeks.
Hon. members will agree with me that 7 divided by 14 is 50%.
By abolishing the 5% intensity rule today the minister is only
offering seasonal workers 2.5%.
Does my colleague intend to support the amendments the Bloc
Quebecois would like to present, for example those concerning
the definition in the act of what constitutes a seasonal job?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for his question. He is my neighbour on the Baie des
Chaleurs. I come from the Acadian peninsula, and he comes from
the Gaspé.
It is surprising to see that the same problem occurs right along
the Baie des Chaleurs. We share the same problem in my region
and in his. I am happy he asked me this question. It gives me
a chance to explain this part.
With the dividing factor, the necessary hours can be accumulated
over 52 weeks. It is possible to go back 52 weeks in order to
qualify for employment insurance. That means that someone who
works 420 or 450 hours can go back 52 weeks. But when it comes
to money to be paid out, it is possible to go back only 26
weeks.
If most of the hours worked are at the start of the season, for
example, 400 hours worked at the start of the season, and the
individual is without work mid season because of fishing
quotas—and this applies to factory workers and loggers—and then
works only 20 hours at the end of the season, the hours are
calculated over 52 weeks. In other words, the person qualifies
for employment insurance, but the benefits are calculated on the
20 hours worked. Accordingly, the person could end up receiving
$38 a week.
In the report about my tour across the country on the human
impact of EI, I provide examples of this. People wrote me
saying “I earned an average of $400 a week, and I am getting
only $38 or $50”.
The Liberals' paltry 5% does not go far. It means absolutely
nothing.
This is why I said that Atlantic Canada could not be bought for
5%. It is not for sale. They are not crazy back home. There
is television. Tonight they are watching the news and I am sure
they are watching our debate. We are not for sale.
We supported the Liberals and the Conservatives for the past 100
years, and we are the poorest in the country. They never
managed to create jobs, and today they tell fine tales saying
they have again created jobs. It reminds me of Les Belles
histoires des pays d'en haut. It does not work this way in
Atlantic Canada.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-44 calls itself an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act. I think the Liberals should be honest. They should call it
what it is. It is an act that is intended to tinker with the EI
system so that they can buy back some of the votes of the
millions of Atlantic Canadians who abandoned the Liberal Party
out of rage and fury for the Liberal Party abandoning them.
Pre-election cynicism is what it really is. It is no wonder that
Canadian voters get cynical about the electoral process. They
can surely see right through this.
Bill C-44 is an insult to Canadian workers. It is an insult to
building trades workers, Atlantic fisheries workers and forestry
workers all across the country. Workers should be offended.
They are calling my office and telling me that they are offended
because the Liberal Party did not listen to the experts on this
issue. The experts are there. The experts have done the
research. They have made that research available and the Liberals
have chosen to ignore it.
Nobody in the country knows more about EI than the hon. member
for Acadie—Bathurst who did a cross-country national tour
consulting with Canadians. The Liberals chose to ignore that.
The national building trades council has studied every aspect of
unemployment insurance and made reasonable, balanced
recommendations and the Liberals ignored that. The Canadian
Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, industry
representatives from labour and management have told the
government that the EI system is broken, the wheels have fallen
off and it does not work anymore and the Liberals still have
chosen not to fix it.
1705
If the Liberals were honest they would change the name of the
employment insurance fund because to use the word insurance is
fraudulent in itself. The word is misleading and deceptive. It
should really be called the Liberals' big cash cow because that
is what it has been in the years since they made the devastating
changes to it. What were the changes?
In my riding alone, $20.8 million a year has been sucked out.
Already it is the third poorest riding in the country just
because of these EI changes. What happens to these people? They
get pushed on to provincial welfare. It is a way for the federal
government to offload its responsibilities to provide income
maintenance and insurance on to the provinces which then have to
pay city welfare. It is no wonder people are furious.
The bill tinkers with the EI problems. It does two things. It
eliminates the intensity rule. Big deal. The member for
Acadie—Bathurst pointed out how insignificant and trivial that
is. The bill changes the clawback provision back to where it
used to be, not to improve it, not even all the way back. It
used to be that EI did not get clawed back unless a person made
$63,000 a year. Then it went down to $48,000. Then it went down
to $39,000. Now it is being put back up to $48,000 and the
government expects us to celebrate.
Two things that really cost Canadian workers are the divisor
rule and the eligibility rule. They have been structured so
nobody qualifies for EI anymore, but everybody has to pay into
it. It is no wonder there is a surplus, a $750 million a month
surplus. No, I was not heard incorrectly; that is per month, not
per year. The amount of $750 million per month is being taken
out of the system by the Liberals and it is not being put back
into income maintenance where it belongs. What kind of insurance
policy is that?
What if someone were forced to pay insurance on a house year
after year and when the house burned down the person had a less
than 35% chance of ever collecting any insurance benefit on it?
That is no longer an insurance policy.
To deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific
purpose and to use it for something entirely different in the
best case scenario is a breach of trust and in the worst case
scenario is out and out fraud. The Liberals have been
perpetrating this fraud on Canadian people all these years and
milking it for every cent it is worth. Thirty-four billion
dollars that should have gone into income maintenance for the
people who arguably need it the most, the unemployed workers,
have gone to pay down the deficit. This is a misuse of funds and
a breach of trust. It is dishonest and I say it is out and out
fraud.
I do not think I have to explain the divisor rule. Every working
person in this country knows the EI system and knows what the
divisor rule is. That is what has really cost workers. The dead
weeks are factored in when averaging out the benefit. It used to
be the benefit would be calculated by averaging out the weeks
worked. Now it is averaging out all of the weeks in the previous
26 weeks even if the person did not work in those weeks.
I used to represent the carpenters union. A couple of years ago
members of the carpenters union would make $400 or $450 a week as
their EI benefit, 55% of their gross earnings. Now with the
divisor rule which factors in the dead weeks, the amount is $180
or $220 week, almost 50% less.
With the tinkering that goes on, the Liberals chose very
selectively the two things that are not going to cost them squat.
The government will still have a gross surplus of funds that
will not go into an EI fund because that is a misnomer, but into
general revenues for the government to use for whatever it wants.
That is where the breach of trust comes in.
My party did a comprehensive brief on this issue. I see it on
the desk of the member for Acadie—Bathurst. It is a well
developed, comprehensive document that was the result of a
national cross-country tour. We received input from concerned
citizens from all walks of life, not just labour, but management
as well who are very concerned about our dysfunctional,
completely broken EI system. The government chose to ignore those
meaningful recommendations.
The building trades council arguably has the most knowledgeable
people on the EI issue in the labour movement because it directly
affects so many of its 400,000 members. It had a good seven
point plan with realistic proposals that would have made the
system work. In other words, the money taken off paycheques
would go toward income maintenance or training, one or the other.
None of these things were picked up.
1710
Even the detail about apprenticeship has been ignored by the
government. When I was going through my apprenticeship the first
two weeks of an EI claim were paid. It was not treated like an
unemployment insurance claim; it was a training benefit. That
aspect of the EI fund was very beneficial. Using EI money, seats
were purchased at the community college. Now apprentices are
charged tuition at community colleges as if they were going to
university or something.
Again in a situation where the fund is showing a surplus of $750
million a month, how does the government justify squeezing that
last little bit out of something like the apprenticeship system?
It is unconscionable. I am really horrified by the whole thing.
People thought with some optimism that leading up to an election
they could expect some improvement, that the Liberals would make
it right again. They thought they could expect the Liberals to
use the money that is deducted from their paycheques honestly.
What do we get? Instead of real improvements, we get this little
package, Bill C-44, with tiny tinkering steps that will not
benefit very many workers.
Thirty-five per cent of unemployed people quality for benefits,
25% of women. There is a huge gender bias in the current EI
system which the Liberals have failed to address as well.
Less than 15% of unemployed youth qualify for EI, even though
under the new hours bank system contributions are credited by
hours. Youth working part time have to pay in. They never had
to pay in before if they worked under a certain number of hours
per week. Now everybody has to pay in but there is a less than
15% chance of ever collecting any benefit.
It ceased to be an insurance program a long time ago. It is
dishonest and disingenuous to call it such any longer. Let us
call it what it is. It is a cash cow. It is a transparent
attempt to buy back some of the votes of the good people of
Atlantic Canada who so resoundingly rejected the Liberal Party
for being so callous and indifferent to them in the first place.
The Liberals take money off a worker's cheque for heaven's sake
and use it to pay down the deficit or to give tax breaks to the
wealthy. As I have said before, it is like some perverted form
of Robin Hood, to rob from the poor and give to the rich. That
is what we are witnessing here. Incredibly that is what we are
watching the Liberals do but we will not stand by idly.
Fortunately I think we are going into an election and that will
give us a platform to expose those guys, to expose this travesty,
to expose what they have done to Atlantic Canada and what they
seek to do again by buying these votes back. The electorate is
very knowledgeable these days. People read the newspapers and
watch television. People pay attention to their paycheques first
and foremost. They know what is going on.
When I was a practising carpenter I paid $45 every paycheque to
EI and my employer paid 1.4 times that amount. That is a lot of
money. Of every paycheque, $80 or $90 was being paid into the
fund on my behalf in case of the unfortunate situation that I
would become unemployed and would require income maintenance.
Where is all that money going? The Minister of Finance stands
and crows about paying down the deficit. He is paying down the
deficit on the backs of unemployed workers. Are the Liberals
proud of that? They will not be for long. As soon as we get on
the doorsteps in the coming election they will not be proud of
that. We will ram it down the Liberals' throats, especially in
Atlantic Canada. I almost wish I were running in Atlantic
Canada. It would be a cakewalk. It would be fun to remind
people of what those guys have done to them over and over again.
People will not need much reminding. It is a top of the mind
issue. It is first and foremost. The Liberals will pay a
political price, mark my words.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member certainly must think there is an election in the air
by the way he rambled on. I have never heard such nonsense.
Imagine. He is an hon. member who considers—
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member on the Liberal side is saying that the speech
I just gave is nonsense. It is unparliamentary—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is strictly
debate.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, the member should know it
is not a point of order but he has not been around for very long.
The New Democratic Party member was talking about tinkering
steps. He said it was little bits. We have premium reductions
totalling $1.2 billion, program changes coming up to $500
million, a total of $1.7 billion. I am sure the hon. member
could not count to $1.7 billion never mind admit that it is a lot
of money for EI.
Here is what his brothers and sisters are saying.
1715
The hon. member has the unmitigated gall to stand in this place
and say that this is only vote getting for Atlantic Canada when
his own brothers and sisters in the AFL-CIO say in today's paper
in a full page ad that this is nothing at all about votes on the
east coast, that this benefits working men and women from coast
to coast to coast.
The Canadian office of the building and construction trades
council says that repealing the intensity rule and restoring the
single income tested clawback rule is sound policy for all
unemployed workers from coast to coast to coast, that taking this
action reveals a government with courage to take corrective steps
when they are needed at any time during its mandate.
I have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. Is
$1.7 billion about tinkering? What about his brothers and
sisters in the AFL-CIO and other Canadian building and trade
councils who fully endorse the actions of the government and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, this is what is
particularly cheesy about Bill C-44. It is frankly forcing
groups like our own caucus to vote for Bill C-44. Nobody denies
that for a long time we have wanted the intensity rule
eradicated. Frankly some of the labour groups likewise have to
acknowledge that they have wanted to get rid of the intensity
rule for a long time as well. It was one of three or four
irritants in the system.
I spoke to the carpenters union today. I spoke to the
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. I spoke
to the IBEW and members of the building trades council who are
terribly disappointed that nobody touched the divisor rule.
Nobody touched the eligibility requirements of 920 hours to
qualify and 700 hours to requalify. That is almost double the
requirement there used to be to be eligible for benefits.
The proof will be in the pudding on election day because these
groups will remember who the advocates for EI were and what party
tore the guts out of the EI program to the point where it is
dysfunctional and nothing but a cash cow for that party to spend.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I hope the ceiling does not fall,
as I would like to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre
for his brilliant analysis of the EI rip-off and the multibillion
dollar surplus that has built up on the backs of Canadian
workers. I deeply appreciate what was said.
It has to be said over and over again, and I hope by all
parties, that we cannot balance the budget by setting up a slush
fund. That is all that EI has become. It is a slush fund.
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate
that comment. I think all parties are aware that the EI fund
ceased to be an insurance program a long time ago. It is a
misnomer. It is actually fraudulent to even call it an insurance
program because it is anything but that. It is a cash cow for
the Liberal Party to use for anything it chooses, anything other
than income maintenance.
There was another point that came up. The hon. member over
there mentioned the $500 million in savings. That $500 million
per year in savings by eliminating the intensity rule and the
change in the clawback provisions accounts for 1.5% of the $34
billion that the Liberals have taken out of the fund, with no
excuse. Thirty-four billion dollars compared to $500 million is
1.5%, and the Liberals will pay a political price for it. I
guarantee it.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am certainly pleased to add my voice to this debate
for my party. What we have in Bill C-44 is plainly an admission
of guilt. What the government is admitting is that for the past
four years Canadians throughout the country have suffered. They
have suffered because of the reforms to employment insurance.
People have suffered in British Columbia. People have suffered
in Alberta and throughout western Canada. People have suffered
in northern Ontario.
People have suffered in the province of Quebec and people have
suffered in my home of Atlantic Canada. It is not just a
question of Atlantic Canada. This is a national question and the
government is a national disgrace.
1720
[Translation]
In the 1997 election, people were not afraid to express their
feelings about the government.
I listened carefully to my colleagues on the opposition side and
I want to congratulate them for the excellent comments they
brought to this debate.
I also want to say a few words about the comments made by
members of the Canadian Alliance. For some time now, we have
been hearing members of the Alliance say that the Canadian
Alliance is a national party, that they are there for all the
provinces.
Yet they have the audacity to say that seasonal workers are well
paid, when we know that a significant percentage of these
workers earn less than $10,000 a year. We hear comments from
Alliance supporters saying that the people in Atlantic Canada
are lazy.
[English]
Recently we heard the comments of the Alliance pollster who said
that anybody with vision in Atlantic Canada moved away. That is
a disgrace. In this day and age we should be talking of uniting
the country, not dividing it, not pointing the finger at a region
of Canada. That does nothing to unite the country. We have a
lot of work on our plate in order to do that. The comments
coming out of the Alliance do nothing for that.
We see surplus after surplus in the EI account, a total
accumulated surplus of over $35 billion. This year we see the
Government of Canada wanting to move a certain way, wanting to
rectify the wrongs of the past, but it is a wrong that represents
only $1.7 billion of that $7 billion surplus this year.
The member from the Liberal side said a while ago that we were
doing wonderful things. In reality people are suffering.
Children are suffering throughout the country. More could have
been done and they did not do it. The Liberals had a golden
opportunity to do it and they did not.
As I said earlier this week, what the government sees is not
light at the end of the tunnel. It sees an election. I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
What they have demonstrated is their inability to govern.
Canadian taxpayers will decide who is best to govern, who
approaches the country in a tolerant way, including every
province of Canada.
1725
[Translation]
Seasonal workers play an important role in Canada's economy;
they play an important role in the maritime provinces, in
Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario and western Canada. These people
must be recognized once and for all.
They play an important role in the forest industry. I can tell
you that, without our seasonal workers, without those people who
go out each year to plant trees and to guarantee the future of
the forest industry, the most important in my riding, we would
be in serious trouble.
These workers play a role that is vital to our economy
throughout Canada. And, once again, this government is turning a
deaf ear.
There have been demonstrations over the last months, but they
were totally justified. People came to my office, dignified
people with great qualities who could no longer plan their
future. Some of them had children.
Once again, the Liberal government did nothing to relieve these
people from this incredible burden.
[English]
There is a perception that seasonal workers do not want to work.
That is totally false. That is so false and so far from the
truth that it is not even funny.
What has to be done is that these economies have to be
developed. I agree, but if I take a person that is planting
trees this year, move him out of there and bring him into the
company, who will plant the trees next year? There is a dynamic
here that has to be understood. These people are not lazy. These
people work hard every day, put in long hours, and guarantee the
sustainability of our economies.
I will not put up with this. I will use my voice to defend
these people every time anyone in the House of Commons or
anywhere in Canada strikes them.
[Translation]
People want hope. They want to know that their children have a
future. This bill does absolutely nothing to give them hope.
The government also tells us that it wants to reduce EI
premiums. But considering the size of the surplus in the EI
fund, it could reduce them even more.
[English]
People are also asking for a tax break. There has to be that
balance. The government could have gone further and it has not.
It has not gone there. These industries and these workers want
to have that break in order for industries to hire more people
and in order for these workers to have more money to put away for
their children's education. The bill does absolutely nothing to
address this issue. Hopefully we will have a reasonable debate
in the House.
The Liberals are ranting. She is the only one here but
hopefully we will have reasonable debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): May I remind the hon. member
that we are not to mention whether members are here or not.
Unfortunately, there is no more time left for comments. When the
bill returns to the House, the member who just spoke will have
approximately five minutes for questions and comments if he so
desires.
* * *
1730
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant
to order made Friday, September 29, 2000, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Motion No. 12
under government orders.
Call in the members.
1805
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
– 182
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 74
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of Bill C-8,
an act respecting marine conservation areas, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, September
29, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-8.
The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on Motion No. 1 also
applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to
48, 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the
previous motion to the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yes to this motion and, as I mentioned, the member for
Yorkton—Melville had to leave.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members, with the
exception of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who had to
withdraw, are in favour of the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party, with the exception of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle,
who had to withdraw, are opposed to the motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting no to the motion.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against
the motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in support
of the motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
1810
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 171
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to 48, 53,
55, 56, 59 and 60 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the last vote to
Motions Nos. 4, 8, 10, 14, 21, 30, 38, 51, 16 and 49.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 51, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 49, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 172
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 4, 8, 10, 14, 21, 30,
38, 51, 16 and 49 lost.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We would like to add the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to
the motion just passed.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote nay.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of NDP present vote
nay.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting no to this motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I vote in support of this
motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I vote no to this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 9, 11, 23, 24, 31, 32, and 52.
1815
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
(The House divided on Motion No. 52, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 9, 11, 23, 24, 31, 32
and 52 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 33 and 34 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 57 and 58.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find there is
unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the
previous motion to the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting yes to this motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Davies
| DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams – 213
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
– 41
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 carried. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 57 and 58 carried. The next question is on
Motion No. 15.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting in favour of the motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Portage—Lisgar votes yea, Mr.
Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 171
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 83
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 22.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting in favour of the motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea for
Portage—Lisgar.
1820
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Clark
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Vautour
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 56
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 198
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 25.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting against
the motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative members are voting yea.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Portage—Lisgar votes yea, Mr.
Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 97
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
– 157
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 25 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 35.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: The Canadian Alliance members present
vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting in
favour of this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members
will be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Portage—Lisgar votes yea, Mr.
Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 35, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Clark
| Cummins
| Davies
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 74
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Rocheleau
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 180
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 35 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 36.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Progressive Conservative members vote
yes to this motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Yea, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to inform you
that the member for Repentigny could not be here for this vote.
1825
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 195
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 58
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 36 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 39.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded has having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote yea
to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Progressive Conservative members are
voting in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, Portage—Lisgar votes
yea to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Davies
| DeVillers
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams – 213
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
– 40
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 39 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 54.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that the
member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell could not be here for this
vote. However, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded has
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberals
voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote no to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will vote in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting against this motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, Portage—Lisgar votes
no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Cummins
| Davies
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 60
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clark
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 192
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 54 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe there is consent to apply the results of the vote just
taken to Motion No. 50.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 50, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Cummins
| Davies
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 60
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clark
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 192
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 50 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 17. A vote on this motion also applies
to Motions Nos. 18 to 20.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote no to this motion.
1830
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
are voting no.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting for the motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Clark
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Vautour
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 56
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 196
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 18 to 20 lost.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that the
member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has returned. I think you
would find unanimous consent for the members who voted on the
previous motion to be recorded has having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote nay, with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
abstaining.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote no to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting against
the motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting no.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 139
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clark
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 113
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CULTURAL INDUSTRY
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on Motion No. 259 under private members' business.
1845
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Ianno
|
Jaffer
| Keyes
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Mercier
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Solomon
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 64
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clark
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| de Savoye
|
DeVillers
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams – 183
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[English]
EMERGENCY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Income Tax Act should be
amended to provide a tax credit of $500 to all emergency service
volunteers.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take this
opportunity to introduce the motion on emergency service
volunteers. I thank my colleague for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding my motion. I look
forward to an active debate and interest in this matter in the
House of Commons.
This motion would lead the House of Commons to replace the tax
deduction, for which only a few community volunteers in Canada
are eligible, with a tax credit that would help all emergency
service volunteers in communities across the country.
As the House knows, emergency service volunteers, including
volunteer firefighters, currently receive a $1,000 tax deduction
if they receive an honorarium from their municipality. It is
conditional. Most rural volunteer fire departments do not pay an
honorarium to their volunteers. The motion would provide a $500
tax credit to all emergency service volunteers, including
volunteer firefighters. This credit would end up being worth
more than the $1,000 deduction.
As background, in 1997 the member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey tabled a bill then known as Bill
C-249, which provided for an increase from $500 to $1,000 in the
tax deduction for volunteer firefighters.
1850
However, as I mentioned a moment ago, that only applied to
firefighters who received honorariums from their fire
departments. Most rural volunteer fire departments simply cannot
afford to pay that kind of honorarium.
The 1998 budget adopted the recommendations of Bill C-249.
Indeed it extends the provisions of that bill to volunteer
ambulance technicians and other emergency service volunteers. My
predecessor in this place from Kings—Hants, Mr. Scott Brison,
originally introduced this motion as a result of representations
made to him in his constituency and in conversations he had with
people involved in emergency and volunteer services across the
country. He appeared before the subcommittee on private
members' business in June 2000 and was successful in persuading
the committee to deem this motion a votable motion.
[Translation]
In Quebec as in the rest of Canada, most municipalities have to
rely on civic minded men and women to act as volunteer
firefighters and protect the public in case of disaster.
Unfortunately, their work is not fully appreciated, so the
purpose of my motion is to recognize at least in some little way
their contribution to their municipalities.
They carry out their duties and protect their fellow citizens,
at the peril of their own lives sometimes, as was the case in
Warwick, in the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, where four
volunteer firefighters were killed a few years ago.
[English]
After years of government cutbacks and reductions, communities
both large and small rely increasingly on the help and the
dedication of volunteers who have had to step in and fill the
void created when governments cut back. That is evident today
across Canada, from Hantsport to downtown Calgary, with
non-profit organizations struggling to make ends meet.
The Government of Canada greatly underestimates the role and
importance that organizations such as food banks, support groups
and volunteer fire departments play in our communities. They are
an essential part of Canada's social fabric. When the Minister
of Finance announced the tax credit for emergency service
volunteers in 1998, he said:
As witnessed over the past year in floods and the ice storm, it
is important to recognize the extraordinary service provided by
the thousands of Canadians who register as volunteers in our
communities, mostly rural, and who provide essential emergency
services like firefighting and first aid.
My party and I are glad that the minister recognized something
needed to be done and that he followed up on a private member's
initiative from the House. However, it is time now to take the
next step, to expand this to a tax credit that will be available
to all emergency service volunteers in the country. Small
communities across Canada that rely on their volunteer
firefighters in times of emergency are being unfairly left out in
the cold by the current government. The Income Tax Act should be
amended to provide a tax credit to all emergency service
volunteers, regardless of whether the municipality can provide
them with an honorarium.
The current policy discriminates against rural firefighters, for
example, who rarely receive any compensation from their
municipality. I should say, and members with any association
with rural communities would know this to be the case, that in
many cases and to an increasing degree, volunteer fire
departments in rural areas are now carrying out functions that go
well beyond dealing with fires. The heavy burden of cutbacks in
medical services and other emergency services means that more and
more of these people are spending more and more of their time
dealing with issues other than fires.
In cases in my constituency I have spoken to people who spend 24
25, or 26 hours a week as volunteers. This is in addition to
their regular jobs. Yet they have no incentive, no compensation
under our tax system, because they reside in municipalities that
are too small to be able to pay them an honorarium.
When they are fighting fires, volunteer firefighters risk their
lives to help their fellow citizens and protect their
communities. It is not fair when some are rewarded for this
while others are not. Volunteer firefighters are essential to
rural communities. They risk their lives day in, day out.
1855
Let me quote an advertisement from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire
Department in British Columbia. It is a help wanted
advertisement and says:
Help wanted! Volunteers over 18 for year round outdoor work. Job
training required at no pay. Must be in good condition. Must be
able to withstand wide range of temperature extremes, and work
under any weather conditions. Must be able to lift their own
weight, and move at the speed of life. And do it all over again,
perhaps the same day. Must provide own transportation. Uniforms
and basic equipment will be supplied. Remuneration includes
respect, smiles and “thank yous” (Occasionally).
This advertisement sums up exactly what is expected of volunteer
firefighters. Clearly it indicates how rural communities rely on
them.
I do not think any member of the House or anyone in the
government would want to deny this reality. They would want to
be of help to the firefighters who are now excluded,
unintentionally, I think, but nonetheless very dramatically in
terms of their own well-being.
In Nova Scotia there are currently over 9,000 firefighters, most
of whom did not receive a tax credit for their service. In my
riding of Kings—Hants reaction to this motion has been
excellent. For example, Matt Dunfield, a volunteer firefighter
from the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department said in a letter,
—what has been proposed is a great idea as it covers all
volunteer emergency service providers, regardless of how much
they receive as compensation from the municipality they serve.
With this proposal maybe more community members will step forward
and offer their services to their communities well being.
Graham Murphy, who has been a volunteer firefighter in Windsor,
Nova Scotia, for over 25 years and whose father and grandfather
were both fire chiefs in Wolfville also said in a letter:
This bill if passed will be of great benefit to volunteer
firefighters serving our smaller communities as they often
receive no compensation for the sacrifices they make. The
current law does little for those truly unrewarded volunteers.
This bill is a small price to pay for a priceless service.
In closing, volunteer firefighters from coast to coast risk
their lives to help their fellow citizens and protect their
communities. All of them should be recognized for their
dedication by being provided with a $500 tax credit. I hope and
urge the government and members of all parties in the House to
support this motion.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today
proposes that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide all
emergency service volunteers with a tax credit in the amount of
$500 per year.
I thank the member for Kings—Hants for highlighting the very
valuable role played by emergency services volunteers in Canadian
communities. As I am certain we are all aware, many Canadians
provide emergency services such as firefighting and first aid on
a volunteer basis, especially in small and rural communities.
These volunteers give freely of their time and expertise to their
communities, often at considerable risk to themselves. They are
to be commended for their dedication and effort.
[Translation]
The government has long recognized that small communities are
often unable to maintain full-time emergency personnel, and
depend on the essential services provided by these devoted
volunteers.
In order to encourage the commitment of these individuals, the
Income Tax Act has, for many years, allowed an exemption on the
nominal amounts received from a municipality or another public
authority by volunteer firefighters in the course of their
duties.
[English]
This provision recognizes these volunteers often receive small
amounts to help defray the expenses they incur in carrying out
their duties and that taxing these amounts would be
inappropriate. To offer additional support the 1998 budget
increased this annual exemption from $500 to $1,000 and extended
it to other emergency service volunteers, including volunteer
ambulance technicians, search and rescue volunteers and others
who in their capacity as volunteers are called upon to assist in
emergencies or disasters.
1900
The motion we are discussing today proposes to go beyond this
existing provision. I would note that historically tax assistance
for volunteers has been restricted to amounts received by
eligible volunteers from public authorities. This motion in
contrast would extend a tax credit to all emergency service
volunteers whether or not they received any amount in the course
of their volunteer duties. The intent behind this proposal is
admirable in that it seeks to provide tax recognition to those
emergency service volunteers who do not receive any allowance or
honorarium.
[Translation]
But I think that passing such a tax credit would raise important
questions in the context of tax policy and administration. I
will, if I may, develop these points.
[English]
At the outset I would note that by implementing this proposal we
would in effect be providing emergency volunteers with a fixed
tax credit without regard to expenses incurred or time spent.
Under such a system the dedicated year round volunteer would be
receiving the same tax assistance as an individual who is called
upon only once or twice during the course of the year. This would
be difficult to justify especially as a dedicated volunteer is
likely to incur much larger expenses than a one time volunteer.
Moreover it would be very difficult to explain why such a
generous provision was limited to emergency service volunteers
only. Other volunteers such as hospital workers and coaches for
sports teams who contribute to their communities in different
ways would be very likely to ask why this credit was not extended
to them given that it appears to reward volunteer activity in
itself and is unrelated either to effort or expense. I am not
sure that I would able to offer a convincing answer to this
question.
While extending the credit to all volunteers would resolve this
issue, it would also be extremely costly for the government. It
would be important to keep in mind that volunteer service is
performed at an individual's discretion and without expectation
of personal financial benefit. To provide a general tax credit
for volunteers would be to ignore this very crucial point.
[Translation]
Furthermore, even if this tax credit were limited strictly to
emergency service volunteers, it would be very difficult to
ensure that it was claimed only by actual volunteers. This is
because tax assistance would no longer be limited to the amounts
paid by the municipality for which the taxpayer does the
volunteer work.
[English]
As a result, there would be fewer incentives for public
authorities to ensure that the credit was being claimed only by
actual volunteers. To prevent abuse a compliance mechanism would
have to be developed possibly involving a separate form or annual
certification. This would place a significant administrative
burden on municipalities, volunteers and the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, especially considering the large volume of claims
that would likely be made.
The current treatment avoids this problem to a large extent
because tax assistance is restricted to amounts actually paid up
to $1,000. Clearly, municipalities have much better control over
these amounts and who receives them.
[Translation]
In this context, the present $1,000 exemption for emergency
service volunteers is the most balanced solution, because it
provides tax assistance to these important volunteers in a
straightforward and transparent manner.
[English]
In closing, I would like to thank again the member for
Kings—Hants for bringing this issue to our attention. However I
feel that the motion as it stands before us today would reduce
equity in the tax system rather than enhance it and would be very
complex for volunteers and municipalities to comply with. For
these reasons I feel that the motion should not be supported by
the House.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Well, Mr. Speaker, there we go. A member of the
government is telling volunteer firefighters throughout the
country from coast to coast to coast to go away and not bother
the government with their very minor concern.
For him to compare soccer and gymnastics volunteers to volunteer
firefighters and first aid volunteers is the typical Liberal
approach to government, to divide and conquer. We cannot pass
this very worthwhile motion brought forward by the hon. member
for Kings—Hants because the Liberals do not want to. They do
not want to even seriously debate the issue.
1905
What the member from the Liberal Party just mentioned is
absolute nonsense. If the Liberals had any political will or
political backbone left they would look at this issue very
seriously. Next time there is a fire in a rural area, they should
go out with the volunteer firefighters at two o'clock in the
morning and see if the hon. member is there to help volunteers
save lives and risking his life in order to protect property and
people.
There are 28 volunteer fire departments in the beautiful riding
of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. They
wholeheartedly support this motion. The only change they would
add is that instead of $500 they would like to see it increased
to $1,000. I firmly believe that every first aid volunteer and
volunteer firefighter in the country should receive an automatic
$1,000 tax deduction.
There is a very fine gentleman, a great constituent in my
riding, Mr. Peter Sheen, who has volunteered for a long time with
the Beaverbank, Kinsac volunteer fire department. He brought to
my attention that he has to pay unemployment insurance and CPP
premiums on his honorarium. This is a person who at any moment,
in the middle of the night or at the crack of dawn, will get up
to go fight a fire.
Picture the life of volunteer firefighters in rural Nova Scotia,
although the situation can be painted right across the country,
in Inuvik, Victoria or St. John's, Newfoundland. They work all
day, go home and look after their kids, go to sleep and at 1 a.m.
the phone rings. They go fight a very dangerous fire somewhere.
They never know if it could be a neighbour, a personal friend or
a relative. They fight that fire until eight o'clock the next
morning.
All this time the volunteers are thinking about how they have to
get to their regular day job. The people risked their lives, not
only for their community but for their country, because that is
really what volunteer firefighters and first aiders do. They not
only represent their constituency, they represent their country.
Those people also have a full time obligation in their other
jobs. If they cannot meet that obligation, chances are they may
be dismissed by their employer. This is a risk that volunteer
firefighters have every single time.
It is not an easy job being a volunteer firefighter. They get
training when it is available. In rural areas where there is not
much access to funds it is difficult to get the proper training.
In some areas volunteer firefighters drive great distances to the
fire hall on Tuesday nights which is when most of the training and
meetings are.
All that gas and everything else which volunteer firefighters
pay for out of their pockets costs money. All they are asking
for is a slight little recognition in the Income Tax Act that
would give them a $500 tax deduction. I personally would like to
see it at $1,000.
There is no question that big businesses can deduct the costs
for their boxes at the Skydome and their car expenses. They can
deduct everything but a volunteer cannot deduct anything. That
is sad and absolutely scandalous. It is typical of the Liberals
who govern from the centre of the country and ignore its
extremities. It is okay to live in a big urban area where there
are paid firefighters but the Liberals have to get their heads
out of the city and back into the rural country where I live, and
where a lot of Canadians live from coast to coast to coast. The
government should understand that what the hon. member for
Kings—Hants is doing is an honourable gesture to these brave men
and women throughout our country.
I am not going to take up too much time but I find it absolutely
irresponsible of the government, or anyone else for that matter,
to turn this motion away. As the hon. member for Kings—Hants
has said, he is hoping for support from all people.
The government must remember, if it was not for volunteer
firefighters, who would protect homes in a rural riding at two or
three o'clock in the morning? Who is going to protect the
children? Who is going to protect the property? The government
should think about that the next time.
1910
Who was first on the scene of the Swissair disaster in Nova
Scotia? Volunteers, fishermen, search and rescue volunteers,
volunteers who gave up a lot of time. Many of them went on
vacation early in order to help out. It cost them a tremendous
amount of money but they did not ask for restitution. They did
not even ask for applause. All they asked was that the
government recognize their efforts and at least thank them. That
is all they asked for.
This small motion could be passed immediately by the government.
The government could pick it up and run with it. It could put
it in its election platform. It would go a long way in saying
thank you to the brave men and women of Canada.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
over 8,000 volunteers in Nova Scotia alone. My party and I
support the motion of the hon. member for Kings—Hants. I can
only hope that the members in the Liberal government over there
have been listening to every word I said, which of course they
have not, and that they understand what we are trying to do.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in the debate on this simple but very
important private member's motion. It will have an enormous
impact on recognizing the contributions that take place on a
pan-Canadian basis, from coast to coast to coast in every rural
community.
I would like to preface my comments with the remarks of the
finance minister who stated in 1998:
As witnessed over the past year in floods and the ice storm, it
is important to recognize the extraordinary service provided by
the thousands of Canadians who register as volunteers in our
communities, mostly rural, and who provide essential emergency
services like firefighting and first aid.
To be clear, the Progressive Conservative Party applauds the
initiative taken by the finance minister at that time. But the
current situation is that emergency service volunteers, including
volunteer firefighters and emergency volunteer ambulance drivers
as well, receive a $1,000 tax deduction if they receive an
honorarium from the municipality. This is punitive to those
smaller municipalities that do not have the financial capacity to
provide an honorarium in the first place. That is the issue at
hand.
The approach taken by the Liberal government during the debate
this evening has been nothing less than shameful. It is shameful
in the regard that it equates different volunteers, as opposed to
emergency volunteers and volunteer firefighters.
The comment was made that we would not want to give a credit to
someone who responds only once or twice a year. The volunteer
firefighters in my riding of Fundy—Royal, whether they be those
in the community of Upham, the volunteer firefighters who
participate with the professional firefighters in Rothesay, the
volunteers in Hampton, New Brunswick, the volunteers in
Cambridge Narrows, all of them volunteer time and time again.
They put themselves at risk. They are skilled professionals as
well.
This is the minimum that the House should be doing. I applaud
the member from the New Democratic Party who spoke from his heart
saying that this was the right thing to do. Quite often when it
comes to financial initiatives the NDP does not quite get it
right. He wanted to actually raise it to a $1,000 tax deduction
for everyone. The Progressive Conservative Party is advocating
is a $500 tax credit for all emergency service volunteers,
including volunteer firefighters. This credit is worth more than
the $1,000 deduction.
I am advocating that we recognize the immense contribution made
by volunteer firefighters and ambulance drivers throughout the
country. It is the minimum we owe the brave foot soldiers in our
communities.
1915
I also want to mention that volunteer firefighters go beyond
just responding to fires. They volunteer for activities that
fire departments get involved in, such as fundraising initiatives
and being on hand for large public events, parades and community
affairs. Having first aid training is also immensely important.
I applaud the previous efforts of Scott Brison, the former
member for Kings—Hants, who will also be the future member for
Kings—Hants. I also applaud the current right hon. member for
Kings—Hants for bringing this forth on behalf of his
constituents. It has been a pleasure to participate in today's
debate.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to give a very warm welcome back to my colleague,
the right hon. member for Kings—Hants. We have had different
debates in the House over the years and although we sit at
different sides of the table at this particular time, as he well
knows in politics things change rather rapidly. I was pleased to
hear his remarks. I see that during his hiatus from the House he
did not lose his sound logic and great eloquence in addressing
important issues, not only to the House but to the country.
The issue before us is one that is very dear to my heart, which
is why I felt compelled to get up and speak about it inasmuch as
volunteer firefighters, men and women right across the country,
especially those from a remote or rural community, are the
lifeblood of the community.
I represent an area in Thunder Bay that is looked upon as the
second or third largest riding in Ontario. Some of the places in
my riding are Hurkett, Dorion, Pass Lake, McKenzie, Nipigon, Red
Rock, Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber, Nakina, Geraldton,
Beardmore and Jellicoe. The one common denominator in all those
places is that they all have a volunteer fire department. These
volunteers put in untold hours for the safety and protection of
their fellow citizens. I say, without fear of contradiction,
that whenever I am asked to do anything on their behalf or attend
any function, I do everything I can because those members are so
valuable to each and every community in the country.
I also heard the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of
Finance respond to my friend's question about allowing a tax
deduction for these workers. I hope the member understands that
the only thing I can express to the Parliamentary Secretary for
the Minister of Finance is the very important job that volunteer
firefighters perform. I will also try to stress the amount of
time given on a voluntary basis, the amount of training they go
through and the amount of personal sacrifice that every volunteer
firefighter gives to his community.
Hopefully we will be able to reconcile some of the little
differences that we have in order to come to some arrangement so
that these very important people will be honoured perhaps a
little more than they are today.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak to the motion presented by the right
hon. member for Kings—Hants. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Income Tax Act should be
amended to provide a tax credit of $500 to all emergency service
volunteers.
It was not too long ago, in my riding of Markham, that we had
volunteer firefighters, and I appreciated the services they
provided for Markham.
If we had to at that point in time bring them on, even as part
time workers, it would have created considerable hardship on
the municipality and would have driven taxes up. Like myself,
the hon. parliamentary secretary who spoke and other members who
live in urban ridings, we recognize that this is not a problem
for most ridings because they have full time firefighters and it
is incorporated into their tax base. However, in small and more
rural type ridings if they had to pay for this type of service
they could not afford it.
1920
What we are talking about here is a $500 tax credit. If a small
urban riding had to pay for a full time firefighter we would be
talking about 60 to 100 times more in cost to the municipality.
These people give of their service willingly and do a tremendous
job. They volunteer not only as firefighters but in many other
ways for their municipalities. When they are putting their lives
at risk right beside full time firefighters, then it is important
that we honour their services.
From that standpoint, I will recommend to my party that we
support the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Kings—Hants. I think it is a great motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are discussing a motion that proposes to provide all
emergency service volunteers with a new tax credit in the amount
of $500 a year.
I want to preface my comments by saying that when it comes to
public safety officers, I myself have had a number of initiatives
with regard to police officers, firefighters and other public
service safety officers whom I believe serve Canada very well.
The Income Tax Act already provides an exemption for emergency
service volunteers in respect of honorariums or other amounts
they may receive from a municipality or other public authority in
the course of their volunteer duty. Prior to 1998 this exemption
was restricted to volunteer firefighters and could not exceed
$500 per year.
However, to help recognize the invaluable contributions of the
brave men and women who give so freely of their time and
expertise in their communities, often at significant personal
risk, the government doubled the maximum exemption to $1,000 in
the 1998 budget. At the same time, the exemption was extended to
other emergency service volunteers such as ambulance technicians
who also provide invaluable services to their communities.
The right hon. member for Kings—Hants, in bringing this motion
before us, has rightly pointed out that the benefits of the
$1,000 tax free amount are currently limited to those volunteers
who receive an honorarium or other nominal amounts. There is
currently no tax relief for those volunteers who do not receive
any compensation. We acknowledge that point.
However, the motion before us seeks to address this perceived
inequity by extending a tax credit to all emergency service
volunteers. I am not sure exactly how that is defined but I
believe that since this is a motion it is for consideration.
At first blush there is merit in the idea that all emergency
service volunteers should be treated the same. I appreciate the
position expressed in the motion that those volunteers who do not
receive any compensation for their time and expenses should also
receive some tax recognition.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the tax assistance
for volunteers has in the past been restricted to amounts
actually received by eligible volunteers from public authorities.
This has been a longstanding policy extending back nearly 40
years and I believe there are strong arguments for maintaining
that.
To begin with, the current policy recognizes that emergency
service volunteers often receive small amounts to help defray the
expenses that they incur in carrying out their duties. Clearly,
where a public authority chooses to offer this nominal
compensation to its dedicated volunteers, it would be very
difficult to justify taxing these amounts as income. The $1,000
maximum helps to ensure that only reasonable amounts can be paid
out on a tax free basis.
However, it is a very different matter when it comes to a
general credit or deduction for individuals engaged in a
particular volunteer activity. This principle applies to any tax
exemption or deduction where it is an across-the-board item. It
is a very expensive proposition.
Such a provision would have the effect of favouring a particular
group of volunteers or others whether or not they actually incur
any extraordinary expenses or even participate in any emergency
situations. That kind of thing would have to be resolved to keep
within the spirit of the motion.
1925
From that policy standpoint, I am not sure whether this
situation would be appropriate. I think everyone here today will
agree that all volunteers are to be commended and that their
various contributions are equally important. In this context, it
would be very difficult to justify providing a general fixed tax
credit to one group of volunteers and not to others. We could
expect there would be many volunteer groups who would ask why
their contributions were not similarly recognized and they would
be justified in doing so, I believe.
One solution to this quandary that some have suggested would be
to extend the proposed tax credit to all volunteers. Of course
all volunteers would then be treated equally, and I think the
member is trying to establish a measure of equity. However, I
strongly suspect that such a provision would be impossible to
sustain. Not only would it be very expensive for the government
in terms of forgone revenues, it would also be subject to
considerable abuse because it would be impossible to ensure that
only bona fide volunteers claim the credit. This would be
because tax assistance would no longer be restricted to amounts
paid by the municipality for which the taxpayer is doing
volunteer work, and would leave it up to each individual to
determine whether they qualify. That is problematic.
Of course individuals could be required to prove in some fashion
that they were in fact volunteers. However, I suspect that such
an approach would place a significant compliance burden on
non-profit organizations and volunteers alike and would be very
costly for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to enforce. This
would especially be true considering the large volumes of claims
that likely would be made.
I would note that the current treatment largely avoids this
problem because tax assistance is restricted to amounts actually
paid by the municipalities. I think the member would concede
that the enforcement is better in terms of the current mechanism
than what is being proposed by the motion.
Even if these problems could be overcome, I am concerned about
the message that we as a government would be sending by
implementing such a provision. We should remember that a
volunteer is an individual who performs a particular service
without expectation of personal financial gain. In contrast,
introducing a tax credit for volunteer activities would need to
provide a monetary benefit to individuals for becoming
volunteers. This would be an odd result indeed and one that we
would find very difficult to accept.
We should remember that we are talking about a principle, and
the motion before this place is to consider the advisability.
This is not a bill. It is to put ideas on the floor to identify
areas which have to be explored further. I think the reason all
hon. members come to this place during private members' business
is to certainly express their views and to raise points for
consideration, which is all I am attempting to do. I am sorry I
have upset the member but I want to put my position on the floor.
I feel that the motion before us would do little to improve
equity within the income tax system while significantly
increasing the complexity and cost of compliance in
administration. If implemented, the tax provision advocated by
the motion proposed by the right hon. member would also put
governments in an untenable position of compensating taxpayers
for their personal choice to become volunteers. This, in my
view, would steer us away from the notion of what volunteer
activities are all about and it would not be appropriate.
For those reasons, I do not believe that the motion as it stands
should be supported. I urge colleagues to rise in this place in
the time remaining and put forward their points of view. That is
exactly what private members' hour is all about.
I thank the right hon. member for raising the motion. When it
comes to our public service safety officers, dealing with them
and others who provide same or similar services should always
have the attention of members of parliament.
1930
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
just heard not what were the comments of a private member but
perhaps the official government position on the motion. If there
was ever a bureaucratic analysis of a motion we just heard it
with every typical government response and every reason in the
world why something cannot be done. Instead of finding a way to
make sure it can be done, let us find every angle there is to
keep a benefit away from people who serve us all and get
absolutely nothing.
I would be remiss if I did not speak on this motion because I
come from a district that covers large rural sections. Each
rural area has a fire brigade. Years ago they had many more fire
brigades. When I served in the local fire brigade in my home
town each community had a fire brigade. Each community managed
to come up with a small fire truck. Each community had a fire
pump and enough hose to get to most houses around. Living near
the ocean, we always had a supply of water.
However over the last few years, mainly because of government
cutbacks in funding to municipalities, federal government
cutbacks in infrastructure funding to provinces and provincial
cutbacks in funding to municipalities, local fire brigades have
found themselves trying to survive on their own merits.
They have done that in two ways. One way is to amalgamate. What
that means is the people who volunteer now have to serve areas
much larger than their own home region. They cover areas many
miles from the base of their current fire station or the fire
truck which they might have. These people are on call all hours
of the day or night. Many of us are looking at our watches and
saying “It has been a long day”. Many of those people are also
going home after long day not knowing what hour tonight or
tomorrow morning they will be called to go fight a fire.
What do they get paid? The right hon. member who introduced the
motion quoted an excerpt from an advertisement in a British
Columbia paper which said they get smiles and occasional thanks.
That is about what the volunteer firefighter gets.
In the area that I mentioned, the summer is not so bad. In
winter, when we have to plough through snowbanks and shovel lanes
to get to fires, these people do double duty. Nobody recognizes
the amount of effort volunteer firefighters make except the
firefighters themselves, their families and the people who they
assist.
In many rural areas we hear stories of lives saved, premises
saved and losses diminished simply because of the quick and
efficient work of fire brigades. These people ask for nothing.
They volunteer their time, efforts and energy for for all of us
so that we can go to bed knowing that if anything happens
somebody will come to our rescue. What do we say to them? We
smile and say thanks.
As members of this honourable House can do a little more. We
can approve the motion. We can pass the motion introduced in the
House to at least show them that we recognize the work they do.
The $500 tax credit that we are suggesting is very little. In
relation to their time and effort it means absolutely nothing in
the monetary sense. However, there is a sense of principle, a
sense of recognition and is of some assistance to these people.
Many of these people who live in rural areas, and that is where
we have our volunteer fire brigades, live in areas where there is
very little employment which means that their incomes are
exceptionally small. As small as this little gesture might seem,
to them it is beneficial.
1935
To hear people talk about how we can connive to prevent the
passage of a motion that would deliver this small token of
appreciation to people who give their time and effort for our
safety and the safety of our families is an insult to the House.
Hopefully by the time we vote on the motion the hon. members
opposite will see the light. They can listen to one of their
colleagues who stood up and volunteered to educate the financiers
in the government and to explain to them the reality between
dealing with numbers and dealing with people.
We are not talking about saving a few dollars. We are talking
about people who save lives. There is quite a difference. In
the larger areas of the country we have our fire departments
staffed by great firefighters but for them it is a job. It is a
trying job, it is a job that not many people would want to have
but at least they get paid for it.
The volunteer firefighter in reality does the very same work
under adverse and trying circumstances. What does he get? He or
she might get our thanks or a smile and sometimes perhaps not
even that. We have a chance to do something for them. We have a
chance to at least acknowledge the work that they do.
I feel proud to stand as a former volunteer firefighter who has
many friends who are volunteer firefighters. I saw their work
when they saved the house of a family member of mine. I saw lives
saved because of their efforts. I saw volunteer firefighters
push their way through snowstorms, through hailstorms and through
all kinds of adverse situations in order to be where they were
needed. Perhaps now it is time for us to stand up when we are
needed and be there for them.
With that, I congratulate the right hon. member for introducing
the motion on behalf of one of our colleagues who previously
proposed the motion and who will be here again to do a repeat
after the next election. I ask hon. members on the other side of
the House to reconsider their stance, to listen to their
colleagues who have agreed to educate them, to listen to the
members of the NDP who have supported this motion and to vote
accordingly when the time comes.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion brought forward by
the right hon. member for Kings—Hants which proposes to
introduce a tax credit for individuals engaged as emergency
service volunteers in the amount of $500 a year.
I have attentively listened to the debate. I listened
particularly to what the right hon. member for Kings—Hants, the
hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore and
the member from Thunder Bay had to say about the value of the
contribution made by firefighters in our communities.
As one of the members pointed out, those of us who live in urban
communities do not have the same problems as those who live in
rural communities. Speaking as someone from an urban community,
the House might forgive me however if I speak to this issue as a
taxpayer and as someone who has to look at the fairness and
equity of the system of taxes which govern all of us.
Taxes are not designed to apply to individual specific cases as
much as they are designed, as the hon. member knows perhaps
better than most, to the country as a whole. We must make sure
that the system is equitable for all if it is going to be
respected and accepted by all.
1940
The idea that the tax system should in some way promote
volunteer activities or other activities of a selfless nature is
hardly a new one in our tax system. In fact the government
understands the importance of supporting individuals who have
contributed to their communities and has taken steps to help
through the tax system.
[Translation]
As we know, the Income Tax Act, as the parliamentary secretary
pointed out, already provides for volunteer firefighters to earn
an annual amount tax free. That provision was substantially
strenghtened in the 1998 budget, when the amount was increased
from $500 to $1,000 a year, and the provision was extended to
other emergency service volunteers, whose contributions are no
less important.
The government has also improved other tax provisions, such as
tax credits for charitable donations, in order to facilitate
things for individual taxpayers who want to make donations to
their communities. For example, charitable donations of up to
75% of a taxpayer's annual net income now qualify for a credit
for charitable donations, compared with 20% in 1995. The ceiling
does not apply to certain donations or certain cultural
property, or to donations of ecologically sensitive lands made
after 1994. Our government has already seen how important the
issue was and has improved the tax system to deal with it
accordingly.
[English]
In addition, the government's 1997 budget moved to ensure that
individuals who donate certain marketable securities need only
include one-half of the usual proportion of the resulting capital
gains in their income. Following the reduction in the general
capital gains inclusion rate from three-quarters to two-thirds in
the 2000 budget, this inclusion rate now stands at only
one-third.
Why do I refer to these? These are important initiatives which
relate to this debate. They demonstrate the government's
commitment to supporting volunteers, generous givers and
non-profit organizations.
The motion before us proposes to go beyond these existing
measures by extending a tax credit to all emergency service
volunteers. This would presume to include those volunteers
benefiting from the existing tax-free amount, as well as those
emergency service volunteers who currently receive no amounts
whatsoever.
While the proposal I described would certainly provide greater
assistance to emergency service volunteers than is currently the
case, it raises a very thorny issue, not the least of which is
the cost to the public accounts referred to by the parliamentary
secretary and by my colleague who spoke before me in the House.
Therefore it falls upon us as responsible members of the
House, as has been pointed out, to consider that dimension. We
cannot just rush in and say, as one of the members reasonably
said, “Yes, we must find a solution to this issue”. Yes, we
must find a solution but we must find a solution that is balanced
within the tax framework that applies to all citizens and all
members of the country. That is what we are called upon to do in
the House, not adopt ad hoc solutions to questions which are
going to bring inequity and problems to the tax administration
and the way it is going to apply that.
That is why I would contrast the proposition with the other
charitable donation situation because this proposal goes
significantly beyond the scope of the current tax proposition.
It contemplates providing a tax credit to all individuals engaged
in a particular volunteer activity without regard to time spent
or expenses actually incurred.
The charitable donations credit, which provides tax assistance
in proportion to the amount donated by taxpayers, is a totally
different matter. Similarly the tax-free amount for emergency
service volunteers is restricted to these amounts received by
eligible volunteers from a public authority, typically to
compensate them for the expenses they incur in fulfilling their
duties.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed tax credit
would apply in equal measure to an individual who volunteered all
year round and an individual who volunteered perhaps just once or
twice during the year.
1945
While this would be difficult to justify, it would be even more
difficult to explain why the tax system should provide assistance
to an individual who provided volunteer emergency services on a
single occasion and not to a dedicated year round volunteer who
performed other services.
I would go back to my urban roots, if I may say, for the example
of reading to sick children in hospital, helping the blind, or
providing other services which many people in other communities
do on a regular basis without a necessity to be compensated but
with a sense of the community devotion which we heard properly
extolling the firefighters who are the subject matter of this
motion. The unfortunate distinction that I referred to could
well result if the motion were carried by the House.
I know the parliamentary secretary is extremely sensitive to
matters of achieving balance in the tax act. I am sure he is as
concerned as I am about favouring a particular group of
volunteers over another, whether or not they incur actual
expenses, extraordinary expenses, or even participate in specific
emergency situations. Surely it would be difficult to justify
providing a tax credit to one group of volunteers, while denying
tax assistance to all other volunteers.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: This is a shameful ignorance of
rural Canada.
Mr. Bill Graham: I do not know why the right hon. member
says this is shameful. It is perhaps shameful to the right hon.
member that we would want equity between all volunteers, but I do
not find it shameful. I find it to be just common logic.
We can certainly expect that many volunteer groups would
reasonably ask why their contributions were not equally worthy of
recognition. No doubt the right hon. member would rush into the
House with a motion for them as well. Eventually we would add
one system on top of another system instead of having what I
think the parliamentary secretary was addressing in his remarks,
integrity in the tax system.
I cannot believe that I am accused of being shameful when I
speak to members of the House about having a tax system which is
equitable, which avoids complexity, and which enables us all to
have an application that would fairly apply to all volunteers
across the country. What is shameful about that?
What is shameful, I would suggest, is proposing a motion that
plays to a certain audience for a certain electoral advantage at
a certain moment in time without looking at the integrity of the
tax system as a whole.
The government has demonstrated it is willing, able and actively
pursues the need for all volunteers to be recognized. It has not
ignored rural Canada. It has done its best for firefighters as
has already been pointed out by many speakers in the House.
I end my remarks by echoing the words of the parliamentary
secretary to which I subscribe entirely. Let us have a tax
system that is fair, equitable and as least complex as possible.
This would aid not only all volunteers. It would aid the
volunteers which the right hon. member is seeking to help and we
could all work on having such a tax system.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired and the item is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to address a very important issue I raised last
week.
My question dealt with the infrastructure of our colleges and
universities, and providing our students with the necessary
infrastructure to allow them to receive the best education
possible in this great country of ours.
1950
I was disappointed by the minister's answer to my question.
Canadians across the country believe post-secondary education
must be a priority. It is certainly a priority for the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
I am disappointed when I read the minister's answer; I am
disappointed not only as a Canadian, but also on behalf of those
who go to university every year. I am disappointed for
professors in colleges and universities, and also for all those
who try to give our young people the best education possible.
The minister said:
This government's priorities are roads and sewers. Honestly,
should our young people not have precedence over that? Students
are the backbone of a strong society. An educated society is a
healthy society. When I heard the minister's comments last week,
I could not believe my ears.
[English]
I asked the minister about it and we heard about infrastructure
programs for municipalities for roads and water. I
wholeheartedly agree but I think our education system, our
universities and colleges throughout Canada are also in need of
infrastructure money. I was very disappointed to see that the
minister and the government did not have the same priorities as
many Canadians and families.
Does the House know how much money the U.S. government invests
per student for post-secondary education? It is more than $500
per student, and here in Canada it is $144. I call on the
government to review this policy and take a look at
infrastructure for post-secondary education.
[Translation]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to explain the
government's initiatives in the area of post-secondary education.
As far as academic research is concerned, we have increased the
university research councils' budgets to the highest levels
ever.
[English]
Also we have created the Canada Foundation for Innovation by
investing $1.9 billion to help meet the demand for research
infrastructure. We have created the Canadian Institutes for
Health Research with an annual budget this year totalling $402
million. We have made the networks of centres of excellence a
permanent program, and the Canada research chairs program will
establish and maintain 2,000 chairs with investment of $900
million.
When it concerns students individually and their education, as a
government we have invested $2.5 billion in the Canadian
millennium scholarships program, which the Prime Minister was
proud to announce on our behalf. We have invested a further $2.5
billion in the Canada health and social transfer, direct payments
made to provincial governments for them to reinvest in the areas
of post-secondary education and health.
Further, we have provided new Canada study grants of up to $3,000
for over 25,000 students and that is over and above the present
$45 million in grants that are available.
1955
On the tax side, we have lessened the tax burden on students
through a number of measures including a federal tax credit of
17% on payments of the interest portion of federal and provincial
student loans. We have increased the amount of scholarship and
fellowship income that is exempt from $500 to $3,000. For the
first time, part time students with dependents can now deduct
child care expenses from their income tax.
The government is acting. I appreciate the opportunity—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September 25, I asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development to take concrete measures to ensure decent
conditions for seasonal workers as far as employment insurance
benefits are concerned. The minister answered:
It is obvious that having a job is the best way to earn an
income, but it is not an employment insurance program.
Employment insurance should provide an income to people who are
not working, who are between jobs. Since that time, the
minister's position has evolved a little. The intensity rule has
disappeared, but the seasonal workers' situation is far from
being permanently settled.
Should people, wherever they live in Canada, not have the same
status when they are seasonal workers, that is, having to work
420 hours to qualify for employment insurance and receiving 35
weeks of benefits, to ensure they will not be affected by the
changes in unemployment rates in the areas where they live?
Would this not be a way to recognize the work of these people
and to get rid, once and for all, of the bad principle that led
to the reform, which is that seasonal workers were not working
because they were lazy or did not want to work?
This is somewhat what the Prime Minister stated last week. The
government had a big deficit of $42 billion and had to find a
way to cover it. The way it found was to attack the poorest, the
most disadvantaged.
It will attack students, it will ensure that people cannot
qualify and pay premiums, or if they qualify, it will greatly
reduce their benefits.
Today, we saw during the debate that the minister herself was
unable to defend her bill. Could the government not take
advantage of the fact that we are in the middle of debate on
Bill C-44 to propose a series of amendments that would allow for
a real reform of the employment insurance system, and not a few
measures that will cost no more than $500 million in total,
while there will be a surplus of $32 billion in the employment
insurance fund as of December 31, 2000? This represents one
sixty-fourth of the surplus.
I think the Liberal government has to make an extra effort if it
is talking about compassion and if it wants to call an election
soon.
I challenge the government to go to the people and to say that
they did all they could to reinvigorate the EI system.
Moreover, last week at the press conference, three times the
minister refused to answer this question: “Will your proposed
changes solve all problems?” She was unable to answer the
question because these are changes that have been requested for
a long time but are far from sufficient.
Can we expect the government to act so as to resolve this matter
before the next election? Otherwise, the government will find us
on the fora, showing once again to the people that we were right
about the measures which have been corrected by the government
as well as about those which have not yet been corrected.
Can the government give us a dynamic answer that will restore
its true role to the EI system, which is to ensure a decent
living to the unemployed who meet acceptable conditions in the
economic situation we live in?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is very
astute. However, I want to challenge some of the negative
comments he made about the bill.
Our government cares about our seasonal workers and has taken
specific measures to help them. For instance, on September 13,
we announced measures to gradually phase in changes to the
boundaries in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec and in
northwestern New Brunswick.
2000
We just introduced Bill C-44, which includes many measures
designed to benefit seasonal workers.
But I want to point out that long term solutions to the problems
of seasonal workers call for improved work opportunities. I
think the member opposite would agree with us on that. This in
turn requires better co-operation between governments,
businesses, community leaders and individuals.
That is why we are working at the local level and with the
provincial and territorial governments to develop long term
solutions that would improve access to training for seasonal
workers, promote greater economic diversity in regions relying
on seasonal work—and that is very important for these areas—and
develop the capacity of our communities, so that they can decide
on their own what changes are best for them. There is nothing
like helping communities to help themselves.
Those are real solutions to help seasonal workers. Employment
insurance is just one of them.
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, let me just begin by saying something that may seem
self-evident but needs to be reiterated in these times of
political turbulence and countervailing forces.
The truth is that Canadians believe in medicare. They want
deeply to maintain a universal public health care system in
Canada today. They know there are difficulties. They experience
on an all too frequent basis in very real ways the lineups, the
waiting lists and the uncertainties, but they also know that the
system itself, the model of medicare, is fundamentally sound.
This is something government needs to know.
The government needs to realize that Canadians fought very hard
to get medicare and they will fight to keep it. They just want
the government to fix it before it is too late, before the
champions of privatization and deregulation, who really see
health care as an $82 billion golden egg, get any more hold over
health care delivery than they already have now.
Let me also say that Canadians are fully aware the inaction and
passivity of the government in the face of these formidable
forces are as dangerous to the future of medicare as the outright
support by Alliance members in the House for private, for profit
care.
Canadians are rightfully asking what is the real difference
between what Liberals are doing and what Alliance members are
saying. Is there really a difference when it comes to such
things as national standards ensuring that the Canada Health Act
is enforced and is moving forward with a vision?
Canadians want a vision, a plan and leadership. On September 11
the government had an opportunity to demonstrate a vision and to
present a plan that would take medicare into the future. In this
context, given the enormity of the task at hand and the high
stakes involved, I have to say, and I am sure history will
acknowledge it, that the Liberal government blew it. It missed a
golden opportunity to put back the money it had taken out of
health care, even though it does not come into effect for another
whole year and even though we will still only be at 1994 levels.
They did make a start and that has to be acknowledged, but what
they did not do was give Canadians a vision, a plan for the
future.
There is no home care. There is no pharmacare. Contrary to
everything the Prime Minister said in the House today, this was
not an historic deal in terms of where we go in the future and
how we ensure that medicare takes us into the millennium. The
government has let Canadians down and owes it to the people to
present a plan that will ensure we go forward absolutely
confident that medicare will be there in the future and that
quality health care will be accessible wherever Canadians live,
no matter how much money they make and no matter what
circumstances they find themselves in.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
for Winnipeg North Centre for the opportunity to emphasize just
how firm the government's resolve is to assure Canadians that
they will have access to the health care they need, when and
where they need it.
2005
[English]
On September 11 the first ministers gave their unanimous
agreement to a landmark health action plan. This represents a
comprehensive commitment to strengthen and renew Canada's
publicly funded health system. With this action plan, all
governments recognize that home and community care is a priority,
particularly in light of the growing demands of an aging
population and a shift toward more community based care.
[Translation]
The federal government is prepared to reinforce its contribution
by working actively with the provinces and territories in order
to meet future home care needs.
[English]
Another priority agreed to by first ministers is pharmaceutical
management. Drug costs are the fastest growing component of
provincial health care budgets. It is essential that more be
done to ensure that Canadians continue to have equitable and
affordable access to new, appropriate and cost effective drugs.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada also recognizes the need for additional
resources in support of its priorities.
Over the next five years, the government will contribute an
additional $23 billion to help the provinces and territories
implement this action plan. This is on top of the extra
$14 billion already made available to them in the past two years.
Canadians can rest assured that the federal government will be a
strong and active partner in renewing and strengthening Canada's
public health care system.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.07 p.m.)