36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 98
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 16, 2000
1000
| REPORT OF PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1005
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Environment and Sustainable Development
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-478. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1010
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
| VANCOUVER SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| YORKTON REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING 100
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| THE FAMILY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1405
| KURDISH REFUGEES
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL LIBERTÉ-JEUNESSE
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1410
| FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ST. JOHN'S WEST BYELECTION
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| LORI'S ROOM WALKATHON
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1415
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1420
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1425
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| BANKING SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1445
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1450
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1455
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Bill C-25
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Correctional Service Canada
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1510
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
1515
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Time Allocation
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1520
1525
| The Speaker |
1530
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1535
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1540
| The Speaker |
1545
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1635
(Division 1291)
| Motion agreed to
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
1640
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1645
1650
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1655
1700
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1705
1710
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Environment
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1715
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
1745
(Division 1292)
| Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
1750
(Division 1293)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 1294)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Report stage
|
(Division 1295)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1755
(Division 1296)
(Division 1311)
(Division 1312)
(Division 1313)
(Division 1314)
(Division 1315)
| Motions Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 negatived
|
(Division 1297)
| Motion No. 3 negatived
|
(Division 1309)
| Motion No. 9 negatived
|
(Division 1298)
| Motion No. 22 negatived.
|
1805
(Division 1299)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
1810
(Division 1300)
| Motion No. 6 negatived
|
(Division 1301)
(Division 1302)
(Division 1307)
(Division 1308)
| Motions Nos. 7, 8, 20 and 21 negatived
|
1815
(Division 1303)
| Motion No. 15 negatived
|
(Division 1304)
| Motion No. 16 negatived
|
(Division 1305)
| Motion No. 18 negatived
|
(Division 1306)
| Motion No. 19 negatived
|
1825
(Division 1310)
| Motion No. 23 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
(Division 1316)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
1830
(Division 1317)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Division 1318)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-276. Report stage
|
1835
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1840
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1845
1850
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1855
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1900
1905
1910
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1915
| (Division deemed requested and deferred)
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Environment
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1920
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1925
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 98
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 16, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
REPORT OF PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the 1999-2000 report of the privacy commissioner.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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 the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
1005
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
its standing order of reference under Standing Order 108(2), the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
undertook, beginning in the month of June 1999, a study on the
management of pesticides in Canada, including an evaluation of
the performance of the Pest Management Review Agency in
preventing pollution and in protecting the environment and human
health.
[English]
I therefore have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Making the
right choice, un choix judicieux s'impose”.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Wednesday, May 10, 2000, in relation to Bill C-24, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs
Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise
Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-24 and reports the bill,
with amendment.
* * *
[Translation]
BANK ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-478 to amend the Bank Act and the Statistics
Act (equity in community reinvestment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely pleased to introduce a bill
on community reinvestment by banks, calling upon the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions to assess the effort
being made by banks to respond to the credit requirements of all
citizens, particularly the most disadvantaged.
I am confident that this bill will receive the support of all
parties and I am asking the government not to call an election
until it has been passed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Under presenting
reports from committees I did not recognize the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona. May we have unanimous consent to revert to
presenting reports?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
1010
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance) moved that the second report of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities, presented on Thursday, April 13, be
concurred in.
She said: Mr. Speaker, although today's debate brings us to
report stage and a report from the committee, what is actually
happening is that the government is bringing in time allocation
on legislation. I am sad to report that this is an all time
championship, if one wants to call it that. The government has
closed debate and snapped time allocation on legislation which
does not even tie the Mulroney Conservative record but breaks it,
and we call this democratic.
We have a government that has just brought in time allocation on
the debate today for a record breaking 67th time. You and I have
been here a while, Mr. Speaker. You certainly know that we have
seen this happen time and time again. We saw it in the 1993
parliament and we have watched it in the 1997 parliament. The
government has not only matched the Mulroney record of time
allocation in closing off debate but has actually surpassed it
now in much less time than the Mulroney Tories were here. What a
shame.
I will highlight this travesty today and bring it to the
attention of the Canadian people. I certainly think that as
taxpayers they deserve to know exactly what is going on here and
how these folks across the way have become the king of the
ramrod.
I see colleagues across the way and I know that some of them
would not be proud of this. In fact, one of them even served
with the Mulroney Tories, as I understand it, and I do not think
he was proud of bringing in time allocation 66 times. Now he is
a Liberal, the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast for whom I have
some respect, and he is a part of the government that has now
brought it in 67 times. I know he has lived down here a while.
Maybe I could brand him one of the Ottawa 67s. I wonder how that
would make him feel.
An hon. member: If you don't like it then you should
change the rules.
Miss Deborah Grey: Someone is saying that we should
change the rules. What a wonderful idea that would be, but as
soon as anyone would get up to try to change the rules the
government would probably bring in time allocation or have a
meeting and say that it does not like it that way.
Something is ridiculous here when we see that there truly is an
anti-democratic disease that has got a hold of the government,
and it needs to be exposed. I noticed that some members on the
government side were free to write books about it and expose it a
while ago, but I have not seen an exposé lately about the sin and
corruption of government. I would love the hon. member to let us
know about that. He is trying. It is good to get into
government and give it a try from the inside. I think he knows
and we know that it does not work.
Canadians need to know what is happening here today so they can
judge for themselves whether they are being well served by the
government. I do not think they are. Right now downstairs a
couple of my colleagues are holding a press conference. They are
making sure that the Canadian public knows exactly what is
happening inside the Chamber here.
In six years the government has brought in time allocation 67
times. The government uses closure to quickly silence the
opposition of which it was a part in years gone by and will be
again sooner or later. Probably sooner. We can look at how it
uses closure to quickly silence the opposition on controversial
issues as opposed to stopping a filibuster—
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
just want to raise the issue of relevance. The hon. member is so
blinded by her partisanship she has forgotten that she has moved
concurrence in a committee report.
She is discussing a subject that has not even come up for
debate. I am not saying it is not a subject for debate, but she
is so blinded by that partisanship she has lost the relevance. I
am asking the Chair to direct her back to the subject of debate,
which is the committee report.
1015
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it not
serendipitous that I just happened to be consulting with the
clerk about that very thing and I just happened to have that very
report in my hand so as to ensure that when that challenge was
made the hon. Leader of the Opposition could be gently persuaded
to touch on the relevance of the motion.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get to
the topic.
I find it rather amusing, or maybe I find it rather sad, that
government members have to jump up and say “They are being
irrelevant”. Let me assure the hon. member, and let me assure
you, too, Mr. Speaker, that I will get to what is happening now
in the HRD committee. The hon. member has absolutely nothing to
worry about when I start quoting from this document and then
start quoting from that document. It is going to be so relevant
it will make his head swim.
Regarding time allocation again, particularly this whole idea of
report stage and what is going on right now with human resources
development, it is absolutely amazing that a member of the
governing side would stand to say “You are being irrelevant”.
If what has been going on with this tragedy in human resources
development over the last few months is irrelevant to Canadian
taxpayers, I would bet a dollar they would want to storm this
place. They know perfectly well that a government that is out of
control is a government that is mismanaging millions, in fact
billions of dollars. It is truly amazing that those members
would have the nerve to stand and say this is irrelevant.
Why would I want to upset, harangue or offend some hon. members
over there. Let us just get to the point at hand. This is when
it really gets good. Let us talk about transitional jobs funds
for a few moments. If that is not relevant to HRD and the
committee, I do not know what is.
Let us look at political manipulation. My point with time
allocation, which is certainly relevant, is that the government
uses it for things that it simply wants to brush out of the way.
Let us look at transitional jobs fund contributions. Here is
something in the HRD department that is painfully relevant for
the government and for every Canadian taxpayer. An access to
information request giving all transitional jobs fund
contributions by constituency since its inception three years ago
was analyzed.
Government members are quiet now. I think we are being
relevant.
Let me quote from this document. I will name the province, I
will name the amount of money granted through the transitional
jobs fund as a percentage of the total and the number of
projects that were funded as a percentage of the total. I know
they are aware of how relevant this is, so let me give a few
numbers.
In the province of Alberta the amount of money that was granted
was $3,548,154. My hon. friend from Edmonton Southeast knows
that we are a sizeable percentage of the population out home in
Alberta, but under the transitional jobs fund the percentage of
total money that was grated through the TJF was 1.3%. His math
is probably better than mine, but I know that 1.3% of the funding
went to Alberta, which has close to 10% of the population.
He also knows that there is a veritable dearth of government
members in Alberta. In fact, he is half. His friend from
Edmonton West is the other half. I do not suspect he would think
there was any political manipulation there in terms of granting
through the TJF. I would not think so. I would hate to be that
cynical to believe it. For Alberta there was 1.3%. The number of
projects funded—six. The percentage total—0.6%.
Do we see him going home to Alberta saying “I am from the
government and I am here to help you”?
I have not seen him around town saying that. I respect the fact
that he is not out flaunting or dishing out money like some
others would do. At the same time, if we were to look at the
bare bones and if people were to say that this is not politically
motivated, my colleague on the Liberal side from Edmonton, as
well as myself, would probably not believe them.
1020
Let us look at British Columbia. The amount of money granted
was $17,680,920, which as a percentage of the total was 6.3%.
B.C. has a fair population, but 6.3%? That seems rather strange
to me. The number of projects funded through the TJF was 64.
The percentage of the final total was 5.9%. It is not exciting,
is it?
Let us move to Saskatchewan. The total amount granted was
$5,230,555. As a percentage of the total it was 1.9%. Granted,
Saskatchewan has a somewhat smaller population, but 1.9%? The
number of projects funded was 43. The percentage of the big
total was 4.0%.
Let us move to Manitoba. The amount granted was $5,450,995.
That also was 1.9% of the total. There were 28 projects funded.
The percentage of the big total—2.6%.
Let us move to Ontario, which is a fairly hefty province in
terms of population. It was granted $31,308,862. Its percentage
of the total, with a huge percentage of the population, was
11.1%. The number of projects funded was 96. Its percentage of
the total was 8.9%.
Let us move to Quebec. The amount was $94,924,227 in terms of
dollars granted, making its percentage of the total 33.7%. There
is the province that is over in terms of population percentage;
that is, actual percentage in terms of numbers across the
country. There were 318 projects funded, representing 29.4%.
I know there would be some, if they looked up from their
newspapers, who would say “There she is being critical again”.
No. It is rather funny, but that is where the Prime Minister's
riding is and the ridings of others who perhaps had to buy a few
seats from the separatists. That gets expensive. An incredible
amount of money was granted, $94 million. As I am making sure
that I am relevant in this debate I will have a look later at
some of the things that have gone on in terms of the TJF funding
in the Prime Minister's riding and in that province in general.
Let us go to New Brunswick. The amount of money granted was
$30,958,605. As a percentage of the total that was 11%. There
were 143 projects funded. In terms of the percentage of the big
total it represented 13.2%.
Let us go to Prince Edward Island. The amount granted was
$9,724,041. That was 3.5% of the total. The number of projects
was 35. The percentage of the big total was 3.2%.
Let us go to Newfoundland. The number of dollars granted was
$49,800,368, which was 17.4% of the total, and 192 projects were
funded. As a percentage of the total it represented 17.7%.
Nova Scotia was granted $30,374,481, which was 10.8% of the
total, and 137 projects were funded, for a percentage of 12.7% of
the total.
The Northwest Territories was granted $1,795,675. The
percentage of the total was 0.6%, and 17 projects were funded.
As a percentage of the big total it represented 1.6%.
Then there is Yukon. The amount granted was $1,380,000. The
percentage of the total was 0.5%. Three projects were funded.
Three projects for $1.3 million.
As a percentage of the total it represented 0.3%.
1025
If we add it all up the lottery looks like this: the number of
dollars granted was $281,384,883, for a total of 1,082 projects.
It is a good deal. It is amazing.
I hear that my colleagues have returned from the press
conference, which was incredibly relevant. What they said at the
press conference was, when these kinds of projects are handed
out, when these kinds of dollars are involved, with the budget
that the finance minister brought down and trumpeted,
representing $13 billion in grants and contributions, and
whatever the bills will be to deal with these things in
legislation, the government says “All right, you have had enough
time. We are going to shut down debate”. We are talking about
$13 billion. That is big bucks. There were some members who were
screeching that this was irrelevant. No, it is incredibly
relevant.
What my colleagues will be bringing up later, and what they
discussed at the press conference, is that this kind of stuff
really irritated government members when they sat on the
opposition benches. Some members were not here at the time, but
government members were extremely righteous. How we remember the
shrieking.
Mr. Speaker, if you do not have the strength to sit through
this, I am assuming that another Speaker will come along, and I
certainly hope it is the member for Kingston and the Islands. I
have some quotes which are real doozies from him when he was in
opposition. I bet you a dollar he will think it is relevant, let
me assure you.
Let us look at some of the things that happened in terms of the
transitional jobs fund grants. There were a few anomalies. We
could look at the percentages and the dollars. There are lots of
ways we could describe it and explain it away, but let us look at
a few of the anomalies.
The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who is the Secretary of
State for Rural Development, received five transitional jobs fund
grants worth a total of $1,257,289. Three were given a month
before the last election. Mr. Speaker, I know you would find
that hard to believe. I know the table officers have never seen
this happen in their history in this place before, that money
would be dished out just before an election. One grant was
approved during the time leading up to the 1997 election and one
was approved two days after the election. Is that relevant? You
bet. That kind of political manipulation has to stop. The
Ottawa '67s over there are the folks who have the power to do
that.
The unemployment rate—and this is incredibly relevant—in that
member's riding was 8.1% in May 1997. Mr. Speaker, you were out
on the hustings and so was I in May 1997. We were busy
door-knocking along with our friend from Edmonton Southeast. We
were talking about how shameful it was that the government would
throw money into ridings during election times. Were we not? He
is nodding. You bet. Yet it is lotto day in Parry
Sound—Muskoka. The unemployment guideline was 12%. The
unemployment rate in the member's riding was 8.1%.
Hon. Denis Coderre: Let's talk about last night.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, someone said “Let's talk
about last night”. I bet a dollar he would not want to do that
either. The Liberals did not do so great.
Let us look at the riding of the member for Edmonton West, who
is another neighbour. The girl just down the road. Her riding
received three grants worth $2,328,663 from the transitional jobs
fund. All but $70,000 was given in two TJF grants in late
February 1997, three months before the election. We knew there
was an election coming. The unemployment rate in the member's
riding was about 7% in 1997. It was into the single digits. The
guidelines, I am sure, were 12%.
I have a memo to the minister about the TJF program dated
November 1997, received through an access to information request,
which says that there are no economic zones with 12% unemployment
in Alberta. To be relevant, I know that the HRD minister says
that you could pick a pocket of high unemployment, that there
were pita pockets, unemployment pockets, pickpockets, whatever.
The benchmark was 12%, but if the minister felt it was deemed
necessary people could dip into those pockets of unemployment and
help themselves to a TJF grant. The member for Edmonton West in
1997 was told, through these sensitive documents that found their
way into public hands, that there were no economic zones with 12%
unemployment in Alberta.
There should have been a period and a new sentence saying
“Thanks anyway but you do not qualify”. Of course, that did
not happen.
1030
Let us look at the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
member for Brant. I want to make it clear that she was not the
HRD minister back in 1997 but lotto days were alive and well. She
received $1,769,012 from TJF but her riding boasted an
unemployment rate of 8.1% in 1997. It is even lower now at 8%. I
doubt if it was government grants that created those jobs.
Let us look at another one. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois,
the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, his riding had an
unemployment rate of 15% in 1996. He received $100,000 over
three years.
Smell anything here? Political manipulation? I would dare any
one of them to stand and say that there was nothing political
about this. Three government members whom I just listed got
millions of dollars during the writ period in fact. Yet, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois got $100,000 in TJF grants over
three years.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whose riding lies
directly beside the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and had a
lower unemployment rate of 12.1% at the time, received
$5,650,577. I am sure that is just absolute irony. I cannot
imagine it would be anything else. We look at the unemployment
rates of two ridings. One got $100,000 over three years and the
minister who was probably having quite the fight of her political
career got $5,650,577.
Let us look at the member for Fredericton who was in the news
awhile ago. Things have been fairly quiet on the Fredericton
front. He received $571,509, yet the unemployment rate in 1996
for his riding was 9.9%.
They are not screaming irrelevant now, but you do need to listen
to this, Mr. Speaker.
The guideline was 12% yet at 9.9% and 8.1% there was milk and
honey. When it is election time no price is too much to buy that
seat for those in government, “Just let us know what you want
and we will tell you about the deep pockets”. But it is the
Canadians' deep pockets that are springing the cash. The folks
across the way think they have every God-given right to help
themselves to those pockets and dish it out.
Let us look at what is probably the greatest anomaly in the
whole program, the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. This
Liberal backbencher managed to receive $19,946,649. That is an
amazing pile of cash; $20 million over three years. This is
especially interesting knowing that the 1996 census identified
his riding as having an unemployment rate of, oops, just 12.2%.
It might have been one of those pick a pocket areas. That is
amazing.
It was a swing riding held by the Bloc. Now that is relevant.
It looked like the Liberals were in danger of losing to the Bloc
Quebecois. Le député d'Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, 30 millions
de dollars. A swing riding held by the Bloc. The MP received 15
transitional jobs fund grants just before and during the election
worth a total of $5,851,720. Seven of those were signed during
the writ period.
I cannot imagine that anyone would be proud to stand and say,
“I lead the government and I want to tell you about how well we
are going to manage your money”. All these were signed during
the writ period.
It is absolutely amazing. There is no shame.
1035
The Minister for International Trade, who was the minister of
HRD back in the good old days before he got a transfer, signed
off on 49 grants during the writ period of the last election,
April 27 to June 2. I can hardly imagine he had time to go out
and knock on a door or two. It seems pretty strange to me if he
was that busy. He was just writing and signing his name. He
thought he was autographing things as a famous person. It turned
out they were grants.
That amounts to 4.5% of all the grants when that one month
period comprised just 2.8% of the total length of the program. It
is hard to believe.
Now he says, “Nothing was wrong at HRD. I did a fine job. I
was a great steward of that department”. He turned it over to
his buddy from Brant and it has just gotten worse since then.
There were 49 grants during the writ period. The writ period
was about 37 days or so. That was more than one a day. That must
have kept him busy. He must have had quite a campaign team out
there knocking on doors and seeing businesses for him. He was a
busy boy.
Looking at the amount of money, we like this question answered.
Why would any approvals be signed during the election writ period
at all? The Liberals had no idea they were going to be back in
government. They had absolutely no idea what was going to happen
to them. Yet while the cash is there, they want to keep signing
their signatures and get that cash rolling especially in those
awkward little seats, those persnickety people who looked like
they were going to win the election, the Bloc. They just try to
buy them off.
I woke up this morning and I noticed that we did not do
particularly well in the byelection in Newfoundland, but we got a
start and our name is known there now. We have one way to go and
that is up.
It seems to me I saw on the news last night—and I could have
been sleeping because I was tired and I must confess I was
flipping back and forth to the hockey game—but I am sure I saw
the Minister of Finance in Newfoundland announcing a $58 million
ferry. I suspect that would be confirmed by members on the other
side. I am convinced I saw that. I would have to ask my friend
from Edmonton Southeast because he would probably know the true
story on it. I could have sworn I saw 58 million bucks being
thrown into that byelection. Just buy a ferry and guess what, it
did not work. It happened but it did not work.
Maybe the Canadian public is starting to say, “Hey, wait a
minute. That is not your money you are offering us in your great
lovingness and largesse. That is our money”. When I talked to
Newfoundlanders a couple of weeks ago I made this point and I
think they buy it.
We did not win the byelection but at least we doubled our vote
in that byelection. The Tories went down in that vote; they lost
about 12% or something like that. The Liberals lost a whole
pile, up in the double digits again. The NDP made an incredible
gain. I know there is one of them here who would celebrate today
and say yea. Well, okay, he is nodding yea. He is being very shy
about that close second. We, the Canadian Alliance, doubled our
vote. That is more than any of those other parties. Three
cheers for wrestler Sailor White.
Perhaps that was a little irrelevant, but not particularly,
because it is government money. Who in their right mind would
have the nerve to say, “Let us go buy this off”. I remember
when Lucien Bouchard was here and he ran for the Tories in the
byelection in 1984 I think. They said that his was the best
riding money could buy. They paid for stuff that should not have
even been paid by them. Yet, here it is with a big wink, “What
can we do to help you? We will give you a hand here”.
Those days surely have to be over. But with this government
that rams more and more legislation through the House, it really
goes at it.
Alleviating unemployment was the secondary criteria of the
transitional jobs fund. The Liberals said, “We will give you
cash. We will get that whole job creation program going and we
will virtually eliminate unemployment”.
That begs the question, and I am not the economist in the crowd—
1040
Hon. Denis Coderre: Who would notice?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, at least I am free to
admit it. It begs this question which I will ask the member, if
government funding for job creation programs was the answer, why
do we still have such high unemployment in this country? Should
we not have zero percent unemployment? If throwing money at it
will solve the problem, Lord knows between Mulroney and the
present Prime Minister alone, they have thrown enough money at
it. Between those two guys alone we ought to have about 0.03%
unemployment in the country, but it does not happen that way.
The primary criteria were regional and political visibility.
That is relevant, “Let me help you get the seat, let me make
sure everything is okay for you in your riding” and make sure
that everything looks wonderful.
I have some wonderful notes here which I will come across sooner
or later. They are really good. They are notes about making
sure that you look good, feel good, sound good. Here they are and
for goodness sake, they are labelled “Calendar of Events and Site
Visits”. Is that not handy? Let us move to that. That is
relevant too, thanks be for that. If they are going to dish out
some of those dollars, they might as well look good, sound good,
feel good while it is happening.
The “Calendar of Events and Site Visits” was obtained by
opposition research through access to information on April 15,
1999, barely one year ago. Is that relevant? Yes it is. It is
a 160 page list on legal size paper of government funded projects
to visit. Dated December 12, 1998 it was sent presumably on a
routine basis to all Liberal members of parliament. I thought I
saw everything that came into my office and I am sure I did not
get that list of projects. Accompanying the list is a letter
dated December 16, 1998 on privy council letterhead. Oh my.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: It is like a Christmas present.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the member says it is a
Christmas present. You bet. It is signed by Peter Donolo,
director of communications for the Prime Minister, who has
crossed over the Atlantic and now has a wonderful position in
Italy. The letter says, “Specific dates for
announcements/conferences remain opportunities for site visits as
well”. Spiff yourself up, polish your nose, you are going out
to dish out government money as if it were your own.
The calendar is designed to be used by the Prime Minister,
ministers, secretaries of state, and no offence, last but not
least, members of parliament on the government side of course,
when planning visits to regions and home constituencies. Is that
not the sweetest that the government members would be the dishes
of cash and the dishes would be the people who were getting this
government grant by a government member saying “Here you are,
you lucky people, here is some cash”. Whose money is this
anyhow? When money gets transferred from the government to a
group or whomever in a riding, this is the living proof through
access to information, that it is the government members who hand
it out. And I certainly have seen government members dish it
out.
There were 1,006 sites listed. Each site visit has a
description, a contact name and a phone number. I just wonder
who it might have been that they were ringing up to say, “I am
here from the government and I am here to help you with your own
money, or with someone else's money that was sent into the
coffers”. Among the names to be contacted for photo ops are
officials in universities, other public bodies and private
companies. That looks like photo op anonymous except it is not
so anonymous. One has to be a member of the government.
Opportunities suitable for Liberal photo ops are youth oriented
projects. Do the Liberals think youth are too stupid to know
they are getting a dish out? I do not think so. Young people
more than anyone else have it figured out that when they send
money to Ottawa it is swirled around and Ottawa takes its cut off
the top and gives some back. Come on. Get your picture taken.
Liberal photo ops with youth oriented projects indicate that
Liberal members of parliament want to be identified with the
youth rather than the elderly.
1045
Live the dream. Get those young people. Does the House know
with whom the Liberal members of parliament ought to have their
pictures taken? They ought to have their pictures taken with
young people. They should tell those young people that they are
sorry that they left them a $600 billion debt. That is a photo
op I would not mind seeing.
Unless any Liberal thinks this is irrelevant, for every single
dollar that those young people pay in taxes, even those of us who
are middle aged baby boomers or older people who are sending our
dollars in, 30 cents out of every single dollar goes toward
paying the interest alone on the debt.
Now those people across the way will say “Oh no, it was not our
responsibility. It was those Tories when they came in”.
Now the Tories of course will say “Oh no, it was those lousy
Liberals who left it to us”. And we all blame each other.
Let us look at the actual numbers. I think deficit financing
started in about 1972. The person who was the finance minister
during those years was none other than the member for
Saint-Maurice. It really started with the Liberals spending more
than they were taking in. What a legacy Trudeau left us: Take in
a dollar and spend $1.28.
A deal should be made to get a picture taken with young people
saying “Sorry about that. We spent so much money and racked up
the MasterCard so high that you young people are the unlucky
recipients of our debt”. Any offers over there to stand up and
get a picture taken with a young person with that little slogan
underneath it? I think not. Yet they continue to say “Here you
are. Here is a cheque”.
Multiple departments, ranging from the Departments of National
Defence and Industry, to ACOA, the Atlantic Canadian
Opportunities Agency—but as the Liberal minister from
Newfoundland used to call it back when he voted against it in the
days when he had principles and voted against the Tories even
bringing this in, the Atlantic Canada overblown agency—to CMHC,
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, are represented.
A heavy emphasis is placed on HRDC programs. No wonder; $13
billion was given in grants and contributions. Wow, what a deal.
The list demonstrates the government's ongoing intention to use
government grants, especially HRDC grants, to profile its
members. I am very grateful that someone jogged my memory about
that particular little list.
I am certainly not being irrelevant but I do digress. Oh my,
there is so much, Mr. Speaker. I know you are not tired of
listening and I do appreciate that so much.
I was talking about the TJF earlier and about some of the
members who got in on that incredible windfall, but besides the
TJF there is another little thing called the minister's reserve.
Now that is another handy little pocket full of cash. The TJF
changed its name around 1996, I believe, to the Canada jobs fund,
but it certainly did not change the sentiment. Maybe because the
transitional jobs fund had so many problems attached to it and
certainly the reputation was not great they changed the name to
the Canada jobs fund.
However, they also have this little pocket called the minister's
reserve. This is something extra special. There is more of an
opportunity for political handouts. The following information is
taken from access to information documents obtained by the
official opposition during the fall of 1999. Surely no one on
the government side would think that I am just jotting this down
or making it up on my own.
I will me read a little bit of the information I received
through access to information. It says that “There is a
multimillion dollar annual fund within the Department of Human
Resources Development's Canada jobs fund job subsidy program
called the minister's reserve”. This is as if it is her own
personal cash.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: It is like a special bottle of wine.
1050
Miss Deborah Grey: This is like her own RRSP account from
which she is generously withdrawing cash.
One of my colleagues said that it sounds like a special bottle
of wine. It is a special bottle of something or other for those
who are getting cash under it. Under the transitional jobs fund
it was $3.3 million. Of course that is never enough. How could
we get by on $3.3 million in our own personal reserve pocket? It
was raised to $5 million a year in fiscal year 1999-2000. As if
HRDC grants and contributions are not discretionary enough, we
have the minister's reserve over and above.
Each year the provinces are granted a notional allocation. I
remember in grade 8 home economics that we had to talk about
notions: sewing, buttons, thread and all that kind of stuff.
Maybe it is the same thing, I have no idea. Anyway, it is a
notional allocation. It is the total amount one can expect from
the TJF and CJF, but the minister's reserve is not part of that
notional allocation. It is not as if we would sit down and have
coffee and say that we have a notion to help somebody here. It
is over and above the notional stage. Holy smokes, it is cash
right out of the reserve. It is not even part of that notional
allocation.
On February 18, 1999, just a year ago, the Atlantic council of
regional executive heads—I assume they had bodies and things to
go with them but these were the heads—senior HRD officials,
wrote to the assistant deputy minister asking questions about the
use of the reserve. At least—and good for them—they had the
fortitude to ask the minister what this was all about.
To summarize the memo, it says “My colleagues in the Atlantic
region are very concerned with respect to the proposed
distribution under the CJF program”. Thank goodness for people
in the bureaucracy who stand up to the minister and ask some of
these questions. The memo goes on to say “Furthermore, due to
the lack of regional consultation on the structuring of this
proposal, we are requesting your review of our concerns”.
It would be easy for the government to rant about the opposition
making a fuss about this but these are its very own officials,
and good for them.
In this whole HRD scandal that we have witnessed swirling about
us over the last few months, the minister has tried to stand up
in question period and say that the official opposition, and in
fact all opposition parties, were besmirching the officials at
HRD. Let me correct the record. We are doing nothing of the
sort. These are good people who are trying to do their jobs but
their political masters keep getting their paws in the way and
they are not allowed to do the job that they were hired to do.
On March 12 the assistant deputy minister replied by saying that
under the new Canada jobs fund the minister's reserve was to be
$8 million but that the minister has agreed to $5 million. Oh,
my, do members not love it when they tighten their belts? If not
$8 million then I guess $5 million will do. The minister has
$3.3 million at her discretionary spending. The government is
trying to force her to take $8 million but I guess she can live
on $5 million, which is over and above the $13.3 billion in
grants and contributions from the government. There it is, the
minister is tightening her belt. She has agreed to $5 million a
year.
Regarding the use of the minister's reserve, the assistant
deputy minister said “—for proposals that meet the terms and
conditions of the Canada jobs fund that the minister wishes to
fund”. What does that have to do with merit? I am astounded. I
assumed that these project, which the Liberals have been railing
about for months, are based on merit. If they are based on
merit, why should the minister have to be involved at all? That
is a big $13.3 billion barrel. This is the $5 million little
discretionary fund in her personal reserve that the minister
wishes to fund. In brackets, it says “This continues the
practice followed under the transitional jobs fund”. Okay, then
if it happened under the TJF it might as well happen under the
CJF, right?
This simply means that the minister can do whatever he or she
likes with the fund. The note makes clear that a proposal under
the reserve could be generated from the minister's office where
we would not even have to hear about it. We would not even need
to get an application form or anything like that.
If I am just out there trucking around and I see what looks to be
a great little project, I could initiate it all by myself. That
is hard to believe.
1055
An e-mail dated June 2, 1999, nearly a year ago, from a senior
financial analyst at national headquarters indicates that at
least one region's budget was reduced to accommodate the
minister's reserve. A whole ministry's budget was cut back just
so the minister's personal reserve could get a little extra cash
in it. It is hard to believe.
An e-mail dated February 23, 1999 indicates that the minister's
reserve was $3.3 million under the TJF but was increased to $5
million, as I mentioned earlier. The reason given was that the
minister's office provided significant support to obtaining
cabinet support for the Canada jobs fund and they felt that $5
million a year for the minister's reserve was appropriate.
As far as we know, there were three disbursements totalling
$1.38 million from the $10 million minister's reserve under the
TJF. To our knowledge, none have yet been made under the CJF,
although maybe the minister in question period today could let us
know if any of those things have happened. Maybe we are not
right up to snuff on that.
There was $500,000 to Cornwall, the riding of the chief
government whip. It is not up to a $1 million but it is $500,000
which is a step in the right direction, is it not? It is halfway
there. The unemployment rate in his riding was 10.7% according
to the 1996 census. It was supposed to be 12% but, yes, he was
higher than Brant which was 8%.
Oh, my, $500,000 to Brantford. Oops, that is the riding of the
then Indian affairs minister. The unemployment rate in her
riding was 8.4% according to the 1996 census.
Why did the HRD fund TJF projects in areas of less than 12%
unemployment? We have asked that any number of times in the
House. That is when we got the new creative line that it was the
pockets of unemployment. We could just pick a pocket and fund
whatever we like.
Other access documents showed that the 12% rule could easily be
broken. The rule is 12% but who cares. We will just write a
little rule to supersede the rule. The rule says that individual
communities and groups of communities that had unemployment of
12% and greater but which were outside 12% unemployment insurance
regions were also considered to be included in the 12% areas.
It is called a run-on sentence in high school English but let me
carry on. In October 1997 Cornwall and Brantford were included
as high unemployment areas. That is hard to believe. It looks
pretty loosey-goosey here. It just goes on and on and on.
This sounds like a shell game, does it not? We have something
under a shell, move it around, then we pick it up and we are not
quite sure what we will find under it. Twelve per cent was the
limit but let us always remember that it is not this government's
money.
I will talk for a few minutes now about the actual HRD audit.
This was what broke loose when everyone was recessed out of the
House in January. I see that I am getting so relevant here that
people are starting to hide behind the curtains. Tell them to
brace up because there is more.
Let us go on to the question of how the HRD minister was made
aware of serious problems with the grants and contributions. We
have seen that it is a nightmare. Let us take a look at some of
the problems with the grants and contributions and what the
minister did or did not do about them.
On January 19, 2000 it was stated that Human Resource
Development Canada manages grants and contributions programs that
represent a significant investment in public funds. That means a
lot of cash and taxpayer dollars. It was also stated that the
audit looked at programs representing approximately $1 billion of
annual spending. That was a lot of cash.
It was further stated that HRD initiated the internal review to
get an objective assessment of the administration of its grants
and contributions programs. This type of review was part of an
ongoing process to improve program management.
Surely that is what we are all after. The audit looked at a
random sample of 459 projects from April 1997 to June 1999. The
review included a cross-section of projects from seven HRDC
program areas across Canada. A number of areas requiring
improvement were identified in the report, including project
monitoring, contracting procedures and general financial
practices.
1100
For example, the auditors found that of the 459 project files,
15% did not even have an application on file. Of the remaining
applications, the following elements were missing. Some 72% had
no cashflow forecast. In other words, what was going to be done
with the money? They were not sure because they did not know
what their forecasts were.
Some 46% had no estimate of the number of participants. Half
the people, almost one out of two, said they did not know how
many participants there would be. This is supposed to be job
creation. We are supposed to be making sure that people are
working. How many people were they going to have working? They
were not sure yet. They had not figured it out yet.
Some 25% had no description of the activities to be supported.
Maybe it was going to be a cribbage tournament. Who knows? Let
us get together down at the local hall, and who knows what we are
going to do?
Another 25% provided no description of the characteristics of
participants. Who are these people they are trying to meet the
needs of? Who are these people they are trying to minister to?
They are not sure yet.
Some 11% had no budget proposal. How much were they going to
spend on it? They did not know. There was no budget proposal
whatsoever.
Another 11% had no description of expected results. What did
they hope to accomplish by this? They were not really sure. Just
give them the cash anyway and they will try to figure that out as
they go along.
That was the review of 459 project files. I think there were
about 60,000 projects, if my memory serves me correctly. If that
is extrapolated, we are looking at a pile of cash. We labelled
this the billion dollar boondoggle. Yet the minister continues
to get up and say “No, we know exactly where that money is”.
Maybe they do. I do not know that I have accused her of saying
that the money is missing, but I am sure saying the money is
misspent. Where is it? This audit uncovered some amazing
things.
Of all the files reviewed, 97% showed no evidence that anyone
had checked to see if the recipient already owed money to HRDC.
Nobody even asked if they had tried this one before. Did they
get cash once already? No one even thought to ask that. It
seems like a pretty basic question.
Eight out of ten files reviewed, that is 80%, did not show
evidence of financial monitoring and 87% of project files showed
no evidence of supervision. It seems to me that somebody
somewhere ought to be asking these questions.
This is the billion dollar boondoggle that the minister tried to
hide by saying that HRDC has already taken action to improve
administrative standards and that a comprehensive action plan has
been put into place. Dear knows we have heard about that action
plan on and on again.
Let me look a little more specifically at the auditor general's
report. He certainly was concerned about some of the things
going on there and these huge percentages. The auditor general
has made some comments on grants and contributions for many years
now. In the December 1998 report of the auditor general, in
chapter 27, section 12, he stated:
We have reported to Parliament on numerous audits of grant and
contribution programs over the past 21 years. Many of those
audits identified similar concerns.
In other words, here we go again. There was inconsistent
application or interpretation of government policy on grants and
contributions. We look at it and we say yes. There were
inefficient use of funds and inadequate measures to ensure
accountability by program recipients. Yes. There was lack of
control, monitoring and evaluation. Yes. Reporting in the
estimates and public accounts was inadequate to facilitate
examination and year to year comparisons by parliament. Yes.
That was in December 1998.
We saw exactly that going on in 1999. It was reported to the
minister in January 2000 while the House was not sitting. We of
course put in an access to information request on those
documents.
While that was over in the access department, the minister
hurried and scurried and threw together a press conference to say
that she wanted to be transparent and to bring this forward. I
cannot exactly concur with that. It did not look transparent and
forward to me. It looked like when your hand is caught in the
cookie jar and someone is ready to give you a snap for it. You
say you are sorry and apologize a little beforehand but only
after you got caught.
1105
Chapter 27.15 of the December 1998 audit of the auditor general
on grants and contributions states that the 1985 audit of the
direct assistance programs of the Department of Regional Industry
Expansion reported a number of weaknesses in control processes
and program delivery practices. In other words, it was not
working. It has gone on for years. Any number of years ago I am
sure the auditor general was making these same kinds of comments.
Chapter 27.17 states that in 1988, as part of the audit of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, ongoing
concerns were reported in two main areas: the release of funds
before complete documentation requirements had been satisfied and
inadequate monitoring of band operations to ascertain whether
funds were being spent for the purposes intended. It is
unbelievable.
You run a business, Mr. Speaker. You know that you have to keep
a pretty tight watch. You know also how much you lose through
all kinds of things. You know that well. We talked about it
lately. You lose too much. You have to use an iron fist when
you are the manager of something because stuff leaks. It
disappears. Staff steal things. Someone says “I really like
these baguettes at the French Meadow so I am going to help myself
to them”. Yes sirree. I would never accuse the member for
Edmonton Southeast of stealing baguettes from French Meadow,
but—
An hon. member: Does the member not have to speak to the
item of business before the Chamber?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is a question of
relevance. I suspect we will have to leave it to the member's
discretion.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was
incredibly relevant because you and I spoke about the problem of
what happens when you are not able to keep tight control of
things, whether it be a bakery or a book writing magnate. I have
absolutely no idea.
Let me move on. In Chapter 27.17 he states that in 1998, as
part of an audit of Indian affairs, concern was raised about the
release of funds before complete documentation requirements had
been satisfied. The paperwork must be done. It has to be
finished, and it was not completed in Indian affairs.
In Chapter 27.18 in the 1990 audit of citizenship development
programs of the Department of the Secretary of State the need to
establish criteria for evaluating applications and results
against program objectives was identified. Ten years ago they
had the same concerns. It does not look like a lot has been
solved since then. It was consistent with earlier observations
concerning the need for departments to put more effort into
monitoring and assessing program results. Even before 1990 they
were concerned about it.
Chapter 27.19 states that in 1990 instances were reported where
the Department of Industry, Science and Technology had not
exercised due diligence. Imagine, no due diligence. Their work
uncovered cases of projects being approved despite initial
departmental analyses indicating that they did not meet
eligibility criteria.
Chapter 27.20 of the auditor general's report of December 1998
stated that the 1993 audit of the northern cod adjustment
recovery program administered by fisheries and oceans revealed
the lack of a clear legislative authority to deliver the program,
significant difficulties in targeting payments to those closely
affected by the moratorium on fishing northern cod, payments to
individuals who did not meet eligibility requirements, and weak
financial management and controls. It looks to me like the
nineties was kind of a painful decade for governments. Of course
we remember that the Mulroney Tories were in office in the early
nineties up until 1993 and then the Liberals took over.
Frankly I have not noticed a whole lot of difference.
1110
In fact, if we look at what is actually happening today
regarding time allocation, it is just unbelievable. In the 33rd
parliament which commenced on November 5, 1984, after the
September 4 election of that year, time allocation and closure
under Mulroney were brought in 20 times. There were 18 time
allocation motions and 2 closure motions for a total of 20 times
in that parliament.
They got a taste for it. I guess they figured it was not half
bad. They could just ram through whatever they liked. The
Tories were re-elected in November 1988. That parliament ended
on September 8, 1993, when the writ was dropped by Kim Campbell.
Remember her, she was the girl that had a summer job in this
place.
In the 34th parliament the Tories got right into it and thought
that they liked it so much they could ram anything through and
perhaps they were divine. They brought in time allocation and
closed debate off 46 times; 31 time allocation motions and 15
closure motions. They kind of liked this power thing. They
could pretty well do whatever they liked here. They could just
motor through. They could shove it through. They could ram it
through. They could do whatever because, after all, perhaps they
had the divine right to govern. They were here so they could do
whatever.
If we add 20 and 46, that makes 66 times in the 33rd and 34th
parliaments which commenced on November 5, 1984 and went until
September 8, 1993. That is unbelievable. Now there are some
Liberals snorting over there, shaking their heads in dismay. It
was disgusting, certainly, but it was over nine years.
Let us look at time allocation and closure in this parliament. I
know one of the members over there is new and she probably could
hardly believe these numbers herself, but let me just refresh her
memory. The 35th parliament began on January 17, 1994, after the
October 1993 election. As I recall it was about 54 degrees below
zero that day. Does anyone remember? Some would and some would
not. In January 1994 when that parliament began it was cold, but
boy it was hot in here. They were gearing up for unbelievable
things.
Mr. Larry McCormick: It was not bike weather. That is
for sure.
Miss Deborah Grey: It was not bike weather. The member
got that right. In the 35th parliament which started on January
17, 1994, 37 times the government closed off debate with 32 time
allocation motions and 5 closure motions. It is unbelievable.
In the 36th parliament, which is still ongoing and seems longer
all the time because we watch them in operation and it is
thoroughly amazing, 30 times already the Liberals have brought in
closure on various motions: 29 time allocation motions and 1
closure motion. That is why we have a record setting event here
today on this report stage to which I am speaking. It is hard to
believe.
I do not think any one of them should be proud of it. I do not
think any one of them is proud of it but they can explain it away
so well. The Ottawa 67s, here they are right across the way: 67
times with 61 time allocation motions and 6 closure motions.
They would have all kinds of reasons, I am sure. They would
have all kinds of reasons about how hard it is to govern and how
they need to get all this magnificent legislation through. Some
of it has been pretty thin gruel, as you have noticed, Mr.
Speaker, because you sit in that chair for some hours at a time,
thinking to yourself, I bet, what does this have to do with the
nation's business. Precious little. He is seized of the issue.
Yet there it is. It is all so important they just have to ram it
through.
Some of it probably need not be brought forward in the first
place. Some of the big legislation we have to deal with in this
place gets short shrift. With 67 times these Liberals even
outshoot and outscore the Mulroney Tories for closing off debate.
They never thought they would hear that. I am sure they did not,
but they are there. They are the record holder now.
I like Mark McGwire's record myself a whole lot better. There
is a champ who knows how to hit a home run. He is supposed to
hit home runs. That is what he gets paid for.
1115
Government does not get paid to stifle debate and ram things
through. The Mulroney Tory reign in power commenced on November
5, 1984 and ended September 8, 1993, approximately nine
years. The Liberals under the Prime Minister came to
power on January 17, 1994. They reached their 67th use of time
allocation and time restriction on May 16, 2000, today.
What a sad day for democracy. As I recall that bunch of
people used to go pretty ballistic. I was here.
I would like to read a few quotes which are really precious. Let
us go back to Mackenzie King. He was the longest serving Liberal
prime minister. He said in the 1930s that closure was, “The
most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is
capable”. Imagine. Something has changed between then and now.
He was a Liberal prime minister too. Is that not something. He
said that it was the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a
government was capable.
If given the chance the government members would leap to their
feet and say that things have changed, that things are different
now and they know what they are doing, that Mackenzie King had it
easy. I do not think Mackenzie King had a really great time in
government in the 1930s. Those were not happy times in our
country. Yet it is okay now.
In a speech given by Mr. Stanley Knowles against the use of
closure, he referred to former Liberal minister Frank Oliver's
statements on the subject when he said, “Closure is not a blow
at the rights of the Canadian people. When closure is imposed in
this way by the moving of a motion that is out of order, it is a
blow that strikes at the very heart of our democratic system”.
Those were carefully chosen words. That was a Liberal who said
in 1956 that closure was not a blow at the rights of the Canadian
people, it is a blow at the very heart of the democratic system.
Of course, the government members would say that things are
different now too and that it is not closure. I love that little
argument. They say it is not closure, that it is time
allocation. Not one person in the House, even the Liberals when
the day comes when they are in the opposition, could be convinced
that there is a big fat difference between time allocation and
closure. It is semantics. It makes a precious argument and it
looks good in the scrum. But they will never convince me or
anybody else across the country that there is any major
difference between closure and time allocation.
No matter what the logistics of it are, the end run is always
the same. The government stifles debate in the House. When I
first came here I thought this was the house of debate. Yet
whatever it is, it does not suit the Liberals' purposes and they
want to ram it through so they use time allocation or closure. It
really makes no difference what we call it.
Let me go to another one. This is the member for Ottawa West in
1989. For goodness sake, she is here to hear it. I am sure she
will confirm it. Talking about Mulroney, she said, “This
government has shown it has no respect for the public process, no
respect for parliament and no respect for the opinions of the
public”.
Here she is today being dubbed as one of the Ottawa 67s. In
government it is so much easier. It is fine when they are in
government to ram it through.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: It is harder.
Miss Deborah Grey: It is harder but still not too hard.
Otherwise they would not have to do it.
Maybe we should get a banner made up. Maybe we could go to the
hockey team. Now that it is May we could get the Ottawa 67s
jerseys and hand them over to those folks. They would not be
able to wear them proudly like the Ottawa 67s hockey club does.
The Ottawa 67s hockey club is proud to wear them. What does 67
mean? I was 15 and I remember that song. We were proud in 1967
of the Ottawa 67s hockey club. Yet the deputy whip said it is
harder when in government.
Maybe it is. But the question is, is it necessary? I think not.
1120
Some of the legislation that has gone through the House probably
was not necessary to even bring forward. That which was, surely
to heaven, if everyone in the House spoke for 10 minutes on it,
that would not be insurmountable. Members are given 10 minutes
for speeches. The Leader of the Opposition is given an unlimited
amount of time which we appreciate, but not everyone is so lucky.
I am lucky and I am blessed.
Let me say again for all hon. members who are either listening
or pretending they are reading that being in government is an
incredible, serious responsibility. The government members
cannot just toss this stuff off and say it was not okay in
opposition, but it is okay now in government.
Here is the Ottawa 67s and it says Liberals on the jersey. Is
that not cute. They would be proud to wear those Liberal
jerseys, I am sure. Taxpayers' dollars were not used, an hon.
member paid for it. I bet he wears this jersey with a lot more
pride than he would wear an Ottawa 67s jersey today because he is
a member of the 67th time allocation government that is proud of
that.
Let me read a quote by another person who sits in the House, the
current government House leader. When I first came here in 1989
I do remember the rants. Oh my. I sat back up over there between
the Liberals and the NDP. I was the first and only Reformer for
four and a half years, and oh, he was the professor, as one of
his colleagues has said. He thought differently of time
allocation when he was in opposition, I dare say.
Even though it is so difficult for him to bring it in, and
harder as two of his colleagues have said, now that the Liberals
are in government, this is what he said. I thought he believed
it because I was here in November 1992 when he said, “I am
shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has
used closure on dozens and dozens and dozens of occasions. This
is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece
of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.
That was the government House leader. How things change. How
things change when they go from this side to over there. Oh, it
is harder. It is like when your mom and dad say, “It kills me
to have to give you a licking. It hurts me more than it does you
to have to send you to your bedroom. I am so sorry I have to do
this to you”. Nobody buys it. Nobody buys it at all.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you are ready for a shift change.
I am delighted to have you here, but I have another good quote
which I will set aside until the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands, takes the chair.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who is now our
Minister of Foreign Affairs had this to say on March 31, 1993,
“Madam Speaker, do you realize that with the vote this
afternoon, closure has been used in this House 25 times since
1988”. Oh, my, he was scandalized. Twenty-five times does not
hold a candle to what we are at today with 67. He said, “That
equals the number of times closure was used from 1913 to 1988”.
Wow, it is growing exponentially now. “In four years this
government has used closure more often than all the other
governments going back to 1913”. From 1913 to 1988 of course he
was scandalized by that as a Liberal opposition member. Boy, he
has eclipsed them now. He went on to say on March 31, 1993,
“That is a direct demonstration of the kind of disdain the
Minister for International Trade and his colleagues have for the
Canadian people”.
I guess we have seen disdain with a capital D here today.
The Liberals do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate. It is
so awkward and just gets in the way of things. It is so
difficult to ram things through if people are being obstinate and
they want to debate the issues. Honestly.
1125
To be willing to waste that much time is unbelievable. We would
almost think the Liberals got elected to debate the issues or
something. They do not want to hear a dialogue or a debate; they
simply want to close the door so they cannot hear the real voice
of the Canadian people.
A Liberal member in opposition back in 1993 said, “These kinds
of arrangements concocted in the backrooms in the wealthy eating
clubs the Minister for International Trade frequents are not
working in the interest of Canadians. They are not working in
the interest of other working people around the world”. How
things change. Yet they will say to me today, “Things are
harder when we are in government. It is so difficult to bring in
time allocation and closure when we are in government. It is
hard don't you know, girl?”
I know a remedy for all that pain they are going through. Let
people in the House address it and have a debate when it is over.
Let me read one more quote. I have some really good stuff here
about the minister's reserve and I will get right back to that,
but let me finish the quote. It hit the newspaper. Not much
from Hansard hits the newspaper but this did. This was the
article on April 1, 1993, “That is as many times as closure was
used between 1913 and 1988 and displays the utter disdain with
which this government treats the Canadian people, said an angry
Minister for International Trade”. It is hard to believe.
I was talking about the transitional jobs fund and I made
mention also of the auditor general. I think one of the
particular funding lines that I was using in terms of amounts,
was pretty staggering, it was a doozy.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: It is well worth waiting for. They
are sitting on the edges of their chairs.
Miss Deborah Grey: Good, they ought to be sitting on the
edges of their chairs.
I was talking about funding for the provinces and it was an
amazing amount of cash. It is hard to believe, it was millions
and millions of dollars. I would like to narrow that down a
little and talk about some of the specifics of particular
ridings.
The minister for HRD oversees the whole thing. I would like to
use one example from her riding, that of Duchess Foods
International which we asked a few questions about in question
period not so long ago. Let us look at this particular riding.
We do not want to be critical of Duchess Foods in particular, it
is just the example I am using today.
There is an access to information document which we received in
September 1999. Duchess Foods International is a prosperous six
year old business from Hamilton which makes frozen food products,
such as stuffed baked potatoes, for the President's Choice label.
It relocated to the riding of the HRD minister after receiving a
transitional jobs fund grant of $369,000 on May 26, 1998. The
minister had provided her approval on May 9, 1998.
The company purchased land from the city of Brantford for
$112,400 in June 1998 and received two Business Development Bank
loans in January 1999 totalling $1.5 million. It also received a
targeted wage subsidy grant of $20,305 on August 7, 1998. That
is my wedding anniversary. I did not get exactly that on that
day, but it got a grant of $20,000. The local mayor and
development board officer were keen to move the factory. A local
Brant agribusiness opportunities agent also pressed for the
grant. The total project cost was $2.1 million and total federal
assistance was $1.89 million, not much to take up.
The member from Hamilton is here. I know that she was interested
in this when it all happened. It is hard to believe that on
March 20 HRDC Brantford staff faxed this memo to the Duchess
owner, “As mentioned, we do have a major concern regarding the
displacement of jobs from one community to another, i.e.,
Hamilton to Brantford. You may wish to clarify your position.
Were these new jobs that were being created?”
HRDC itself said this looked like a transfer. We just asked a
question in here a few days ago about that very thing.
It is that shell game that I mentioned earlier. It takes this
over here and shoves it over on this side and people get so mixed
up they are not quite sure what happened in the first place. But
it looks to me, and probably to any other taxpayer who might be
watching this, that if it took x number of jobs from
Hamilton and slipped them across to Brantford, not many miles
down the road, how in the name of good sense could they call that
job creation? I do not even think that is a possibility.
1130
The funding analysis and recommendation document from the local
HRD office explained: “The employer has satisfied the issue of
relocation from Hamilton to Brantford. The number of jobs to
Brantford is significant, especially at the non or low skilled
level, which will meet the needs of our labour market”.
Who convinced them of that? I do not think anyone was totally
convinced. On April 10, 1998 Duchess Foods wrote to the HRD
office in Brantford explaining that it planned to renovate a
facility in Hamilton, but decided it was not suitable and dropped
the idea. It pressed for a grant and made it clear that it would
not move without it. Oh, here comes the threat: “We will not
move without it. Give us the money or else”.
On March 9 Duchess Foods asked for a decision within three
weeks. Later it changed the deadline to May 8, saying “I am
doing business in your riding. I want to move my business
because my facility is not big enough or good enough any more.
Give me the money or I am out of here”. That does not sound
like cricket, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure you would run your
business that way: “Give me the money or I am gone”. No, you
are in business because you think it is a good deal. You will
work hard and it will help you in your retirement. You enjoy it
while you are there. I have seen you enjoy it while you are
swabbing the decks.
On May 7, 1998 the local HRD office stated that Duchess Foods
had decided to purchase land and build, not lease, a building in
Brantford. This was also stated in the minister's approval
document. Application was made for the money on May 14. The
company preferred to stay in Hamilton to retain its employees.
That sounds like ping-pong, going from Hamilton to Brantford and
then back to Hamilton, saying “Give us the money. If you do not
give us the money we are not going to go. Now we are going to
stay here”. On and on it goes.
It decided to move because the facility in Hamilton was housed
in three separate buildings. It wanted to consolidate and
expand, yet the old facility was a total of 29,000 square feet
and the new one it constructed in Brantford was 13% smaller.
Woops. “We didn't have enough space with 29,000 square feet, so
we are going to build a new place with 25,000 square feet”. It
is not bigger and better, that is for sure. It says, though,
that it could be enlarged. When it gets some government cash
down the road it might be.
In its application documents Duchess Foods indicated that it
expected 96 employees to leave the company because of the move.
These would be moved to Brantford and 60 more jobs would be
added, for a total of 156, but only 60 of them would be new.
I heard the speaker, Mr. Speaker, and you did too, I am sure. In
fact, I have every question that has been asked about this whole
thing in this document, which I will get to sometime later. I am
sure she told me that 156 jobs were created. Whoops. In fact,
most of it was shuffling the deck, transferring around—move them
here, move them there, move them anywhere. Only 60 of them were
new.
The TJF program approval document, signed by the minister,
mentioned: “It is anticipated that a number of the current
employees of the company will not transfer to the Brantford
location”. That seems pretty clear. They are not going. They
probably had a long enough commute anyway and they are not
interested in commuting any farther.
In February a large layoff—and we do not know the
size—principally of Brantford residents, prompted complaints to
the minister's office. The reason was unclear. The employer
said they would not be rehired due to poor performance. I guess
they were doing okay at the Hamilton facility if they were going
to be put in the new facility, but all of a sudden, poof, due to
poor performance.
The HRD office explained that the owner neglected to tell them
that the jobs were seasonal—“Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you.
You are laid off”—and then mentioned that a reorganization was
necessary in order to maintain and attract new customers.
As of February 25, 1999, just over a year ago, 60% of the
employees were from Brantford and the rest were from Hamilton.
Those from Hamilton were slowly dropping off. I would not want
to make that commute every day. I know that traffic is very busy
in that area and it would not be much fun to drive, I am
assuming.
Only $101,762, or 27%, went to wage costs.
The remaining three-quarters went to capital and building costs,
and the cost of moving equipment. I do not think that is allowed
under that grant. I think most of it was supposed to go to wage
costs.
1135
The approval document signed by the minister stated “The
funding will be taken from the minister's TJF special allocation
for Brantford”. Dippity do. Presumably this referred to the
$500,000 allocation from the minister's reserve. As of August 5
Duchess Foods had not submitted a final report on its project,
due on June 2, the first anniversary of the official signing of
the TJF grant. Of course, there are a few questions that would
need to be asked. We have asked many of them. It is a pity they
are not answered. But, anyway, we will ask them again.
The HRD minister said that the $500,000 allocation from the
minister's reserve was never spent, yet the document signed by
the former minister of HRD, now the Minister for International
Trade, said that it was. One says it was signed; the other says
it was not signed. Who is telling the truth? It is a pretty
simple question. If one says A and one says B, and
they are diametrically opposed, then surely somebody is not
coming forward with the goods. We need that answer.
Here is another question. The approval documents signed by the
minister showed that the unemployment rate was 10.3%. Why was
the main TJF rule broken for the minister? We know it was 12%,
but it is the old “We have pockets of unemployment. We can just
pick a pocket and put the cash in”.
Here is another one. Why was so much federal money given to the
company? The project appears to have been 90% financed by the
federal government. Who would not want a sweet deal like that?
It was 90% financed by the federal government. Do hon. members
think that if they had a business in the same area, in the same
sector, that they might be a little frustrated because it might
put them at just a hair of a disadvantage? That is unbelievable.
How could anyone run a business side by side with this company?
When it moved in it got 90% of its funding from the federal
government. Are other businesses supposed to compete with that?
I do not think so. How could any company resist this
proposition? How could anyone turn up their nose at it? It only
had to put up $200,000 to get an entirely new building.
Here is another question. Why was a successful company,
operating profitably in one community, given government money to
move to another community? Why was federal TJF money used to
displace workers, to ship them from here to there? That is
unreal.
Here is another question. Why did the HRD minister claim that
156 jobs were being created when only 60 were created? That is
quite a discrepancy.
Here is another question. The highest paying job created was
$10 an hour. Were federal tax dollars used to trade higher wage
jobs in Hamilton for lower wage jobs in Brantford? I guess that
is a legitimate question that needs to be answered. If there is
a good straightforward answer for it, then we want to say “Sure,
we will buy that”. But I do not think the Liberals have ever
come forward with an answer.
The highest paying job created was $10 an hour. Were federal
dollars used to trade higher wage jobs in Hamilton for lower wage
jobs out in Brantford? That is another example of how the
minister could get her paws, get her claws, get her hands on an
amazing amount of money. That is the riding of Brant. I could
go on and on about that riding, but I will spare hon. members.
There is a better one coming.
Hon. members will remember that I told them about how much money
went into Quebec. In large measure, of course, it was to buy
some seats for the Liberals. But, boy, I would say that in the
Prime Minister's riding it was a bonanza.
Let me give hon. members a little chronology. The Prime
Minister's misuse of the transitional jobs fund: a chronology.
This one is precious. Hon. members read this in the newspaper, I
am sure. Oh, yes, they read it in the red book. I am not sure
if it was quoted directly in the red book, but it was in the
newspaper when we were campaigning in Edmonton in 1993. The
article is from the Gazette of October 15, 1993, which
stated: “In each public appearance in the region Wednesday
night and yesterday the Prime Minister reminded them that he will
probably have enormous clout as Prime Minister to pull government
strings. `When a dossier for Saint-Maurice lands on a cabinet
minister's desk—need I say more?' he said to rounds of laughter
during one meeting yesterday”.
There it is. Is that the raison d'être that a Prime Minister
comes to power? Is it for this? “When a dossier for
Saint-Maurice lands on a cabinet minister's desk, you bet I will
be there”.
1140
Who could brag about that? “Just keep the requests coming. If
I am the guy in charge and it lands on my desk, I will be there
for you. I will look after you. I will pay you off”. That was
in the Gazette of October 15, 1993. That is not something
I could even dream up. That is an exact quote from the Prime
Minister when he was running for office. He ought to be ashamed
of himself.
Let us look at number one in the chronology, the Auberge du
Gouverneur Shawinigan. This $6.4 million hotel project is owned
by Pierre Thibault, a businessman from Belgium. He received
federal government grants and loans. An amount of $600,000 was
announced on March 13, 1997 under the HRD targeted wage subsidy
program, which was then changed to the transitional jobs fund
when Mr. Thibault claimed that he needed capital funding
immediately. He could not afford to wait for wage subsidies, he
needed the cash right away. He had a promise from the man who
would become Prime Minister, saying that if a dossier for
Saint-Maurice landed on a cabinet minister's desk it would be
looked after. What was Pierre Thibault to do? He had $600,000.
He could not wait to go the legitimate route.
Mr. Thibault lobbied for and received $100,000 under the TJF in
January 1999. He had a Business Development Bank loan in the
amount of $925,000 and a $400,000 unsecured loan for his numbered
company—and this is a good one, 9047-4412—from Canada Economic
Development for Quebec Regions, a federal regional development
fund, in September of 1998. This totalled $2,025,000. That was
a portion of the $6.4 billion, but I am just getting warmed up.
Let me mention political donations. Quality Inn La Rocaille,
which is also owned by Mr. Thibault, gave the Prime Minister a
reception worth $1,054 after the election on June 19. The
election was held in October 1993.
The $600,000 grant was announced without any departmental
paperwork. That made it simple and fast. It was advertised in
the Prime Minister's householder, dated April 1997. I am not
privy to what the Prime Minister thinks, but I knew there was an
election coming. The writ was dropped, I believe, on April 27,
1997. There was no paperwork on this grant, no nothing, but it
was advertised in the Prime Minister's householder. Someone in
his office knew to print this up.
Mr. Thibault is a self-confessed embezzler. He has said this
and there are criminal investigations going on. He is the
subject of a criminal investigation and involved in legal
disputes.
On December 16, 1999 the opposition revealed a memo showing that
the Prime Minister's office felt it had no choice but to approve
the grant because the Prime Minister had already personally
promised the money to Mr. Thibault. He had even announced it at
a press conference, even though it did not meet Quebec regional
TJF guidelines banning funding for restaurant and bar facilities.
The Prime Minister said he had to approve the loan. He had a
gun at his back. No way.
The Prime Minister had already personally promised the money to
Mr. Thibault. He could not go back on his promise. He told him
that he would give him the money and he announced it at a press
conference. The Prime Minister could not be embarrassed. He
told Mr. Thibault that he would get the money and he got it. That
is nuts. That is the story of the Auberge des Gouverneurs de
Shawinigan.
Things do not stop there. I am only at page one. I
feel like Paul Harvey.
The Auberge Grand-Mère is a hotel owned by Yvon Duhaime. We
have heard Mr. Duhaime's name before in the House. This hotel
lies adjacent to the Grand-Mère golf course, purchased in 1988 by
a numbered company, 161341 Canada Inc., in which the Prime
Minister held a 25% interest. The address of the head office of
161341 Canada Inc. is still listed as the Auberge Grand-Mère.
1145
The Prime Minister says that he sold his interest in the company
to Toronto real estate developer Jonas Prince a few days before
becoming Prime Minister, but Mr. Prince stated in the press that
he only purchased an option to buy the shares and chose not to
exercise it. There is a big difference between saying I sold it
and you bought it and saying I sold it and they were actually
options for shares and somebody chose not to exercise them.
In January 1996 the Prime Minister phoned the ethics counsellor
at home and said that the deal had fallen through. He was
advised that he could resume ownership of the shares but he would
have to declare his interest publicly. Since he was never paid
for the shares he knew that he owned them. Over three years
later his lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, sold them. That is
unbelievable.
I suspect this is getting painfully relevant here. We see a
pattern when a government says how well it is managing everything
for us and “Trust me. I am from the government and I am here to
help you”. This is the way personal affairs are conducted.
We see what is happening in the House today. The Prime Minister
and many government members when they were in opposition said it
was a dreadful thing. They were not able to control their shock
and amazement at the idea of how scandalous it was for the
Mulroney Tories. Now all of a sudden they say it is harder when
in government. It is so hard and difficult they bring in time
allocation. I can see the pain written all over his face as we
watch the House leader when he is out in scrums. This is so
relevant that it hurts every taxpayer in the country.
Mr. Duhaime received the following in loans and grants: $615,000
from the Federal Business Development Bank in 1997; $164,000 from
HRD transitional jobs fund in July 1997, right after the
election; $50,000 from the federal regional development fund in
1997; and $60,799 in five different HRD wage subsidy grants in
1997 and 1998. That is a total of $889,799. That is a lot of
money.
Let us look a little deeper into the numbered company, 161341.
It sounds like a CB: 161341 calling. Let us say earth to 161341.
Let us look at it. We received an access request in the
official opposition from the office of ethics counsellor
revealing that the Prime Minister did not formally resign his
dictatorship in the above numbered company, which owns the
Grand-Mère golf course, until March 4, 1994, almost five months
after he became Prime Minister. The document was signed on March
8 and filed on March 14, 1994. It also states that the Prime
Minister phoned the ethics counsellor personally at home on the
evening of January 27, 1996, to discuss the fact that he still
owned his shares in the company.
It seems to me that if he had a little problem he might phone
the guy during office hours. If it was life threatening he might
have to do something like that, but the Prime Minister again kept
standing in the House and saying that everything was okay,
everything was absolutely legit.
If I have to phone my staff at home in the evening it would have
to be very serious. I do not think it is my business to just
ring them up and say “Hey, I want you to look into this for
me”, unless it was a pretty big crisis. They have a life too. I
do not know how busy the ethics counsellor is day or night, but
if he is getting a call at night from the Prime Minister I know
there is something going on.
It also reveals that Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor, kept in
close contact with Peter Donolo, a handy little relationship. He
was the communications director I mentioned some time earlier who
crossed over to Italy, I think. The Prime Minister's lawyer,
Debbie Weinstein, whom I mentioned a few minutes ago, perhaps
helped the Prime Minister to defend himself against charges of
conflict of interest. We have to get the whole team in on it
now. Things are getting dicey. He has to phone the ethics
counsellor at home. He has to phone the lawyer. He has to keep
Peter Donolo in there because surely he could put a good spin on
it.
First, the Prime Minister has repeatedly maintained that the
sale of the shares has been in the hands of his lawyer since he
became Prime Minister.
1150
Oops, if that were the case, I would bet a dollar he would not
have had to phone Howard Wilson late at night. Here is a quote
from June 8, 1999:
Before I became PM I sold those shares and I gave the problem or
the receivable to my trustee as with my other assets. She is in
charge of managing it.
That was June 8, 1999, in Hansard. Then we see in March
1994 that he phoned the ethics counsellor. We know the Prime
Minister phoned the ethics counsellor and the counsellor
subsequently met personally with the Prime Minister about it on
February 12, 1996 and July 18, 1996. The Prime Minister took a
very active role and personal interest in the file. It is in
Hansard, and dear knows Hansard is gospel, where he
said:
Before I became PM I sold those shares and I gave the problem or
the receivable to my trustee as with my other assets. She is in
charge of managing it.
The question is why the heck is he phoning the ethics counsellor
and meeting with him personally on various occasions about this
thing.
Second, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that his golf
course shares were out of his hands. They were out of this world
but not out of his hands. A chronology included in the access to
information request implies otherwise. Let us look at the dates
of that.
On January 27, 1996, the Prime Minister called Mr. Wilson at
home to tell him the sale of shares had fallen through. On
February 12 Mr. Wilson met personally with the Prime Minister. On
May 8 Mr. Wilson met with the Prime Minister's lawyer, Debbie
Weinstein. On July 18 Mr. Wilson met personally again with the
Prime Minister. On July 18 Mr. Wilson sent a model blind
management agreement to Debbie Weinstein. In other words this is
the way it is done. It has not been done right. Do it this way.
It is a wonder he had time to run the country. He was busy,
busy meeting with Debbie Weinstein, Peter Donolo and Mr. Wilson.
It is hard to imagine he would have had the time or the energy to
run the country in between golf games.
This implies that the Prime Minister was told that he would have
to set up a formal blind management agreement in order to have
his lawyer deal with the sale of shares. A blind management
agreement is struck when one person manages the property of a
politician on his or her behalf. Some of us should be that lucky
to be in that position.
The necessity for such an agreement would indicate that the
Prime Minister, the ethics counsellor and the lawyer all assumed
that the Prime Minister still owned the shares in the golf
course. Otherwise why would he be filling it out?
Third, the Prime Minister has insisted that he resigned his
directorship in 161341 Canada Inc. before he became Prime
Minister. On June 1, 1999, a week before, he said again in
Hansard: “I quit this company before I became Prime
Minister”.
Now we learn that he really did not formally resign his
directorship until March 14, 1994, more than four months after he
became Prime Minister. It appears that Mr. Wilson struggled to
get him to quit.
It is similar to when we go to a fair and they have these little
holes in which gophers keep popping up. We get a great big
hammer and we are allowed to just bang and bash these guys down
into their holes but they keep popping up again. I am sure that
is how Mr. Wilson felt. I am sure he thought he looked after the
problem and got him to put it in a blind trust but poof, up it
comes over here. He tried to solve it by getting Debbie
Weinstein to look into this blind trust, and then poof, it pops
up over here. He had a heck of a time getting the Prime Minister
to actually quit that directorship.
Let us look at the dates. On October 21, which is four days
before the election in 1993, the ethics counsellor's office told
the Prime Minister's lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, that he was still
a director of the company and must resign. In other words, this
guy might be the Prime Minister in four days. Get him to resign.
On December 8 the Prime Minister made a personal information
statement on appointment to office of the ethics counsellor. On
December 22, we are getting close to Christmas here, a
confidential report written by the ethics counsellor indicated
that something was wrong. Merry Christmas. He has had two
months since October 25. It is now almost December 25 and there
is a problem.
On January 27, 1994, the counsellor's office phoned the
assistant to the Prime Minister, Monique Bondar, who promised to
ensure that he was no longer a director of 161341. Oops, there
comes the gopher head again. She says okay. She gets into it
now and says she will look after it, as she bonks it on the head.
1155
The contents of letter from Monique Bondar of February 1994 were
severed. It said that the prime minister no longer had an
interest in the golf course. Boing, she thought she had the
gofer down in the hole. Whew, she had that out of the way.
On March 1, 1994, the Prime Minister signed a statement of
public declaration of past outside activities stating that he was
a director of the Grand-Mère golf club, formerly 161341 Canada
Inc.
On March 1 there was also a letter from Howard Wilson to the
Prime Minister that raised an issue which was severed. What was
that issue? Why is there a lack of transparency? Why did he
need this little meeting with the Prime Minister? Why, through
access to information, were the contents severed? It seems to me
that if it is information which is helpful and legit it might as
well be brought forward.
An hon. member: Who appoints that guy, anyway?
Miss Deborah Grey: Questions could be raised as to who
appoints the ethics counsellor, what is his job and to whom
should he report? He gets appointed by the Prime Minister and
reports to the Prime Minister.
An hon. member: And he investigates the Prime Minister.
Miss Deborah Grey: He investigates the Prime Minister. He
does not report to parliament. If I were to ask you, Mr.
Speaker, to make me accountable, then I ought to be accountable
to people who are watching. Instead, if I asked you to make me
accountable and then we have a quiet coffee some place for you to
tell me if you think I am accountable or not, what will it look
look or what will it smell like? The whole thing is pretty
suspicious.
I am sure this poor ethics counsellor is trying his darndest to
make sure everything is legitimate. However he does not have to
answer to anybody. He just has to have coffee with the Prime
Minister and say here is how it looks, Joe, John, Harry or
whoever.
On March 16, a couple of weeks later, a letter from the Prime
Minister's lawyer to Mr. Wilson stated that the document removing
him as director was filed with the incorporations branch of
Industry Canada on March 14, 1994. Why would he say on June 1,
1999, that he quit the company before he was Prime Minister? Also
he said it on June 8, 1999:
Before I became PM I sold those shares and I gave the problem or
the receivable to my trustee...She is in charge of managing it.
It does not look good. On November 15, 1994, a minute sheet was
signed by the ethics counsellor. Of course the contents were
severed when we got the information. It is entitled “Ownership
Interest of Grand-Mère Golf Club”. This implies that the issue
was not yet resolved. Otherwise, why would they have a document
about it? It could be that the resignation was recorded in the
private minutes of 161341 Canada Inc. before he became Prime
Minister and the routine official documents were filed after the
fact, but the exchange of letters and calls from Mr. Wilson's
office obviously suggest otherwise.
I beg anyone in the House or outside to say that this is perhaps
irrelevant. I do not think so. This is so relevant that it
hurts. We see the business practices of the Prime Minister. We
see a person who said before the election that if anything
crossed his desk or any cabinet minister's desk which had to do
with his riding, he was being a good little MP. Perhaps it is
not so good. We are so far in debt and yet we see this kind of
political manipulation and interference.
There are two important issues. First, the Prime Minister's
word is what is relevant to the whole debate today. How good is
his word? There appear to be contradictions between what he said
and what he did. There is proof through access to information
that is exactly what happened. That is a case we have uncovered.
Lord knows how many more there are.
Here are some more unanswered questions which never get answered
in question period but need to be raised. It would be great if
they ever did get answered. Did the Prime Minister declare that
he was a former director of 161341 Canada Inc. when he was in
reality a current director?
It is obvious he was a director from the election in October
1993 to March 1994 when somebody caught up to him and said that
he was still a director. Why did he declare that he was a former
director when at that time he was a present director? If he was
a director during those four months, was he in a position of
conflict of interest at any time?
Those were huge questions because the Prime Minister's attitude
was “Cross my desk and I will look after you. Just let me know
if you need help and I will look after you”.
1200
When the Prime Minister was appointed to office, what did he
declare in his December 8, 1993 personal information statement
about his directorship? We have proof that he was still a
director. Howard Wilson would tell us that if we could ever find
him. He only has quiet coffees with the Prime Minister but we
would love it if he would come here and report to parliament,
which is, I think, what his job ought to be.
What exactly was in his statement of December 8? The contents
were severed from the request. We ended up with a couple of
pages that were mostly whited out and five or six pages missing.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: They must buy that whiteout by the 45
gallon drum.
Miss Deborah Grey: Maybe 161342 Canada Inc. is a
whiteout company for which he is partial owner. Who knows?
There was a confidential report by the ethics counsellor about
this matter dated December 22, 1993. Why was it necessary and
what did it say? It would be great if we could have a look at
that document.
Here is another one. When did the Prime Minister learn that his
sale of shares had fallen through? What other active interest
did he take in the management of 161341 Canada Inc. prior to and
following January 27, 1996? I wonder just how closely his
fingerprints were monitored there.
Here is another question. Did the blind management agreement
have anything to do with the sale of land and the golf course
owned by 161341 Canada Inc., which took place only weeks later?
Here is another one. Almost all the contents of the 700 page
request were severed. There were 700 pages but we only got four.
It was like being told that there were 700 pages but that we
could only get six and a half. Most of the pages were just
completely gone.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why will he not
release all the relevant information and lay this matter to rest?
It seems absolutely unbelievable why he would not just say that
he has it and that he will come forward with it. There is an
amazing chronology there.
Let me go to another case in Shawinigan.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Does it ever end?
Miss Deborah Grey: No, it never ends, but question period
will be here soon. Maybe we will be able to ask some questions
about that.
Let me get to Aérospatiale Globax Inc. and the illegal trust
funds. On March 7, 1997 the owner, René Giguère, received a TJF
grant of $2.04 million, announced a month prior to the election
call. There we go again, $2 million right before the election.
In other words “If something happens to us here we want to make
sure you get the cash first”. Its two daughter companies are
Placeteco and TechniPaint. Questions have also been raised any
number of times in the House on those two companies. As recently
as yesterday, the minister said that if anything was coming out
through access to information that we could have it.
However, if we look at the track record of the government when
it comes to forwarding documents, most of the pages in the
documents have either been whited out or shredded out and
precious little is left to get our hands on to really look at.
Let us look at the political donations of this bunch: $4,000
from Globax to the Prime Minister's personal campaign in 1997;
$10,692.40 from Globax to the Liberal Party in 1997; $3,467.90
from Placeteco to the Liberal Party in 1997; $604.48—I am not
sure how someone gives 48 cents to a political party unless it is
rounded out—from TechniPaint to the Liberal Party in 1997; and
$569.60 from Placeteco to the Liberal Party in 1998. This totals
$19,334.38. This is not a bad return. Get a grant and give back
a donation and things are looking pretty sweet.
What a wonderful way to do business: Give some, take some, give
some and on and on it goes. That is the way the Prime Minister
says that business goes. He says that he is just being a good
little MP for his constituents. That was in March 1997.
On April 23, 1997, just before the writ was dropped, the first
instalment of $440,000 was disbursed to the company. Yee hee,
here is $440,000.
1205
On March 27, 1998, almost a year later, on the last day of the
1998 fiscal year, the second instalment was paid to a trust fund
set up with the law firm Champagne Cleroux Avocats. To ensure
that TJF funds did not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, the
lawyer involved was Gilles Champagne. We have seen his name
before if we have looked through Hansard. I have some
Hansard clippings here, that I will get to in a little
while, but they are precious. Gilles Champagne was talked about
quite a little bit. He was a two-time political appointee of the
Prime Minister to Canada Post Corporation. His contract was
renewed on September 28, 1999 and he is still there.
On May 5, 1998 an HRDC staffer commented by e-mail, and I quote:
The subsidy being an interesting element for a future buyer, the
Office of the Prime Minister wishes that HRDC do all that which
is legally possible to do because if the sale does not take
place, a bankruptcy and layoffs will result.
Businesses do go bankrupt and layoffs do happen but this is a
staffer saying “Come on, better get this going here. Do all you
possibly can”. It is a very strange thing.
On June 11, 1998 TJF officer, Clément Parent, wrote that he had
serious reservations about the sale. This was somebody who was
pretty worried about this. Did the Liberals pay any attention?
No.
On June 17, 1998, just a few days later, HRDC authorized that
all but $10,000 of the $1.2 million in the trust fund be paid to
the Globax subsidiary, Placeteco, now purchased by Claude
Gauthier owner of Transelec Inc. We have seen him on the pages
before.
It carries on. On December 10, 1998 Placeteco went bankrupt
anyway. All the jobs that the minister and the Prime Minister
talked about, all the wonderful jobs that were created, were
created and then the employees were laid off. Mr. Gauthier
re-purchased it. Do we not just love it? We can go bankrupt
and then just re-buy the thing a few days later, eight days
later. He stated that as the new owner he would not be bound by
the hiring requirements contained in the contract with HRDC and
resumed operations with just 62 employees, less than half of the
155 jobs he had agreed to. It never ends.
Mr. Gauthier got government money, went belly up and then
re-bought eight days later and said “Here I am again, all you
lucky people, and I do not have to abide by your guidelines. I
do not need to hire 155 people. I will hire a skeleton crew of 62
to do the work”. That is what we call cash in our pockets. It
is a sweet deal.
On April 7, 1999, just a year ago, the last instalment of the
$400,000 was paid in trust to Deloitte & Touche at the request of
Mr. Giguère who claimed that a big deal for TechniPaint was in
progress. It is like someone saying “Stay tuned, a big deal is
coming. We want more money and we are coming for more.
Everything will be okay because we have a big deal cooking”. If
it was such a big deal there ought to have been enough private
people to invest in it.
On May 25, 1999, almost a year ago, HRDC headquarters heard of
trust funds and found that the first trust fund violated section
34 of the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board
guidelines. This was starting to get serious. It was not just
my word against his word. This was the Treasury Board
guidelines and the Financial Administration Act.
The second trust fund violated Treasury Board guidelines. The
funds had to be closed and the money, with interest, returned to
the consolidated revenue fund. Great, that is a really sweet and
practical use of taxpayers' dollars. Why this money is being
shipped out to these people in the first place would be a really
good question to ask.
It goes on. Number five is the lobbying activities of René
Fugère. I wish I could be reading members a novel and that this
was chapter five of a fictitious work, but this is so true that
it hurts and it so relevant that it hurts even more.
I am sure all members remember René Fugère. I am sure they read
Hansard. Whatever they miss in the daytime they catch up
on at night and they will know René Fugère. On May 28, 1997 René
Fugère, an unpaid aide to the Prime Minister, appeared on the
Prime Minister's behalf at a press conference four days before
the 1997 election to announce a TJF grant of $164,000 for Yvon
Duhaime and the Auberge Grand-Mère.
Why in the world, during a writ period when an election was on,
was the Prime Minister muddling around giving cash to anybody? I
suppose it looked legitimate because somebody was working on his
behalf. René Fugère was out there. It would have almost gone
against the guidelines that I read from a little earlier about
the wonderful on site visits that Liberal MPs can have. These
were really good. The criteria was, of course, that it was
really good for site visits as well and designed to be used by
the Prime Minister, ministers, secretaries of state and members
of parliament when planning to visit regions and home
constituencies. With an election on, the Prime Minister had to
be somewhat astute and undercover, so René Fugère went on his
behalf and said, “Here is the cash, Yvon”. That was $164,000
right at election time.
1210
On August 9, 1997 we had the Auberge des Gouverneurs in
Shawinigan. Old René Fugère had a hand in that as well. Access
documents showed that Fugère lobbied for and received an extra
$100,000 in January 1999 for Mr. Thibeault. That was not bad.
That was on top of the $600,000 TJF grant he had already received
in 1997. He was a fairly profitable fellow.
On March 12, 1998 Celebrity Boats gave all lobbying authority to
Mr. Fugère in writing.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: He must be a registered lobbyist.
Miss Deborah Grey: One would almost think that he would
be a registered lobbyist. However, surprisingly, he is not.
Mr. Fugère was part owner of a former incarnation of that
company. The company began but it had a few problems. It was
not able to live on government money and it collapsed. However,
before we knew it, it was reincarnated. Now I have never
believed in reincarnation, and I still do not, but when René
Fugère is involved in the business world it really makes one
wonder. He lobbied for $600,000 and got $368,235. Well, he did
not get it all, but he did get over 50%. That was not bad. He
asked for $600,000 and got $300,000 and felt that it was all in a
day's work.
On March 26, 1999 there was the Salle de Quilles Biermans. This
bowling alley, owned by Claude Bellerive, burned down. Whoops.
It then received $45,000 from TJF with Mr. Fugère's help.
In 1997 Cirtech Inc., a company also owned by Claude Bellerive,
gave $4,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign. I am sure it was
just a complete irony, but it looked like a 10% rebate.
An hon. member: 11%
Miss Deborah Grey: I appreciate
being corrected. Nonetheless, he received $45,000 and gave
$4,000 back.
On May 14, 1999 the National Post reported that EARTH
Canada received a $38,400 interest-free loan from Canada Economic
Development after Fugère was made a director of the company on
January 13, 1999. Is it any wonder that any company would want
him on its list of directors? It seems to me that he would be a
pretty worthwhile asset when looking for government cash. Mr.
Fugère received 150,000 stock options in the company.
Gilles Champagne, and we have heard that name before, is a
lawyer friend of the Prime Minister, from Shawinigan, who
established two illegal trust funds for TJF recipients, was twice
appointed director of Canada Post Corporation by the Prime
Minister. He was made president, chairman and CEO. He got
500,000 shares. May 14 was a lucky day for EARTH Canada. It is
saying “EARTH to Fugère. EARTH to Champagne”. These two guys
are very close and are now hitting the big times. They are
members of the board, the president, the chairman and the CEO of
EARTH Canada. They also have stock options.
On May 19, 1999, almost a year ago, the ethics counsellor wrote
to the RCMP asking it to investigate the activities of Fugère for
a possible breach of the Lobbyists Registration Act. Was it any
wonder? He was certainly busy. When one writes to the RCMP
asking for an investigation, it would seem that things are not
exactly legitimate or above board.
Let us move on to November 1999, just a few months ago, and a
company called Les Maisons Beam. The National Post said
that Mr. Fugère asked for 6.5% of whatever he could get of a TJF
grant for this company.
The company paid him $15,000 in service for 1988 but when he
asked for $8,000 more, the company refused. It is not a good
thing to get greedy.
1215
Fugère allegedly phoned the department and told it to shelve the
application. In other words “Oh, oh, I got caught here. Better
shelve the thing and keep it quiet”.
December 15, 1999, just a few months ago, the National
Post reported that 10 days after the first TJF disbursement of
$100,000 was received by the Auberge Grand-Mère, Yvon Duhaime cut
a cheque for $11,500 to Fugère.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Commission.
Miss Deborah Grey: One would wonder if it was a
commission. I guess we cannot really say that it might be a
commission or a cut, but boy, I will say it looks like dollars
for dollars.
On February 29, 2000, leap year day just a couple of months ago,
the opposition revealed that Mr. Fugère also lobbied for the
Scierie Opitciwan sawmill on a reserve in Quebec in the riding of
Champlain, next door to the riding of Saint-Maurice. Does the
hon. member remember the old quote? I am not sure he was here
when I was reading the quote of the Prime Minister before the
election in 1993, so I will make sure I share that with him
because it is incredibly relevant to the Scierie Opitciwan
reserve.
On October 15, 1993, just a few days before the election, the
Prime Minister reminded the people in a public appearance that he
would have enormous clout as Prime Minister to pull government
strings. He said, “When a dossier for Saint-Maurice, anything
out of that riding, lands on a cabinet minister's desk, basically
I will be there to look out for you”.
It looks like that is exactly what happened with the Opitciwan
sawmill on the reserve in Quebec. The sawmill received in 1998
$300,000 from TJF, a $1.8 million loan from Canada economic
development for Quebec regions and a $200,000 subsidy from the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Not bad.
Let us do a little tracking of the donations to the Prime
Minister's 1997 campaign. Exactly one-third, 33% of the
donations to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign can
be linked to grants, contributions and contracts in his riding.
There would be people who could make all kinds of claims that
this is a terrible thing for us to do and we should not be
connecting these things one to another, but these are the facts
and these are the dollars.
Aérospatiale Globax Inc. gave $4,000 to the campaign and got $2
million in TJF grants. Les Confections St-Élie gave $1,500 to
the Prime Minister's personal election campaign and got two TJF
grants totalling $285,108. Megatech Electro gave $400. That is
not very good because it got a $1.3 million TJF grant. It hardly
makes it all worthwhile. The Liberals did all the paperwork for
the grant and they got $400 back for their campaign. It is not a
very good percentage.
Here is a better one. Transelec gave a single cheque of $10,000
to the Prime Minister's personal election campaign. It received
a CIDA contract. There was $1.19 million to Globax subsidiary
Placeteco acquired by the owner of Transelec.
Les Industries Fermco gave $2,000 to the Prime Minister and
received a TJF grant of $200,000. That is getting a little
better percentage. It gets $200,000 and gives $2,000 back; I mean
it made a donation of $2,000.
Cirtech gave $4,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign. It is
owned by Claude Bellerive who received a $45,000 TJF grant in the
Prime Minister's riding for Salle de Quilles Biermans. Les
Consultants Mesar gave $1,000 to the Prime Minister and received
HRD grants in the Prime Minister's riding worth $13,000. That is
a pretty good percentage too. That is a fair chunk of change.
Stone Consolidated gave $5,000 to the Prime Minister's campaign.
The Prime Minister was a former director of this corporation
which received HRD grants of $13,000 in the Prime Minister's
riding. It gave $5,000 back as a campaign donation.
Muniressources gave $2,000. Shawinigan International Inc.
received $46,305 from Canada economic development for Quebec
regions. Muniressources is a co-founding company of Shawinigan
International. Is it not handy the way they are all kind of warm
and intimately linked.
Then there is Abatoir A.L. Bellerive Inc. which gave $500.
It received a CIDA contract worth $117,400 even while the RCMP
were investigating its involvement in a $1.4 million tax fraud.
But it can still give the money over. That totals $30,400. That
is 30% of total personal and business donations of $90,325. That
is a fair chunk of change to come up with in someone's personal
election campaign. That was not even donated to the party. That
was just to the Prime Minister's personal campaign.
1220
There is another one we cannot forget about, the great water
fountain in Shawinigan. Canadians have heard about that. A few
questions have been asked in question period about it. This is
pretty hard to believe.
On February 8, 2000 Economic Development Agency of Canada for
the Regions of Quebec which is the federal regional development
agency for Quebec, announced a $200,000 non-repayable
contribution to build a lighted fountain in the Saint-Maurice
River in the Prime Minister's riding. A non-profit group called
Heritage Shawinigan is heading the project.
Here are some facts about the actual application. On March 31,
1998 the office of the minister for the economic development
agency received a file from the Prime Minister's office. A note
says, “The file was sent by Denise Tremblay of the Prime
Minister's office”. In other words, “Hint, hint, look out, this
comes straight from someone important in the PMO, tick, check,
pay attention to it”. I bet there was a red flag on it.
On May 5, 1998 a letter from the EDA for Quebec regions
indicated that the formal application for funding from Heritage
Shawinigan was received on May 4, over a month after the Prime
Minister's office sent the file to the EDA for Quebec regions.
The file had already been in process for two weeks when the
application was received. Might as well get a jump on it. Might
as well move ahead a little bit, get a bit of a jump on it. It
is so awkward when they have to wait for the application form to
come in. They might just as well get the ball rolling.
Another note further explains, “The file was submitted by the
office of the Prime Minister and sent to us for analysis on April
18, 1998”. This suggests that the Prime Minister actually
initiated the grant process prior to an application from the
project's sponsor. The timing on this is unbelievable. That same
note dated May 28 recommends that the project be approved. The
internal approval process took just over three weeks. That is
faster than greased lightning around this place. It is just
unbelievable. All of a sudden the thing is through. The project
was approved by letter to Heritage Shawinigan dated July 6, 1998.
Les Consultants Mesar undertook a feasibility study on the
proposal for which Heritage Shawinigan paid it $8,000; $5,000 of
this amount was received from the Department of Canadian
Heritage. Les Consultants Mesar donated a total of $1,000 in
three separate gifts to the Prime Minister's personal election
campaign in 1997. It is just so easy to say, “Here's to you.
Thanks very much”.
The project was supposed to have been completed by September 1,
1998 but the announcement was delayed until February 8, 2000, at
a time of controversy surrounding grants and contributions. No
reason was given for the delay. In other words, “Oh, oh, it is
getting a little close to home here. Those troublesome
opposition members of parliament are asking questions about these
things so we had better lie low for a while”.
Under the terms and conditions of the agreement signed and
accepted by the sponsor dated August 3, 1998, the client had to
begin the project on September 1, 1998 and finish it no later
than September 1, 1999. The announcement for the funding came
five months after the project was supposed to have been
completed. It had to go underground for a little bit, or under
water let us say. By the time the thing was supposed to be
finished, the announcement did not even come until five months
later. It still has not happened. The project will be 80%
funded by government. Imagine, such a worthwhile deal and it is
80% government funded.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I rise on a point of order, Madam
Speaker. I know the motion we are dealing with today has to do in
particular with HRD spending, abuse within the HRD system and so
on. The member has been speaking at length about problems within
the HRD system but she has been talking about other grants as
well.
I am wondering if she could point out the relevancy. I want to
make sure that it is relevant to the debate, whether the grants
and so on she is talking about are actually HRDC—
1225
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon.
member is debating right now.
Miss Deborah Grey: Madam Speaker is convinced that this is
relevant. Members know it is not just HRDC. The government is
dishing out $13 billion in grants and contributions. HRDC is
certainly a large part of it but boy, it just flows over every
description.
There are lots of Liberal non-answers to the shenanigans in
Shawinigan which we have talked about. The whole Shawinigan
shakedown has gone on for quite a while now. The Liberals do not
allow questions. Let me give a couple of examples.
On May 25, 1999 the Liberal member for Essex who chaired the
industry committee in response to Tory questions about whether or
not the two hotel owners in question were up to date in their
loans, said that questions about individuals would not be
allowed. That does not make a whole lot of sense to me. If
during a debate we have some questions to ask in the House or in
any standing committee, it is unbelievable that it would filter
down from the top, from the Prime Minister to the committee
chairmen, to everyone else to say something like that. Or they
just do not show up.
On May 6, 1999 ethics counsellor Howard Wilson appeared before
the industry committee for the first time since June 1994. Did
the red book not say he was going to report to parliament? I was
sure it did.
How about the “I believe I sold them” line? The Prime
Minister said “I will feel until I die”. Do we not love that
one, “I will feel until I die that I sold the shares in 1993”.
Remember the fracas I just went through in listing the whole
chronology. He said he was a director then he said he was not a
director. He said he sold his shares and was not a director of
the company anymore, until he got caught and found out several
months after the 1993 election.
What about claiming innocence? On June 3, 1999 the Prime
Minister said “I have followed all the rules for 36 years”. But
he had just said in the House a couple of days earlier that he
had sold all his shares and was not a director when he became
Prime Minister. Howard Wilson, the ethics counsellor in March
1994, months after the 1993 election said that the Prime Minister
was a director.
“The Prime Minister's grants are like any others” is another
tactic used by the Liberals. On June 2, 1999 the Deputy Prime
Minister said that the projects in the riding of Shawinigan were
no different from the job creation projects approved in reform
party ridings. Let me put that little myth to bed.
The Prime Minister has the levers of power and the levers of
money. When people go to him as their little MP to get help or to
lobby, it is not like going to even a Liberal backbencher or an
opposition member because they have nothing to give in return.
But in the Prime Minister's situation, a whole pile of stuff can
be given in return.
On March 18, 1999 the Minister for International Trade said that
one of the strengths of the transitional jobs fund was to consult
with local members of parliament. As soon as local members of
parliament get involved, there may be some good feedback and
input, but the whole thing is subject to political interference.
There are some members who would be tempted to interfere
politically in order to get grants for their people.
I know he wears his Liberal sweater proudly at the hockey games,
so he would never be seen doing anything foolish like that.
1230
An hon. member: Skating around in circles.
Miss Deborah Grey: Skating around in circles, but make
sure that the skates are on.
Here is another one: “I am just doing my job”. I love that
excuse. I am just doing my job as a good little MP. The Prime
Minister is more than just an MP. He is the one to say to any
cabinet minister, to a deputy or an assistant speaker “Do
this”, “Do that”. There are a lot of members who know that
feeling. How about this one for size. The Prime Minister says
“You are in cabinet now. Do as I say. Vote as I tell you, or
else”. There are some in this Chamber who know exactly what
that feels like.
The Prime Minister has a tremendous amount of power. When
cabinet ministers have to succumb, they know perfectly well that
he has the power and heaven help them if they do not follow
through.
On June 1, 1999 the Prime Minister said: “With great pride I
stand here and say I will always defend the best interests of my
constituents so they can have a good living in the great country
that is Canada. My electors were treated like the electors of
any riding in Canada”. If they had projects that were based on
merit, then let them be based on merit. I have always said to
the people in my constituency that I am not interested in going
down to the HRD office and getting politically involved. I paid
tribute to HRD bureaucrats here earlier and I will do it again.
I have said time and time again, with these summer programs that
we are going through, when they give the MP the option to get
involved with these seed programs, these summer employment
programs for students, “You are the people who know this
industry. You are the people who will make the decisions based
on merit and merit alone. I am not getting involved in this
project”. I think the HRD people probably appreciate that.
Why should I be in there telling people who make their living at
this, these public servants, what to do? They know what are good
projects and what are not. Why would I trample on them and say
“Move over, I am making those decisions”? It is not right. To
me it belittles those people who work in those departments, who
know what it is they are suppose to be doing, and yet they have
to succumb constantly, time and time again, to the pressure of
their political masters.
Of course the government threatens to sue the opposition. There
is another little tactic it uses sometimes: “Say that outside
the House”.
On June 1, 1999 the Prime Minister said: “If they have any
decency they will make a clear accusation that I have a conflict
of interest and have the guts to make it outside. We will meet
them in court after that”. That is a lovely little tactic. “I
will sue you”. If we say something he disagrees with, he
threatens to sue us. Is that not unbelievable? It is hard to
believe that a prime minister of a country would be in a position
to say “Let's meet in the parking lot”, or something ridiculous
like “Let's meet in the courtroom”. Or, the Liberals call the
opposition names. There is a good one.
The former Minister of Health, the member for Sudbury, said: “I
have never seen such despicable behaviour. I have been in the
House for over 10 years and never have I seen such shameful
behaviour by members of parliament”. I might agree with her,
but I have not seen such behaviour from a Prime Minister.
I hate to think you are going to get bumped out of the chair,
Madam Speaker, as I see the member for Kingston and the Islands.
I digress and pray that this is relevant. I have a doozy for the
Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for being irrelevant for just a
moment, but I want members to hear this.
Some time ago I was speaking about the fact that when the
Liberals were in opposition it used to bother the daylights out
of them when the Mulroney Tories brought in that thing called
time allocation. Yes, members remember it well. My notes tell
me that time allocation was brought in 66 times over nine years.
Today we are not celebrating and having a party; we are having
what might be called a wake. In six years' time the Liberals
have brought in time allocation or closure more times than the
Mulroney Tories. It is not a happy sight.
I read a quote from the current House leader, whom the Deputy
Speaker knows well. I am sure he remembers some of his rants
back in the good old days when they were in opposition.
1235
Then I read one from the member for Ottawa West—Nepean. She
said in 1989: “This government has shown it has no respect for
the public process, no respect for parliament and no respect for
the opinions of the public”.
Then the government House leader said: “I am shocked. Perhaps
I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on
dozens and dozens of occasions”.
Of course, they were haranguing the Liberals—I mean the Tories.
Oh, it is so hard to tell the difference. It was the Mulroney
Tories when they formed the government before 1993. Again, I
digress. Forgive me.
This quote, though, is probably the best of them all. This
comes from the current Deputy Speaker, the member for Kingston
and the Islands. He said: “The government is using time
allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and
the Canadian public of the Draconian”—and that is with a
capital D—“approach this government takes to dealing with
legislation in the House, closure has been used 15 times in
parliament since the November 1988 election”.
How scandalous. Fifteen times. That was in 1993. Imagine, 15
times.
He went on to say: “What we have here is an absolute scandal
in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the
representatives of the people in the House”. For goodness'
sake. “Never before have we had a government so reluctant to
engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this
House”. I digress. Now we do. It is here now.
He said: “I suggest that the government's approach to
legislating is frankly a disgrace”. That was not with a capital
D, but I am sure he meant the same. “It cuts back the time the
House is available to sit and then it applies closure to cut off
debate”. That was in 1992.
Then he said: “This is not the way to run parliament. This is
an abuse of the process of the House”. I say to him “Amen,
brother”. He puts on his sunglasses and is gone, almost like
this is some kind of a joke. But the government has broken the
record today.
Those members were scandalized on this side of the House.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: I was not here then.
Miss Deborah Grey: No, the member across was not here
then. I am sure things would have been a whole lot different.
I love it when a candidate says “I will be a member of
government and, boy, I will tell you, I will straighten out that
government”. The fellow who won the byelection a couple of
years ago in Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam said “I am no
yes-man”. Wrong.
Another favourite little tactic is that they repeat everything.
Everything is all right. Everything is normal. It is just
business as usual and everything is going to be just fine.
The Prime Minister said on June 1, 1999: “I am very happy with
the system because it is doing what has to be done for the good
of the taxpayers of Canada”. A few of them, I guess; the ones
who were getting the grants, but certainly not all of the
taxpayers of Canada. I do not think so.
What about leaving more of our money in our hands in the first
place? It would seem sensible to me that if we send money to
Ottawa, the government should not take such a huge cut from it
when it is swirling around and then send a little back to the
regions or whatever the government thinks with its personal
largesse to make everyone feel good about it while at the same
time claiming that it is giving tax cuts. I love that excuse
too. “We are giving tax cuts”.
I would ask any of the Liberal members, any of the huge number
of them who are here, when was the last time someone came into
their riding office and said “Oh, this tax cut just feels so
good”?
I see the member from Edmonton Southeast is here. His riding is
not very far from mine. We are just across the city from each
other. I would love to know if someone has come into his office
and said “Look at my tax statement. That tax cut just feels so
good”. I would love to tell him how I am going to spend that
money.
It is not happening, is it? It is not happening. The finance
minister says that they are coming forward with tax cuts, but
nobody is seeing it at the ground level. This whole idea that we
are in charge and we are looking after you, everything is okay,
is nonsense.
Here is a good one: “Someone else ordered the contract”. On
March 12, 1999 the solicitor general was talking about why Yvon
Duhaime's father-in-law got an untendered contract for the
guardhouse on the road to the Prime Minister's cottage. Members
will remember that a little while ago a new guardhouse was being
built. The contract was untendered. He said: “The RCMP is
responsible for the security of the Prime Minister. It requested
that this firm be hired because it was in the area for security
reasons”.
The firm just happened to be in the area. I do not know, they
might have been camping over at Meech Lake. I am not too sure,
but they were in the area, so give them the contract. It saves a
bus ticket. Just hire them because they are close by.
Yet when I think about the solicitor general, it is pretty hard
to believe.
Yesterday in the House we were asking questions about murderers,
prisons and some other things. As everyone in the House and
anyone who watches the proceedings knows, the solicitor general
always says that the RCMP and the Correctional Service are at
arm's length. I am not sure how long that is, but it ought to be
about out to here. He says that he has nothing to do with them,
that he cannot be the one to tell them what to do.
1240
Yesterday there was a question about the dreadful situation of
the two people who were put together in jail after murdering
someone. He said that he phoned right away. He did not phone
from downtown Ottawa but from downtown Washington D.C. He called
the Correctional Service and told them to split those people up.
That was not very arm's length. There was a telephone on the end
of that arm. He picked it up and used it. When we see these
discrepancies it is hard to believe that the solicitor general
continues to say that the RCMP is responsible and he does not get
to talk to them. Yesterday he was on the phone in jig time.
Then there is this one: “The Prime Minister was involved, but
not all the time”. He is kind of a part time prime minister or
he is only involved part of the time.
On March 22, 1999, just a year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister
said that he had a representative of his office attend meetings
with officials. As far as he was aware, the decisions were made
at other meetings when the Prime Minister and his staff were not
involved. Can we believe that? Oh, no, he was not really
involved. He was not at the meeting. No, he was not there, so
it was someone else just acting on his behalf. That one is
pretty hard to believe.
Let us say that we were HRD officials sitting around with the
crew we work with all the time, with whom we are comfortable
working, doing what it is we are supposed to be doing, and
Poopsie, or whoever, comes in. She says that she is from the
Prime Minister's office and is just coming to take part in the
meeting. Do we sit down and ask what are we going to do? That is
nonsense.
If we are sitting there as a bunch of bureaucrats, doing our
job, and someone walks in—
Hon. David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not know how long the hon. member has been speaking,
but I think it has been well over three hours. I noticed that
she was sitting on the side of a chair, which the rules bar us
from doing. I think it is outrageous that the hon. member would
do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It was very
thoughtful of the hon. minister to give the opportunity to the
hon. member to sit for a moment and relax.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, just to take the minister
back a few seconds, I was acting as Poopsie from the Prime
Minister's office who was coming to sit and take part in a
meeting. However, I appreciate his concern. I know he has grave
concerns about that.
How about this one? “The matter is in a blind trust”. It is
just so easy for people to say that it is in a blind trust and
they have absolutely nothing to do with it.
On June 8, 1999 the Prime Minister said: “It is in a blind
trust. Blind means blind. I am just doing what is required.
From the day I became Prime Minister I have had no decisions to
make on it”.
Whoops. Remember what I just said about October 1993 to March
1994, that he really was a director? Maybe blind is not blind
when it comes to blind trusts.
This is another precious one: “I have no recollection”. It
sounds like Bill Clinton. I have no recollection of that at all.
On June 3, 1996 the Minister of Human Resources Development, who
is now the Minister for International Trade, back in the good old
days when all of this was happening was talking about Transelec
Inc. He said: “I have no recollection of only three Quebec
firms having been kept on the short list. I have never seen
three Quebec firms on a single short list since I have been
minister. We will look into it and report back to the member”.
That is another precious one. We will put a committee on that.
We will just get a little committee together to study that for
the next several years. It is just unbelievable how it goes on
and on.
There are more miscellaneous things. Ignace Saw got a Canada
jobs grant, which is the successor of the transitional jobs fund.
That firm got $250,000. That numbered company is 1191546 Ontario
Ltd. It is in the riding of Kenora—Rainy River, which happens
to be the riding of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. It was okayed December 3, 1999 by this HRD
minister, only two weeks after she was briefed on the disastrous
internal audit, which was released on January 19, 2000.
1245
Of course she had known about it for some time but thought it
would never get public, probably. She thought she would just
look after it internally, everything would be okay and she might
as well just keep dishing out the cash.
Even on the day the minister was briefed about it she repeatedly
gave the appearance of normalcy in the House of Commons. I may
get to this or I may not. It is hard to say, but I have every
question that has been asked about this matter. We could give
any number of examples of what she actually said. Here is a
statement in response to a question from yours truly on November
17, 1999. She said to me:
As is the case in all regions where the transitional jobs fund
has been used, Canadians are working. The unemployment levels
are coming down and the government is working with communities
together to make sure that this happens.
On December 1, 1999, she said:
Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to the House that no rules were
broken on the application for transitional jobs funds in my
riding.
She would of course extend that to mean any other riding. Now,
with the history of a few months behind us and under our belts, I
am not sure how many RCMP investigations there are.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: About a dozen or so.
Miss Deborah Grey: A dozen, at least, that we know of.
Dear knows how many more will be coming forward. Absolutely no
rules got broken. Nothing happened. Everything is a-okay, but
whoops, we have the RCMP investigating several of them. It does
not exactly look cleaner than clean to me.
Ignace Saw donated $1,150 to the personal 1997 campaign of the
member for Kenora—Rainy River. The Canada jobs fund grant of
$250,000 was approved by the minister on December 3, 1999,
according to the list made public by the minister. By year's end
$150,000 of the grant had already been paid to the company, and
on and on it goes.
I mentioned earlier the Scierie Opitciwan sawmill which gave
$1,200 to the Liberal Party in 1998, $3,700 to the Liberal Party
in 1997 and $164 to the Liberal Party in 1996, for a total of
approximately five grand.
Then there was ACOA funding for the Clarenville Regional
Sportsplex. This is one that we uncovered not so long ago. This
saga continues in Newfoundland as we speak. Here is a little
detail about the actual project. The Clarenville Regional
Sportsplex is a pool, fitness centre and restaurant. It was
given ACOA funding in 1997 and 1998. Clarenville is in the
riding of Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, one of the few Liberal
ridings left in that area, as far as I know.
Application was made on February 12, 1997. Its evaluation began
on April 24, 1997, three days before the writ was dropped, if
members recall. The letter of approval for funds came on May 26,
1997, and the offer was accepted June 10, just a week after the
federal election. All this stuff was milling around while there
was an election going on. If that does not look like political
interference, I surely do not know what does.
On April 7, 1997, ACOA sent 75 environmental screening
applications to the Department of the Environment for 75
different projects including the sportsplex and requested they
all be approved on a rush basis. There was no time to think it
through. There was no time for applications. There is an
election on. They had to buy a few seats, so they had to get at
it.
They said they would appreciate having all the completed
environmental screenings no later than April 25, 1997. It looks
like someone else knew when the writ was going to drop. I was
not exactly sure what day it was, but it looks like they did.
The province planned to announce all approved projects by the
end of April 1997 and the election was called just days later.
Government contributions were $478,000 from Newfoundland,
$478,000 from federal infrastructure funds, $127,000 from the
infrastructure program for the cost overrun, and $620,000 from
the business development bank.
Federal assistance was $605,000 in grants and $620,000 in loans.
That is a fair pile of cash. Total federal assistance was $1.2
million. Whew, the project was one of the largest submitted in
the province of Newfoundland. It was to create 40 full time
jobs. It appears that no private funds were expended on the
centre.
The sportsplex contains a fitness centre, squash courts, a
sauna, hot tubs, massage rooms, solariums, a competition size
swimming pool, two golf and putting simulators, classrooms,
change rooms, a dance studio, a pro shop and a restaurant.
Yikes.
On February 28, 2000, just a matter of weeks ago, after less
than two years of operation the town of Clarenville confirmed
that the sportsplex—I ask my colleague to guess the answer.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do I get a lifeline? I guess it went
broke.
1250
Miss Deborah Grey: He is right. It went broke. It
closed its doors. There is a sign on the front door indicating
that the building is closed because of “mechanical problems
resulting from the design of the building”.
My husband is a builder. If a sign is hung on the front door of
any building he ever built saying that “mechanical problems
resulting from the design of the building”, he would be some
upset. I know this is quite creative, but before he built the
building he would want to make sure that it was designed to be
mechanically sound and not have its doors shut two years later.
Apparently there is a legal dispute regarding the lining of the
pool in the building. Bren Power is suing the contractor who
built the pool claiming defective work.
My husband has been building an addition on a house. All last
fall he worked on it for someone who is building a swimming pool
in the Edmonton area. He would not be impressed if the thing got
shut down after a year or two because the swimming pool part did
not work.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: He probably did not get a million
dollars in government help.
Miss Deborah Grey: He did not get a dime in the form of a
government grant. ACOA signed a contract with Bren Power stating
that the facility had to remain open for 10 years. It did not
make it. If he sells the facility before the tenth year, he must
pay back the money in an amount declining by 10% each year until
the tenth year. In other words, he still owes a pile of cash on
that building.
There was local opposition to the project. In November 1998
business people started complaining. Chris Newman, the owner of
a local sports shop, complained in the press by saying that was
built with their tax dollars to provide in return direct
competition with other local businesses. Here is some guy who
owns a sports shop and then the federal government funds a huge
percentage, almost all, of another sports complex. He asks how
he is supposed to make a living.
I bet you would hate, Mr. Speaker, to see government coming in
and building a nice big hefty bakery just a couple of blocks down
the road on White Avenue. It would make it pretty hard to sell
those baguettes and cinnamon buns. Ralph Matsson, owner of the
local Jungle Jim restaurant actually went out of business after
the Don Cherry restaurant opened. He cites the government
assisted competition of Don Cherry as an important factor in the
closure. Now the Don Cherry restaurant has moved into the old
Jungle Jim location in the St. Jude Hotel downtown.
An undated ACOA backgrounder indicates that the media reports
the sportsplex facility contains a Don Cherry sports bar which is
not well received by local business. Bren Power advises that
while the sportsplex was publicly funded, the restaurant and
sports bar were funded with private funds. Don Cherry is a good
businessman. He builds Don Cherry restaurants and he gives great
commentary on Hockey Night in Canada. However we see what
happens when we get tied into government phoney funding. It
skews the whole business community and makes it very difficult
for businesses to make a go of it. Don Cherry has moved
downtown.
An ACOA backgrounder indicates that it did not know that a
restaurant would go into the space in the sportsplex. All it
knew was that space had been allocated for food services. It
sounds like a cafeteria. ACOA's environmental screening report
dated April 24, 1997, indicates that a pro shop and a restaurant
would be part of the facility.
The project received some letters of private support. However
the mayor of Clarenville indicated publicly that the local town's
letter of support was sent to Mr. Power after a presentation he
made to council. Council did not know that infrastructure funds
would go toward the sportsplex.
We would probably define infrastructure funds as sewer, water
and making sure that everything works okay regarding water and
sewers so that if I build a building on top of it everything will
be okay. That is infrastructure. Then the superstructure is
built on top of it.
The mayor said that the town of Clarenville would never support
the fact that the provincial or federal government would divert
much needed infrastructure money intended for water, sewer and
roads into a private development. That is our concern about the
whole matter. Everyone in this area would support such a
project, but everyone in this area would not expect the
provincial government to take money away from the chronic care
facility of Clarenville and put it into that. They just took the
money, put it in there against the mayor's good judgment and that
of lots of other people. It is just unreal.
I will tell the House about the owner of this facility. His
name is Bren Power. He is from Clarenville. He ran for
nomination for the provincial Liberals, whoops, in the riding of
Trinity North in 1992 against Doug Olford.
1255
The centre has already been the subject of controversy in the
Newfoundland house of assembly. Mr. Jack Byrne, member for Cape
St. Francis, said during question period:
Are we looking at pure, partisan politics and Liberal patronage
to the uppermost levels?
They could figure it out. These things are politically
motivated. Mr. Byrne repeated in the press on March 1:
I'll say it again, it's another case of political patronage.
Mr. Power reportedly raised funds for the member for
Trinity—Bonavista—Conception. No Liberal donations have been
found. The gym equipment has reportedly been sold to another
pair of businessmen who also received an HRD grant. On and on
the saga goes.
Here is just a grab bag of a few miscellaneous boondoggles. Rama
Reserves, a tiny reserve near Orillia, Ontario, has 600 band
members. The Majikaning band has operated Casino Rama for three
years and has full employment. An HRD office opened in that area
in June 2000 at an initial cost of $164,000. The band just
negotiated a deal with the province of Ontario to share casino
profits. The deal is worth $123 million. Not bad. That is
$200,000 for every man, woman and child on the reserve. This was
reported in the Toronto Star on February 9, 2000.
Wal-Mart has a market capitalization of $250 billion and profits
of $1.92 billion for the three month period ending January 31,
2000. It paid Metrus Properties, another huge company with
longstanding Ontario Liberal connections, to build a huge $60
million warehouse in Cornwall with 172 loading docks. Metrus
received a $300,000 transitional jobs fund grant, yikes, thus
benefiting Wal-Mart. That is a pretty good deal with 300,000
bucks off the bill.
American based RMH Teleservices was enticed to the riding of the
minister of HRDC using $1.6 million in HRD grants over the
protests of a neighbouring Liberal MP. Later RMH executive
vice-president Michael Scharff said in an interview that they
would have located there without the grant anyway. He said he
was sure they would be in Brantford one way or another. It was
kind of icing on the cake. Who would not take it? If he did
not take it someone else would. The next guy would. That is the
very frustrating part of trying to do business across Canada. We
see phony, trumped up government grants. It is ridiculous.
Wiarton, Ontario, received $50,000 from HRD to hold a groundhog
festival featuring the rodent Wiarton Willie II. The original
one is gone. He has crossed over. It is not like Peter Donolo
who has crossed over to Italy on a plum post. Wiarton Willie has
really crossed over.
The Canadian Aerospace Group in Nipissing, Ontario, received
$917,000 of a $1.3 million TJF grant before going bankrupt
without building any aircraft. Then the minister has the nerve
to say that we are being critical of some of these programs. You
bet we are, Mr. Speaker. When we call it the billion dollar
boondoggle, that is exactly what it is. I am going through list
after list.
It was supposed to be better. The Prime Minister campaigned in
1993 and again in 1997 that it was going to be good. He said as
recorded in Hansard in 1991 when he was standing on this
side as leader of the opposition:
When we form the government every minister in the cabinet that I
would be presiding will have to take the full responsibility of
what is going on in his office.
It could be her office. There are women cabinet ministers and
competent ones at that. He continued:
And if there is bundling in the department, nobody will be
singled out but the minister will have to take the
responsibility.
Boy, Mr. Speaker, if you have not seen bungling, you have not
been watching. The HRD department is an embarrassment because of
the things and the bungling that have gone there. The minister
says she has instituted a six point plan, which I will read in a
minute, as if that will solve everything. The Prime Minister
says he will make sure they take responsibility for it. There is
no responsibility taken there.
The Prime Minister said on February 1, 2000, that administrative
problems of this kind happen all the time. This was quoted in
L'Acadie Nouvelle.
They will just pick out the administrative people and say “Those
horrible people over there at HRDC, I am going to get that
department straight”. It is blamed on somebody else.
1300
Here is another one. He said, “Do you think it was better
under Mulroney?” The member for Edmonton Southeast ought to
know because he was a member of the Mulroney government before
1993. It makes it all right because, “It was worse under
Mulroney so I am not bad”. What a way to run a country. It is
absolutely ridiculous that it was worse under Mulroney so maybe
he is not doing too badly. He said that in the Ottawa Sun
on February 3, just a couple of months ago.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: The Liberals are worse on time
allocation, we know that.
Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, they have hit the record on time
allocation now.
He said, “What is boondoggle? Give me the definition of that.
Tell me, is there money that has disappeared?” I remember that
great happy day when the Prime Minister came out of his office to
the scrum. The HRDC minister was in the scrum trying desperately
to answer questions. She was having a hard time answering. We
all remember that. The Prime Minister whisked past her and
turned around and came back, “I will take this from here, I will
look after the questions from here, dear” in that patronizing
way and shuffled her off down the stairs in humiliation. He
said, “I will look after this now. What is boondoggle? Give me
the definition of that. Is there money that has disappeared?”
As a matter of fact, there probably is. Even though we were not
accusing the minister of money being missing, it is turning out
from some RCMP investigations that some of the money really has
gone missing. It is certainly not $1 billion. A lot of the
cheques can be traced but there is some money that has actually
disappeared. I would say “Yes, Mr. Prime Minister, on February
5, 2000, maybe some money has disappeared”.
And what is the definition of boondoggle? It is when a minister
acts irresponsibly so that she is not in full control of her
department to know exactly where the money is going and why.
That would be a definition of boondoggle.
He said in Hansard on February 9, “Of $11 million of
so-called problems there was an overpayment of a little bit more
than $250”. I hardly think so. Maybe it was that at the time,
but of course only 459 files had been looked at out of 60,000.
Now there are any number of RCMP investigations, many of which
are in the Prime Minister's riding.
Then he said, as Andrew Coyne cited in the Ottawa Citizen
on February 22, “Listen, we are the government. I don't see why
we can't get credit for what we do. I hope we do so. There is
nothing to be ashamed of, we do it all the time. I am the
government”. Remember the quote from 1993, “Any file from
Saint-Maurice that comes across any cabinet minister's desk, you
bet I will be there for them. You get the cash”. He must feel
like Regis Philbin on Who Wants to be a Millionaire; just
pass out the cash.
Here he is again, “We ought to get credit for what we do. I
hope we do. There is nothing to be ashamed of, we do it all the
time”. At least he admits that the Liberals do it all the time.
It is absolutely unbelievable and shameful and it ought to stop
very soon.
He said, “I think it happens to you at the end of the month to
see that you have spent a few more dollars than expected”. Spend
a few more dollars than expected. This seems ridiculous. In the
London Free Press, February 19, 2000—
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to
congratulate the hon. member. I had a call from the people at
the Guinness records and, never in the history of active
politics has so much rubbish been heard in so short a time.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Well, there you are.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I understood every word
and frankly, I have made history before in this place so we might
as well add that to the record.
He said further in the London Free Press on February 19,
2000, “I think it happens to you at the end of the month to see
that you have spent a few more dollars than expected”. A few
more dollars. We have all been in that position where we have
spent a few more dollars but $1 billion seems a little excessive.
All of a sudden the Liberals had no idea where this money was
with this great boondoggle. There were hundreds of projects and
they had no idea where the money was and what the people were
doing with it and he said that it is a few dollars at the end of
the month. It is unbelievable.
In the London Free Press on February 19, it was a busy
day, he said, “Recipients have not complained at all”. As the
kids would say, well, duh. Who will complain about getting free
money? It is pretty sad. It goes on and on.
I made reference to the six point plan. The minister has told us
time and time again, “We have instituted a six point plan and
everything will be wonderful”. Everybody can just sit back and
feel so much at ease that the government is really managing its
money because it has a six point plan and all will be well.
1305
The minister claims that she incorporated the views of Deloitte
& Touche in the final draft of the six point plan to strengthen
the administration of grants and contributions. She made the
following claims on May 3 a few days ago. She said in
Hansard:
We have added aspects of training and aspects focusing on
accountability. We have have ensured that senior management know
what their roles are and what accountable role they will have to
play. We actually put together a grants and contribution team, a
team focused on this.
Should the focus team not have been in place before the whole
thing started rather than after the boondoggle was blown loose?
She also said “We made sure that senior executives were making
the final sign-off on those transfer terms”. She should have
been doing that a long time ago. She went on to say “They said
that we should make sure we address the root cause of the audit
findings. We are doing a number of things in that regard, making
sure employees have training”. That is great. They should have
training. She went on to say “We did indeed address and assign
authorities and responsibilities”.
The day before that, the minister for HRD said in Hansard,
regarding her six point plan:
They said that we needed greater cohesiveness to orchestrate the
various actions in an integrated fashion. What did we do? We
established a grants and contributions team to ensure that we
meet their recommendations.
Perhaps they have jerseys too or maybe the hon. member could buy
them some. She went on to say:
They said that we needed assurance that funds had been
transferred according to program requirements. What did we do?
We put in place a departmental directive on the issuance of
payments which require sign-off by senior executives to ensure
that the payments are made appropriately.
An hon. member: Unless the minister's fund is involved.
Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, the minister's reserves are right
there. We have to ask a question in rebuttal. The grants and
contributions performance tracking group was established in
September 1999. It was stated in the program integrity audit on
page 14, released on January 19. This is hardly something new
and creative which she came out with in February, March and
April.
The directive on the issuance of payments was issued January 20
requiring sign-off by senior executives prior to any new payments
anyway. What is the big deal about everything being new and
wonderful?
Deloitte & Touche brought forward its recommendations on
February 2. It said in committee that the final draft was
completed February 6. This version was put on the Internet on
February 21 along with lots and lots of pages of grants and
contributions made public by the department. Deloitte & Touche
never even got another look at it. It was hired to look at it
and made a few little changes. You will see in a minute, Mr.
Speaker, and I am sure you are rapt with attention on this, that
the final version of the six point plan is precious little
different from the draft version Deloitte & Touche looked at and
said was abysmal.
The number one subject was to ensure that payments meet
standards. Here is the six point plan. I am sure there are
Canadians who wonder if there really was a six point plan. There
is.
Number one is to ensure payments meet standards. Number two is
to resolve issues with past files. Number three is to equip and
support staff. Number four is to get the best advice available.
As if they needed to come up with a new six point plan to say to
get the best available. Number five is accountability in
reporting. Number six is communications. As if this is
something new and creative.
These basic things should have been in there since the
beginning. Ensure payments meet standards; obviously. Resolve
issues with past files; who is not going to give money who has
not checked it out? Equip and support staff; that would be a
really smart thing to do. That should have been done off the
top. Get the best advice available; anybody would know that.
Accountability in reporting; as if this is something new with
government money. It should be accountable and report every
cent. Communications; sometimes we need good communications to
get our point across.
That is the six point plan. It is unbelievable that a minister
of the crown would stand and trumpet that day after day, as if
there has been an amazing discovery and everything is okay and
from now on the government will look after us.
The draft version which Deloitte & Touche looked at said that
there would be no new payments without verification, to review
all files by April 30 and have two senior officials approve them,
and to monitor new agreements. In the final version the same
points were addressed, the same officials were named and there
was the same timeline. When the minister stood in her place a
couple of weeks ago and said they had taken its recommendations,
they had not done a thing. They just reprinted them in the next
column.
The draft version said to resolve all issues with past files by
February 29; review 37 files and develop methods to choose others
for review; by August 31 apply screening methods; and to study
cost effectiveness of looking at files prior to 1998-99. Those
were the draft version recommendations.
The final version says by February 18, review the 37 files. So
the date was changed by 11 days. Oh, those are substantive
changes.
1310
On number three the draft version says to “equip and support
staff, conduct training, arrange temporary additional resources,
add staff response on the standing item on national management
board agenda”. That was Deloitte & Touche in the draft version.
In the final version the same vague steps were implemented, but
the first round of training was scheduled to take place by
February 28. That was a real sign of commitment, putting a date
in there. This is hardly a substantial amendment.
Number four was to get the best advice available. Deloitte &
Touche in the draft version said to “consult with TB, AG”—that
is the treasury board and the auditor general—“other deputies,
contract senior private sector financial expert for technical
advice”—that is, the best advice available—“review progress
quarterly with treasury board and meet monthly with the assistant
auditor general”.
In the final version, the same steps were taken. It notes that
it incorporated treasury board and AG advice. The website was
changed on May 3 to read that it incorporated Deloitte's as well
as treasury board's on-site executives' advice. On May 3, much
later, the website was changed, “Whoops, got to fix this up and
make sure everything looks parallel”.
Number five in the six point plan is accountability in
reporting. “Report regularly to the minister, staff, senior
managers, obtain outside expert advice on progress of plan, by
March 31 assess cost benefit of applying the ISO 9000 to
programs”.
This is what happened in the final version. The dates were
changed. The dates of June 2000 and January 2001 for external
review of the progress of the plan were added. I hardly think
the minister could stand in her place and brag about the fact
that they have brought in all these recommendations. They
changed a date here and there. This is hardly substantive.
Number six was communications. Deloitte & Touche said “Brief
sponsors, press, correct misinformation as appropriate, brief all
staff on February 7, communicate regularly with program staff”.
This is what the minister's draft version looked like. Deloitte
& Touche had some serious concerns about all these draft versions
of the HRD six point plan.
The final version added “report to parliament through
parliamentary committee and performance report”. The final
version said that they are going to report to parliament, through
parliamentary committee and performance report. The minister
clearly would come in, stand, make a fuss and say, “Everything
is okay. Trust us. I am from the government and I am here to
help you. Remember me? I have a six point plan implemented and
everything is absolutely fine. It is going along well”.
That six point plan is unbelievable. The minister talks about
the six point plan, and especially number six, the communications
angle of it, I would bet a dollar that she is not terribly
impressed with the communications. Many in her own department
have come forward and she did not act of course, “Uh oh, looks
like this could be a real land mine”.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: It is called spin doctoring, I think.
Miss Deborah Grey: It is very frustrating. Today I have
talked about the government becoming the latest incarnation of
the Ottawa 67s. It now has brought in time allocation 67 times,
even beating the record of Brian Mulroney, who in just over six
years closed down debate in this place 66 times.
Now we see a new champion across the way, a government that
railed and went on and on about how horrible and sinful it was.
Yet when we look at the Prime Minister who has a heavy hand in so
many areas, we should not be surprised. People seem shocked by
this, but maybe when we look at it we should not be so shocked.
We are certainly saddened by it.
I have a history in this place of being the only reformer, now a
Canadian Alliance member. Neither of these guys was here then.
I used to sit with the Liberals in the lobby. I remember many of
them. I ate with many of them. I visited on airplanes back and
forth with many of them. I can remember times when they were so
upset and outraged in that back lobby. Boy, they could hardly
put a lid on it.
The member for Kingston and the Islands would come back
practically vibrating because he would be so upset about the
Mulroney Tories and how terrible they were. I also remember the
words by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood, when he was
sitting in the lobby right behind where I am standing now, over
what happened in government.
1315
I remember visiting and speaking to many of those people. When I
was first sworn in here I sat up in the corner. I was surrounded
by the member for Broadview—Greenwood and I think the former
member for Acadie—Bathurst, Doug Young, who for some strange
reason is no longer in the House. The minister for Indian
affairs was also there. We were all left-handers sitting up in
the corner, or the dummy corner as it was dubbed. We had some
good visits and some good times up there.
When I visited with those members back in the lobby, while we
all ate left-handed—but you have to love us—they told me that
they would not be like the Tory government. They said “When we
get to government it will be different. I asked them to promise
me that if they did form the next government that they would not
do the same as the Mulroney Tories. They said “Oh, yes. Scout's
honour, Deb”. It was as if everything was going to be okay and
we would not have a thing to worry about. I remember them saying
that they could never be that arrogant. They said that they
could never be as bad as the Tories on time allocation and
closing off debate. They said that free trade was a horrible
thing and that they were against it.
Does anyone remember the 1988 election? The Liberals ran some
good ads. The only problem was that they did not believe them.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Very bad. Vous êtes méchante.
Miss Deborah Grey: Free trade is all right? He became a
member of a party whose word was not good on that. His party was
against free trade in 1988. Now that it has become government,
free trade is okay.
The Liberals should have known all along that free trade was
okay. If we are going to close our walls in and not trade with
other people, we are in big trouble. I do not mind admitting
that perhaps the member saw the light, which I know is a goofy
phrase, but I think what frustrates him is joining a government
that is not true to its word.
Lucien Bouchard who was another Mulroney Tory. I mentioned him
earlier. He ran the best byelection money could buy. I
respected him and I know the member for Edmonton Southeast
respected him. At least Mr. Bouchard admitted in the House that
he was a separatist. His word was good. When he formed the Bloc
Quebecois, I disagreed vehemently with the separatists. There
were a lot of people in the Mulroney government and in fact in
the Mulroney cabinet who did not have the nerve to stand their
ground and say they were separatists.
Although I disagree with the Bloc, with separatism and with
Lucien Bouchard, at least we have to respect them. They were
true to their word.
Hon. David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My hon. friend is not alleging that all the people in the
Mulroney cabinet were separatists. There were three. I think
she will be kind enough to admit that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A salient point of
order.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not
accusing all the Tories. Of course he is not a Tory anymore.
There were a few of them who did not have the nerve to stand up.
I cannot name them all but I know Marcel Massé was one of them.
Maybe the member could jump up and tell me who they were. He was
probably intimate friends with them. Nonetheless, Lucien
Bouchard was true to his word. There are others in this Chamber,
I am sad to say, who perhaps were not and are not. To me, that
is a pity.
When we see the Prime Minister saying one thing about free trade
and then doing another, who says one thing about not being a
director of a company anymore when he was, when we see the Prime
Minister saying “I am just making all these excuses and I am
doing a great job” and maybe he is not, then we have to say
something is wrong here with the Prime Minister who says one
thing and does another.
Let me give a couple of examples of that. APEC comes to mind.
At the APEC meeting in Vancouver a few years ago, the meeting was
to be held on the UBC campus. We know what happened there.
I am not making any accusations here. I have asked probably 100
questions about it in the House of Commons over the years and
have never received a straight answer. The Prime Minister likes
to laugh and say that he likes pepper steak. This is not funny.
People are asking these questions in coffee shops. It would be
good for the Prime Minister to clear his conscience if he went to
the commission to give his answers.
1320
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I am not going to Stornoway
either.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, let me say on the record
that I am not living at Stornoway as the Leader of the Official
Opposition. I have a place in Ottawa and I am staying there.
People are saying that the Prime Minister's office directed
police to use pepper spray and dogs against UBC students so that
a third world dictator would not be embarrassed when he visited
Canada. Who should we be concerned about in terms of
embarrassing?
When asked about the use of pepper spray, the Prime Minister
joked “For me, pepper is something that I put on my plate”.
This is a head of state. This was the Prime Minister of our
country who made this joke at his little press conferences. This
gave Air Farce and This Hour Has 22 Minutes great
stuff to use, but it was hardly something that we would expect
from the Prime Minister of our country.
I might add that a riot breaks loose every time the Prime
Minister goes to Vancouver. People had a fit in front of the
Hyatt Regency Hotel when the Prime Minister attended a
fundraising dinner in 1998 where he continued with his joking. He
said “Usually it is a rubber chicken dinner, but when we come to
the west we have beef. Sometimes we have pepper steak”. Somehow
there is nothing hilarious about this. He might think that it
gets a great rousing laugh from the crowd but it is not very
funny. He talked about the merits of using pepper spray over
tear gas, baseball bats or water cannons. The point is, why were
they doing that in the first place? Was it to make Mr. Suharto
comfy in Canada? That is the question we need to be asking.
Let us not just look at the Prime Minister's behaviour on the
APEC deal. What about the auditor general's staff, the guys who
look over the books and make things so uncomfortable for a
government when it messes around? In 1998 the auditor general,
Denis Desautels, was reprimanded by finance department officials
for presuming to criticize accounting practices of the
government. What do the Liberals expect the auditor general to
do? His job is to audit the books. If the government is not
coming across really well he will criticize accounting practices.
Does the government use generally accepted accounting
principles? It seems to me that it shoves a whole lot off to
future years to be reckoned with then. The auditor general was
reprimanded by the finance department for pointing out those
criticisms. I guess we have to ask the Liberal members whether
we even have to trifle and be inconvenienced by an auditor
general, because, as I said, he often does get in the way when we
talk about government financing.
In 1998 inspectors at Environment Canada were warned not to
testify before a commons committee on the cutbacks in their
department. There is no real freedom of speech when a government
member can stand up and say “If you get up in that committee and
say x, y or z you will be in big trouble and
there will be repercussions”. These people should be begged for
information because they are the people who are working on the
front lines. They are the ones who can give us the real
practical help.
I talked to someone the other day in the finance department.
This was a person from whom I wanted to get information because
the person knew what was going on over there. This person was
warned not to testify before a committee.
In 1998 six Health Canada scientists said they were warned not
to speak publicly about their concerns over a bovine growth
hormone. This was another threat.
We see a government in power that is just so full of
mismanagement and fear tactics that it should cause fear in all
Canadians.
Health Canada Director Joseph Losos was chastized by the privacy
commissioner for rummaging through the files of departmental
critic Michèle Brill-Edwards. Michèle Brill-Edwards is a very
bright woman. Joseph Losos was chastized by the privacy
commissioner for rummaging through her files.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think we have a dress code in the House of Commons. I
see the hon. member has no shoes on.
1325
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I really do not know
what to say about that. I guess the hon. member for Brampton
Centre is a very observant person.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point
of order. I am not sure if the hon. member has a quotation from
either the standing orders, Beauchesne's or some other precedent
setting moment that he would like to quote. I am sure we would
all be interested. However, as the hon. member well knows, the
dress code in the House of Commons has to do with men wearing
ties and being able to vote and certain other dress codes. If he
has something to add to that, perhaps we would all be enlightened
if he could bring it forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I suppose that if we
were looking for a rule dealing with shoes it would be under the
standing orders.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, it is only common
decency that when we are in the House we should have our shoes
on.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, obviously something is
afoot here, and it is that members on the government side do not
like to hear the truth that the leader of the opposition is
giving them. I suggest that they just sit in their place, take it
on the chin and bear with it. These are the facts and the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will settle it
right here. We have been here before and in other circumstances
we have said that it is not what is on the feet but what is in
the head that counts.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I
am just getting more and more impressed by the moment.
Members will recall a comment made a while ago by the Secretary
of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women. My own
status is about 3/4 inches shorter right now than it generally
is. She accused me of being barefoot, pregnant and in the
kitchen. I am barefoot but I am certainly not in the kitchen.
I will carry on. I was talking about 1998 when the courts said
that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not have the
authority to proceed with the aboriginal commercial fishery. The
government replied that it was one man's opinion. It just tossed
the ruling aside and ignored it. What a way to toss things off.
In 1998 the Prime Minister refused to appoint two senators
elected from Alberta. Now there is a good one. Everyone knows
that we had an election in Alberta. I think the hon. member for
Edmonton Southeast even supports those senatorial elections
because he has seen what has gone on in the Senate over the
years, which might lead me to another good point. Those men, Ted
Morton and Bert Brown, were elected by hundreds of thousands of
people in Alberta and they were told that they could not go into
the Senate.
One might ask how that could happen to people who were elected.
Of course no one is elected in the Senate. Just look at who has
been named to the Senate.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Did you call me?
Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood. Come and sit over here.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Do I get to speak?
Miss Deborah Grey: No, I am sorry.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: You just want to take shots but you
won't let me speak.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I will take all kinds of
shots.
I just mentioned the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood and
the fact that we used to visit up in the dummy corner. I am sure
he remembers. I thought I was making kind remarks earlier when I
talked about the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. I said
that when we used to sit up in that corner and have the odd bite
of food out in the lobby, I asked him if he would promise me when
his party came to government that it would be different than the
Mulroney Tories. His response to me was “Absolutely, we will be
different than the Mulroney Tories or better”.
An hon. member: They're worse.
An hon. member: Better.
Miss Deborah Grey: Well, on this particular day I guess
he has nothing to brag about because it is not better.
There are some who would say that bigger is better but when it
comes to time allocation and stifling debate, the Liberals are
bigger today. They are at 67 rather than 66. Oh, my, how they
used to rail about Mulroney and the Tories and how horrible it
was that they had brought in so much time allocation. How
dreadful it was—
1330
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to
congratulate my colleague, who had a vision when he sat on the
other side, now that he is in the government. I seek unanimous
consent to congratulate him.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the
Senate. I know my friend from Broadview—Greenwood and I have
had a few discussions over the years about the Senate. Let me
have a little look at some of the Senate appointments and some of
the Liberal connections. Again, I know there is no theme to
this. Nobody would ever think that there was political
manipulation or anything like that, which I have mentioned time
and again.
Who has been put into the Senate since this Prime Minister has
taken office? Sharon Carstairs, the former Manitoba Liberal
leader. She was appointed on September 15, 1994. Landon
Pearson, who is married to the son of the former Liberal Prime
Minister Lester Pearson, was appointed on September 15, 1994.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There is a rule to prevent members from being disrespectful to
the other place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has a very good point. We refer to the
other place as the other place, and as an organ of governance we
respect each other. They respect us; we respect them.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I was not paying
disrespect. I was listing their names and their political
connections to the Liberal party. You have said that we should
refer to it as the other place. You know perfectly well that the
Speaker of the House has allowed us to call it the Senate for
some years now. If it would make the hon. member happy, I will
call it the other place.
Let me talk about some members of the other place and their
Liberal connections. I mentioned Sharon Carstairs and Landon
Pearson, both of whom are very pleasant people, but they ought to
have been elected to the position and then they would have a
mandate and authority.
Lise Bacon, a former Liberal deputy premier of Quebec, was
appointed on September 15, 1994.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am trying my best to stretch my imagination to imagine
what the relevance might be of the hon. member's comments to the
topic she is presumably discussing, which I believe is the report
of a committee of the House. That has absolutely nothing to do
with the other place, the people who sit in it, or how they got
there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The point of order,
of course, is relevant to the relevance. I, for one, was also
most interested to see how the Leader of the Opposition was going
to weave this back into relevance.
Miss Deborah Grey: I will do it immediately, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to weave this together to show that these senators,
who basically have no authority and no mandate, approve every
single dime that goes through this place and through the Senate,
including all HRD spending. I did that in less than 35 seconds.
Let me tell hon. members who those people are in the other
place. Jean Robert-Gauthier was appointed on November 23, 1994.
He was a long time Liberal member of parliament. John Bryden, a
candidate for Liberal leader in New Brunswick, who managed the
Prime Minister's 1990 New Brunswick Liberal leadership campaign,
was appointed on November 23, 1994.
It is still relevant. Then we have Rose-Marie Losier-Cool,
Céline Hervieux-Payette, Marie Paule Poulin, Doris Anderson,
William Rompkey and Lorna Milne.
Let me back up to Bill Rompkey for a minute. He and I served
together in the House. I saw him this morning. He is a fine
fellow, again, but I bet he would have a whole lot more relevancy
if he were elected to the place.
Shirley Maheu is another former member of parliament who used to
sit in the chair. She has now gone over to the other place.
Nick Taylor was the Alberta Liberal leader in days gone by.
Nick is a great guy. We had lots of fun together. His
provincial riding took a portion of my federal riding in Beaver
River. He and his wife Peg and I had some wonderful visits back
and forth. He could have run in that election in Alberta and I
bet he would have won.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast if he
agrees with me that Nick Taylor could have won a Senate election
had he run. He looks doubtful, but there we are.
Jean Forest is, again, another pleasant woman with whom I have
ridden back and forth on the plane any number of times.
Eugene Whalen was a former Liberal cabinet minister under
Trudeau.
Then we have Léonce Mercier, Wilfred Moore and Lucie Pépin.
Catherine Callbeck is another member I sat with in the House in
days gone by. Then we have Sister Peggy Butts. Fernand
Robichaud is another former MP. Then we have Marisa Ferretti
Barth and Serge Joyal.
Thelma Chalifoux is another great woman from Alberta with whom I
travel back and forth on the plane all the time.
She said to me one time “I probably could not get elected
because I am a woman”. I think she said she was Metis. Surely
she could have been elected. Thelma has some real abilities.
She is serving in the other place. I do not disrespect her, but
she would have a lot more of a powerful punch if she were
elected.
1335
The list goes on: Joan Cook, Archibald Johnston, Ross
Fitzpatrick, and Tommy Banks, whom I have not yet seen on the
plane. He was just appointed on April 7, 2000. He is the one
who was put in Ron Ghitter's place, when we have two fine
senators-elect from Alberta, Bert Brown and Ted Morton. They are
the senators in waiting. They are the legitimate senators.
Although Tommy Banks plays a fine tune, he has no legitimacy here
because he was appointed.
The list continues: James Bernard Boudreau; Ione Christensen;
Sheila Finestone, another Liberal member with whom I sat in the
House; Joan Fraser, who is a great woman; George Furey; Aurélien
Gill; Richard Kroft; Frank Mahovlich, the big M.
Members are concerned about this. We can see how touchy this
is. It has sparked some fireworks. The problem is that these
people who are appointed to political work, to get their reward
and their favour in the other place, put through every single
dollar of spending by this government, and that is illegitimate.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: What is wrong with it?
Miss Deborah Grey: The member for Broadview—Greenwood
asks what is wrong with it. That is exactly what is wrong with
the Liberals and the political system.
Frank Mahovlich: “He shot; he scored”. Then we have Marion
Maloney, Melvin Perry, and Vivian Poy, another wonderful woman.
She is Adrienne Clarkson's sister-in-law. She is a great woman
who has no legitimacy in the other place. Then we have Douglas
James Roche, another fellow from Alberta who has made a real name
for himself; Calvin Woodrow Ruck; Nick Sibbeston, who was the
former N.W.T. premier; John Wiebe from Saskatchewan; Lois Wilson;
and Jean Louis Roux.
The point is, we have these HRD scandals. We have a government
which has proven that it is truly illegitimate because of the
heavy hand of the Prime Minister, all of the grants that I have
documented today, the HRD mess that this government has put us
into, and the idea of political interference. The member for
Broadview—Greenwood knows perfectly well that there is political
interference. He and I have had discussions over the years when
he has been so frustrated that he has marched up and down the
hall. He knows it. He is still frustrated. I probably cannot
help that. It is part of life. Sure it is part of life, but we
do what we can to get over the frustration. We do not just carry
on with the system the way it is and say “That is the way it
is”.
Let me get back to government spending and government
mismanagement in terms of grants and contributions. We have just
finished the end of the fiscal year. I would like to point out
what happens to grants and contributions when March madness
takes—
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member is aware of my deep respect for her. However,
I think there is something she said earlier that might be
misunderstood by the millions of people who are watching this
debate.
Yes, this is a place where nearly every day of the week one can
experience frustration. However, I would not want my community
in Toronto or other communities across Canada to think that I am
opposed to Human Resources Development Canada. Do we have
mistakes and do we—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry. That is
getting perilously close to debate. I gave the hon. member as
much latitude as I could. I would ask the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood to come to the point please.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to
make my point. It is very important.
1340
The point I want to make is that, in spite of frustration, in no
way, shape or form should the member leave the image with the
people of Canada that we do not support Human Resources
Development Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, standing to set the
record straight is a good try. I understand that the member gets
frustrated, but I think his constituents know that he is a
tireless worker on their behalf. They probably also know that he
believes in HRD funding. I know he has supported the minister
time and time again. I disagree with him on that, but I
certainly respect his right to do so. I want to set the record
straight on that.
I was talking about the Senate, but I think I should go on to
something else because I am upsetting the people on the other
side.
I want to move on, Mr. Speaker, because my time is short. I
want to talk for a few minutes about March madness, fiscal year
end spending, which I mentioned before I was interrupted.
The Canadian Alliance Party has analyzed an access to
information request received from Public Works and Government
Services Canada, listing all grant and contribution spending over
four fiscal years by all departments and agencies of the federal
government. Spending by 30 departments and agencies is listed
over the period April 1 to March 31 for the years 1996-97 to
1999-00. The month of March 2000 was not available at the time
of request.
Year end spending was an issue addressed by the disastrous
program integrity internal audit of human resources development.
It noted that HRD money was spent to avoid losing it at the end
of each fiscal year. In other words, there was x amount of
money in the budget and if March 1 arrived before a department
spent it all, the department would look for ways to spend the
money to avoid it being taken away at the end of March.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Put it back into the economy.
Miss Deborah Grey: Here we go with the Liberal viewpoint
of hurry up, spend it, get it back into the economy. I can see
why the people in charge think that March madness is the way to
go now that we have a $600 billion debt.
The review found that across all 1998-99 contribution programs
examined, some $261 million, or 26.3% of all project expenses,
was paid out after March 1. One-quarter of the year's spending
was spent in one month, the month of March. These expenditures
are typically advances for the coming fiscal year to avoid
lapsing funds at the end of the year.
The total amounts of grants and contributions spent by fiscal
year across all departments and agencies of the federal
government were as follows: 1996-97, $14.12 billion; 1997-98,
$14.26 billion; 1998-99, $15.22 billion; and 1999-00—and of
course the month of March is not available—$11.60 billion. This
brings the total to $55.2 billion. That is unbelievable.
Given the fact that I have drawn attention to these things I can
understand why some Liberal members are frustrated when they look
at these facts. It is probably a little embarrassing.
I will get ready to wind down because we do have to get to
question period. I am sure that Liberal members are grateful
because I know they want to be drilled and grilled again about
some of their general mismanagement.
Members have been pressing me to tie this issue together. It is
easy to tie together. This government is out of control. It
says that it is managing our money and looking after Canadians.
Yet we see massive amounts of money being spent that is based on,
I believe, political manipulation. We see a government whose
members say that they are in control and claim that everything is
okay. Yet the same government has invoked closure more times
than the Mulroney Tories. I never thought it would happen. I
believed these guys. I guess that shows how naive I was. I
believed members when they told us that things would be a whole
lot different when the Liberals formed the government. I do not
see a lot of difference and I do not think my friend from
Broadview—Danforth does either.
I would like to cite a few things from question period. I am
sorry that I will barely be able to touch the surface of this
binder.
1345
Some of the questions we have asked and some of the answers that
have been given to us have frustrated us because the Canadian
public is not getting the answers,
Let me refer to question period on February 7, the day after the
HRD boondoggle had blown loose. The former leader of the
opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest, said:
Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers pay the highest personal income
taxes in the western world. No wonder they are angry therefore
when they find out that more than a billion of those hard earned
taxpayer dollars have been grossly mismanaged by the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
If the human resources minister had any respect for Canadian
taxpayers and respect for the principle of ministerial
accountability, she would rise in her place today and resign from
cabinet.
Remember the note I talked about earlier from the Prime Minister
when he said his ministers would take responsibility. She did
not. Would the minister resign? Of course the Prime Minister
said he would not accept the resignation if it were offered. That
goes a little counter to what he had said earlier. Then the
former leader asked:
The Prime Minister intervenes not to protect Canadian taxpayers,
but to protect the discredited minister.
These are the folks who are footing the bill on all this stuff.
He went on to say:
In 1991 the Prime Minister said “When we form government, every
minister in the cabinet will have to take full responsibility for
what is going on in their department. If there is any bungling
in the department, the minister will have to take
responsibility”.
When did the Prime Minister abandon the principle of holding
cabinet ministers accountable?
The Prime Minister responded by saying that she was just doing
okay and that everything was fine. The member for Calgary
Southwest went on to say:
We pointed out last year that moneys from the transitional jobs
fund were being misused in the Prime Minister's riding. The
Prime Minister excused it. He accepted no responsibility. He
set the wrong example. Now that little scandal from Shawinigan
has become the billion dollar boondoggle in human resources.
Why does the Prime Minister not start accepting responsibility
for this gross misuse of taxpayers' money and fire the Minister
of Human Resources Development?
That did not happen and it has dogged them. It has gone on and
on and on. It has now come down to the coffee shop level. In
fact, my husband and I were at the Alberta land titles place a
while ago. A fellow came up to me. I forget what he was asking
about, but he said he ought to get an HRD grant for it. When
people are talking at the ground level about it, we know that it
has resonated from the holy hill all the way down to people at
the ground level. When they start talking like that, it makes us
wonder how much general respect there is for a government and a
Prime Minister who is not terribly concerned about it.
When we came back on February 7, I asked the following question:
It is one thing for the minister to say that everything is going
just great in her department. She has borrowed a pair of
flip-flops from the industry minister.
He had just gone through a wonderful deal for the NHL hockey
teams that lasted about 24 hours. She was following his lead. I
went on to say:
First she said everything was really well managed and that she
was just proud as punch of it. On November 4 she said, “Nothing
inappropriate was done in terms of the administration of the
approval process”. But now she admits that maybe some things
were overlooked, little things, like application forms and things
like that.
Why will the minister not just accept the responsibility she has
for this billion dollar bungle and resign?
She said no, that everything was okay. She said “Let me repeat
again that there have been no $1 billion lost”. I did not say
that there had been a billion lost. I said there was a billion
dollars bungled and pretty hard to track down. Of course the
RCMP are trying to track some of it down right now. She said
“We know where the money is”. On and on its goes. One of my
colleagues from Edmonton—Strathcona said:
The human resources minister should take advice from the Prime
Minister. Back in his righteous days he said “When you are a
minister and your bureaucrats do well, you take the credit. I
always took the credit. On the other side...when I made a
mistake, I took the blame.
The Prime Minister said that earlier. Who has the HRD minister,
in fact probably all of them, blamed? The bureaucrats. It is
not their fault. They are getting the political direction from
the top and they are doing what they have been told to do. To me
that is the pity of it because their political masters are
getting involved in some of the things they should be making wise
decisions on.
Let us look at the questions we asked in February. There were
no answers. In March it was the same thing. We asked any number
of questions.
If we were to get an answer there would not be so many pages of
questions that we have to ask.
1350
In April, not long ago, we were asking all kinds of questions.
The unfortunate part is they are not being answered correctly by
the government. Sure, answers are tossed off to have something
in Hansard, but at the same time the minister knows that
she is not out of the woods yet. We continue to find more and
more information.
Let me just make a couple of remarks in closing about what has
gone on in the HRDC committee. I could go on for a long time
about it. We have seen some of the results. When a minister
gets brought to committee, it is unbelievable some of the things
he or she will say which simply do not make a lot of sense.
When the minister was called to committee on Thursday, February
10, the chair, the member for Peterborough, said:
There is an open and happy little affair. Upon asking the
witness to take her seat, the minister did so. On and on and on
we go. She talked about all kinds of things. None of them gave
answers, though. Basically I could condense probably 150 pages
to quote the minister as saying it is okay; we have the six point
plan; everything is all right; everything will be okay. It goes
on and on and on.
Then Claire Morris was called in. She was asked a lot of
questions. Then Mel Cappe was brought in and he was asked a lot
of questions. I went to that particular meeting that day. It
was fascinating because Mel Cappe basically said that he was not
really free to answer that question. If we are talking about
government money and taxpayer dollars, there had better be a lot
of people who are willing to answer.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I hate to interrupt the member's remarks, but she did mention me,
the member for Peterborough, as chair of the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development. She implied that the media were
not present at the meeting. This is not true, as she knows. All
the meetings were fully televised. At meetings which are
televised by the House of Commons it is normal practice not to
have commercial television there. That was the reason for the
statement which the member quoted from me at the meeting.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that
correction. I think I probably said that the media was asked to
leave the room. I forget the comment I made after that. I will
have to check the blues. I know those meetings were publicized
and I appreciate that rebuke. I thank the member very much.
An hon. member: As well they should have been.
Miss Deborah Grey: As well they should have been. As
time is drawing to a close because we have to move forward to
question period to ask some more questions—
Some hon. members: More, more.
Miss Deborah Grey: I would be happy to say more. I would
like to ask if we could have unanimous consent in the House to
cancel question period and I will carry on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Leader of
the Opposition has asked for unanimous consent to cancel question
period. I do not know if we can do that even with unanimous
consent because it is a standing order. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, many people over there
came here in the 1997 election. It is easy to throw the shots
across. I like to take it as well as I can give it. I
appreciate the comments from the other side today, but they were
not here in the 1988 election. The minister of state was not
here in the 1988 election. She was not sitting in the back with
many of us. The member from Broadview—Danforth was not here
listening to all the promises.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from
Kenora—Rainy River was here. We sat side by side. Things were
going to be a whole lot different. Things were going to be
better. He could say maybe they are, but in terms of shutting
down democracy in this place, or what we would hope would be
democracy in this place, it seems to me something dreadful has
gone wrong in their dreams or their plans.
1355
I have quoted members of the House today about how horrible it
was under the Mulroney Conservatives. It was an affront to
democracy that they did not get a chance to speak. Democratic
debate was shut down in the House. They were exercised about it.
They were sick about it. Things were going to be different.
Things were going to be better.
I heard from two members today earlier in the debate that it is
much harder to do this when one is the government. Bunk. They
have not had to shut down debate. In terms of major pieces of
legislation since this bunch formed the government back in 1993
there is precious little of longstanding repute.
It seems to me, when we look at some of the major pieces of
legislation, that we could have had any amount of time to have
every member of the House bring forward a regional flavour on how
a particular piece of legislation would affect them. Yet the
government says it is too busy doing the great things of the
nation and moving forward. The House leader rants in a scrum and
talks about horrible opposition members.
When Mulroney was on the other side bringing in time allocation,
the House leader was one of the worst people over here for making
a fuss about it. Members who were here know that. Yet here he
is today, the proud champion of the head of the Ottawa 67s. Some
67 times the government has brought in closure or time allocation
on debate in six years.
An hon. member: You are still here.
Miss Deborah Grey: I am still here. I am saying how
frustrating it is for people across the country. They think
something will be debated in parliament and then they see a
government absolutely shut it down.
Now they are the champs. They railed about it. The Deputy
Speaker railed about it in 1991 and 1992. How he went on. The
table clerks remember. They were here. They remember what an
affront to democracy this was and how terrible it was. Now they
are in government it is different. It is so bad from this side,
yet it is so good when in government. It is absolutely
ridiculous.
In six years, 66 times the Mulroney Tories shut down debate in
this place. Now it is 67 times as of today for this government,
even more than the Mulroney Tories. It is unbelievable to me.
Let us look at the legacy of shame: Bill C-18, electoral
boundaries, 1994; Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations Act; Bill C-33,
Yukon First Nations Act; Bill C-32, Excise Tax Act; Bill C-35,
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act; Bill C-74,
supervision of longshoring and related operations at west coast
ports; Bill C-77, Maintenance of Railways Operations Act; Bill
C-77, Maintenance of Railways Operations Act, another report
stage or second reading; again Bill C-77, Railway Operations Act;
and Bill C-68, Firearms Act. That was a special one.
The Speaker: I regret interrupting the hon. member, but I
see that it is almost time for Statements by Members. The member
has one minute to wind up.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am watching the clock
carefully. I see it is almost two o'clock. In my one minute of
wrap-up, I cannot believe with HRDC, the billion dollar
boondoggle and all that has gone on, that the government says
“Trust me, I am here to manage your money”. What a disgrace
for every government member in the House to say that they are
managing our money. It is hard to believe.
They railed about the Mulroney Conservatives when they were on
this side, as you were, Mr. Speaker. You heard it all, as I did.
Now they are over there and they have broken the record of Brian
Mulroney by using time allocation and closure 67 times in the
House. I say shame on them.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[English]
VANCOUVER SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday as a federal government
representative, I observed 6,452 musical students and the
Vancouver Symphony Orchestra play Beethoven for nine minutes and
53 seconds in order to beat the world record. They are now in the
the Guinness Book of Records because they beat the old
world record of seven minutes and 43 seconds. I was delighted to
be there to represent the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister
responsible for the millennium fund, and to announce that they
were getting $129,667.
* * *
YORKTON REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING 100
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to bring
attention to one of Canada's greatest bands, the Yorkton Regional
High School Marching 100.
These high school students from my constituency are in Ottawa as
part of an eastern Canada tour called “Combining Canadian
History With Performance”. They will be performing in Ontario
and Quebec and will also be learning about the cultures, history
and languages of this great nation.
The Marching 100 have acted as excellent ambassadors for
Yorkton, Saskatchewan and Canada in their extensive travels.
These students have become well known for their abilities as band
performers with their most notable performance being at the world
famous Rose Bowl parade. Larry Pearen, the director, has also
been to four Grey Cup games with this award winning band.
Today this band will be performing on Parliament Hill. I urge
all members to come and see what makes this band so great. The
band's many awards are the result of hard work and supportive
parents who have encouraged its members to excel.
Hats off to the Yorkton Regional High School Marching 100 who
are in our gallery today.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend 30 years ago, the IDRC was created
and its mission launched to promote scientific research in the
interests of the people of the developing world.
Back in 1970 the IDRC chose an innovative approach by placing
resources and responsibilities in the hands of the people in the
south. IDRC's efforts to help the south build its own pool of
knowledge and expertise have some notable milestones. In South
Africa and Chile for example, IDRC's early support to researchers
helped ease the transformation of these countries to democracies.
Simple technologies, such as bed nets dipped in insecticides and
salt fortified with iodine and iron, have saved lives.
Success stories like these have garnered IDRC an international
reputation, enhancing Canada's stature abroad as a caring nation
committed to helping the world's poor to improve their lives.
* * *
[Translation]
THE FAMILY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to call attention to International Day of Families celebrated
yesterday, May 15.
Families are found at the heart of our society. Our children,
who are the future of our country and of the world, develop
within the family. It is vital to provide and maintain a
stable, balanced and durable foundation so that our children can
make a contribution to society.
[English]
The government through budget 2000 and other initiatives has
placed an importance on bettering the lives of children and their
families, but we still have more to do.
I take this occasion to thank my family, especially my daughters
and my husband, for their love and support, especially in the
hard times many of us often face in this privileged institution
to which we have been elected by all Canadians.
* * *
GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to inform the House that a delegation from General Motors of
Canada's Women's Advisory Council will be meeting in Ottawa
today.
As members of the House know, General Motors of Canada is one of
Canada's leading automakers. Its Women's Advisory Council is a
group which advises senior management on issues impacting women
in the workplace.
Founded 17 years ago, the council has been instrumental in
prompting advances in company policy. Its efforts have
contributed to bringing forward programs such as job sharing,
telecommuting, formal mentoring and more. The group's efforts to
develop practical solutions to issues which face women in the
workplace have resulted in a better, richer work environment for
all General Motors of Canada employees.
On behalf of my colleagues I would like to extend a warm welcome
to the General Motors of Canada Women's Advisory Council. I hope
they enjoy their time in Ottawa.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the CBC is grappling with the issue of whether or
not to cut local and regional TV shows across the country.
There needs to be a new approach and a new way of thinking in
planning the future of Canada's public broadcaster. If not, the
current tug of war between the CBC and the CRTC will ensure the
demise of essential CBC services. In today's multi-channel
universe and with the evolving role of the Internet, the status
quo is not good enough.
As chief critic for Canadian heritage, at this time I am against
any increase of public funding for the CBC.
1405
Today at the heritage committee the CBC president confirmed that
there is a shortfall of between $80 million and $120 million
annually but that an influx of money would not fix the supper
hour newscasts across the country. He said that the private
sector is already being used to help produce programs. The CBC
should focus on news and documentaries, many of which come thanks
to regional input.
I come from a rural riding. The CBC is the lifeline which links
many rural communities in Canada.
* * *
KURDISH REFUGEES
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the past 10 years the international community has witnessed
many atrocities against the Kurdish people. We have seen a
variety of nations in the region use violence against the Kurds
to achieve their political goals.
Thirty-five million Kurds live in the Middle East and they do
not have a country to call home. Without a country they have
been denied human, social, political and cultural rights. This
conflict has the potential to create instability in the region.
The Kurdish question cannot be settled by force. Canada has a
role to play in the region by advancing our human security
agenda. We are a multicultural nation and through our example we
can show the region that a nation that protects minority rights
can prosper.
The situation involving the Kurdish people is too serious to
ignore. To do so will lead to more conflict and suffering in the
area.
* * *
[Translation]
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL LIBERTÉ-JEUNESSE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
representatives of the student parliament of alternative school
Liberté-Jeunesse are honouring us by their presence in the
gallery today.
These young people are distinguishing themselves through their
volunteer efforts to improve their school. They are also
involved in raising money to help them organize a variety of
social activities in their community and to travel abroad.
I would like to acknowledge the presence of one parent, Jean-Paul
Piquette, and thank him for his involvement, and of my favourite
teacher, my daughter Nicole.
Congratulations, you young people, keep up the good work, you
are cool stuff.
* * *
[English]
NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Environment Canada has just determined that what hit
Niagara-on-the-Lake last Friday was a localized condition
referred to as a downburst with winds of up to 180 kilometres an
hour. Damage was extensive and public works as well as hydro
crews are still on the job and continue to clean debris and make
repairs.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake who have been truly remarkable
throughout this ordeal. After cleaning their own property, many
of them provided wonderful assistance to their neighbours. Hydro
crews put forth a continuous and concerted 24 hour a day effort
to restore power as soon as possible, working throughout the
night.
I would like to thank the municipality of Niagara-on-the-Lake
for its quick response to the crisis. I would like to recognize
the neighbouring municipalities that came to our help immediately
and without hesitation.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, e-commerce and the high tech economy are driving new
growth markets around the world. The tax and spend policies of
the old line parties have put Canada behind in this new economy.
The Prime Minister is in denial about brain drain. His who
cares attitude about brain drain sends the wrong message to our
best and brightest and they leave.
Canada has the ingredients to be an e-commerce powerhouse. We
have a well established and educated workforce, high levels of
computer literacy and well established telecommunications
infrastructure all waiting to blossom if the heavy Liberal tax
clouds are blown away. The answer is for the tax and spend
Liberal legacy to go.
Instead, the Canadian Alliance tax plan called solution 17 is
understandable, straightforward and endorsed by experts. It is a
plan that gives extensive broad based tax relief so people have a
lot more of their own money in their own pockets. Businesses can
succeed and Canada can for once reach its potential free from the
burdensome weight of big tax and spend governments.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the
president of the CBC confirmed to the heritage committee that due
to 16 years of Liberal and Conservative cuts, 17 local supper
hour shows are to be reduced to one per time zone each co-hosted
from Toronto. The president believes that the only way to save
our public broadcaster is by eliminating local English television
shows.
Government members were upset about this but I wonder why. They
ran in 1993 on a promise of reinvestment in the CBC and then cut
the CBC's base budget by hundreds of millions, about as much as
is needed to preserve local TV.
Now the Liberals have a decision to make. Either come up with
the very significant ongoing funding to rebuild the integrity of
local journalism in Canada or endorse the planned cuts through
inaction.
1410
I compliment the CBC on having a vision, but I do not share its
belief that the private sector will pick up the slack in the 12
abandoned communities. It is a sad day for local television in
Canada.
* * *
FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today former parliamentarians have come together with us
in our parliament for a memorial service to commemorate
parliamentarians who have passed away in the prior year. The
commemoration replaces the tributes from all parties extended in
the House over prior years.
This year we have celebrated the memory and contributions of 26
men and women who have served Canada in our parliamentary houses
and who have passed away. Their works and contributions are
recorded in our Hansards, in our statutes, in our policies,
in our history and in our national symbols. They and their
families have given Canadians a piece of their lives and that
gift will live forever.
We also pay tribute today to the many living parliamentarians
meeting here today whose commitments and affection for this place
are reflected by their presence here. They have honoured one of
their own, Mr. Stan Darling, with their Distinguished Service
Award.
On behalf of all Canadians, we record our sentiments on the loss
of those parliamentarians who have passed on. We acknowledge the
continuing service to Canada of all living former
parliamentarians who are with us today.
* * *
ST. JOHN'S WEST BYELECTION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
reports of our death were greatly exaggerated. I extend my
congratulations and best wishes to Loyola Hearn, the Progressive
Conservative MP elect for St. John's West. I would also be
remiss if I did not congratulate Greg Malone and the NDP for
putting on a very strong campaign and Anthony Sparrow of the
Liberal Party for his great effort as well.
The past weekend's successful policy convention and last night's
victory show there is still a need in this nation for an
alternative national party that is fiscally responsible and
socially compassionate. That party is the PC Party of Canada.
As for the reform party, now the Canadian Alliance, which once
told me here in the House that the smallest violin plays for
Atlantic Canada, I guess an even smaller violin played for them
last night.
Congratulations Loyola, and welcome aboard.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is not every day that one gets the chance to see
lawyers demonstrating. They would rather defend their point of
view before a judge than in front of the Montreal courthouse.
But they stepped out of character yesterday and took to the
streets to protest Bill C-3, a bill that will mean repression
rather than rehabilitation for young offenders. The president
of the Montreal Association des avocats en droit de la jeunesse,
René Binet, had the following to say:
We are on the front line. We have handled thousands of cases.
We know whereof we speak. We do not want this bill.
Bloc Quebecois members heard this message long ago. The time
has come for the federal Liberal members from Quebec to go along
with the consensus in Quebec and to demand that their government
withdraw Bill C-3. There is still time to listen to reason. The
future of many young people hangs in the balance.
* * *
[English]
LORI'S ROOM WALKATHON
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday, May 13, I attended the first annual Lori's
Room Walkathon to benefit St. Joseph's Health Centre Foundation
and the Lori's Room fund.
Established by her parents, Doug and Lorna Martin, in 1996, the
Lori's Room fund honours the memory of Lorna-Lynn Martin, a young
woman who struggled against a particularly virulent form of
cancer which eventually caused her passing.
The endowment fund is used to create healing environment rooms
that support patients at St. Joseph's. Through the refurbishing
and refurnishing of rooms, St. Joseph's hopes to make Lori's room
more like a residential setting that is more conducive to rest,
relaxation and healing.
The five kilometre walk began at Humber Bay Park and finished
off with a celebration at St. Joseph's Health Centre. To date,
$22,000 has been raised from the walkathon through pledges and
donations.
I would like to congratulate the organizing committee and a very
special thank you to Lorna-Lynn's parents, Doug and Lorna Martin.
* * *
1415
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Before we begin question period today,
as was mentioned by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River,
we have with us former members of parliament and former senators
who have come for their annual reunion for two reasons: to honour
those members who have passed away during the year and to honour
one of our own with a distinguished service award. I would like
members to welcome home our former parliamentarians who are here
with us today.
[Translation]
I am going to ask our former parliamentarian brothers and
sisters to rise so that we may welcome them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The government has
now broken the all time record set by Brian Mulroney for shutting
down debate in the House. Mulroney used closure 66 times but
with this government we are up to 67.
Let me quote the government House leader back in his purer times
when he was in the opposition. He said:
I am shocked...This government has used closure on dozens and
dozens of occasions. This is just terrible.
How hard was it for the Prime Minister to force his House leader
to abandon his principles 67 times and counting?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hate to give a lesson in
parliamentary procedure to the Leader of the Opposition. I have
not used closure once since the last election.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he can get technical about time
allocation and closure, but he knows perfectly well it means the
same thing, that we are not allowed to debate in the House.
Let us see if he can guess who this is. I quote:
What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the
government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of
the people in the House. Never before have we had a government
so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills before
this House.
That was the Deputy Speaker of this parliament. I guess he
spoke too soon. Why did the Liberals have one set of principles
in opposition and quite another in government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is shameful
around here is the continuous obstruction on the part of the
Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues, which is what they
have tried to do in the case of this particular bill.
By the way, we have not yet moved time allocation on it even
though it might come later today. The hon. member has moved two
measures of obstruction to prevent last year's budget bill from
coming into place. That tells us the kind of imagination hon.
members across the way have. None.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it might tell us about a House leader
that is not able to shepherd things through the House properly.
The Liberals make Mulroney look like a slowpoke. It took him
nine full years to invoke closure or time allocation on debate 66
times. It has taken this government barely six years to do it 67
times. It has done it one-third faster.
Here is another dandy quote. This one is a doozie. It is from
a Liberal who flew a little too close to the sun. I quote:
That was the Minister of Foreign Affairs back in his days of
purity in the opposition. If shutting down debate 66 was utter
disdain, what is 67? Is it contempt?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know it must be a noise
from another place, because I keep hearing one sound down at the
far end. I would ask hon. member to keep their voices down.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to respond to
the question of the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues
who moved 450 amendments to one bill, the purpose of which was to
change commas to semicolons.
1420
Hon. members across wasted as much as $2 million of taxpayer
money to have the House sit 24 hours a day. That is the real
abuse of parliament. I will not apologize for making this
parliament function. That is why we were elected.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Department of Transport
stated that the transfer of WestJet's inspection to Ottawa was
just a paper exercise. When WestJet was only serving western
Canadians, the government felt that it was sufficient to inspect
it in Edmonton. Now that it flies in eastern Canada, it has to
be inspected in Ottawa.
Will the minister explain why inspections in Edmonton were good
enough when it was western Canadians flying but not good enough
now?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a silver lining in this, that these changes
have been made because WestJet has become truly a national
airline, something the government thinks is a very good thing.
Going back to the 1970s, the regulatory oversight process was
established which said that certain airlines operating coast to
coast over a certain weight limit, 100,000 pounds, would have its
inspection co-ordinated in Ottawa.
There will be no additional cost to WestJet. There is no
inconvenience. What it means is a western Canadian airline has
become national and is subject to national standards. I think
that is good.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for
assuring WestJet that it will not have to move its planes and its
pilots to Ottawa for inspection purposes and that there will not
be any cost.
Maybe the minister could explain why when WestJet complained
about Air Canada's anti-competitive practices of slashing fares
and increasing capacity on the Toronto-Moncton route nothing was
done. However, when Air Canada called transport to say that
WestJet should be inspected in Ottawa, the department immediately
complied.
Who is calling the shots in Transport Canada? Is it the
minister or Robert Milton?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entirely wrong. The decision
with respect to WestJet was made long before any inquiry was made
on behalf of Air Canada. I will say quite frankly in this
Chamber that the safety regulatory oversight process is none of
Air Canada's business. That is something that is done by the
inspectors of the department without interference from any
airline.
The hon. member gives the impression that somehow all of
WestJet's equipment has to come to Ottawa to be inspected. That
is not the case. The inspections occur right through the
country, including Calgary and Edmonton. All it means is that
the paperwork now is co-ordinated centrally as with all other
airlines.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, sent a letter to the Prime
Minister of Canada asking him to withdraw Bill C-3 on young
offenders or, at least, to exempt Quebec from its application in
order to protect Quebec's approach, which everyone recognizes is
the best.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he will look favourably on
this request by the premier of Quebec, a request that has
Quebec's unanimous approval?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have before, let me
reassure the hon. leader of the third party that there is
absolutely nothing in Bill C-3 that interferes with the way
Quebec deals with young offenders.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will point out to the minister, one of the few members from
Alberta, that Quebec's approach is clearly better than
everything else going on in the country, and that this is
acknowledged across the country. All the stakeholders in Quebec
oppose this bill. She alone sees the light, it seems.
I would ask her to give us one good reason why this bill will
improve the situation in Quebec. I would like her to give us one
reason showing the usefulness of this bill in Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me again reassure the hon.
leader of the third party that there is absolutely nothing in the
legislation that interferes with policies and programs presently
in place in the province of Quebec dealing with young offenders.
In fact, there is much in the legislation that will enhance the
existing programs. With additional financial resources from the
federal government, the province of Quebec will be able to do
more to assist young offenders.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
yesterday, the National Council of Welfare tabled a report in
which it praised Quebec's approach to young offenders.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The minister does not want to
understand.
An hon. member: She is not capable of understanding.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Now that a federal agency is telling her
what we have been saying for months, will the minister
understand that the problem is not the Young Offenders Act but
the manner in which it is enforced?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify what the
National Council of Welfare said yesterday. It said that
incarceration is used too much in this country when one is
dealing with first time and non-violent young offenders. In
fact, we on this side of the House agree with that.
One of the main purposes of Bill C-3 is to divert first time and
non-violent young offenders out of the formal justice system and
hopefully to avoid incarceration.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain that all those who represent Quebec's
criminal justice system, all those who have, for years now, been
working with the Young Offenders Act, who are familiar with the
young offender problem, describe the minister's Bill C-3 as
backward and repressive? She must withdraw Bill C-3, as all
Quebecers are asking her to do.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon.
member, as I have before, that there is absolutely nothing in
Bill C-3 which would require the province of Quebec or any agency
or program in Quebec to change what it is presently doing.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Despite the Liberal spin
doctors, based on his discussions with the Prime Minister the
president of the CBC today confirmed that “the CBC is not a
financial priority of this government”.
Will the Prime Minister admit what has become painfully obvious
to people across the country, that it is this government, not CBC
management, that is behind the cuts to regional programming?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House of Commons had in front of it the CBC budget.
The budget is well known. The budget has been stable for some
time. We have assured the CBC that there will be a level of
financing for the years to come.
The managing of the CBC on a daily basis is up to the directors
and the president. There are some consultations going on at this
time to try to make CBC more efficient so that it will play the
role it is supposed to play in Canadian society.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about the mandate of the CBC. The spin continues but the
truth is out. Again let me quote what the president of the CBC
confirmed this morning. “The CBC is not a financial priority of
this government”, according to the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister stand in his place and acknowledge what
was made crystal clear this morning, namely that the death of
regional CBC is his responsibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the CBC budget, the money voted by parliament, is almost
$1 billion. It is strange for people to say that it is not a
priority. To me $1 billion is a lot of money.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted
held a press conference today concerning the tragically flawed
conviction of Stephen Truscott. The association will undertake
an exhaustive review of this case and plans to file an
application under section 690 of the criminal code.
The suspect investigation which led to Truscott's 1959 death
sentence conjures up nightmarish memories of past injustices
suffered by Marshall, Milgaard and Morin.
In the interest of justice, will the minister act quickly to
establish an independent inquiry to review and finally provide
some closure and fairness in the Truscott case?
1430
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Truscott
and his counsel are holding a press conference probably at this
very moment. At this point I have not heard and I have not
received anything, either official or unofficial, from Mr.
Truscott's counsel, but as soon as I do I will act upon it in a
timely fashion.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we know the minister is in favour of timeliness. I
have a question for the solicitor general.
Kim Hancox, the widow of murdered Toronto police officer Bill
Hancox, was outraged to find that CSC was allowing the female
same sex lovers convicted of killing her husband to serve their
life sentences together. That has since been corrected, but this
is the second time in six months that the solicitor general has
had to override the atrocious decisions of the CSC commissioner.
Will the solicitor general please show some semblance of
leadership, restore some confidence in our justice system and our
correctional system and remove the CSC commissioner?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my responsibility and the government's
responsibility is to create policy, and that is exactly what this
government is doing.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is an understandable unease
about the current move to redraw employment insurance zones. In
the past it seems that political considerations influenced this
exercise to allow some MPs to deliver more benefits to their
area—
The Speaker: Order, please. If members want to have
conversations I would ask them please to take them outside the
House. We cannot hear the questions.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, there is an
understandable unease about the current move to redraw employment
insurance zones. In the past it seems that political
considerations influenced the exercise to allow some MPs to
deliver more benefits to their area in defiance of labour force
realities.
How can Canadians be sure that any new boundaries will be based
on need and not just pre-election political gerrymandering?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, with the member ranting
innuendo.
This process is an administrative process. It is done by
statute every five years. It is gazetted. It was gazetted on
Saturday. Members of parliament have the opportunity, along with
other citizens of Canada, to make comment on the proposals. I
hope the hon. member will do that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this minister has a pretty
uninspiring track record when it comes to putting political
considerations over clear rules, fairly applied. The fact that
MP turf wars over new EI boundaries have already heated up is a
sign that this is a political exercise more than anything.
Given past history, why should Canadians trust that the coming
changes will all be above board?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the coming changes will be above board.
Talk about political tactics. Let us look at the speech that is
being given by the leader of the party opposite in the House
today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is nothing more than a
tactic to distract Canadians from the fact that yesterday in St.
John's West the party of the extreme right in this House barely
beat the extreme wrestling party.
The people of Canada understand the importance of grants and
contributions. The people of Atlantic Canada proved that
yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the audit report on the Modes Conili
affair led to the payment of a $700,000 grant. Yet this report
contradicts an opinion by departmental employees that indeed
employees were merely transferred, proven by cross-checking SIN
numbers.
The minister claims to have nothing to hide, so will she agree
to table the report in question this very day so that it may be
examined in order to find out who asked for a report of
convenience in order to pay Modes Conili $700,000?
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, last Tuesday
the department received new information on this file. On
Wednesday the information was reviewed. On Thursday it was
passed on to the RCMP for its review and consideration. That is
where it lies.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that this report
is important and she also knows that, going the access to
information route, we are likely to wait a very long time, as we
have for all Human Resources Development Canada files, even until
the next election.
Is the minister aware that it is her responsibility to provide
us with the needed information now, not after the election?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again on this file I would point out that
the information rests with the RCMP. It is up to the RCMP to
make determinations on the next steps.
* * *
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the scandal flowing from the Shawinigan fountain
continues. Not only did taxpayers get hit with a $200,000 bill
for the construction of the fountain, but new access to
information documents show that the Prime Minister's office also
lobbied for thousands of taxpayer dollars for a feasibility study
for it and the Minister of Canadian Heritage personally signed
off. Why?
Why does the Prime Minister's seatmate approve thousands of
dollars flowing in Shawinigan for the Prime Minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that, although I have never been
personally lobbied by the Prime Minister on this particular
subject, I have in fact been lobbied—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, as early as yesterday I
was lobbied by a member of the opposition, who has a meeting in
my office at 4.15 p.m. to lobby for a project in his riding.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the member will not have the same result
because here we see a pattern continuing. The Prime Minister's
office asked the heritage minister for money that went to a
company in the Prime Minister's riding for a feasibility study
for a $200,000 fountain. What happened? The company got the
money to do the feasibility study and the Prime Minister's
campaign got a donation. That is very interesting.
This appears to be an oft-repeated theme. Is it that the Prime
Minister actually cannot see that this is a violation of the
public trust, or is it that he just does not care?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hypocrisy of the party that ran—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that we please
stay away from the word hypocrisy.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the charade of hon.
members opposite will become obvious when I look, for example, at
dozens of projects where members of the reform/alliance party
wrote to me seeking support because they saw that projects in
their ridings were very good projects. I will look at the
numbers for TJF projects: Kootenay—Columbia, $3.5 million for
six projects; Nanaimo-Alberni, $2.3 million; Nanaimo—Cowichan,
$1.3 million; Okanagan—Coquihalla, $478,000;
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, $2.5 million—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING SYSTEM
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the banking legislation the Minister of Finance is thinking of
introducing would have the effect of facilitating takeovers, even
foreign ones, of small and medium cap banks, such as the National
Bank and the Laurentian Bank.
Would the Minister of Finance explain to the House why he has
decided to protect the large banks and not the small ones in
Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member must know that the legislation has not yet been
introduced. I assure him that all banks will be treated equally.
That having been said, the government intends to give the smaller
banks, some of which are concentrated in Quebec, a bit more
flexibility.
1440
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what guarantees is the Minister of Finance offering that the only
two Quebec-owned banks located in Quebec will not fall victim to
takeovers by Canadian investors from outside Quebec or foreign
investors, because of these new ownership rules?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the member that the Government of Canada will act in
the public interest, and in the case of a bank concentrated in
Quebec, in the interests of the Canadians and Quebecers who have
a stake in it.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the coincidences are just so happy for the Prime
Minister.
His office wrote the heritage minister for money to do a
feasibility study for that famous Shawinigan fountain. Certainly
the minister quickly accommodated him. Then the company that did
the study gave the Prime Minister's campaign a contribution of
$1,000, and everyone except ripped-off taxpayers are real happy.
Is it just a wild coincidence that 33% of the donations to the
Prime Minister's campaign come from grant recipients?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic if we follow the logic of the
hon. member, because my understanding is that the $5,000 which
was approved by Canadian Heritage for this project was matched by
the Government of Quebec, so I suspect that the Prime Minister
should have a political alliance with Lucien Bouchard.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was an irrelevant answer, was it not? These sorts
of flip answers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the process I have just
described happens over and over again, which is probably why we
have, what is it, four police investigations now in the Prime
Minister's riding. He seems to be pretty popular with the RCMP
these days.
Is the Prime Minister not concerned about the optics of grant
recipients who routinely grease the palms of Liberal candidates?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I want the hon. member to
withdraw the words “grease the palms”.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words
“grease the palms”.
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have done my job for 37 years helping my country, and
I will continue to do that.
With this project, like the other projects, there is federal
money, there is provincial money, there is municipal money and
there is private sector money. These projects are to create jobs
in the ridings.
The work of parliament, in collaboration with the other levels
of government, has managed to reduce the level of unemployment in
my riding and in the Saint-Maurice Valley from 19% to 11%. These
people now are paying taxes, and they are happy to do so. They
are grateful that governments look to people who need help.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
National Defence is preparing to send a team of technicians to
Sierra Leone.
The situation there is getting worse, as we know, and the Prime
Minister has already expressed his intention to give serious
consideration to a request from the UN for troops.
Would the minister promise to hold a debate in this House before
sending any troops to Sierra Leone?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have responded to the request from the
United Nations in a number of ways. We have provided officers at
the peacekeeping headquarters in New York to assist in the
planning for Sierra Leone. We have a military observer there.
We have provided an Airbus and some 20 personnel.
If we are going to consider any major involvement in Sierra
Leone, or anything for which we traditionally engage the opinion
of members the House, then of course we would come to the House.
But at this point in time we have been responding in these ways,
with these small numbers, with significant effectiveness in
helping the situation.
* * *
1445
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The minister will know that in about 10 months time section 110
of the American immigration act will come into effect which will
force each Canadian to fill in a type of visa application every
time they enter the United States.
Can the minister give us his prognosis on this law of paper
trails? Will it be implemented or will it be repealed?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and for his
efforts on behalf of stopping this legislation.
We have been working actively with the U.S. administration and
members of congress to develop an alternate plan. Presently
there is legislation being considered by members of congress that
would basically remedy section 110. I think progress is being
made but I cannot give a conclusion yet because it is up to the
U.S. congress.
I can assure the hon. member and the House that we are actively
working with a number of our allies in the United States to make
sure the bill is brought forward.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the environment committee
released its report on pesticides that will take Canada back to
the dirty thirties.
This report calls for, among other things, a full phase-out of
pest control products in Canada. The fact is that the committee
report is 40 years too late. Stakeholders have been taking
proactive measures for years to make sound science, health and
safety the first priorities in pest control product development
and use.
Why is the government considering this recommendation when there
is no scientific evidence to support it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to first thank the distinguished chair and the hardworking
members of the environment committee for their report which was
received today and is a result of many weeks of hearings and
research by the committee.
I want to assure the member and the committee that the
government will carefully take into account the recommendations
and the observations in the report.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians want a healthy and
sustainable environment but the outright banning of pesticides is
outrageous. I wonder how the Prime Minister would feel if his
handicap started going up because the quality of his golf courses
started going down.
There have been scientists in both industry and the PMRA who
have dedicated their lives to protecting human health and the
environment.
Does the minister support the full phase-out of pesticides?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I mentioned, we are grateful for the report we just received
today. We will of course examine it in detail and the government
will respond once it has had the opportunity to do that.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, now for a question from a party that really does
care about the environment.
Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the health risks
associated with exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment,
especially when it comes to our children.
In the last throne speech, the government promised to take
action on environmental health issues, and that included
modernizing and protecting against health risks presented by
pesticides.
When will the health minister keep his government's throne
speech promise and introduce legislation to modernize and improve
the Pest Control Products Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member may have heard my response to the previous question.
We are grateful for the report we have received today and
grateful to the committee members for the hard work they have
done in putting it together.
We will carefully examine the recommendations and the evidence
that they have pulled together, and we will respond after we have
had an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
that is one throne speech promise gone by the wayside. I will
give the Liberals a chance to honour another one.
In the same throne speech, the government committed to making
the clean up of toxic sites a priority. Last week the Minister
of the Environment acknowledged that the Sydney tar ponds is, and
I am using his words, “perhaps the single most polluted site in
Canada and presents a serious health risk”. However, he refused
to indicate whether the clean up was even a priority of the
government, saying that it was in the hands of the joint action
group.
The chair of JAG has publicly complained about the foot dragging
by his government partners. Will the minister commit today to
making the clean-up his number one environmental—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Governments of both Nova Scotia and Canada have
tried before to impose decisions with respect to the Sydney tar
ponds on the residents of that area.
I find it astonishing that a representative of that area would
want the government to overrule the system that we have set up
which includes the local people participating in making
decisions. It is certainly the type of socialistic directed
government that we in British Columbia have learned to distrust
so much.
I think he should think more about bringing these people in with
the federal and provincial governments so we can get an
acceptable solution and do not waste—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
1450
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
the summer of 1996 the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that
CFB Shilo would have a long term commitment from the Government
of Canada. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has recently waded
into the debate on the future of CFB Shilo and may have well put
CFB Shilo in jeopardy.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Does he
guarantee to the people of Manitoba that the final decision on
Shilo operations will not be based on political influence but on
what is best for our military?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. We are certainly
looking at all the options at the moment. Nothing has been
decided with respect to the facilities in Shilo.
I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at what is best
in terms of our troops, in terms of their quality of life and in
terms of the effectiveness of their operations.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
a matter of fact, some decisions have been made. Military
experts have stated quite emphatically that CFB Shilo has the
necessary infrastructure already in place to accommodate the
transfer of two PPCLI from Winnipeg to Shilo.
Does the minister recognize that CFB Shilo must have full
utilization in order to survive and stay at CFB Shilo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we would like to keep CFB Shilo
open. We are looking at all the options and the costs with
respect to that and with respect to the facilities that we have
in Winnipeg. We have not closed any options. I know where the
hon. member is coming from. He represents the area. I understand
his interest. We are having a very fair and close examination of
what is best.
* * *
SIERRA LEONE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As the crisis in Sierra Leone continues, can the minister advise
the House if a further specific request for support has been made
to Canada from the United Nations? If so, how has our government
responded?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received a further request from
the United Nations with respect to air cargo handling at the
airport near Freetown in Sierra Leone. As a result, we will be
deploying approximately 30 troops to that airport to assist the
British in terms of the the loading and unloading of equipment at
that airport. We expect to have them sent within a few days.
This adds to the contributions that I previously noted in terms
of the airbus transportation, in terms of the officers at the
headquarters in New York and in terms of the protection equipment
that we have provided. We are doing our share in terms of
helping out in the situation in Sierra Leone.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after question period yesterday, my office received a
very surprising call from the commissioner of Correctional
Service Canada requesting a copy of the Grierson Centre report
that I questioned the solicitor general about.
Why does the solicitor general's commissioner of corrections
have to request a copy of a report from my office that was bought
and paid for by his department?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many reports done by
correctional institutions across this country. They are done to
make sure that the relationship between the staff and the
institution is as good a relationship as possible.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
The maison du Cap du Nord in Quebec City provides accommodation
for native people when they have to come for treatment in various
forms at the hospital in Quebec City. Since 1990, this
institution has been chronically underfunded by the department.
Should the Minister of Health, instead of going ahead with his
plan to intrude into the field of jurisdiction of the provinces,
not work to properly look after his own jurisdiction by providing
sufficient funding for this institution? That is where his
responsibility lies.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Health spends nearly $1 billion annually on health
care for native peoples. If the hon. member has details on this
situation, I would be very pleased to examine them and answer in
detail.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The president of CBC told the heritage committee today that due
to chronic underfunding the CBC would be cutting local supper
hour shows. After the president left, the committee passed a
unanimous motion asking the federal government to provide
adequate and stable funding to the CBC to provide enhanced
regional television capacity.
Will the Prime Minister intervene and save local television?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision is one that has to be made by the president
and the board of CBC. We provided in the budget almost $1
billion for CBC. It was voted as adequate by the House of
Commons. At this moment, we are not reviewing the budget. It
will not be reviewed until next February.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government is purchasing fishing licences in Atlantic Canada in
order to integrate first nations into the Atlantic fishery.
Of the licences purchased so far, can the minister tell us
whether any of them were already owned by the Mi'kmaq, the
Maliseet or Passamaquoddy band members?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House
that we have signed 17 agreements as of today and 4 more
agreements in principle.
We said right from the beginning that the way to resolve this
was through dialogue, co-operation and by making sure we
negotiate and not litigate. That is exactly what we are doing.
The voluntary licence buyback was something the committee
recommended. The hon. member is a member of that committee. It
is something that the fishing community recommended and that was
exactly what we followed.
* * *
SIERRA LEONE
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
situation in Sierra Leone reminds us that thousands of children
around the world are exploited in armed conflicts. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs recently co-hosted a conference in Ghana on
war affected children.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House today what
follow-up will come from that conference?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, one of the most
tragic stories in Sierra Leone is that 50% of the rebel soldiers
are young children who have been abducted, drugged and turned
into killing machines.
Canada has been actively working with the 15 states in West
Africa to try to provide a response to that problem. At the
ECOWAS conference that we co-hosted, leaders of the West African
state agreed on a blueprint of action. We will have very
specific measures for rehabilitation and response.
Canada will be supporting a special unit from ECOWAS to help in
that measure. It is one way we can come to grips with the
horrible violation of children that is taking place and the
contribution we can make to the security of that region.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the phone call that I referred to with the commissioner
ended abruptly with him stating that any further information
needed from his office would no longer be available. The report
from Grierson Centre detailed intimidation and threats by
management to staff. I personally know how they feel after the
bulling my office staff got yesterday.
I understand the institution has now been threatened to be shut
down because of this report.
When will the solicitor general tame this organization, which is
obviously out of control, and fire—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I was to fire everyone that my hon.
colleague across the floor wanted me to fire, I would be busy
doing a lot of firing.
The fact is we have an excellent correctional system in this
country that is renowned. Many countries around the world come
to Canada to learn how to run a proper correctional service. We
do studies to make sure that there is a good relationship between
staff and management in our institutions.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Eamon O Cuiv, Minister of
State of Ireland, responsible for Gaeltacht and the Islands.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
BILL C-25
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a motion that the
government intends to move with respect to time allocation on
Bill C-25. Yesterday, the government House leader gave notice of
his intention to close off debate on this important bill.
1505
The Speaker: I believe you are raising a question of privilege
on something that has not occurred as yet. Therefore, I do not
know how we can argue a point of privilege as a matter of fact on
something which may occur or may not occur. Perhaps the hon.
opposition House leader could explain.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to
give this entire point, I think I can explain why you should not
even recognize the government House leader and you should look
the other way when he tries to move the motion. The problem is,
once the motion is moved the House must be seized of it. I hope
to argue and convince you, Mr. Speaker, with this question of
privilege that you should not even hear the motion to invoke a
record number of time allocations.
The Speaker: My colleague, I find it difficult to
accept that we should be arguing a point that has not come up and
that is not before the House. I would rule that we should not be
discussing a point of privilege on a matter that has not
occurred. Therefore, I rule that this point of privilege is not
acceptable at this time.
I am going to go to the second point of privilege which is from
the member for Wild Rose.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to a matter
relating to what I believe constitutes intimidation and a
deliberate attempt to withhold information from me because of my
activities in the House during a proceeding of parliament.
Yesterday after I asked a question during question period, Lynn
Ballice, the assistant to the commissioner of Correctional
Service Canada, phoned my assistant for particulars of a report
which I spoke about during question period. She told my
assistant that it was a report done by an independent consultant
they had hired and it was given to Jan Fox, their regional
director in March.
While my assistant offered to fax the report to her, she pointed
out that the report came from Correctional Service Canada and
that is where Ms. Ballice should start looking. Ms. Ballice then
called back a few minutes later and said all her management
people were out west at a conference and insisted that my
assistant fax her the report.
When I returned to the office I instructed my assistant not to
fax the report. To me, the situation was getting beyond what
was at first maybe humourous and quite frankly was beginning to
get just a little frightening. I was beginning to wonder if
anyone was in charge at Correctional Service Canada.
At 4:30 p.m. Lynn Ballice phoned back to my office and said she
had the commissioner of corrections, Ole Ingstrup, on the
speakerphone. She asked why my assistant had not faxed a copy of
the report. When advised of my decision, Lynn Ballice said that
Correctional Service Canada would not offer me any help or
information on this particular report in the future.
This threat came about because of a question I asked in the
House. I appreciate the frustration and the embarrassment that
this may have caused the commissioner but that does not give him
the right to deliberately deny information to a member of
parliament, and it does not give him the right to intimidate the
staff of a member of parliament.
On December 16, 1980 a Speaker made a ruling in regard to
information to which a member of parliament was entitled. The
Speaker said it would be bold to suggest that no circumstance
could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be
made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny information to
an hon. member.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page
71 states:
1510
On page 72 there is a quote from a report of the Select
Committee on the Official Secrets Act of 1939 which states “a
proceeding in parliament covers both the asking of a question and
the giving written notice of such a question”.
Erskine May's 21st edition describes contempt as:
—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt
even though there is no precedent of the offence.
It is imperative that members of parliament have the confidence
to perform their duties with accurate information which is not
deliberately misleading or deliberately withheld from them. When
a public servant deliberately withholds information because of
what was said in the House of Commons is a clear contempt of
parliament. Information that is entitled to members of parliament
should not be linked to the actions of a member inside or outside
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider this a prima facie question
of privilege so that this House can determine whether the actions
of the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada is in
contempt.
The Speaker: Before I listen to the member for
Kootenay—Columbia, did I understand correctly that the hon.
member was speaking directly to the commissioner? Was the hon.
member speaking directly to the commissioner?
Mr. Myron Thompson: No, Mr. Speaker. My staff was
speaking directly to the commissioner and his staff. They were
all on a speakerphone.
The Speaker: Was the hon. member privy to that
conversation on the speakerphone? Did he hear the conversation?
Mr. Myron Thompson: No, Mr. Speaker. This was reported to
me by my staff member who asked what she should do. I informed
her not to send the report until further notice. I then told her
not to send these people anything for having that direct contact
with her in that manner.
The Speaker: On this point of privilege, I will hear
interventions, but I would much prefer to have people take part
in this part of the point of privilege who have direct knowledge
of what transpired. If they have direct knowledge, I will hear
from them.
My colleague, I consider this a very grave matter. What you
have raised impacts on all members in this House if indeed it did
occur. It occurred in the Department of the Solicitor General. I
would like to hear a response from the solicitor general or his
parliamentary secretary or one of the spokespersons for the
government. I will reserve judgment until I hear from them but I
do want to hear from them, or I will make a ruling in the absence
of any intervention from the other side.
I am going to hear a point of order from the hon. member but I
have two points of order which I said that I would hear. One is
from the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
* * *
1515
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from my colleague from
Calgary Centre, the heritage minister said that I had written her
department on numerous occasions about getting loans or grants,
or things of that nature.
I think the minister would want to have the opportunity to
correct that impression, because it was without any basis of fact
or statement.
The Speaker: The hon. member has put his views on the
record on the issue.
TIME ALLOCATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today you ruled that I could not raise a
question of privilege regarding the putting of a motion on time
allocation, even though the notice of time allocation had been
given by the government House leader and we knew that it was
going to be before the House.
If I could point out three other points on that point, I would
like to raise it as a point of order.
First, on October 8, 1997 the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona raised a question of privilege regarding the
closing of debate on Bill C-2. He did it in exactly the same
manner in which I would have liked to have done it today. In
other words, there has been notice of time allocation. We know
it is coming. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona raised a
question of privilege and spoke to it. You accepted the question
at that time, Mr. Speaker, and he made his arguments to you at
that time.
Second, on Motion No. 8, which was previously before parliament,
we had discussion before the motion actually was tabled in the
House. It was on the notice paper and we in the House were
seized of it before it was actually moved. Eventually that
motion was withdrawn.
Third, in the last parliament the Speaker also ruled that a
member could not raise a point of order about the acceptability
of a motion if the motion had already been accepted by the Chair.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, once you accept the motion we have
to accept that it is in order.
You have put me in a bit of a catch-22 in asking me to wait
until the motion is tabled, because once it is tabled I am not
allowed to speak to it.
If I could, I would like to raise as a point of order the
reasons I think you should hear this as a point of order. I
think it is a point of privilege, but I will present it to you,
if you wish, as a point of order as to why the motion of time
allocation put by the government House leader is unacceptable.
The Speaker: Do you think you are in a catch-22? You have
put the Speaker in a catch-22. Let me quote to you.
What I quoted, I believe, in 1997 is found at page 570 of our
new book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by
Montpetit and Marleau, which states:
As with closure, the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses
no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time
allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.
That is what the hon. member said. What I am saying is that you
cannot argue your point until the motion is put. On the other
hand, you are saying that you cannot argue it after because I am
going to make that decision. You are right. That is the
decision I would have made.
If you would like to try to convince me, I will listen to you
for about three minutes. If you can convince me in three minutes
that I should be listening to you, then I will listen to you.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can do it
in three minutes, but I will rush to it.
Today would be a record setting number of times that time
allocation would have been used. In Beauchesne's sixth edition,
citation 3 outlines some elements of our Constitution Act, and it
is relevant. It states:
More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the
rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using
to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to
proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as
unorthodox ways.
In other words, there is another way to look at it.
1520
Going back to the argument presented by the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, he suggested that the Chair intervene on the
collective rights of the minority. The case has been made that
the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a
motion of time allocation, but I do not agree with this claim and
I will prove that the Speaker does not possess this authority.
On May 2, 2000, during a discussion of the rule of time
allocation at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, the Clerk of the House of Commons, Robert Marleau,
responded to a question regarding the Speaker's authority to
protect the minority in the manner prescribed earlier. The Clerk
said:
At a subsequent meeting on May 4 the Clerk suggested that with
time allocation the Speaker is less likely to intervene. There
is a reference to this at page 570 of House of Commons
Procedure and Practice. However, he used the extreme example
that if the government time allocated every bill the Speaker
might intervene.
My interpretation of what the Clerk said is that there does
exist a limit to what a majority government can do with respect
to time allocation. There comes a line in the sand, Mr. Speaker.
I mentioned that earlier when I quoted Beauchesne.
The Clerk used the extreme example of every bill in his response
because he knows it is not up to the Clerk to establish the
limit. Obviously 66 times was not the limit because it went
ahead last time. However, yesterday the government gave notice
of its intention to move time allocation for the 67th time. In
search of a benchmark of what constitutes excess, I would suggest
that 67 closure and time allocation motions moved within six
years for the sole purpose of muzzling the opposition is
excessive.
At page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit there is reference to an
intervention by the Speaker on time allocation related tactics
used by the government. It describes how Speaker Fraser ruled on
the government tactic of skipping over Routine Proceedings in
order to go to orders of the day. As we are all aware, this
tactic, if allowed, secures for the government the opportunity to
move time allocation regardless of where it is in the orders of
the day.
While Speaker Fraser ruled such a motion in order on April 13,
1987, page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit references another ruling
where the Speaker ruled out of order a similar motion only months
before. In other words, the discretion is with the Speaker as to
whether it is acceptable.
The rules governing time allocation can be found in Standing
Order 78, but when the government allows only a minimum amount of
time to debate each stage of a controversial bill, this prevents
the opposition from doing its job. It prevents the opposition
from enlisting public support. The right of an opposition to
raise the profile of an issue is an indispensable principle.
Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
—to protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or
tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public
business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express
opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent
an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for
the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any
legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
This is all about debate, and the reason we are here is to have
debate. Speaker Fraser put it this way:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial
issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every
reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments
pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be
permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public
support for their point of view.
In 1949 the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker said this to the Empire
Club in Toronto:
If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His
Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions.
The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when
criticism ends.
In 1967 another distinguished parliamentarian, the late Stanley
Knowles, added this comment to the debate:
I submit, therefore, that you do not have full political
democracy, let alone the economic as well as political democracy,
unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the
rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the
day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of the
minorities; only in this way can you make sure that the force of
public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative
process.
One of the reasons the opposition exists is to someday replace
the government. The opposition should conduct itself in
parliament so as to persuade the people of the country that it
could be an improvement on the government of the day. Our system
of government works best when there is a change of government, or
at least an opportunity to change government at reasonable
intervals.
If the government continues to silence the opposition at every
turn, the opposition will never be able to use parliamentary
debate to persuade the people of Canada. While the rights of the
opposition are immediately and most visibly at stake, ultimately
the threat is to democratic rights and freedoms generally.
In conclusion, I would like to offer three points. One is for
the Chair to consider and two are for the House.
1525
First, perhaps now is the time for the Speaker to look the other
way, as the member for Winnipeg—Transcona suggested at the
beginning of this parliament, not see the minister and prevent
the 67th motion from being moved.
My second suggestion is that the government and this House
should seriously consider reforming the way we do business by
sitting the proper calendar period, sitting the days we are
supposed to sit, and consider using free votes so that the
government is not forced to use time allocation so often.
Another way is to change the rules of debate so that we get to
important business and controversial business in a timely
fashion, instead of waiting until the last dog is hung.
A short delay of even a day would send a message to the
government that you, Mr. Speaker, believe the line in the sand
has been crept up to and is in danger of being passed.
In Dante's Inferno he described the nine circles of hell.
In the context of the Canadian parliamentary system, I believe
the government has brought us into circle number eight. Circle
number eight is the place for the sowers of discord. This
government has brought us dangerously close to a dysfunctional
parliament by risking the rights of the minority and by using
such a controversial way to bring so much legislation through the
House.
The Speaker: I too have searched through the books
which would say that the Speaker has the discretion after the
government has brought in time allocation 20 times. Some people
would say 20 times is too much. Other people would say, as you
have, that because it broke a standard which was set by another
government, then that point is too much.
The Speaker has no guidance from the House as to what is too
much or what is too little. At this point I would imagine, as
Speaker Fraser said, if every bill and every motion were
subjected to time allocation, that would be a bit much.
However, I am very much interested, as Speaker and as a servant
of the House, in what the hon. member had as a second suggestion.
At this point at least the hon. House leader of the opposition
wants me to draw a line in the sand, saying that this is as far
as it goes. I would much prefer that the House deal with this
problem, as House leaders have for 133 years. They were able to
sit down to figure out what would be a reasonable amount of time
for debate and, after that amount of time, what would be
reasonable in terms of the use of time allocation.
If there is discord in the House, surely it is not up to the
Speaker to jump in and cause more discord. The five House
leaders are here to listen to what I have to say. If there is
this discord which the hon. House leader of the opposition has
brought up, then I would encourage the House leaders to get a
system which would work for all of us.
I think, at least at this point, that I would not be prepared to
intervene, but I am very much prepared to encourage the House
leaders who are here today to come together to find a solution
that we could all live with so that members of the House can
perform the functions for which we were elected.
The government is here to present motions and bills. The
opposition is here to make them better; to question them along
the way. We all understand that the opposition, the dissenting
voice, has every right to be heard. On the other side, Speaker
Fraser has said, and I am paraphrasing him, that the government
has the right to govern.
At this time, is the House dysfunctional? I would argue
that if there is this discord, that it be addressed by the House
leaders. I would ask you to do this as soon as possible and, if
at all possible, before we adjourn for the summer. I think that
suggestion is an excellent one.
I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who is a
respected parliamentarian, wants to make an intervention and I
will permit a very short intervention if he wishes to add
something.
1530
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as one of the House leaders I would certainly undertake and be
willing to be part of a discussion among the House leaders as to
what might be done in this area.
There are some difficulties that would certainly have to be
overcome if the House leaders were to be able to arrive at the
kind of advice that I think the Chair is seeking with respect to
how to exercise this discretion. It has not been exercised very
often, or one could argue at all, certainly in the time that I
have been here.
I wanted to make the argument in principle, as I have before,
that this discretion on the part of the Speaker should exist and
should be practised. I take the point that the Chair might want
some guidance, if that is possible. There is room for judgment
that emanates from the Chair itself and not just from the House
leaders in this respect.
I do not think it is a matter of numbers, although it does stand
as a condemnation of the government that it has now broken the
record of a previous government with respect to the introduction
of time allocation. I nevertheless think that if the Chair were
to exercise this discretion it would have to be judged on the
merits of each and every time allocation and not now that we have
reached 55, 65, 10 or whatever. I do not think that is a very
strong argument. It may be a strong argument in terms of how the
government behaves, but I do not think it is a potential source
of guidance to the Chair as to when this discretion should be
exercised.
It is unfortunate that the record was broken on an old piece of
legislation when it probably should not have been. It is an old
piece of legislation. It is not something that is momentous. I
can think of lots of pieces of legislation that have come before
parliament that have been time allocated which were very
significant and never should have been time allocated. It would
have been nice to have had this debate around those pieces of
legislation rather than the bill we are having it around.
I just wanted to make the point that I think there are occasions
when the Chair should take it upon itself. It is also true that
I think the Chair has the right to ask for some guidance from the
House, if it is possible, on these matters. Hopefully we might
be able to do that in the near future.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some brief remarks as well.
Being a member of the party that held the previous record, one of
which we are not necessarily proud, we are certainly glad that
although the hon. House leader in his wisdom railed against such
high handed tactics when in opposition, wailed like a banshee, he
has now surpassed the dubious honour of invoking time allocation.
I know a fine nuance was invoked in question period today when
he referred to the fact that it was not closure. It is akin to
differentiating between a club and a sword as to the method of
shutting down debate.
I would as well offer support for the Chair in its wisdom of
seeking advice and in the suggestion that House leaders convene a
meeting to discuss this matter. It seems to me that in principle
part of the problem which has led us to this point is a breakdown
in communication. It is incumbent upon the opposition in its
willingness to try to come to some agreement with the government
House leader as to how we resolve matters of debate in the House
without coming to a breaking point where the government House
leader feels that he has to invoke the heavy handed measure of
shutting down debate in such a unilateral fashion.
In the short time that I have to make these remarks, I want to
offer support for the suggestion the Chair has brought forward to
convene a meeting where this communication perhaps can be
improved.
1535
Perhaps in the future, although it has been only six years that
the government has taken to surpass this benchmark or high water
mark that it took the previous administration nine years to
achieve in a dubious way, we can hopefully make better use of
alternative channels of communication, the meetings of the House
leaders being one and perhaps the best. In this way we could try
to avoid getting to the point where all members of the House are
being affected in a very substantial way.
I agree with the member for Winnipeg—Transcona when he says
that there are more important pieces of legislation and matters
of debate that would have led to discussions of this nature
earlier. I do not mean to call this bill inconsequential, but it
is simply, as pointed out by the opposition House leader, that we
have reached a point in this short time where there is almost
something like creeping softness and acceptance of the use of
time allocation as a procedural blocking mechanism for debate. It
has become an accepted manner of shutting down what is only to be
deemed as the last bastion of debate on matters for the
opposition to call the government to task on.
I strongly encourage the Chair to give this matter urgent
attention. We cannot have this as an accepted practice. I would
suggest that for us to do otherwise is to acquiesce and show
apathy toward the deterioration of the procedures, the workings
and the functions of the House.
The Speaker: I am going to give the floor to the member
from the Bloc Quebecois, but another statement has been made by
the House leader of the Conservative Party. I believe he called
for moderation on all sides of the House, and that includes all
five parties.
We now have two suggestions. The first is that the House
leaders in some way discuss this matter and, second, that there
has to be openness and give and take on both sides. It is in the
best traditions of the House that the House can grapple with a
problem and that the House, through its House leaders if
necessary, can come to some kind of conclusion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish you to
know that, in my opinion, your suggestion that the parliamentary
leaders seek a way of settling this problem, as is often done,
is a reasonable one.
I would, however, like to point out that, every time the
government or the opposition makes use of mechanisms to hold up
debate, to speed it up, to limit its length, it must be an
exception. We all agree on that.
Today the official opposition and the other parties are
complaining of what seems to us to be an excessive use of time
allocation motions by the government. I think that the figures
will show that there has been a certain increase.
I take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that this is not
the only point of dispute in our discussions. Hon. members are
aware that a motion was backed by the government in the
procedure and House affairs committee, and it was also supported
by other political parties.
The purpose of that motion was to have the mechanism used by the
opposition to allow it a little longer, on occasion, to vote on
a number of bills set aside, by giving each party whip the
ability to vote on behalf of his colleagues. I and my party
have always been opposed to such a mechanism.
I have been told that it has not yet and may possibly never be
introduced in the House at this point.
I take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues on this
side of the House that, in both cases, the problem is exactly
the same. It is no more interesting for the opposition to watch
the government abuse time allocation than it is for the
opposition to watch the government adopting mechanisms to
prevent us from using our own exceptional mechanism, or one of
our own exceptional mechanisms, in order to prolong the debate,
that is, multiple votes or other strategies such as long
debates.
1540
I would simply like to say that if we came away from this place
today at the end of a debate, which has not lasted long, but
which has taught us a lot, if we came away with some sort of
unanimity recognizing that your suggestion is very wise, that we
should all discuss time allocation motions, that we should all
discuss means that might be put forward in order to limit the
opposition's ability to impede the work of the House but that
could as well allow us to discuss the government's right to move
files along, we would see this parliament as balanced.
If, for one reason or another, parliament does not function in a
balanced manner, if the opposition or the government abuse their
respective privileges, we are headed for a bleak period in this
place. Whenever this happens, democracy is always put on hold
and thwarted, and this is not what anybody really wants. What
we want is to be able to function as democratically as possible
here, and to use the means passed on to us by our predecessors
to best advantage.
In my view, the only way forward in the dispute that concerns
us, as well as the House leader of the Canadian Alliance and all
other members of the House, today is to go along with the
Speaker's suggestion that the House leaders get together and
discuss the matter. I believe that, if balance is to be
maintained, any decisions made must involve agreement between
the parties.
I agree with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that
nothing will be done without agreement between the House
leaders. Since it is everyone's goal to leave a positive mark
in this parliament, I sincerely believe that we will do
everything we can to work out an arrangement.
I am willing to go along with your suggestion and I hope that
the government leader will show the same openness to your
recommendations, and that the other party leaders will do
likewise. I think this is the way to go if we want to function
efficiently.
[English]
The Speaker: The House leaders have spoken today.
They have given their opinions. As I reiterated, it is not up to
the Chair to make a hard and fast ruling, but it is up to the
Chair surely to encourage not only House leaders but all members
of the House to make it so that the House functions in a
reasonably amicable way and that we can carry out our functions.
Two suggestions were made, one by the opposition House leader
and one by the House leader of the Conservative Party. The words
which were added by the hon. House leader of the New Democratic
Party and by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois should help us.
Having said that, I cannot order House leaders to come together
to settle this matter. That is a given, but I can surely
encourage House leaders to come together, at least in the spirit
of trying to find some kind of solution to an area which probably
could take a bit more looking at.
I have given my advice to the House. The House leaders
generally have given their opinions in the House.
Hon. Don Boudria: Some have.
The Speaker: Yes, I am corrected. I invite all House
leaders, if they wish to partake in the particular discussion, to
do so.
The floor of the House of Commons is not the usual place for
these discussions to take place, but surely in private if the
House leaders wanted to come together I for one would look upon
this favourably so that the Chair is not called upon at different
times in different circumstances to say that 67 are too many, 97
are too many, or 180 are too many.
The House leaders have traditionally found ways to get along in
the House and that is what I would encourage for the House, the
House leaders and, indeed, all members.
1545
If you would take my words, each others words and even the lack
of words into consideration then perhaps we can work our way out
of this. The House has usually found a way.
Having said that, I will put this matter to one side. I am
always hopeful that we can find ways out of whatever dilemmas
were are in.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
BILL C-25—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999,
not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill and,
fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provide for the
government business on the day allotted to the consideration of
the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before
the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of
this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal
of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker: The motion is in order. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1635
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 122
|
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)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 90
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
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
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, the Environment; the hon. member for
Dartmouth, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Human
Resources Development.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have
taken place between all parties and the member for
Sarnia—Lambton concerning the taking of the division on Bill
C-276 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business
today, and I believe you would find consent for the following:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-276, any
recorded division requested to dispose of report stage and third
reading of the said bill be deemed deferred until Wednesday, May
17 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1640
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act
and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be Read a second
time and referred to a committee, of the amendment, and of the
amendment to the amendment.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak today at the second
reading stage of Bill C-25, the 1999 income tax amendments act.
Last fall Canadians were promised, in both the speech from the
throne and the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal update,
that the government would set out a multi-year plan for further
tax reductions.
Budget 2000 delivered on that commitment through a five year tax
reduction plan that indexes the tax system against inflation,
reduces the middle tax rate and overall cuts taxes by at least
$58 billion by the year 2004, an average annual tax cut of 15%,
with even greater relief for families with children. It is a
plan that will provide further real and lasting tax relief for
all Canadians. It is also a plan that had its foundations laid
in previous budgets, including that of 1999.
Bill C-25 deals with the measures announced in the 1999 budget.
The measures in Bill C-25 demonstrate the following principles of
tax fairness: tax relief must be fair and we must start with
those who need it most, low and middle income Canadians,
especially families with children; priority must be placed on
personal income taxes where the burden is greatest and where we
are most out of line with other countries; ensure that Canada has
an internationally competitive business tax system; and, tax
relief must not be financed with borrowed money.
Bill C-25 goes a long way in addressing these issues. Many of
these measures are the result of consultations with the industry
or clients affected, a process to which our government is
dedicated in any major policy change. Each measure addresses an
inequity, inconsistency or a discrepancy in the tax system.
I want to focus on the measures that deal with the concerns of
low and middle income Canadians and those who need it most. In
particular, I want to speak about the following measures: tax
credits for individuals, the Canada child tax benefits, medical
expense tax credits and tax co-ordination with first nations.
On the issue of personal tax credits, which will bring tax
relief to all Canadians, with the high cost of living in the
north this will go a long way to alleviating some of the strain
on families, especially those with children. Women will also
benefit greatly as they remain among the poorest of the poor in
Canada. Nearly half of the retired widows live below the poverty
line.
The following personal tax credit measures will be of great
assistance. First, the 1998 budget raised the amount of money
that low income Canadians could receive on a tax-free basis by
$500. The 1999 budget extends this relief to all taxpayers and
increases that amount by $175. As a result of these two
measures, all taxpayers will benefit from a basic personal credit
sufficient to allow the receipt of up to $7,131 of tax free
income. That is an increase of $675 over what was available in
1997.
The amount upon which the spousal credit is calculated will also
be increased by $675 to $6,055. The threshold where the spousal
credit begins to be reduced will increase from $538 to $606.
The 1998 budget began the process of eliminating the 3% surtax
that was brought in by the previous Conservative government. The
surtax was eliminated for taxpayers with incomes of up to $50,000
and reduced it for those with incomes between $50,000 to $65,000.
The 1999 budget completes the process by eliminating the 3%
surtax for all taxpayers, so all Canadians will no longer have to
pay the 3% surtax. This is a very significant amendment.
1645
In addition there is the removal of 600,000 Canadians from the
tax rolls. Together the 1998 and 1999 budget measures removed
600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls and reduced taxes for all
15.7 million Canadian taxpayers.
While all taxpayers will benefit from these measures, low income
earners have the most to gain. A typical one earner family of
four that receives an annual income of $30,000 or less will pay
no net federal income tax. A similar family earning $40,000 will
enjoy a 15% federal income tax reduction.
The next point is the Canada child tax credit. The 1998 budget
announced a further $850 million under the child tax benefit for
the national child benefit system. The 1999 budget sets out the
design for the increased assistance agreed to by the federal,
provincial and territorial governments targeted at low income
families with children.
Effective July 1, 1999 the national child benefit supplement is
$785 for the first child, $585 for the second and $510 for each
subsequent child. As of July 2000 the supplement will be
increased to $955 for the first child, $755 for the second child
and $680 for each subsequent child. The increases are quite
evident. This will be an increase of $350 for each eligible
child.
For both Canada and the Northwest Territories the percentage of
lone parent families has steadily increased over the past 15
years and slightly faster in the Northwest Territories. They
have faced greater challenges in terms of income and labour force
activity. Some 57.1% of single parent families led by women with
children under the age of 18 live in poverty based on the 1997
statistics. The child tax benefit will be of benefit to these
families in particular.
Turning to tax relief for Canadians with disabilities, hon.
members are aware of how this will affect those individuals. They
are aware of the government's continuing commitment to help these
Canadians by building on the assistance that is already
available.
In the last two years additional assistance has been provided
through such measures as a caregiver tax credit, a refundable tax
credit for low income earners with high medical expenses and the
addition of new eligible expenses under the medical expense
credit known as METC.
The METC is being extended further to cover expenses for the
care of people with severe disabilities living in a group home,
therapy for those with severe disabilities and tutoring for the
learning disabled with severe disabilities.
In addition talking textbooks for individuals with perceptual
disabilities who are enrolled in educational institutions will be
included on the list of eligible equipment for persons with
disabilities. This will make the lives of those people
immeasurably easier. It will help. It will not be the total
solution but it will help. This measure will be of great
assistance to those who need it most in our society.
The first nations taxation co-ordination measure was not
announced as part of the 1999 budget. It is designed to help
implement taxation agreements with the first nations providing
for a reduction in federal tax for individuals who are subject to
the income tax legislation of certain first nations. This
amendment puts the federal government's tax sharing agreements
with self-governing Yukon first nations into force.
With respect to the personal income tax collected from residents
of these Yukon first nations settlement lands, the federal
government will vacate 75% of its tax room for the Yukon first
nations government to occupy. The bill will also ensure that the
tax burden of an individual subject to first nations taxation is
the same as in its surrounding jurisdiction. This is an example
of great progress on the issue of first nations taxation and
self-government.
As hon. members know, the government remains committed to
providing substantial tax relief to Canadians on an ongoing
basis. Bill C-25 and budget 2000 deliver on this commitment.
I conclude by saying there are many measures here that are going
to help the average Canadian and which will help those people who
need it the most. We must not forget when we as government take
certain steps to alleviate pressure on those impacted groups that
we do it with the sensitivity that is needed and in a universal
manner that reaches all those people who need it the most.
1650
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is sad to see the
opposition taxing the patience of members of the House by trying
to delay legislation that would reduce the taxes of Canadians,
but then logic and consistency have really never been the strong
suit, or should I say the long suit, of the party once known as
reform.
The motion proposes that:
If I may offer some friendly advice to the hon. member and his
colleagues, if they ever want to build a truly national
constituency, it is time they got out of the single rate rut.
The flat tax proposal of the Canadian Alliance fails miserably in
the two most important tests: the test of equity and the test of
simplicity. I hope I can show that in my remarks which follow.
Instead of trying to sell a phoney silver bullet solution, they
should be helping the government enact its program of tax relief,
including the $58 billion in tax savings proposed in the February
budget. They are real tax savings for all Canadians and fair tax
savings that provide the greatest benefit for families in the
greatest need rather than reward the rich.
[Translation]
Our government knows that Canadians are tired of the tax burden.
That is why, with the deficit eliminated for good, we have
taken clear, concrete action to get taxes down. We have made it
clear that the actions in budget 2000—including those contained
in this bill—are just a minimum. As revenues improve, we will do
more.
[English]
But a single tax rate is not on that agenda because it is not on
anybody's agenda. They should put effective, equitable public
policy ahead of desperate partisan politics. This point was
emphasized in a column last week in the Ottawa Citizen. In
referring to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it states that he:
—points out that (Premier) Harris `has been agnostic' on the
(single rate) tax. Yet, in last week's budget, the Ontario
Premier missed the opportunity to move in the direction of a
single-rate tax. And there are few other examples for the
Alliance to point to: Only Latvia and Hong Kong have flat taxes,
and five American states have single-rate taxes.
More impressive is the list of those (from Thatcher's Britain,
to Reagan Republicans, to an early Reform Party task force) that
have studied the flat tax and rejected it.
The reason that so many jurisdictions have rejected the
opposition's solution 17 approach, just as a decade's worth of
U.S. primaries rejected the flat tax mania of millionaire
presidential wannabe Steve Forbes, is that it is both
wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.
The fact is that solution 17 with its 17% single rate would
provide much larger tax reductions for high income individuals
compared with middle and low income individuals. This would
violate the widely held view in our democratic system that a key
objective in providing tax relief should be to deliver it first
to those who need it most: middle and low income individuals and
those with families.
Thinking caring Canadians understand that it is important to
ensure that the tax system recognizes the ability of individuals
to pay by taxing at a lower rate middle and low income families.
But reform's solution 17 heads in the opposite direction. It
would significantly reduce the progressivity and fairness of the
tax system.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The Speaker ruled some time ago that our party would from
here on in be known as the Canadian Alliance. I have heard many
instances where other parties have referred to us otherwise. I
am going to ask that you rule that in every case that we be known
as the alliance or else we will find new names for the Liberals.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member
certainly has a point. I would ask the hon. member from the
government side to address the other side as the Canadian
Alliance.
1655
Mr. Roy Cullen: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am not sure
whether it is an alliance party or a movement but I am happy to
comply.
The Canadian Alliance solution 17 heads in the opposite
direction. It would significantly reduce the progressivity and
fairness of the tax system. For incomes above the basic
exemption, it would tax a lone parent earning $30,000 a year at
the same rate as a wealthy CEO making $2 million a year.
Let us step back for a second and look at this issue on a
broader conceptual basis. Indeed several different flat tax
proposals have been put forward in recent years both in Canada
and abroad. Typically such proposals involve the replacement of
a progressive rate structure with a single tax rate and the
elimination of many deductions and credits. The resulting tax
structure is of course appealing for its superficial simplicity.
However, these flat tax proposals raise a number of issues.
Flat tax systems can be designed to be progressive, like the
current income tax system, through the provision of a relatively
high basic personal exemption for low income filers. Providing
such an exemption with the reduced single rate would result in a
significant reduction in income tax revenues. We have to
consider the cost of any proposal especially over the long term.
The opposition's 17% solution, including an increase in personal
exemptions to $10,000 and a new $3,000 exemption per child, would
cost in the range of $34 billion a year. That is almost
one-third of the entire federal program spending budget for this
year. Even including the tax cuts we have announced, it would
entail major cuts to federal programs. Which programs would the
hon. member want to cut: health spending, support for R and D or
old age security? It would be cuts like these that are the real
cost of the tax savings the opposition seeks.
What about the issue of simplification? Here too the opposition
is playing fast and loose with both fact and philosophy. The
real fact is that most taxpayers would not find tax calculations
much easier if only one rate were used. Simplicity generally
comes from the elimination of deductions and credits, not from
reducing the number of tax rates. Again we get a glimmer of the
real bottom line agenda of the opposition.
In the real world many of the deductions and credits that would
have to go to deliver tax simplification and to pay for the
reduction in the tax rate would hit painfully and punitively on
modest and middle income Canadians. It could mean for example
getting rid of the child care expense deduction, the medical
expense and tuition fee tax credits. Perhaps the hon. member for
Medicine Hat has no problem getting rid of this targeted relief
aimed at those who are in the greatest need.
That is not the solution this government would ever embrace
because Canadians demand better of us. Canadians understand that
eliminating these deductions and credits would provide less
recognition of the ability to pay tax of individuals in different
circumstances. Canadians recognize that such action would mean
less flexibility for the government in delivering social and
economic policy in a volatile global economy; policies designed
to help our country seize new economic opportunities while
protecting those who can be buffeted when the winds of change
blow too harshly.
Here is where we can see clearly and cleanly the basic
philosophy difference between our government and the opposition.
We both may agree that a key objective of national policy must be
to lower tax rates in order to leave Canadians with as much money
as possible so that they can provide for their needs. However,
we differ diametrically when the advocates of flat taxes justify
the elimination of deductions and credits by arguing that the
government should not use the tax system to pursue social and
economic policy. The sad irony is that if these deductions and
credits are carried forward in the solution 17 flat tax proposal,
then clearly they would not have made the income tax system more
simple, as many Canadians believe to be the advantage of flat tax
system. We cannot have it both ways.
While I agree that taxes should be lowered, this government also
believes that how and how fast we cut taxes is also critical. To
make those decisions, we believe that fairness should be
paramount. The government must ensure that the most vulnerable in
society are not left behind.
This in turn has a concrete corollary which recognizes that the
ability of Canadians in different circumstances to pay must
remain a key concern.
1700
In conclusion I emphasize that looking for ways to improve the
fairness of the tax system while keeping it as simple as possible
are ongoing objectives of the government. We are committed to
bringing the overall tax burden down as fast and as far as we can
without jeopardizing Canada's hard won fiscal stability. Never
again will we risk a return to deficit financing, especially not
with pie in the sky tax solutions.
[Translation]
And that is the problem with the idea that underlies this
time-wasting motion. Against every element of a proper template
for tax action—fairness, effectiveness, compassion, and long-term
fiscal prudence—the opposition's approach fails, and fails badly.
[English]
Let us not reward that failure by wasting much more time here
today. We should get the motion defeated and get on with the
real tax cutting as contained in the income tax amendment act
before us.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the amendment to the
amendment to Bill C-25. I will start by saying that either my
friend across the way is completely out of his depth on the issue
of single rate taxes and flat taxes, or he is misrepresenting the
position put forward by the Canadian Alliance.
As he scurries away, I would simply say to him that it is not
the Canadian Alliance that caused a situation where today in
Canada there is not a single—
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order only because it has happened several times already today.
The rules of the House have been ignored by the opposition in
commenting on the presence or absence of members in the House.
I would ask that the Chair inform the member that it is not
permitted under the rules, or I will be forced to start
commenting on the presence and absence, which is noticed right
now, of Canadian Alliance members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is
absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I heard it and I should
have made mention of it too. We do not reference the absence or
presence of other members. We know that they are busy in
committee and have other responsibilities.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that he
beat an intellectual retreat. My friend across the way has to
know that it was not the Canadian Alliance which put Canada in a
position where we now see that not a single province in Canada
has disposable income that matches even the poorest of the poor
American states. It was not the Canadian Alliance that caused
that situation. It was government members across the way.
Over the weekend the Standard & Poor's DRI report on Canada
pointed out that disposable incomes in Canada continue to plummet
relative to the United States. That report showed very clearly
that the state of Mississippi, the poorest American state, has
disposable income which is 10% higher than the wealthiest
Canadian province, Alberta.
Why is that? It is precisely because of some of the
disincentives we find in the tax system in Canada today that our
country has fallen so far behind, which is why solution 17 makes
so much sense.
I will simply address head on some of the accusations and
misrepresentations I heard from across the way a few minutes ago.
My friend across the way suggested that somehow solution 17 was
unfair to people on the low end of the income scale. I simply
have to point out that under solution 17, 1.9 million low income
Canadians would be lifted right off the tax rolls. They would no
longer pay the taxes which the government forces them to pay.
It is unbelievable to me that they stand there and pretend they
are the champions of the little guy. The only little guy they
care about is the little guy from Shawinigan.
1705
The truth is that 1.9 million low income Canadians pay taxes
today who should not and solution 17 would solve that problem.
They would no longer have to pay taxes to the finance minister
and to the Prime Minister to fund all the questionable causes,
shall we say, that we currently fund. I want to deal with that
one head on.
Second, I want to address the accusation that somehow what was
inferred was that people at the high end of the income scale
would pay the same tax rates as people at the low end. That
simply is not true. They would pay a rate that is the same but
the effective tax rate would be completely different.
I will illustrate what I mean with an example. Let us consider
someone who makes $1 million a year in income and compare that to
someone who makes $24,000 in income, say a single mom with one
child. The difference between those two incomes is about 40
times. The person with the million dollar income has an income
40 times larger, but under our system that person would pay 1,000
times more tax than the single mom making $24,000. She would pay
$170 and the person with the income of $1 million would pay
roughly $170,000.
What the member across the way was suggesting completely
misrepresents the situation. It is simply not the case. It is a
desperate attempt by members on the other side to try to scare
people away from a proposal which they know is intuitively
appealing to Canadians. We know that is the case because we even
have finance department polling which shows that people favour
this kind of idea. They understand that Canada is in a
competitive situation and that we have to start to remove some of
the impediments to wealth creation which have caused us to fall
so far behind.
I mentioned a minute ago that relative to the United States our
wealthiest province has after tax disposable income on average
that is lower than the poorest of the poor American states. That
is not the only evidence we have to bring forward that the
government has dropped the ball when it comes to finding ways to
increase the productivity of the nation and through that the
standard of living of Canadians.
One of the most revealing reports we have is from the OECD. It
demonstrates very clearly that over the decade from 1988 to 1998
Canada languished in terms of producing real per capita output
or, to put it another way, Canada's standard of living grew by
5%. Over 10 years, a lot of it under this government, our
standard of living grew by a scant 5%.
How fast did it grow elsewhere? In France it grew three times
that fast; in the United States, four times that fast; in
Australia, four times that fast; in Norway, six times that fast;
and in Ireland it grew by a remarkable eighteen times the rate
that it grew in Canada.
My friend across the way from Hamilton says that is remarkable.
It is. I want my friend to understand the reason for it. Is it
that Ireland has so many more resources than Canada? Hardly. It
has good management. It made the right public policy decisions.
In fact the DRI report I referred to earlier talked a bit about
Ireland. It said that many things were similar between the
situation Canada is in and the situation Ireland is in. We both
have well educated workforces. We concede that. That is true.
We are both next to big prosperous markets. In Ireland's case it
is Europe; in our case it is the United States. We have these
things going for us. We have access to those markets. We have a
free trade agreement. Ireland is part of the European economy.
One thing that separates us, and DRI pointed it out, is that
Ireland took the commonsensical approach of reducing taxes to
attract investment. In Canada we have marginally lowered taxes
so that we do not fall behind quite as fast.
What has been the difference? As I mentioned a minute ago, the
economy in Ireland grew exponentially, 18 times faster than
Canada's over that 10 year period.
1710
What has been the impact on the Irish economy? We know today
that a country like Ireland, which for 150 years lost population,
is now actually starting to add numbers to its population. It is
increasing in population for the first time in 150 years, just
because of public policy decisions. It is in a situation now
where with 1% of the population in Europe it now attracts 20% of
all new investment in Europe.
It is an amazing story. In fact its economy is growing rapidly
now and it is projected to grow just as rapidly into the next
five years. It is bringing in so much revenue with much lower
taxes that it now provides free university education for all its
people. It is an amazing story.
What do we do in Canada? The government tries to convince
people that it is addressing the situation by bringing down the
last budget and arguing that it delivered $58 billion in tax
relief. It simply was not so. The DRI report points to the
flaws in what the government has done. In the $58 billion that
it talks about we find that about $8 billion of it is the child
tax benefit. It is a sweetening of the child tax benefit. It is
a social program, and the Liberals are calling it a tax cut. It
is hardly the same. A tax cut is when we leave the money in
people's pockets in the first place. We do not take it out and
then run it through—
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am wondering if it is possible to seek unanimous
consent to return to Routine Proceedings so I may have the chance
to table the minority report which I did not have a chance to do
this morning.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As a matter of fact
during Routine Proceedings today the hon. member for
Edmonton-Strathcona was on his feet. I did not see him during
the tabling of reports from committees. We asked for unanimous
consent at that time to revert to presenting reports from
committees to give him a minute to present the report and we did
not obtain it.
We will ask for it again. Will the House give unanimous consent
to the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for one minute to present
his minority report?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask which
report?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: It is the report on pesticides which
was tabled this morning by the hon. member for Davenport.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its unanimous consent to revert to daily routine of business for
one minute?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition felt that it
was important to include a minority report with the committee's
report this morning because we feel that the committee report
lacks balance. The recommendations that were made would
unfortunately divide stakeholders rather than bring collaboration
between groups.
The Canadian Alliance simply could not support the tone and
overall direction of the report that failed to recognize the
tremendous gains which manufacturers and user groups of
pesticides have been making for years, and to make human health
and especially safety top priorities. Stakeholders in
particular, manufacturers, agricultural producers—
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The House gave its unanimous consent for the member to
present his report, not to speak to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When the report is
presented and tabled, the opposition always has the opportunity
to make a brief intervention, and that is what is being done.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: He just did.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. He had 40
seconds and he has 20 more seconds.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I was on my last
statement. Stakeholders in particular, manufacturers,
agricultural producers and other user groups have been taking
extraordinary measures to promote a safe, transparent and
effective regulatory system in a co-operative way with the PMRA,
and this has been largely ignored in the committee report.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1715
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the
Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the second time and
referred to a committee, of the amendment, and of the
amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
| Meredith
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 39
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
lost.
The next question is on the amendment.
1750
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe that you would find consent to apply the results of the
vote just taken to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to be recorded as voting in support of the
amendment.
The Speaker: You will be recorded.
The next question is on the main motion.
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. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting against this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic
Party are voting vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party are voting no to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 134
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 103
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of Bill C-16, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 11,
2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-16.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting in favour of this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will be voting no to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting no to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the following motions: Motions Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12,
13 and 14.
1755
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Mark
|
Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 17.
[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. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will
be opposed to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois support this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP present
are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Conservative Party will be voting no to this motion.
(The House divided on the Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp – 32
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 205
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost. I therefore declare
Motion No. 17 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be
unanimous consent to apply the result of the last vote to Motion
No. 9.
[English]
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
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp – 32
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 205
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
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. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting in favour of this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote no to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote no to
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes to this motion.
(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)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Meredith
| Muise
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Price
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 184
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 lost.
We are now going on to Group No. 2. The question is on Motion
No. 4. A vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 5.
1805
(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
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Peric
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Volpe
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost. I therefore
declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
1810
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. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will
be voting yea to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting in
favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following motions: Motions Nos. 7, 8, 20 and 21.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 7, 8, 20 and 21
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
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. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are in favour of this motion as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in agreement with the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will be voting
against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Progressive
Party members vote yes to this motion.
1815
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be consent to
apply the result of the last vote to Motions Nos. 16, 18 and 19.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Vautour
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 85
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 16, 18 and
19 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
1825
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Bryden
| Calder
| Chatters
|
Elley
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Konrad
|
Lincoln
| McTeague
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Peric
| Provenzano
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Steckle
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Volpe – 31
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Cadman
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 189
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 23 lost.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are opposed to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic
Party present will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members are voting in favour of the motion.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as voting in favour of the motion.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded
as having voted in favour of the motion, please.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 156
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laurin
| Lowther
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 66
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving
causing death and other matters), be read the second time and
referred to a committee, and on the motion that the question be
now put.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 11,
2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the previous question at the second reading
stage of Bill C-18.
The question is on the motion that the question be now put.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members who voted on the previous motion, with the
exception of the member for Ottawa—Vanier, who had to withdraw,
to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with the Liberal members voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from
Prince George—Bulkley Valley, I would like to indicate that
Canadian Alliance members present this evening are very much in
favour of this motion.
1830
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois categorically oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP
present are voting yes to this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative members are voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 194
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp – 27
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion.
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, again with the exception of the
member for Ottawa—Vanier and also the members for Kingston and
the Islands and Brossard—La Prairie, 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. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening are very much in favour of this motion as
well.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are also equally categorically opposed to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic
Party present will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party are voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 192
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp – 27
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.35 p.m., the
House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from April 5 consideration of Bill C-276, an
act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option
marketing), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and
on Motion No. 1.
1835
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of
the House for a moment on a point of order. Earlier today the
House unanimously adopted a deferral of the private member's
bill, of course with the approval of the member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
With the day having run slightly longer than anticipated, I have
not had time, respectfully to all my colleagues on both sides of
the House, to do the normal negotiations. I submit, in the
spirit of co-operation, especially since it is Private Members'
Business, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House
that the vote be deemed requested and deferred, so that members
who have other obligations will have the ability to do so with
the agreement of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage and speak to
Bill C-276. This is the latest incarnation of the member for
Sarnia—Lambton's longstanding effort to severely curtail the
practice of negative option marketing in areas of federal
jurisdiction.
Negative option billing happens when companies we are already
buying a service from unilaterally change the terms of our
agreement with them. In effect, they start to sell us something
more or something different on the assumption that if we did not
want it, we would have told them so.
The cable companies learned the hard way a few years back that
Canadians do not appreciate this. Most people are busy and have
better things to do with their time than to pour over the fine
print of every piece of junk mail that comes through the slot.
We in the NDP believe they should not have to pour over that fine
print. The NDP government in British Columbia moved to curb this
practice after that cable fiasco in 1995. I note that the
Government of Quebec has put similar legislation into effect.
We are talking today about a proposed amendment by the Bloc
Quebecois which would carve out Quebec from the applications of
the current bill. The Bloc believes that the regulation of
commerce is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction and that
businesses falling under federal jurisdiction in Quebec currently
observe and comply with the Quebec law on this matter.
We have two issues here, one factual and one political, although
they run together. First, let us talk about the factual.
Evidence presented by the Quebec consumer groups at the
committee hearings suggested that this was not an exclusively
provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Action Réseau Consommateur
reiterated just yesterday in an e-mail sent to all members of
parliament just how necessary it believes this bill to be in the
province of Quebec.
The other issue is political and it is one on which I am afraid
we in the NDP cannot agree with our colleagues in the Bloc. The
federal government does have the right to regulate industries
falling within its areas of jurisdiction. Once it does, the same
rules must apply all across the country.
The bill before us today moves farther than the member's first
attempt to respond to negative option billing by the cable
companies back in 1995. At that time he sought to amend the
Broadcasting Act to prevent cable distributors from repeating
such business practices in the future.
While that bill enjoyed the support of the House in all three
stages, it then moved on to the Senate where it got bogged down
in a series of complex legal and cultural arguments. It died on
the order paper when the election was called in 1997.
The current version of this bill extends its application to
other industries under federal jurisdiction. I am talking here
notably about the banks and telephone companies, as well as the
holders of so-called broadcast distribution undertakings, that is
to say the cable companies. The member broadens this definition
by amending the Competition Act instead of the Broadcasting Act.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton presented numerous examples at
committee of how the banks and telephone companies have used
negative option marketing.
They have done so in much the same way that the cable companies
did back in 1995 when they started charging everyone for cable
channels if they were not cancelled within 30 days.
1840
I remember when this happened to me. I called the cable company
to tell it that I did not want the service. It told me that I
would obviously keep the service because I needed it. As I
recall, I was treated as if I were unintelligent because I was
not going to take all of the television channels. I assured the
company that I had enough television channels and that I could
not understand why it was pursuing this negative option plan. I
felt it was unfair to me and to other consumers.
As we know, there was a great deal of outrage among consumers at
the time about the negative option being practised by the cable
companies. That was the reason the hon. member brought forward
his bill at that time.
The banks, the telephone companies and the cable companies,
which we are now talking about, are among the largest companies
in Canada. Although they have recently been opened up to
competition in varying ways, they have all had a substantial head
start over their competitors, thanks to an assured place in the
market in the past.
Historically in Canada, because we needed to provide telephone
service, banking and entertainment in a diverse country, we chose
the route of giving a few large Canadian companies the right to
develop and sell services without foreign competition. This was
a social contract. In return, they promised to be fair to
consumers and accountable to government regulators.
Although there was clearly some difference in how this principle
was translated into the different methods of regulating the three
industries under discussion today, I believe that it fairly
characterizes the philosophical approach that was adopted.
Today technology is changing our economy and our society in many
ways. These changes should offer the promise of allowing
consumers more choice and more control over the services they buy
from banks, telephone companies and cable companies. These
technological changes make the provision of legislation such as
this even more necessary, just as it makes it more possible for
the companies to provide us with more choice.
Companies will no longer be able to argue that it is too
expensive to write three letters to every consumer or to obtain
consent prior to every transaction. In fact, they are going to
find that they may lose business unless they accord us this
respect.
What is important for legislators to keep in focus and in
balance during these changing times are three principles. First,
we must ensure that services and infrastructure are available to
all our citizens in this large and geographically diverse
country.
Second, we must promote Canadian providers of these services
wherever possible.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must put the interests
of consumers, both their short term and long term interests, at
the centre of our efforts.
I believe the hon. member's bill takes an important step in
these directions and follows these principles. I am pleased to
support his bill for that reason.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton's private member's bill, Bill C-276, which seeks
to amend the Competition Act to ensure that Canadian consumers
are not unwillingly participants of negative option billing.
Negative option marketing is the practice of offering products
or services while placing the onus on the customer to expressly
decline or opt out of whatever is offered. If the consumer does
not do that or does not know about it, then the consumer is on
the hook to pay for the product or service even though he or she
has not consented to the purchase.
The members of the House and many Canadians know the work that
the member for Sarnia—Lambton has done with respect to negative
option marketing. I wish to acknowledge his good work to protect
senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and others, and all
consumers who may not be aware of the consequences of negative
option marketing until it affects them.
We thank him for his efforts to date.
1845
Bill C-272 is designed to prohibit the practice by federally
regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies
of implied consent billing. It would require the consumers'
explicit consent before they could be billed for a product or
service, thus putting an end to the practice of negative option
billing.
Consumers across Canada demonstrated their intense frustration
when cable providers attempted to automatically charge for new
programs unless the service was expressly rejected. It is clear
that in a monopoly market such as telephone and cable services
consumers cannot easily switch to a service provider who does not
engage in this sneaky marketing tactic. That is why the people
of Quebec should not be denied the benefits of this legislative
proposal.
The amendment we are discussing today is from the Bloc which is
insisting that Quebec be exempt. I believe that Quebecers
deserve to be protected by the laws of Canada and an exemption
for federally regulated industries in Quebec is unworkable and
unfair to the Quebec consumer. Personally I like the principle
that businesses should obtain consumer consent before charging
for new services.
However, the inclusion of the banks in Bill C-272 makes me
wonder if the consent requirement is practical for all
industries. For example, the banks tell us that only about 30%
of their customers currently receive bank statements. The
financial review group of the Department of Finance told the
industry committee that the complaints they receive tend to be
general complaints about the cost of bank service charges rather
than changes to service charge packages. This reflects my
experience with my constituents. I received hardly any
complaints regarding negative option billing with respect to the
banks. More important, there is competition in the banking
industry and choices are available to the consumer.
The provincially regulated credit unions and others will not
have the same obligation so there would not be a level playing
field. Perhaps this issue would be better examined during a
review of the Bank Act planned for this summer.
Competition laws and regulation can profoundly restrict economic
freedom and market efficiency. A general move toward
strengthening these laws should be approached with caution. The
federal government must strive to ensure that our competition
laws do not become overly intrusive and generate a muddled
business environment. Competition law must balance the rights of
the consumer and the aspirations of companies striving to expand
their market share. We must act vigilantly to create competition
through deregulation in the interest of every Canadian consumer.
Negative option billing is a practice common to federally
regulated industries that enjoy market protection inasmuch as
they can restrict or limit a customer's ability to seek out
alternative providers of a product or service. Therefore, the
deregulation of federally regulated industries would be the first
step to eliminate negative option billing and other practices
that do not properly serve consumers.
I would much rather have an initiative that worked to limit
government regulation and increase competition. The Canadian
Alliance supports limited government but recognizes the important
role of government in creating an economic environment with fair
and transparent rules which protect both consumers and
businesses.
We differ from the Liberals in that we believe that markets
serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted. This
bill in a sense is a band-aid solution made necessary by the
Liberals who maintain protectionist policies and regional
monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable and
telecommunications, despite the fact that these policies hurt
consumers. The drive for profits in a competitive and
deregulated industry will give more power to the consumer to seek
the most favourable terms for them. It is the invisible hand of
capitalism or the market at work.
To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of
federally regulated industries has created an economic
environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited
competition.
1850
I give our qualified support until such time as these industries
can be further deregulated. After this deregulation, competition
will ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a
manner inconsistent with consumer interest.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill C-276, the
legislation that addresses the issue of negative option billing.
It is important when we are developing solutions to complex
problems that we do not use solutions which are overly simplistic
and may not in fact address the actual complexities of the
problem. H. L. Menkin, the American humorist, once said that for
every complex problem there is a neat, plausible solution that is
wrong.
I have some concerns as a member about the legislation. That
being the case, I recognize the position of the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton in bringing forward the legislation and support
the ends he is trying to achieve. I am just questioning whether
or not this may be the most effective means to achieve those
ends.
Every industry that may use negative option billing is different
and operates within different parameters. For instance, cable
companies are clearly different from industries within the
financial services sector or the banks. In an effort to reduce
negative option billing or to address the issue of negative
option billing, we have to be careful that we do not create an
onerous level of regulation in one industry where it is more
prevalent and impose the same level of regulation on another
industry that in fact is not utilizing negative option billing as
much.
This may lead to greater costs for consumers with a complicated
process where effectively participants in that given industry,
for instance the financial services sector, may find that it
creates a competitiveness disadvantage relative to industries in
other areas.
One issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that in
mailings from banks or financial institutions to customers there
is only a 5% return rate currently. As such, it would create an
immense amount of administration within a financial services
institution or a bank to actually try to eliminate completely any
level of negative option billing.
If negative option billing is being used, for instance to bundle
or to package services in ways where a customer may in fact
benefit in some way or that would actually reduce the costs to
the customer, there is no negative to the customer. That is the
case for some of our financial institutions.
It is also important to realize that we heard from the Minister
of Finance last June with a response to the MacKay task force of
the Government of Canada. Those measures have not yet been
implemented. I believe they should have been implemented
earlier.
The government is in fact stalling on implementing its response
to the report on the financial services sector. The legislative
enabling of that response should have taken place by now but it
has not. When the Senate looks at the legislation it should
ensure that it somehow fits within this private member's bill and
that any recommendation would fit within the parameters of the
government's white paper response to the MacKay task force.
The issue of the competitiveness of our banks and our financial
institutions is paramount right now.
1855
Currently we are seeing around the world immense changes in the
financial services sector relative to information technology.
Effectively the forces of technology and globalization are
transforming the financial services sector.
We have to be very careful in Canada. For instance, this type
of legislation does not exist in the U.S. There is nothing like
it relative to negative option billing in the U.S. As we
increase levels of competition or access to Canadian markets by
foreign banks, there is a risk that if we handcuff Canadian
financial institutions with this type of legislation we in fact
may be imperilling Canadian banks and creating a deleterious
impact on them and their shareholders, which in fact include 7.5
million Canadians who actually own bank shares in Canada.
We have to ensure that legislation that is designed on one hand
to help Canadian consumers does not on the other hand hurt the
7.5 million Canadians who directly or indirectly depend on their
investments in our chartered banks for part of their retirement
income or in many cases in most portfolios a significant part of
their retirement.
The issue of addressing the differences between industries is
paramount. If we create some type of regulatory body or vehicle
and focus on protecting people from one industry which affects a
broad range of industries, clearly it may have a lot of
unforeseen and unintended consequences. We have to be awfully
careful of that.
We are supportive of the ends of this legislation, in that
negative option billing may be something that is more common in
Canada and have a more negative impact on Canada than members of
the House are aware. We are studying and discussing as a caucus
our position on this matter currently.
When we are crafting public policy in the House we have to be
sure that we are crafting it around realities as opposed to
perceptions. It is very easy sometimes to develop public policy
around perceptions in the current environment of poll driven
policy as opposed to policies that reflect the realities of what
is going on in Canada.
I would prefer to see a greater level of competition in all
these sectors, including the financial services sector. I would
like to see the government truly address issues of
competitiveness, including greater opportunities for smaller
financial institutions to compete fully with the banks in Canada,
and thus enable both on the consumer side and on the lending side
Canadians to have a greater range of services from a greater
variety of financial institutions in Canada.
It is important that we address the basic fundamental issues of
competition and do not treat these issues with a less holistic
approach. It is important to recognize that effectively we
should try to ensure that our regulatory burden in Canada is not
grossly different from that which exists in countries with which
our Canadian companies need to compete.
Clearly the issue the hon. member from Sarnia raises is a very
important one. We have to ensure that the means by which he is
proposing we address it are the most appropriate means.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-276 sponsored
by the member for Sarnia—Lambton who has been quite active on
the whole question of negative option billing or marketing.
1900
Canadians will recall the national event involving a cable
company which tried to introduce additional services. These
services were going to be charged automatically unless the
customer let it be known that they did not want the services.
This is the whole concept of negative option billing. As members
will recall, the consequence was the uprising of consumers who
said that this was unfair, this was not right. The cable company
withdrew its proposal and the consumer won.
This bill is about consumer protection. There is a very good
reason why it should be characterized as that and why it should
be before the House. In my experience in business, as a member
of parliament and as an observant consumer, it is my view that
consumers need help.
How many times have we seen people go to an automatic teller
machine to withdraw $20? How many times have we seen someone go
to McDonald's and use a debit card to buy a Big Mac? People do
not realize the cost of a transaction. It is pervasive.
How many times have people received in the mail a credit card
that was unsolicited? How many times have we seen someone at the
till look at the onion sheets of bad credit cards? Why would all
of these unsolicited cards be given if there was not, as there is
in gambling, a winner? Considering the number of cards that are
now issued in the credit card industry, this business is very
profitable, despite the fact that many accounts go bad and losses
are incurred.
The fact is that consumers need protection because they are not
alert. Consumers are distracted by life, by their own interests,
and they have been conditioned to assume that everything will
take care of itself. Many people do not pay their full Visa
balance or Mastercard balance and they are charged interest. It
is only a few dollars. It is not a big deal. But with millions
of consumers all having the same lazy consumer habits, the
sponsors of the credit cards receive a tremendous profit, even
though there are losses.
If an individual does not have a special arrangement with their
bank, they could be paying anywhere from 30 cents to 75 cents
every time they use their debit card. People think that the
debit card is convenient because they do not require cash in
their pocket. The card is pushed into a machine, a number is
keyed in and the machine pays exactly the amount owing.
Individuals do not have to worry about cash. Consumers think
that is convenient.
A cashier at a large grocery store told me that the smallest
purchase made at the store by a customer using a debit card was
the purchase of a newspaper. It was 50 cents for the newspaper,
but there was a 75 cent charge for the use of the debit card. It
makes absolutely no sense.
Consumers need to be educated. They have to be educated about
the tied value of money. They have to be educated about the fact
that there is a transactional cost no matter what we do, whether
we are using debit card machines, green machines or any other
electronic device. The costs have to be recovered somehow. We
know what a computer costs. We could imagine what this equipment
would cost.
This bill really is a proxy for all the frustrations felt by
consumers. Consumers need protection, not because they are
incapable of working this out for themselves, but because they
are busy people. It is not that they are lazy; they have
families and jobs and they assume things.
Every now and then the cable company, the telephone company, a
bank, almost anyone will do something and it is very subtle.
We do not think it is a great deal even if we see something,
although there is an additional five cents or three cents charged
on an additional withdrawal in this account.
1905
It is not enough for one individual to get excited about, but
when that additional increase is spread over millions and
millions of transactions, then we are talking about a significant
amount of money taken out of the consumers' pockets on the basis
of marketing strategies.
Who came up with the concept of negative option billing? Was it
consumers? Did they say that business should do this because it
is going to help them? Of course not. Negative option billing
or marketing is a concept of business. It is a concept of
consumer transactions within which the consumer perhaps might not
win, but they surely can lose in certain circumstances.
If we go back to the credit card analogy, everyone knows that we
get a period of 20 days or so between when the bill is received
and when it is due. There is a grace period between when the
money was spent or the purchase was made and when the cash has to
be disbursed. In a perfect world, if we took that cash we would
have otherwise used to pay for the purchase and put it in a bank
account, and always left in the bank account all the moneys that
we charged, at the end of a certain period, if it was an interest
bearing account, we would accumulate a fair bit of money. We
could accumulate a fair bit of money over a period of several
years and still meet all of our obligations with regard to the
banks.
Why do people not do that? The reason is quite simple. It
takes time. We have to keep track of things. If we miss just
once, all the work done over a couple of weeks could be gone by
missing one transaction or one day. People are not in the
business of trying to make nickels and dimes on odd amounts.
I liked this bill conceptually when we went through the first
round in the last parliament. Now we are into an amendment to
the Competition Act. Quite frankly, negative option billing or
marketing has been described as a deceptive marketing practice.
That is a harsh description or characterization, but it is
accurate and I would like to make that clear. The reason it is
deceptive is because if we do not do something, then something is
going to happen to us. What if I am busy or away? What if I do
not quite understand or have misread something? What if I am an
elderly person and cannot read very well any more? What if I am
just so tired that I cannot do it? What if someone misses
because they just happen to be a human being? Chances are they
will lose.
This is a high risk area for those who are maybe less able or
less capable than some to protect their own interests. That is
why, generally, all consumers should say that in principle we do
have to protect the consumer population because within our group
there are some who really are vulnerable. The stories we hear
about abuse of the elderly, as a simple example, is certainly one
reason alone that we just cannot be soft on high pressure,
scientifically proven, financially viable marketing strategies
that have been very successful. With the velocity of
transactions that are taking place through Internet banking, et
cetera, things are happening very quickly, Madam Speaker, so
please do not blink, as you might miss part of my speech.
I wanted to make the point that the velocity of information is
changing. The options are there. There are so many things that
we can do. Quite frankly, we are in transition as a society.
People have to have a comfort level that they are going to be
protected, especially when others want to change the nature of
the environment in which they are going to do their consumer
transactions.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. He
has been a champion for the consumer in this place. I believe
that all hon. members respect him for his hard work. I hear that
he has again reached report stage of a very important bill, and I
know he is very much looking forward to having this accepted by
the House so that he can go back to entertain his friends, the
senators.
1910
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.
I am here partly at the request of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Industry, as well as the Minister of Industry,
who want to add their support to the very hard work that has been
done by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
This is the House of Commons. This is the place in Canada where
we who represent people from all parts of this country give voice
to their concerns, and through that I think establish a body of
rights for them. They do not have lots of lobbyists running
around the Hill trying to influence various bits of legislation.
They do not have people who are paid to come in and watch what is
going on here all the time and try to influence things on their
behalf. They have us, the members. It is our job.
What this hon. member has done is picked up on an issue that
offended a very large number of Canadians. He has worked hard to
get it past all of the resistance, to get it past all of those
people who did not want to see their ability to impose things
upon citizens affected in any way. He has done that.
I shall not go through all of the problems the hon. member has
had along the way to this point, but he has never given up. He
fought the bill through the House and he earned the respect and
the support of members of the House. He fought the bill in the
other place and he has brought it back to the House with the
support of the departments.
I want to share with the House some of the things that other
people are saying about the member. This is a quote from an
article which appeared on December 17 in the National Post:
Bank mergers were squelched last summer because of concerns over
how the super-banks would treat customers. So why would Ottawa
want to make it easier for the banks to sell Canadians services
they don't want? Mr. Gallaway's bill should pass as is.
The competition commissioner stated:
I don't see how negative optioning could ever be pro-competitive.
The basic, underlying concept of a competitive market is that
consumers have a choice and exercise that choice, and they
exercise it knowingly. If you have a negative option, you don't
even know this has happened. You never get a choice.
That is taken from testimony before the Standing Committee on
Industry in November and it comes from Konrad von Finckenstein,
the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau of Canada. The
commissioner is recognizing on behalf of Canadians the problem
that exists, the problem that the member is trying to solve.
Let us continue with the testimony before the committee:
The Bureau feels that negative option marketing cannot be seen
as a competitive technique that would be good for consumers. The
Bureau believes that consumers should have the opportunity to
make an informed choice when buying new services. We have never
had and we do not yet have any objection to Mr. Gallaway's bill,
which would apply to banks, the cable industry and broadcasting.
That statement was made by Johanne D'Auray, the Deputy
Commissioner of the Competition Bureau of Canada, in testimony
before the Standing Committee on Industry on February 17 of this
year.
What does the consumers' association have to say? In testimony
in December 1999 the Consumers' Association of Canada said that
it believed support for Bill C-276 is a vote to restore to
Canadian consumers the right to choose. That came from Mrs. Gail
Lacombe, the president and chief executive officer of the
Consumers' Association of Canada.
It is that right, the right to choose the services that we want,
the right to choose the things that we will purchase, that is
embodied in the bill. It is sad in a way that we even have to
have this sort of legislation. It is sad that we would ever
question a person's right to make an informed choice about the
kind of purchases they will make and their right to know what
kind of charges will be imposed upon them before they agree to
it. It is astounding in a way.
It is interesting, but I do not think that some of the negative
option marketing has been a stunning success. Representatives of
Rogers Cable indicated that before the committee. In their
testimony they indicated that they would never again do it
because they have had such a negative reaction from consumers.
1915
It is astounding to me that in the past we have never had
protection to prevent companies, particularly companies that had
monthly billing practices, from altering the amount of money we
were being charged without our ever knowing what it was for
unless we took the time to look at it. They did not ask us as to
whether we wanted to purchase those new services or not.
This bill represents the kind of work all of us like to see done
in the House. It started with a member having a concern brought
to his attention by people who lived in his riding. He came back
and met with other members from all sides of the House. This
bill has had support from all sides because they shared the
concern. He worked diligently to produce a piece of legislation
that would provide the protection that consumers were requesting.
Madam Speaker, perhaps you could give me a bit of advice. I
understand there is a desire for the mover of the bill to have
the right of reply.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no right
of reply tonight. About two minutes are left in debate.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said
on this bill, on the need for it and what it will do for
consumers. I will spend the last bit of time reflecting on the
responsibilities all of us have in the House to protect and work
on behalf of the people we represent.
The member has acted in the finest traditions of the House to
bring forward a grievance that a great many Canadians have. He
has not just raised the question, he has gone beyond that and
devised a solution to the problem, a solution that all members of
the House can support. It is a great credit to the member and it
is a great credit to the members of this institution that we were
able to take a stand together on behalf of the consumers.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion
are deemed to have been put, and a recorded division is deemed
to have been requested and deferred until Wednesday, May 17,
2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, last month Canadians were outraged when they
learned that 90,000 tonnes of toxic waste from an American
military base in Japan was bound for Canada.
A shipment of PCBs, toxins that have been linked to birth
defects and illnesses including Parkinson's disease and cancer,
were on a boat bound for the port of Vancouver. From there this
toxic waste was going to be shipped all the way across the
country to northern Ontario where it was going to be concentrated
and then shipped back across the country once again to Alberta
where it was destined to be burned. That is right. Toxic waste
was going to be shipped from one end of the country and back
again, toxic waste that was not even produced in Canada.
As we might expect, Canadians were shocked to learn that their
health was going to be put at risk to do the U.S. military a
favour, while making a fast buck for an American company that had
set up shop in northern Ontario to get around U.S. environmental
laws. Imagine an American company setting up shop in Canada to
get around environmental laws. Americans used to be afraid of
losing jobs to Mexico because of the combination of low
environmental standards and people's dire need for work.
Members of the House and many Canadians will remember one of the
great fears people had during the NAFTA negotiations. It was
that Mexico's so-called trade advantage vis-à-vis employment,
health and environmental standards would result in a race to the
bottom in our country.
We would have to do that in order to prevent job losses to
Mexico. Well, things have switched. It now appears that Canada
and not Mexico is the environmental patsy in North America.
1920
We are looking at a law for example to protect endangered
species. If it is passed without amendment it is going to be the
weakest on the continent.
On another matter, officials from our own environment ministry
are leading the charge to muzzle the Centre for Environmental
Cooperation. That is the NAFTA watchdog that holds our
governments accountable when they fail to enforce environmental
laws.
Yesterday in the House I urged the environment minister to
instruct his officials to stop undermining the work of the
centre. He said at the time that I was talking rubbish. But
last night Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is an environmental lawyer
in the United States, spoke to a public meeting here in Ottawa.
He made exactly the same charge, that is that Canada is leading a
movement to undermine the Centre for Environmental Cooperation.
These are serious matters. We have a damning report as well, I
might add, from the auditor general leaked only today which says
that Canada is incapable of protecting its citizens from the
illegal traffic, the improper storage and the wrongful disposal
of hazardous waste.
While the Americans have banned the import of PCBs into their
country, Canada is prepared to take them. There are tonnes and
tonnes of domestically produced PCBs sitting in storage sites in
this country waiting to be dealt with and technologies which
could dispose of them safely. We do not have to ship them back
and forth across the country and burn them.
The promises made by the Liberals during the last two election
campaigns and as recently as the throne speech last fall are
looking more and more like empty rhetoric. Under them we have
slipped to the point where Mexico has stronger laws in place to
protect the environment than we do. When it comes to protecting
the health of Canadians, the government is failing all of us.
In closing I urge the government to put the health of Canadians
before all else when it comes to environmental issues which we
confront.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report that
the shipment of waste containing PCBs from U.S. military bases
was not off-loaded in Vancouver and is on its way back to Japan.
We are pleased that the U.S. government has taken responsibility
to dispose of this cargo outside Canada. Throughout we have
maintained that the cargo and its disposal were the
responsibility of the U.S. Department of Defense and Trans-Cycle
Industries.
As a result of this incident we have asked the U.S. Department
of Defense to inform us in advance of any shipments of PCB
contaminated waste intended for Canada no matter what the PCB
concentrations.
We would ensure that our obligations under the Basel convention
and all federal and provincial regulations are complied with
before any decision on allowing such a shipment is rendered.
Under our regulations Canada ensures that hazardous waste imports
and exports are handled in a manner that protects the environment
and human health.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides enhanced
authority to control imports and exports of hazardous waste. We
will introduce new regulations to implement specific criteria to
assess the environmental soundness of proposed imports and will
refuse any import if these criteria are not met.
An outright ban on the import of all hazardous waste is neither
required nor appropriate. A ban would neither be consistent with
Canada's international obligations nor with the policy of sharing
facilities with either side of the Canada-U.S. border which under
the proximity principle allows both countries to use the nearest
approved facilities thereby reducing transportation distances.
Canada intends to continue to honour all of its international
obligations and will take steps to continuously improve the
standards for hazardous waste whether these wastes are domestic
or international in origin.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to stand tonight and speak about the future of CBC
regional programming. It seems like a never ending story. On
April 6 I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage whether she
would commit to intervene with cash to save regional TV news
programs if the corporation decided to kill supper hour shows.
1925
That was on April 6. Today coincidentally the president of the
CBC came before the heritage committee to talk to us on that very
subject. The heritage committee had expressed a great deal of
concern about rumours about impending cuts to regional
programming. We asked if he would come before the committee to
discuss it.
What we heard today from the president of CBC was a confirmation
that due to 16 years of Liberal and Conservative cuts, 17 local
supper hour shows are to be reduced, quite possibly to one per
time zone, each one co-hosted from Toronto. The president made a
very glossy presentation, a video of what these new shows would
look like. Peter Mansbridge would co-host with a host from each
region. The news would be recycled through Toronto, Peter
Mansbridge being the mainstay of the program.
I do not think there was much appetite in the room for that kind
of treatment of local and regional programming. I think it would
be quite fair to say that the committee en masse, both sides of
the House, every party, had passionate statements about the
importance of regional programming and local programming to
Canadian culture, to the survival of people's political knowledge
of their area so that they would be able to understand the actual
governance of their own region.
The member for Fredericton talked about the fact that there was
no other programming that was available other than the CBC. The
member from Windsor talked about the fact that Windsor is a tiny
little enclave surrounded by American production and was very
concerned. The leader of the New Democratic Party came to the
heritage committee specifically to talk about the importance of
regional programming to the Atlantic region.
We have four local supper hour news shows in Atlantic Canada and
all of them have excellent ratings. For example, the percentage
audience share for the May 10, 2000 ratings compare the supper
hour shows with Hockey Night in Canada, Royal Canadian
Air Farce and The National.
The proposed changes which were alluded to by Mr. Rabinovitch
and by Mr. Redekopp last Friday while speaking to the regional
staff talked about beaming one supper hour show through Toronto
with various inserts. This is not something that people in
Atlantic Canada want. We want to see our own talent. We want to
hear our own stories. We do not need it recycled through
Toronto. In every market the supper hour news is more popular
than The National. In three out of four markets the 6 p.m.
news beats hockey during the height of the playoffs.
Where the New Democratic Party is coming from as always over the
years is that it is important to maintain stable and secure
funding for the CBC. At this point in time, this quite historic
day when the president finally acknowledged the fact that the CBC
is underfunded, we ask the Prime Minister to reinvest in our
national broadcaster.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to take this
opportunity to say that I too participated in the meeting to
which the member for Dartmouth referred.
It is true that the members who attended took advantage of the
opportunity to pass on to the president of the CBC the concerns
raised by their constituents.
[English]
We had a golden opportunity as members of parliament to convey
to the president of the CBC concerns that have been expressed to
us about the importance of the regional aspect in CBC Radio
Canada's mandate. That has been done. Today the president of
CBC committed to the members of that committee to report directly
to the board of CBC Radio Canada the concerns that have been
voiced by a number of people but also the concerns that were
voiced today by members of parliament who were reflecting
comments received from constituents from all across the country.
That also points out that a decision has not been made. One can
hope that the concerns expressed indeed will be reflected in
whatever decision is finally made.
We cannot ignore that CBC gets some of what my hon. colleagues
have called stable funding. The funding has been stabilized.
This is the third year of a five year stable funding program. It
was marginally increased to reflect some cost of living
adjustments. It was also increased to absorb one time costs
related to the Y2K concerns and so forth.
Proof that some things were working was presented to us today by
the president of CBC in that radio is fine and in that French
television is fine. Let us not forget Radio Canada International
which has also received secure and stable funding.
All told, the focus was on English television. Despite funding
problems there were things that the president wanted to do which
he might do even if he got more money.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): A motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)