36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 54
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 22, 2000
1005
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1010
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1015
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1020
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1025
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1030
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1035
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1040
| Mr. René Laurin |
1045
1050
1055
| Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1100
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1105
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1150
(Division 691)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1155
1240
(Division 692)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Report Stage
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage and second reading
|
1245
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1250
1255
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1300
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1305
1310
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1315
1320
| Division on Motion No. 87 deferred
|
1325
1330
| Division on Motion No. 100 deferred
|
1335
| Division on Motion No. 102 deferred
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Motion No. 143
|
1340
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Motion No. 144
|
| Motion No. 145
|
1345
| Division on Motion No. 109 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 111 deferred
|
1350
| Division on Motion No. 122 deferred
|
| Division on the amendment to Motion No. 123 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 128 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 129 deferred
|
1355
| Division on Motion No. 139 deferred
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| MOUVEMENT DESJARDINS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1400
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| SIMCOE—GREY
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1405
| IRAN
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| PILON LIMITÉE
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| MOUVEMENT DESJARDINS
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| BURNS BOG
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1410
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| BILL C-20
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| ST. JOHN'S WEST
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1415
| ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1445
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1450
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1500
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage and second reading
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 7 to 9
|
1505
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 21, 23 to 25 and 27 to 29
|
1510
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion No. 30
|
1515
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 31 to 44 and 75 to 77
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1535
1540
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1545
1550
| Mr. André Harvey |
1555
1600
| Mr. Ted White |
1605
1610
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage and Second Reading
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1615
1620
| Mr. John Solomon |
1625
1630
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1650
1655
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1700
1705
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1710
1715
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 7 deferred
|
1720
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 12 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 21 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 23 deferred
|
1725
| Division on Motion No. 24 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 30 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 62 deferred
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Motion No. 79
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 136 and 137
|
1730
| Division on Motion No. 79 deferred
|
1735
| Division on Motion No. 83 deferred
|
| Motions Nos. 18, 45, and 47
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Motions Nos. 55 and 56
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 57 and 58
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motions Nos. 59 and 60
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1740
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion No. 61
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 64 to 71 inclusive
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion No. 72
|
1745
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motions Nos. 73 and 74
|
| Division on Motion No. 18 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 45 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 55 deferred
|
1750
| Division on Motion No. 56 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 57 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 58 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 59 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 60 deferred
|
1755
| Division on Motion No. 61 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 64 deferred.
|
| Division of Motion No. 66 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 71 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 72 deferred
|
1800
| Division on Motion No. 73 deferred.
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Motion No. 53
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 54
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Motion No. 138
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 142
|
1805
| Division on Motion No. 53 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 138 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 142 deferred
|
1830
1840
(Division 693)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1850
(Division 694)
| Motion No. 87 negatived
|
1855
(Division 695)
| Motion No. 88 negatived
|
1905
(Division 696)
| Motion No. 92 negatived
|
1910
(Division 697)
| Motion No. 100 negatived
|
1915
1920
(Division 698)
| Motion No. 101 negatived
|
1925
(Division 699)
| Motion No. 113 agreed to
|
1930
1935
(Division 700)
| Motion No. 102 agreed to
|
1940
(Division 701)
| Motion No. 109 agreed to
|
1950
(Division 702)
| Motion No. 111 agreed to
|
1955
(Division 703)
| Motion No. 122 agreed to
|
2000
(Division 704)
| Amendment to Motion No. 123 agreed to
|
2005
2010
(Division 705)
| Motion No. 123, as amended, agreed to
|
2015
(Division 706)
| Motion No. 128 negatived
|
2025
(Division 707)
| Motion No. 129 negatived
|
2030
(Division 708)
| Motion No. 130 agreed to
|
2035
(Division 709)
| Motion No. 139 negatived
|
2040
2045
(Division 710)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
2055
(Division 711)
| Motion No. 5 negatived
|
2100
(Division 712)
| Motion No. 6 negatived
|
2105
(Division 713)
| Motion No. 7 negatived
|
2110
2115
(Division 714)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
2120
(Division 715)
| Motion No. 9 negatived
|
2125
(Division 716)
| Motion No. 11 negatived
|
2130
(Division 717)
| Motion No. 12 negatived
|
2135
2140
(Division 718)
| Motion No. 13 agreed to
|
2145
(Division 719)
| Motion No. 21 negatived
|
2155
(Division 720)
| Motion No. 23 negatived
|
2200
(Division 721)
| Motion No. 24 negatived
|
2205
(Division 722)
| Motion No. 30 negatived
|
2210
(Division 723)
| Motion No. 62 negatived
|
2215
2220
(Division 724)
| Motion No. 79 agreed to
|
2225
(Division 725)
| Motion No. 83 negatived
|
2235
(Division 726)
| Motion No. 18 agreed to
|
2240
(Division 727)
| Motion No. 45 agreed to
|
2245
(Division 728)
| Motion No. 55 negatived
|
2250
(Division 729)
| Motion No. 56 negatived
|
2300
(Division 730)
| Motion No. 57 agreed to
|
2305
(Division 731)
| Motion No. 58 agreed to
|
2315
(Division 732)
| Motion No. 59 negatived
|
2320
(Division 733)
| Motion No. 60 negatived
|
2325
(Division 734)
| Motion No. 61 negatived
|
2330
(Division 735)
| Motion No. 64 negatived
|
2340
(Division 736)
| Motion No. 66 negatived
|
2345
(Division 737)
| Motion No. 71 negatived
|
2350
(Division 738)
| Motion No. 72 agreed to
|
2400
(Division 739)
| Motion No. 73 negatived
|
2405
(Division 740)
| Motion No. 74 negatived
|
2410
(Division 741)
| Motion No. 53 negatived
|
2415
2420
(Division 742)
| Motion No. 54 negatived
|
2425
(Division 743)
| Motion No. 138 negatived
|
2435
(Division 744)
| Motion No. 142 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence and second reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
2440
(Division 745)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 54
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 22, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in this House, the Leader of the Government in the
House accused the Bloc Quebecois of tabling “hundreds of
clippings from old newspapers”, to enlighten the House on the
infamous Bill C-20.
For his own personal information, the government House leader
should have let the House authorize the tabling of these
so-called old newspapers clipping. I think he should have read
them, for his own benefit and that of all Quebecers.
I have here a very interesting article, particularly for our
friends from the New Democratic Party. It is an article that was
published in the December 2 issue of La Presse, under the title
“Quebec alone should determine the clarity of the question, said
McDonough”.
Since the government wants to muzzle the committee, as it has
done in this House with respect to this bill, I urge the House
once again to authorize me to table this article, for its own
benefit.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further
to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
of Bill C-20, a bill that denies the fundamental rights of
Quebecers, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to
table a document that will enlighten the House.
It is an article that was published in the February 10 issue of
Le Monde concerning a text by Mrs. Louise Beaudoin entitled “The
Quebec Sovereignist Philosophy”. I think I have the unanimous
consent of the House to table this document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
here an article entitled “Jacques Parizeau to Le Devoir: Canada
Has no Other Choice but to Negotiate”.
I think it would be nice to have the consent of the House to
table this document, which might enlighten all the federalist
parties and all the federalist members of the House who want to
deny Quebecers their most basic rights to freely decide their
future and who are behaving like former Rhodesians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1010
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think government
members would benefit from having documents that would enlighten
them on what Quebecers want with regard to their situation in
the Canadian Confederation and at the same time enlighten the
government on what today's Quebec is all about.
I have here a document on Quebec's political and constitutional
status, which members would benefit from reading as they look
for a possible solution in their relationship with Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everybody in
the House knows Félix Leclerc. I have here a document about the
dignity of standing up as a people. I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House—for denying it would be an insult to
Mr. Leclerc—to table this document to enlighten the House. I hope
to get unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will
enlighten the House. This is a document on the moral and legal
right of a separated Quebec to use the Canadian currency.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a
bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I have here a
newspaper article about a visit of Mario Dumont to the
Bois-Francs region, where he is quoted as saying that, in a
democracy, a result of 50% plus one is in keeping with a
principle recognized throughout the world.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
article, which can enlighten the members of this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
know that Bill C-20 is currently being debated in committee. As
we speak, Jean-François Lisée is testifying before the committee.
To enlighten all members of the House, I have here the results
of a Léger & Léger poll on the referendum and on Bill C-20. If
it is the pleasure of the House, and with your permission, Mr.
Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could table the results of
this poll.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have here a text that our colleagues across the way cannot
object to, particularly my seatmate, the government House leader
and member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
It is a speech by Jean Charest. Our colleagues have to agree,
because he is one of their own, a Liberal. This is the text of
his television address on Bill 99 and the federal bill on
referendum rules. I ask for consent to table this document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I have here
a document dealing with the Canadian dollar and Quebec
secession. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
table this document, which will enlighten it in this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1015
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
we were tabling old documents.
I would like to table an article from this morning's La Presse
entitled “Trusteeship: Claude Ryan Speaks out Against the
Federal Bill on Referendum Clarity”. I think it is very topical.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a
bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for
unanimous consent to table a document for the information of the
House.
The document is an article published in Le Devoir on December 4,
entitled “Quebecers don't want Ottawa to get involved”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I
ask for unanimous consent to table a document for the
information of the House. I am counting on the usual propensity
to learn of my colleagues opposite to get their unanimous
consent.
The document is an article published in Le Soleil on December 4,
entitled “Chrétien Preparing for Re-election”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for
unanimous consent to table a document for the information of the
House.
The document is an article published in Le Soleil on November
29, entitled “Chrétien Haggling”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
legislation denying the basic rights of Quebecers, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will
enlighten the House.
This is an article published on January 5, 2000, in Le Droit on
the obstruction to the rules of democracy that Bill C-20
represents.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
announcement by the Prime Minister, who introduced a bill
denying the most basic rights of Quebecers, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will
enlighten the House.
This is a study on social union done by André Binette for the
Secrétariat québécois aux Affaires gouvernementales. In this
study, Mr. Binette concludes “With the signature of the social
union agreement, a historical step was taken. Ottawa will no
longer even pretend to respect Quebec's autonomy or its
traditional interpretation of the Constitution”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction of the bill denying Quebecers their right to
decide their future, I am asking for the unanimous consent of
the House to table a document on a new Quebec-Canada partnership,
a modern and exciting project.
This document will enlighten the
House on a modern proposal that is truly better than the
obsolete project of the government opposite.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
here an article published in Le Devoir on January 27, entitled
“Ontario after a Yes Vote”.
1020
The article states:
After a three year legal saga, Toronto's Globe and Mail has
obtained documents from Ontario's Department of Finance, in
which an assessment is made of the impact for Ontario of a yes
victory in the 1995 referendum.
What was presented as a series of studies is merely notes jotted
down for use by the Department of Finance.
These documents list the Quebec-Ontario agreements—very few of
them, in fact—that would be in jeopardy as a result of Quebec
sovereignty.
By using estimates already made by various experts, there was an
attempt at determining potential losses of employment caused by
the breakup. However, these documents do not have much value as
estimates and are rather more speculative. For example, there is
half a line on the involvement of the Canadian army, without any
explanation.
It is estimated that sovereignty could result in
the value of the Canadian dollar going down to between 65 cents
and 70 cents U.S., something which is presented as a
catastrophe.
Since these notes were written, the Canadian dollar has—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As members know, it
is impossible for the Chair to divine the intention of the hon.
member, but I must ask if it is the hon. member's intention to
request unanimous consent to table the document.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I only had a few lines left
to read, relating to the 1995 referendum campaign and other data
in this very interesting article, which could enlighten members
of this House.
I would indeed ask for—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Quebec East have unanimous consent of the House to table the
document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have not
one, but two documents to table this morning.
Following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of Bill C-20, which denies the Quebec people their
fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of this
House to table one of those two documents that will enlighten
it.
It is an article from an important document, entitled “For
Quebec, Time Is Running Out”.
My second document is the Quebec chief electoral officer's
report on the results of the 1995 referendum, in which 93%—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I can see a slight
escalation. It is bad enough we are depositing one document, but
if each of us stands to describe two or more where will it end?
Let us leave it at one document. Does the hon. member for
Charlevoix have unanimous consent of the House to deposit the
document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction of Bill C-20, which is now called the gag law
against the Quebec people, I ask for the unanimous consent of
this House to table a very recent text from the February 22
issue—today's issue—of Le Devoir. It is entitled “Clarity Bill:
Ryan Criticizes The Federal Initiative”.
The article says “In attempting to have the federal parliament
decide whether the question and the referendum results are
clear, despite the prerogatives of the National Assembly
prerogatives, the Chrétien government is going against the very
principles—”
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We get the idea.
Does the hon. member for Lotbinière have unanimous consent of the
House to deposit the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also have
news for the government.
In the February 22 issue of the Journal de Montréal, we read
that Claude Ryan would vote against the clarity bill, and he did
not mince his words. He sharply criticized the bill on the
referendum conditions, becoming the first federalist known both
in Quebec and on the federal level to openly express his
dissent.
I could give in detail all the reasons he opposes this bill.
Some say that this bill will be a black mark on democracy in
Quebec.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If there were
unanimous consent of the House to deposit the document we could
all save ourselves a dollar by not buying the paper. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1025
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has introduced a bill
denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask the unanimous
consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.
It is a short history of monetary unions between independent
states; it deals with states where monetary union failed and
others where it succeeded. There are very good examples, such as
Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France, Italy, the United
States, Panama and Liberia. I believe this document could
enlighten the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
for the member to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction, by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask
for, and will no doubt obtain, the unanimous consent of the
House to table a document that will enlighten this House.
It is a document on Quebec's political and constitutional
status. With your permission, I would like to read the covering
letter sent by the Quebec Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental
Affairs, Joseph Facal.
It starts like this “This document focuses on the main events
relating to the constitutional political status of Quebec. It
shows the evolution of a federal system that has progressively
moved away—”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House to table that document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we
are in the middle of a debate on a rather unfair bill that was
introduced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
I have here a study on the social union, which could enlighten
my colleagues on the government side. This is a study by Jacques
Frémont.
In his study, Mr. Frémont said—and I would like to quote him; it
is only one sentence—“Instead, the signatories have chosen to
adopt a clause that imposes obligations as well as severe
restrictions on the signatory governments”. In any debate, one
must show openness and draw from all possible sources of
information.
I urge my colleagues on the government side to give their
unanimous consent to the tabling of this study, so that they can
draw from it in their debates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
further to the introduction of a bill by the hon. member for
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, I have here a copy of the speech made
by Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard on Bill 99, which was
introduced at the National Assembly, and on Bill C-20 concerning
referendum rules.
I seek the consent of the House to table this very interesting
document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
unanimous consent of the House, and with a view on enlightening
the hon. members across the way, I would like to table an
article published in the daily newspaper La Presse on January 26
on the advantages of Quebec's separation to Ontario. I seek
unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is an
excerpt from an article entitled “When Clarity Isn't”. It reads
“Who do they think we are in Ottawa? Dunces who do not even know
their French? To call a bill a clarity bill when nothing in it
is clear, one must not have public information in mind”.
So, to clarify matters for certain people in this House, I would
like to table this article published in La Voix de l'Est on
December 31, 1999 and entitled, as I said, “When Clarity Isn't”.
1030
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand: Mr. Speaker, actually I
would like to table a document, which I have here, published in
Le Soleil on December 4, under the title—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I appreciate
that the hon. members wish to table as many documents as
possible, but an hon. member may not speak twice on the same
point of order. This will not be the rule today.
[English]
We will go to the daily routine of business.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Could you seek unanimous consent to
withdraw Bill C-20, which is unacceptable to Quebec? The best
thing we could do is to withdraw it now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member seeks
unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-20. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 which were 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.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Orders 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's responses to ten petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to
table today, in both official languages, the first report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on a farm income
safety net.
Your committee reviewed the issue of a farm income safety net, as
it pertains to the agriculture and agri-food sector, as part of
its order of reference dated October 28, 1999. The committee
travelled across the four western provinces to meet with and
listen to farmers and some groups and organizations representing
or working with farmers. It came up with a number of
recommendations which are contained in the report.
The committee is also requesting a comprehensive answer to the
report from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee
members from all sides for their work, the committee staff and
all the farmers who appeared before us to share their views and
concerns.
1035
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I move that the
first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, tabled on Wednesday December 1, 1999, be
concurred in.
Thank you for giving me the time this morning to
debate this motion which is, in my opinion, an extremely
important one.
It is important, first of all, because the budget, on which we
will be required to vote in about two weeks, will no doubt
include billions of dollars for National Defence.
The last budgets of that department were in the order of
$10 million or $11 million. That is a very large portion of the
budget. It accounts for a large part of the revenue of the
Government of Canada.
It is important to address this matter because the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has been
looking at a number of aspects of military life over the past
two years. The auditor general himself was interested in the
way the army was spending the money allocated to it.
The committee has been looking at military life over the past
two or three years.
What sort of life do our military personnel have day to day?
How do they feel when they are sent on missions abroad? How are
they treated and with what sort of satisfaction do they enjoy
daily on the bases, be they land, naval or air bases, where they
are assigned, at home or abroad?
The committee was interested in this question because, for a
number of years, especially since the government started its
fight against the deficit, the army has been in large measure
hit with budget restrictions. Our military personnel and our
generals complained of it, and even NATO complained.
NATO, of which Canada is a member, criticized the fact that
Canada was not investing enough in its share of the peacekeeping
missions abroad, such as the ones in Kosovo, East Timor and
Bosnia Herzegovina.
According to NATO, Canada is one of the countries investing
less, in terms of its gross domestic product, in the missions.
After doing studies and research, hearing dozens of witnesses,
including experts—some from abroad, some from Canada—a number of
members of the military, including soldiers, those most affected
by the policies of the Government of Canada, on November 25,
1999, the committee tabled a motion on the revitalization and
modernization of Canada's armed forces.
The 1994 white paper, mentioned in this resolution, was
introduced six years ago.
The resolution read as follows:
Whereas the Government's White Paper on Defence from 1994 calls
on the Canadian Forces to play a vital role in protecting
Canadian sovereignty, maintaining collective defence through
NATO and NORAD, providing support to United Nations peacekeeping
operations, search and rescue, disaster relief and humanitarian
assistance;
1040
This resolution read further:
And 23% is a sizeable proportion of a budget.
I referred to it earlier.
The difference between what Canada and other NATO countries
invest in national defence and peacekeeping operations is almost 1%.
And whereas, our international commitments—in places like Bosnia,
Kosovo and East Timor—in support of peace and human security have
increased to the point where we have one of the largest
contingents of troops deployed abroad since the Korean War;
And whereas, the Canadian Forces continue to experience problems
with respect to housing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member but the member for Ottawa Centre has risen on a
point of order.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think my colleagues have confused the speeches today on first
reading with second reading. My understanding is that when
introducing private members' bills members have a few seconds to
talk about what it is they are putting before the House, rather
than giving long-winded speeches.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible for the hon. member
to wind up his remarks so we can move on to the other items on
the agenda.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It certainly would
be if the hon. member for Joliette was introducing a private
member's bill, but he is not. He is speaking to a motion.
I would mention that when members come into the House they
should turn off their cellphones when they enter the Chamber.
Cellphones are not to be used in the Chamber, which includes
behind the curtains.
We are not dealing with private members' bills, we are debating
a motion. The hon. member for Joliette has 20 minutes for debate
and then there will be a 10 minute question and comment period.
Then the opportunity for debate and response will go to the
government side.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. At the beginning of Routine Proceedings today when the
chairman of the agriculture committee tabled his majority report
there were minority reports attached to it, including the report
of the official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are in debate on
a motion by the hon. member for Joliette. I do not know if the
member for Selkirk—Interlake was standing at the time and I
neglected to recognize him. If that is the case, as soon as we
are finished with the member for Joliette, I will return to the
member for Selkirk—Interlake. It may take a minute because we
are going to go to a vote, but I will make sure that the member
for Selkirk—Interlake has an opportunity.
The hon. member for Joliette has 11 minutes left on debate.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues
opposite will just bear with me, they will see where I am
headed. Members of the Canadian forces have been patient; for
five, and in some cases even ten, years they have been waiting
in vain for reform from the government. The member has been
listening to me for only two minutes. He can listen a bit
longer if he is interested in the point we are trying to make.
1045
I was reading the final “whereas” in the resolution tabled
before the standing committee on November 25, 1999, which states
the following:
And whereas, the Canadian Forces continue to experience problems
with respect to housing, quality of life issues, troop fatigue
based upon increased deployments, ageing equipment in need of
replacement and the loss of key capabilities;
It ought to be of interest to government members to hear about
the shortcomings of the armed forces and what they are lacking.
Be it resolved that the Standing Committee on National Defence
and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) request the Government of Canada
embark upon a five-year plan, commencing immediately, to
substantially increase the budget of the Department of National
Defence as a percentage of the GDP to revitalize, modernize and
ensure an effective, combat capable Canadian Forces.
We have some comments on this. Moreover, we presented a
dissenting report for the following reasons.
In committee we indicated that the resolution might have been
acceptable to us if certain points were modified. We suggested
that the government's objectives be reassessed. We called for
the control over military spending to also be reassessed, and
more attention focussed on it.
Why did we move this amendment and vote against the main
proposal? In its first report, the committee asked that
additional moneys be immediately provided to the Department of
National Defence. The Bloc Quebecois' position on the issue of
supplementary estimates for national defence has always been the
same and still is.
We are not opposed, in principle, to increasing the army's
budget if we come to the conclusion that there is no other way
to meet the needs of the army, and if the objectives of the
government and of Canada regarding peacekeeping operations,
including peacemaking and promotion of peace and democracy in
foreign countries, are still within our means. We must have the
means to fulfil our ambitions. Canada has ambitions; it wants to
look good abroad, but can we still afford our ambitious
objectives?
It might be advisable to ask ourselves that question once again.
The white paper on defence was written in 1994, but the world
situation has evolved enormously since. It has totally changed
over the past six years. There are now 22 theatres of threatened
peace or of war where countries are tearing each other or
themselves to pieces, where democracy is in jeopardy. Canada is
involved in most missions to these regions.
Now, in the year 2000, does Canada—even though it continues to be
a promoter of peace—still have the means to participate in these
missions? Do we have to take part in every mission, or should we
be selective? Should Canada be involved in these missions if we
decide to be present everywhere? Should we participate in the
same way that all the other countries do, or should we
specialize in a certain role?
For example, we could play a role relating to communications,
diplomacy or health care. We must ask ourselves these questions
once again.
Does Canada still have the means to send aircraft, including
F-18s, and heavy equipment abroad to fulfil these obligations?
1050
We cannot let our allies think we will provide thousands,
millions and billions of dollars to help maintain peace, when at
home one child in five is starving. Peace starts at home.
If Canadians cannot live in peace at home because they do not
feel secure and do not have bread to feed their children, if
Canadians and Quebecers lack this assurance at home, how can
they properly support a peacekeeping presence abroad? Charity
begins at home.
Canada will enjoy influence and credibility abroad when the
people there know that Canada treats its own people and their
children well first, before attempting to look after the
children of others.
This is a concern of the Bloc Quebecois. We must be sure all
the savings possible in the army have been made before new funds
are injected. The auditor general has repeatedly pointed to
mismanagement of funds in the army.
In November, 1999, in chapter 26, the auditor noted the
following “The audit found that in some areas, controls over
financial and material resources have weakened”. Therefore,
before additional funds are injected, we must look into the
present management, which is the source of the waste.
In this same chapter 26, the auditor general noted—in 1999, not
ages ago, but quite recently—as follows “Allegations of such
abuses of resources as unauthorized upgrading of official
residences and misappropriation of government property have not
always been dealt with adequately”. Let the government start by
looking into this before considering whether there is a need to
increase the budget.
That was not all the auditor general had to say. In chapter 27
of the same report, he commented that the Department of National
Defence had not always put out calls for tender, “thus forgoing
the benefits of price competition”. A total of $3 billion, or
30%, of the national defence budget of $10 billion is spent
annually on untendered contracts. This is not negligible. It
is an extremely large amount and they do not see anything wrong
with operating this way.
DND authorities are authorized to make purchases using
expenditure cards with which they are issued. Are those
purchases always made at the best price? We do not know because
there are no calls for tender. In the worst case scenario, some
people may be using the system to indulge in patronage, to buy
from friends, from people who are helping the government stay in
power.
It is important that we be sure that this money is being
properly spent before approving increases.
The other point that I wished to make is that we must review our
international objectives.
If Canada cannot afford to take part in international
peacekeeping missions, it should re-examine its policies now,
inform its allies accordingly, and tell them what role we intend
to play in future and how much we are prepared to invest.
1055
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before moving to questions
and comments, I would like to give the floor to the hon. member
for Selkirk—Interlake for the tabling of the minority report on
agriculture. We shall then go to questions and comments on the
motion of the hon. member for Joliette.
[English]
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as vice-chair of the committee, I have a few comments to
make with regard to the standing committee report that was tabled
by the chairman, the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
This report was a study of the effectiveness of long term
national safety net programs. I commend the committee for
travelling to the three western provinces plus one place in
British Columbia. However, the committee voted down travelling
to other parts of the country, in particular Ontario and the
east. As a result, I would like the members of the House to know
that the report is incomplete in the study of the national safety
net effectiveness.
I hope that in the near future our committee will be travelling
and talking to farmers in the rest of the country and in fact
tabling a report that is national in scope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I apologize for not
recognizing the member earlier. I thank the House for its
forbearance in allowing us to go back to this item.
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate my colleague from Joliette for his presentation,
and particularly on his knowledge of this matter.
If I have understood correctly, it seems to me that the armed
forces are not much better off than the TJF. Could he enlighten
me on this?
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very
pertinent question. I had not finished mentioning cases of
mismanagement.
If the auditor general—the report does not mention it—had taken as
sizeable a sampling as in the case of Human Resources
Development Canada, he might have found an equivalent amount of
mismanagement in the Defence files. We do not know this,
because the auditor general settled for raising the most obvious
cases of waste and mismanagement. I will give a few more.
For example, in answer to the question from my colleague, in the
April 1998 Auditor General's Report, it was clearly indicated
that the injection of additional funds would not solve the
problems of the armed forces, as long as it is not clear where
it is headed.
It is all very fine to say “There are complaints from the
military, so we will add one or two billion dollars”. However,
if it is not clear where we are headed, it will never be known
whether this additional money will solve the problem. There has
to be a proper understanding of the situation, we have to be
sure of the administrative methods used, we have to be sure this
money has been spent before any more is injected.
Perhaps the money already allocated to the armed forces would be
enough, if it were handled better. Perhaps no more investment
would be necessary. This would enable us to put more money into
other priorities of Canadians and Quebecers, such as combatting
poverty and unemployment or helping out the provinces in the
areas of health, education or welfare. This funding is not
merely useful; it is necessary.
1100
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with my hon. colleague. It is very important that the
government reassess its objectives for our Canadian military. I
am sure we have to look at our role internationally. However, I
have various concerns about our role in NATO and how we quite
often blindly follow what the U.S. proposes for NATO.
At the same time, I feel it is very important that our military
have proper resources and that there be sufficient funding to
support the quality of life issues in terms of housing and pay
issues, which our committee looked at and strongly supported. We
know we have asked them to go further and further abroad into
missions but when they come back home there is not the kind of
support they need, particularly when they are suffering from
medical ailments.
Does my hon. colleague not feel it is very important that there
be sufficient funding for the military to support those quality
of life issues and support the acquisition of badly needed search
and rescue equipment so that our military will be able to
properly perform most functions, both domestically and abroad?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I admire the work done in
committee by the hon. member. He shows that he is very
interested. Even though he is also an opposition member, he
always shows a great deal of interest in these issues.
We are in agreement.
The Bloc Quebecois has always said it: if we are sure that the
moneys already allocated to the army are well spent, that they
are spent for the purposes for which they were allocated, that
they are strictly and meticulously monitored, and if we are sure
that Canada is financially capable of participating in
missions—it is true that we have a role to play abroad, but that
role must be one that we are able to play—if we have the
assurance that these objectives have been met, then we will
agree to let the government invest more money, if necessary. But
the government must first invest in the quality of life of
military personnel.
When Canada goes abroad, the number of bombs or aircraft that it
sends does nothing to promote its credibility with belligerent
countries.
Canada's reputation abroad has always been one of a promoter
peace, of a creator of conditions promoting peace. These
conditions are not created by increasing the number of aircraft
or by making bombs.
What Canada must do is strengthen its credibility, first by
ensuring comfort, good quality of life and stability to
Canadians and Quebecers. This is the best way to establish its
credibility as a peacekeeper abroad.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is one
management problem among those enumerated that has been glossed
over. I am thinking of the action taken to ensure the best
possible health conditions for our soldiers when they are on
peacekeeping missions.
We have seen soldiers return from missions in ill health; there
are problems determining exactly what they are suffering from.
What I am talking about this morning is not Viagra. I am
talking about real illnesses that our soldiers are suffering
from when they return home.
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We too
have been critical of this situation. We have even seen
individual files with certain compromising information removed.
Why? We have no idea.
Why was information removed? Was it because they were afraid
that these soldiers would claim compensation? Was it because
they were afraid that these soldiers would be entitled to
settlements that would cost the government too much? Is this
how they show respect for soldiers? Is this how they show
respect for those who are going to defend the freedom in which
we believe? Is this how we want those who represent us abroad
treated?
Once again, Canada's credibility, its prestige as a peacekeeper,
is predicated on our respect for the soldiers who represent us
abroad.
1105
It is predicated on respect for the individuals who remain in
Canada, because these are the people who will pay for our
peacekeeping missions abroad. When foreign countries see how
much importance we attach to respecting people, to looking after
their basic needs, when they see it is a priority for Canada
they will respect us and we will have played a better role
abroad than the one we play now by sending military equipment
that is at times so heavy we lack the carriers needed to deliver
them to a theatre of war abroad.
We have to turn to the American army for help in transporting
certain heavy equipment.
Counting on the help of another country to defend our ideas
abroad is a very strange way of ensuring our sovereignty.
Once again, Canada would do well—even though the white paper is
six years old, in international politics things change so
quickly that six years can be a very long time—to re-examine its
positions, especially when we are wondering if NATO should not
alter its mission, when the new European Union is considering
putting a structure called European security and defence
identity in place and when everything is upside down and people
think the world should act differently with respect to theatres
of war across regions or nations.
We have to consider whether it is effective to retain the same
objectives or whether we should not look at a new way for Canada
to be part of these missions abroad and how it could ensure its
military personnel enjoy a decent standard of living both at
home and on missions abroad.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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.
1150
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver) – 94
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
BILL C-2—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of
members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to
elections and making consequential amendments to other acts, not
more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day
shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill
and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the day allotted to the consideration of
the report stage and on the day allotted to the third 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.
1155
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of
the motion 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 yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1240
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 138
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 97
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of Bill C-2, an
act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons,
repealing other acts relating to elections and making
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee, and of Group No. 2.
1245
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When the item was
last debated the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville proposed
amendments to Motions Nos. 90, 94 and 123. The Chair has
determined that these amendments are in order and a revised
voting chart is available at the table.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
unfortunate that we have to rise today to speak to this bill
under the effects of closure but we will do our best.
I rise today to speak on the report stage of Bill C-2, an act
which repeals and replaces, inadequately in my view, the Canada
Elections Act.
Initially, when I first heard that the government was going to
repeal the Canada Elections Act, I was encouraged, for that was
something our party has taken a firm position on. In fact, it
can be found as a policy in our blue book, where it states under
the section entitled Parliamentary Reform, subsection A:
The Reform Party supports repealing sections of the Canada
Elections Act which make MPs beholden to their national party
executive or leader rather than their constituents.
The Reform Party has taken a strong stand on political reform,
believing that for too long Canada's political system has been
out of touch with the common voter. We believe it is time to
restore the confidence of Canadians in Canada's political system
and federal representatives to make sound decisions about their
future. We will do this through the introduction of real
democratic representation in parliament and accountability for
parliamentarians.
I firmly believe that it is time elected representatives be held
accountable to the people who elect them and that the duty of
elected members to their constituents should supersede their
obligations to their political parties.
Sadly, as I learn more about the government's intentions, first
in the form of Bill C-83 in the first session of this parliament,
and now Bill C-2 in this session, I see that the Liberal
government and, indeed, some of the other parties in the House,
do not share Reform's commitment to openness and transparency in
government.
Before I continue in any detail, I first want to compliment my
colleague, the member for Vancouver North. I congratulate him
for his tenacity, for his unfailing commitment to the principles
of democratic reform that I outlined previously and for his
undying belief in the equality of all people, regardless of their
political affiliation. This member has almost single-handedly
exposed this bill for the farce that it is, and I recognize him
for that.
The efforts made by the government to change electoral
legislation is inadequate. It has become clear to members of the
House and members of the public that the government sent this
bill to committee before second reading hoping to keep it hidden
from public spotlight and thus isolate it from any meaningful
public comment.
This arrogance is evidenced by the fact that no significant
amendments were made in the committee in spite of numerous
suggestions made by the official opposition, third party and
media witnesses and witnesses from other political parties that
are not represented in the House today.
It was with relief that I noted that some small parties did have
an opportunity to make representation to the committee. Too
often these parties, and the Canadians who voted for them, are
ignored by the traditional parties and the mainstream national
media.
In fact, the elections acts in Canada are so biased toward the
parties with seats in the federal or provincial legislatures that
it is normal for any changes to be slipped through quietly on a
Friday afternoon lest any public scrutiny expose those political
hijinks for what they are.
1250
This time, however, Canadians are fortunate to have the Reform
Party filling the role of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and
we will not let the government pull the wool over the eyes and
the rug out from under the feet of the Canadian public. We will
remain true to our democratic roots and true to Canadians.
In spite of repealing the current legislation, this new
legislation repeats many of the same mistakes of the Canada
Elections Act, doing nothing to address serious public concerns
involving campaign financing, party registration requirements,
the timing of byelections, third party spending issues and
patronage appointments within Elections Canada. It should come as
no surprise then when one discovers that these flaws were
retained because of the advantage they give to the ruling party.
I want to speak to the issue of third party spending, which I
believe goes beyond the context of this legislation and addresses
the broader issue of free speech.
The government appears to be basing its tenuous position on a
controversial decision made by the supreme court in Libman v
Quebec which struck down the Quebec referendum act's third party
spending limit as too restrictive, but left the door open to
legislatures and parliament to determine reasonable spending
limits that were not only desirable but constitutional.
However, this decision was not made in the context of a federal
election where voters are faced with a multitude of issues, but
in the context of a provincial referendum where the answer is
either yes or no. This difference is very obvious to members of
Canada's legal community, no matter what their politics are.
This issue has been before the courts on several occasions in
Alberta and in both cases the court ruled that imposing spending
limits on third parties is unconstitutional. A recent court case
in British Columbia also addressed the issue of third party
spending and decided that there were certain circumstances in
which the goal of fairness in elections would support an argument
for third party advertising.
If in a future election campaign all of the political parties
were to agree on a significant policy point then the lack of
third party advertising would mean that the people would be
limited to the views of the major political parties and media
commentators. The third party spending limits would effectively
silence citizens who wish to express contrary views.
The Liberals must know that the bill does not have a chance of
withstanding a constitutional challenge but I believe they have
an ulterior motive in introducing the bill.
It is not a secret that the previous Liberal and Tory regimes
have felt the sting of third party spending. The National
Citizens' Coalition has publicly criticized the generous MP
pension plan during election times and the Canadian Police
Association paid for billboards that pilloried Liberal candidates
for being soft on crime.
The government feels that the legislation is a way to level the
playing field at election time, saying that if candidates have
spending limits, lobby groups should also be limited. What is
level about limiting lobby groups to a mere $150,000, of which
only $3,000 can be targeted to any single riding, when the total
election spending limit for the federal Liberal Party is close to
$30 million?
Far from levelling the playing field, the legislation gives a
huge advantage to the Liberal government. Not only can the
Liberals outspend their nearest political party opponents by a
margin of nearly three to one, they can spend tens of millions of
federal taxpayers' dollars to pat themselves on the back in the
months preceding the election.
Restricting the ability of third parties to counter the barrage
of government propaganda is an affront to the democratic
traditions upon which this country was built.
Notwithstanding the fact that these limits are a clear attempt
to muzzle free speech, there is not even evidence to prove that
limiting campaign expenses influences the outcome of elections.
Let us consider the following: In 1993 Canadians were suffering
under a bloated and arrogant government, one devoid of any new
ideas and fundamentally out of touch with the electorate. This
party had the highest spending limit of any political party,
spending tens of millions of dollars only to return just two MPs
to the House of Commons.
On the other hand, a young and vibrant new political party was
offering common sense solutions to many challenging issues. It
advocated such things as fiscal responsibility, social
responsibility, reform of the federation and democratic
accountability. This grassroots movement, funded by the $10 and
$20 contributions of grassroots Canadians, sent 52 MPs to Ottawa.
1255
Another example is the Charlottetown accord where the yes side
outspent the no side by a margin of 10 to 1 and still lost.
These examples illustrate very clearly that there is absolutely
no evidence at all that spending more money than an opponent
guarantees a win.
Therefore, I submit that this is nothing but a bald-faced
attempt by the governing party to curtail the freedom of
expression of private citizens so that their views cannot be
advanced forcefully enough to compete with the views of the media
moguls and political parties. The government simply does not
want to be reminded of its failures, weaknesses and broken
promises during an election campaign, and that is enough reason
for this bill to be scrapped.
In drafting this bill, the government virtually ignored the work
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The
government also ignored several decisions of various appeal
courts and the Supreme Court of Canada. The government is very
inconsistent in its approach to court rulings. Given its past
reluctance to act against court decisions, by introducing this
bill the government is saying that it is okay for the courts to
make child pornography legal and to allocate access to fisheries
according to race, but do not touch the provisions of the
election act that favour the ruling party.
The government refused to hold committee meetings in cities
across Canada. The public must know more about this bill.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-2. However,
before I do, I want to commend my colleague from North Vancouver
who has done a tremendous amount of work on the bill. He has
researched it at length and has come up with very serious flaws
in the bill. It needs to be completely rejigged.
As my colleague, who just spoke before me, said, it is weighted
to the governing side, in this case the Liberals but it could be
another government at another time. What we want is a neutral
act, an act that is fair to all sides of the House and to all
people in an election.
It does not have the support of the public at the moment. It
does not have the support of the Chief Electoral Officer. It
does not have the support of all the members in the House. I
believe that is critical. As I said earlier, we need to have a
neutral bill, a bill that all people, including the Chief
Electoral Officer, support. A neutral bill just makes common
sense. We are talking about a 19th century bill when we are in
the 21st century. It is bizarre that the government would want
this. It shows that it is still a dinosaur trying to practise
old style politics.
The committee should have travelled throughout Canada and people
should have been able to talk to the government and opposition
parties about the bill but that did not happen.
As my colleague has said, there are a number of areas of major
concern: campaign financing, party registration requirements,
timing of byelections. These are all up for grabs. Basically,
they all weigh on the side of the government, and that is clearly
wrong.
The courts have already struck down a number of points that are
in the bill. Why would we have points within a bill that we know
the courts will reject? That is ridiculous.
We have already had groups come forward saying that this was
ridiculous. The National Citizens' Coalition has said “We're
going to challenge it”. It will be challenged. Why would we
spend our effort in the House producing a bill that is not up to
speed and one which we know will be challenged in court? Not
only do we know it will be challenged, we also know it will lose.
This is nuts.
One of the points I would like to talk about is the blackout
poll. It is certain to be struck down. Court decisions have
already said that it will not fly.
They have already made rulings on it yet the government insists
on putting this part of it in the bill. Why would it do that?
1300
Then there is the registered party status requirement of 50
candidates. That is crazy. Two or three candidates should be
enough, or pick a number such as a dozen. Most people are ready
for 12. That is reasonable. Again the government is trying to
force the playing field away from the average ordinary Canadian.
On the spending limits, think about the dollars the Liberals
have in their pockets. I believe the last figure was $30 million
that they can spend on campaigns. They want to limit third party
intervention, whether it be from police officers on justice
issues, or from health care professionals, nurses and doctors, on
our health program which we know is in trouble. At election
time, these people through their organizations want to put their
points forward, yet the government is saying “We do not want to
have third party intervention because it will be against us”.
Again the government is trying to limit it.
And there is the actual machinery of running an election. Each
of the 301 ridings has a returning officer. Returning officers
should be appointed on merit; they should not be political
appointments. There have been a number of situations where
persons are either biased or just incompetent, not good at their
jobs. We want the best returning officers we can have. The
Chief Electoral Officer is there to make sure that the election
machinery is run well, is fair and the results are credible. Bill
C-2 does everything to fly in the face of that.
Something which is not in the bill is fixed election dates.
That needs to be explored. Nobody is saying that the U.S. is
perfect but it does have fixed election dates. It is known that
four years down the road there will be an election for president
in November.
In our country the governing party, whoever happens to be in
power at the time, weighs all the situations and does the polls
to see when the wind is in its favour to call an election. That
is wrong. An election should be held as municipal elections are,
on fixed dates, so we all know when the next election will be.
There are glaring points in the bill, issues such as the courts
already striking down sections of the bill. We know it will not
pass. We know it will be challenged and rejected in the courts.
Why would it be put in the bill? It is folly. We want a neutral
bill.
I hope the bill can be redrafted to the point where it is a
neutral bill and does not favour any party but favours all
Canadians. In that way our party would be able to support the
bill. The way it is now there is no way in the world we can
support it.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.
The very nature of Canada as a free and democratic country
should be accurately reflected in a bill such as this.
Unfortunately the government has failed miserably in this task.
Rather than a non-partisan bill that will ensure that elections
take place on a fair and equitable basis, the government has put
forward a bill that creates further disparity and partisanship.
We live in a time when information and technology are moving
forward at an incredible pace. As incredible advances take
place, the world around us struggles to keep pace. I do not
believe this bill fully attempts to keep pace with the
communication expectations of Canadians.
I stress communication because that is what politics and indeed
the House of Commons should be all about. The process should be
a circular one where the electorate chooses their representatives
to send a message to Ottawa.
That message may be one that endorses past actions and
legislation, or it may be one that calls for incredibly drastic
change. Over the past number of elections we have seen both of
these messages sent to Ottawa.
1305
The next part of the communication network is to ensure that the
member adequately represents his or her constituents. Is the
member able to communicate the needs of the constituency clearly
and concisely to the House of Commons and enact the solutions and
legislation that are necessary?
Unfortunately our current system of governance seldom takes
opposition members' points of view into account. This is true
both here in the House and in our committee work. It is
frustrating both to the members here and the electorate that
voted for those members to see their good ideas thwarted because
of partisan politics.
We have seen this in many instances of late. We have seen the
government stall and hand-pick witnesses. We have watched as the
government forced time allocation in one form or another over 60
times. Time allocation is only a means to stop opposition
members from having a legitimate opportunity to express the
concerns and the needs of their constituents. The government has
grievously abused this procedure and should hang its head in
shame.
Contrary to the thoughts of many, democracy does not rule here
in the House. The government whip rules over that side of the
House. Even with the slim majority number of seats representing
only 38% of the people in Canada who voted, the elite few in and
around the Prime Minister's office rule the country.
Note that I said rule and not run, for I believe that the
Liberals rule in an autocratic manner. I know there are members
on that side of the House who have disagreed with what the Prime
Minister has said. I know that there are those who do not wish
to vote in the government prescribed way. I have watched as these
same members felt that they could not vote against the party line
and thus were not able to adequately express their constituents'
feelings on a given topic.
The close of the communication loop is for the government, after
truly listening to the electorate, to be able to adequately pass
new or revised legislation and communicate this back to
constituents. All too often, especially with this government, it
makes the claim that it is listening to the people only to turn
around and do something exactly opposite to the will of the
people.
I need only cite the recent deplorable manner in which the
justice minister refused to listen to the people of Canada on
their feelings about child pornography. Hundreds of thousands of
people have signed petitions calling for the use of the
notwithstanding clause thus negating the unnecessary cost and
waste of time that has dragged on for over a full year. Canadians
will not stand for that kind of abuse and the subsequent
exploitation of our children while we stand around and do
nothing.
For over a full year the justice minister stated that child
pornography would not need to have the notwithstanding clause
used, while those of us from British Columbia are still waiting
for real action to take place. Right now and for over the past
year the possession of child pornography has been legal in B.C.
That is right, legal.
This is the ostrich method approach. And what is that?
Government members stick their heads in the sand and wait for the
danger to pass. Well I have news for them. The danger is
mounting: child pornography, HRDC boondoggles, the hepatitis C
tainted blood debacle, the Nisga'a agreement, the new elections
act and a host of others. These dangers will not pass away. The
only thing that will pass them by is the electorate in the next
election.
The voters should be given the right to recall their current
member of parliament if they feel they are being inadequately
represented. If enough people in their riding agree with them,
then the member loses his or her seat and the electorate has an
opportunity to select again. This would ensure that the
electorate is not forgotten after the election is over, as the
government does.
There are a whole series of other items which I believe should
be addressed under this draft bill, but time will only allow me
the opportunity to speak to a few of them.
Currently the returning officers are political appointees of the
governor in council. This defeats the whole premise of a
non-partisan election process. The Chief Electoral Officer
himself stated during committee meetings that it was critical he
be given the power to hire returning officers based upon merit.
The electorate of Canada should not have to be concerned with
the Prime Minister tainting the election proceedings through his
appointment of returning officers. If it were not such a serious
issue, one would think that such a scene could only come out of
some British farce on television.
It is most interesting that Canada is viewed as being a world
leader when emerging third world countries are setting up their
own electoral systems. Of note is that Elections Canada always
recommends against a patronage system such as the Canadian
method.
It is indeed unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not able to
take a lesson from Elections Canada.
1310
One other item I would like to bring to the attention of the
House is the selection of election day based on the whim of the
Prime Minister when it is politically expedient. The premise of
doling out cash and other pre-election goodies is so blatant that
everyone is fully able to see exactly what is going on. When the
Prime Minister's chequebook comes out, patronage appointments
flow and extra HRDC grants are approved and announced by
ministers who just happen to be in the neighbourhood, we all know
that something is up: the election is in the air.
I question the government, why not set a date for every four
years that is fair for everyone? The government enjoys a
distinct advantage in knowing when the election call will come.
If we believe in a system of fairness as I believe Canadians do,
then we must ensure that the system is transparent. Bill C-2
would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to
show Canadians that, but it has failed Canadians miserably.
I could go on and on and speak about the way the government sent
the bill to committee before second reading thus keeping it out
of the public spotlight. I could mention that the committee did
not allow any significant amendments. We could go further and
discuss the fact that the act is biased toward those parties that
have seats in the House, thus limiting the governance choices
available to the public.
In closing, I wish to put the government on notice that the
electorate of Canada will remember Bill C-2 as one more partisan
bill by the Liberal government. The electorate notes that the
government will do anything in its power to retain its power.
However the electorate also understands that through the
retention of power by the Liberal government the electorate's
choices are limited.
I indicated at the start of my speech that communication was a
key part of the governance system. Unfortunately this government
feels it is able to fertilize the rest of Canada with anything it
sees fit and that Canada will flourish. I have news for the
government. Canada is flourishing in spite of the action of this
government. My heart aches when I consider what Canadians could
achieve if they did not have to endure the millstone of the
Liberal government around their necks.
For all those reasons, I am unable to support Bill C-2 in its
current form.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to speak
to Bill C-2 is both an honour and a privilege. At the same time
there is a certain sadness associated with it because one would
have thought that a democratically motivated government would
bring to bear legislation that reflects a commitment to
democratic principles.
I wish to address three points in my presentation this
afternoon. The first has to do with patronage appointments to
prime positions in the electoral system. The second is the
requirements in the proposed act for registering a party to have
full political status. The third is voter identification.
In my presentation I wish to recognize in a special way the
contribution of the Reform Party critic on the committee in the
preparation of this attack on the bill. He did a good job
analysing the provisions of the act and also gave us a clear
indication of what ought to be happening.
The government is able to get away with as much as it does
partly because there is a certain element of disinterest or
apathy among the people of Canada who are not taking the time to
recognize what is really at stake. Patronage appointment of key
election officials is part of the problem. I would like to get
into this in considerable detail.
At the present time returning officers are political appointees
of the governor in council. The governor in council is run by
the Prime Minister. This is outrageous in what is supposed to be
a non-partisan electoral organization. The voters of Canada
should not have to put up with the Prime Minister appointing
Liberal Party hacks to prime positions.
The Chief Electoral Officer said during the committee hearings
that it is critical, and he underlined the word critical, that he
or she be given the power to hire returning officers based on
merit. He also said that he would ideally like to adopt the
provisions contained in a private member's bill put forward by
the Reform Party critic which would eliminate patronage at
Elections Canada at all levels, but that was ignored.
The province of Quebec to its credit already has a system of
merit selection for its returning officers. There is no reason
that Canada should persist with a system of patronage
appointments.
1315
Under questioning during question period the minister said that
there was nothing wrong with the present system of patronage
because appointments in six provinces use the same system and
therefore it is right. Just because six provinces make the same
mistake does not make the system right. Canadians would rather
have a 100% non-partisan electoral system in the provinces and in
Canada than a patronage system. When Elections Canada helps
third world emerging nations to set up their electoral systems it
always recommends against a patronage ridden system like we find
in Canada.
I found it most interesting that in committee under questioning
the Chief Electoral Officer made it clear that he would not
recommend this elections act to a third world country or an
emerging democracy. His exact words were:
Obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not
recommend that that the Canadian system be emulated where it
comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly
indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of returning
officers under the present system is an anachronism.
That came out of the mouth of the Chief Electoral Officer. If
that is not an indictment of our system, what could be?
Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to release
it from the system of patronage, but that has not happened. The
Chief Electoral Officer also indicated that it was extremely
difficult for him to get rid of incompetent returning officers
because he had to convince the Prime Minister to dismiss the
employee. The Prime Minister does not want to dump one of his
party faithful so things have to be almost in a state of
emergency before action is taken.
There are 301 constituencies and the Prime Minister is purported
to know the qualifications and competencies of each one of those
people. It is an insult to suggest to the people of Canada that
they cannot choose or that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot
choose people based on merit who could do the job of returning
officer in the particular constituencies where they are needed.
The system of patronage allows the parties to appoint people
into positions. Often the understanding is that these people
donate their earnings to the party that appointed them. That is
filled with all kinds of difficulties that deny the democratic
process to operate.
Formal competitions for returning officer positions should
definitely be open to all Canadians, not just to a chosen few.
The assistant returning officers and poll clerks should also be
selected on the basis of ability, experience and impartiality.
Those positions should be publicly advertised. The current
system of political appointments is contrary to the notion of a
non-partisan electoral system.
Opposition MPs on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs supported the Reform position, but the Liberals opposed
it, proving that the government's position is politically
motivated and not democratically motivated.
We have a democracy based on a philosophy of fairness, a
philosophy that says the people shall speak and this shall be
government of the people by the people for the people. It is not
by the Liberals for the Liberals and in their best interest. It
is time we had a change in the electoral act to take care of
that.
My second point has to do with the requirements for registered
party status. In March an Ontario court struck down the sections
of the Canada Elections Act which require a party to run 50
candidates in an election to remain on the register and to have
its candidates listed with party affiliation on the ballot. The
court indicated that two candidates should be sufficient to be
recognized as a party.
In a fine compromise, the Reform Party critic suggested that we
make it 12. The number 12 is consistent with the House rules for
party status and therefore has some logic in its application. The
number 50 is arbitrary and has no basis in logic. If the
government had bothered to consult with the affected parties an
acceptable compromise could have been reached, but that was not
the case.
The people of Canada were not consulted with regard to the
provisions of the act. They were not asked if this was what they
wanted. The government just decided what it was going to do,
whether or not it made sense and was consistent with democratic
philosophy and democratic principles. Those things were ignored.
It is simply there to give advantage to the ruling party in
Canada.
1320
The minister has said that changing the 50 candidate rule while
the appeal was in process would probably be questionable both as
an idea and perhaps even ethically. He was referring to the
court decision and saying that while it was in process we should
not deal with this matter.
The minister is saying it would be wrong to go along with the
court ruling. Yet, when the court decided that possession of
child pornography should be legal in B.C. the government said the
opposite. The government said it would be wrong not to go along
with the ruling until the appeal process was complete. This is
gross inconsistency. What kind of government do we have?
At one point we have to move ahead because the court has ruled
in a particular way and we have to go along with it. The next
time we say we had better not do that while the court is still
dealing with the matter. What is going on here? Is it any
wonder people are saying that we do not have a justice system in
Canada, that we have a legal system. These are very serious
problems. The minister also said in committee:
Obviously, given that I'm the minister who suggested to have such
an appeal, I'm of the opinion that it works just swell the way it
is.
If he thinks it is working well, no wonder he does not want any
changes. He will not propose any changes.
I have only touched on two points and already the Chair has
indicated that my time has run out. These are only two points in
a major electoral act which will affect the way elections are
run, the way parties are registered and the way voters will be
identified as being eligible to vote.
Every Canadian should be reading this act and asking themselves
if they are getting a legal position, a piece of legislation that
guarantees democracy, or if they are getting legislation that
continues to promote a dictatorship between elections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 87 in Group No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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): A recorded division
on the proposed motion stands deferred. The recorded division
will also apply to Motions Nos. 89, 91 and 95 to 99.
1325
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 90. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of 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): I declare the amendment
carried.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 90, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 90, as amended, agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
90, as amended, carried. The next question is on the amendment
to Motion No. 94.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the
grouping. We are told that the vote on Motion No. 90 applies to
No. 94. We have just voted on Motion No. 90, so you do not need
to call Motion No. 94, if I understand correctly.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are dealing with
the amendment to Motion No. 94 and not with the motion.
1330
Motion No. 90 has been voted on separately. We will now proceed
with the amendment to Motion No. 94 and then we will vote on
Motion No. 94, as amended or as not amended, depending upon the
outcome of the vote. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of 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): I declare the
amendment carried.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 94, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion No. 94, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on Motion
No. 100. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of
the motion 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): The recorded division on
Motion No. 100 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 112, 115,
117, 119, 132 and 134.
1335
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 102. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 105. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. To clarify the process, I have an amendment which I wanted
to put with respect to Motion No. 113, which would be a
consequential amendment to that motion. I have discussed this
with the other parties, at least to introduce the amendment. I
am wondering when I should do this. Should I do it now or at
another time that would be in order?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is a good time.
It is either now or not at all. However, because we are voting,
and I know the hon. member has discussed this with the other
parties, we will do this in two stages. We have not taken the
vote on Motion No. 105. First, we are going to ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to allow the member to present his
amendment.
The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has asked for
the unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment. Is
there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I
thank members of all political parties who have given to me their
unanimous consent to amend Motion No. 113 in my name, which would
in effect correct an oversight pertaining to the disclosure of
political contributions. I move:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by adding after line 17,
page 149 the following:
Basically what it does is apply Motions Nos. 113, 114, 116, 118
and others to the criteria respecting third party political
contributions and disclosure thereof.
1340
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has given
unanimous consent for the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
to propose the amendment to his motion. The amendment will go to
the table and the Speaker will report to the House as to whether
it is in order.
Although it has been proposed and it is on the table, and the votes
will proceed, it is not necessarily the case that the amendment
will be in order. That still has to be determined.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there are actually three consequential amendments. I
have two more which I did not read into the record. Therefore, I
move:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing lines 39 and
40 on page 149 with the following:
[Translation]
The third amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 15,
page 149 with the following:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is a good thing
that the House is in good humour because I distinctly remember
the hon. member mentioning one amendment, not three.
All three of them will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek clarification.
I ask the member whether this also applies to businesses which
are operated in the name of unions?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That sounds an awful
lot like debate to me. The hon. member for Elk Island will have
the opportunity to either accept or reject it, but we will not
get into debate on it.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I realize
that the interpreters, who did not get the text of the amendment
in French or English, have not translated.
If we are to know the content of these amendments before we
vote on them, it would be important to have the text.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Joliette has raised a pertinent point. We have the proposed
amendment in French at the table. For any members who wish to
see the amendments, they will be deposited in both languages at
the table. Before the final vote is taken it is
appropriate that people know what they are voting on.
The question is on Motion No. 105. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
lost.
(Motion No. 105 negatived)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You called
the yeas and the nays and indicated that the nays had it by
indicating those who voted to your right. To your right were
yeas, and not nays. I believe this has misled the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I said that, in my opinion,
the nays had it. The nays were on this side, the yeas on that.
There were more nays than yeas, in my opinion.
1345
[English]
We will do this again. If members want a recorded division, we
will do it again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is the Chair's
discretion if the Chair wishes to be insulted or not. There is
no one in the House with the ability to insult me unless I want
to be insulted.
We will go back to do the vote again to ensure that we have the
wish of the House and that people clearly understand.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
negatived.
(Motion No. 105 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 109. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 111.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am sorry to do this to you again, Mr. Speaker, but because of the
noise I did not hear the motion number and I need to keep track
of those things.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is Motion No.
111. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The point was made that if I do not hear no when I ask for the
vote, then I am obligated to say that it is carried. However, if
I am speaking in my first language which is English, and I know I
am speaking through translation to other members whose first
language is French, then I must do two things. I must be assured
that the people to whom I am speaking in the other language
understand the nature of the question and have time to respond.
That is why it is appropriate to make sure that it is done right.
1350
The next question is on Motion No. 122. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 123. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the amendment stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 128. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion 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): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 129. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of
the motion 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 yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing Order
76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 129 stands deferred.
1355
The next question is on Motion No. 139. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the
motion 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 yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The recorded division on Motion No. 139 stands deferred. The
recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 140 and 141.
This is an appropriate time to make the transition to Standing
Order 31 statements.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member representing Waterloo—Wellington, a riding with
over 30% of its economy rooted in agriculture and agri-food, and
having been born and raised and still living on the family farm,
I am especially proud of our Canadian food producers.
Our farmers and food producers have contributed greatly to our
high standard of living by providing Canadians with food of
excellent quality and value.
Thanks to the efforts of our agricultural community the average
Canadian family spends only 9.8% of its income on food, much less
than its American, British, French and Mexican counterparts who
can spend up to 50% of their income on food.
Incredibly, Canadian families earned enough between January 1
and February 7 to pay for an entire year's worth of groceries.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
OECD, has recognized the outstanding job of our agricultural
community and so should all of us. Our farmers and food
producers deserve our encouragement, appreciation and heartfelt
thanks for helping make Canada the best place in the world in
which to live.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, did you know that we have a Pulitzer prize contender in
the federal government? The commissioner of Correctional Service
Canada, Ole Ingstrup, co-authored a how-to management book in
August 1998. To date the book has sold a whopping 2,300 copies.
On the heels of the HRDC scandal, the solicitor general might
find that he is the next minister in line to explain his actions.
It was discovered recently that Ole's own department purchased
32% of those copies at a total cost to the taxpayer of $22,500.
This week's lesson for the solicitor general is to learn from
his colleague's mistakes. He and only he will be held
accountable for spending taxpayers' money to purchase a how-to
book for the commissioner's own department. That sounds a little
like double dipping to me.
A word of caution, Mr. Speaker. Do not get in the wrong line.
You might find yourself standing behind the 14 convicted
criminals waiting for their taxpayer funded sex change
operations.
* * *
[Translation]
MOUVEMENT DESJARDINS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, the Mouvement des caisses Desjardins elected a new
president, Alban D'Amours. Mr. D'Amours will officially take up
his new duties on March 25.
When the Mouvement des caisses Desjardins was first formed,
globalization and free trade were unheard of. Modernizing this
financial institution has required skill and imagination.
Caisses Desjardins are an economic force in Quebec. Many
regions in Quebec owe their development in part to this
institution. It gave them access to credit denied them by other
major financial institutions.
We therefore wish Mr. D'Amours good luck in his new position and
the best of success in achieving the objectives of the Mouvement
des caisses Desjardins.
* * *
[English]
HERITAGE DAY
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as a nation we have a distinct and colourful history. During
yesterday's Heritage Day and all throughout this week Canadians
have the opportunity to rediscover the people, places and events
that have shaped this country.
Heritage Kitchener has been working extremely hard to prepare a
wide range of activities for the residents of the
Kitchener—Waterloo community.
1400
As part of this year's theme, Our Farming Heritage, a display
highlighting rural designated heritage properties has been set up
at Kitchener city hall. Local residents have been invited to
bring in old photos of buildings and landscapes to be copied and
placed in the city's archives.
Josef Schneider House is hosting a heritage multimedia project
from local schools as part of a national initiative celebrating
local history. That will be followed up by a National Heritage
Fair in Ottawa this July.
This Saturday a bus tour, entitled Rural Routes, will take place
and participants will be treated to Kitchener—Waterloo's pioneer
farmsteads and scenic roads.
I congratulate the region which decided once again to utilize
the 1878 Governor's House and the 1852—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lethbridge.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
action for struggling agriculture producers was launched by the
official opposition late last year after Liberal, NDP and PC
members of the standing committee on agriculture refused to
support a Reform motion to travel across Canada to areas hit hard
by the farm income crisis.
Since then, Reform MPs have held over 60 action meetings in five
provinces, meeting with over 3,500 farmers, listening to their
concerns and promising to take their messages back to Ottawa.
The message is loud and clear: 71% of farmers say that they
want the freedom to make their own marketing decisions; 96% say
that taxes and user fees imposed by the government are too high;
and, a staggering 94% of farmers say that the government's AIDA
program is a failure.
The facts speak for themselves. The government held nine
meetings in three provinces. The official opposition has held
over 60 meetings in five provinces and counting. Is there any
doubt who speaks for farmers in this country.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, Statistics Canada released an interesting snapshot of
the Canadian economy.
It showed that Canada's annual balance of trade with other
countries had reached $34 billion in 1999, the highest level
since 1996, and that exports had grown almost twice as fast as
imports.
In 1999, Canada exported goods worth $360 billion, an 11.9%
increase over 1998.
The results are encouraging, in part because conditions
conducive to investment have been put in place.
The public has given us a clear mandate to improve its quality
of life. We are sparing no effort to attain that objective.
* * *
[English]
GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Girl Guides of Canada are proud to announce the
debut of their first flag in this their 90th year of service.
The Girl Guides of Canada, Guides du Canada, is a movement for
girls led by women. It challenges girls to reach their potential
and empowers them to give leadership and services as responsible
citizens around the world.
In Canada there are over 167,000 members between the ages of 5
and 17. In Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford the Maple Leaf and Champlain
Divisions comprise many age groups. The Girl Guide movement is a
non-discriminatory, worldwide organization with 10 million
members.
I ask the House to join me and the Girl Guides immediately after
question period in the Hall of Honour to celebrate the dedication
of their special flag to the people of Canada.
* * *
SIMCOE—GREY
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Good news, Mr.
Speaker. I would like to make the House aware of a recent event
in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. Namely, the announcement that the
premiere four season resort developer in Canada, the Intrawest
Corporation, has entered into a half billion dollar partnership
with Blue Mountain Resorts.
Intrawest is truly an incredible Canadian corporate citizen. It
is a company that makes peoples' dreams become reality. Couple
this with Blue Mountain Resorts, a family owned business that has
for over five decades been the premiere resort destination spot
in Ontario. Its staff has a reputation that has consistently
exceeded customer expectation.
Now imagine all this located on the south shore of Georgian Bay
with the Niagara escarpment as a backdrop. Host to this
incredible development is the best kept secret in Canada, the
beautiful town of Blue Mountains located a few minutes west of
Collingwood.
Mr. Speaker, to you, to the Prime Minister and to all members of
the House, I extend an invitation to visit the most exciting
place in Canada, Blue Mountain Resorts.
* * *
1405
IRAN
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I rise today to
express our congratulations and encouragement to the people of
Iran in light of their recent election.
The Iranian people have spoken. They have told the world that
they are willing to seize an opportunity and institute structural
democratic reform within their borders. The people of Iran are
now looking forward. Although there are strong elements of the
old guard within their government, the new reformers are
committed to peace and stability.
This is an encouraging sign that the world must not ignore.
Canada should support the Iranian government and its people in
their move toward increasing tolerance. The new government has
expressed strong support for basic human rights and an
encouraging positive sign toward liberalizing its country.
On behalf of the Reform Party, I encourage Mr. Khatami and the
new government of Iran to pursue their stated course. I urge our
government to keep the diplomatic door open and help bring about
democracy and freedom in Iran.
* * *
[Translation]
PILON LIMITÉE
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Pilon Limitée reopened in Hull.
Last week's announcement by
Pilon Limitée of its intention to close its doors created a
considerable stir. Messages of support were forthcoming from
all sides. After 100 years, it was impossible to imagine this
company closing.
This reversal of the decision is a relief to all the people in
the Outaouais region, contractors, PAL dealers and customers.
Pilon Limitée is a profitable company backed by a long
reputation for quality and good service. Seventy jobs were at
stake. Some of the employees had been with the company for as
many as 55 years.
The good faith on both sides, union and management, the urgency
to take action, and the issues at stake have overcome the labour
conflict, which had gone on for several months.
The closing of this hundred year-old business was avoided by a
hair's breadth. This goes to shown that, with a bit of good
will, anything is possible.
As the member for Hull—Aylmer, I wish to congratulate both
parties on having found a common ground, thus saving—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
* * *
MOUVEMENT DESJARDINS
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to draw attention to
the election of Alban D'Amours as the head of the Mouvement des
caisses populaires Desjardins, succeeding Claude Béland, who had
held that position since 1987.
Mr. D'Amours has been on the executive of the Mouvement
Desjardins for 12 years. He was a Quebec public servant,
holding the positions of Deputy Minister of Revenue and
Associate Deputy Minister of Energy. He also taught at the
University of Minnesota and the University of Sherbrooke, where
he was involved in the creation of the Institut de recherche sur
les coopératives.
The Mouvement des caisses populaires Desjardins is the top
financial institution in Quebec and the sixth in Canada.
Co-operatives educate. Co-operatives develop.
Co-operatives democratize. Co-operatives create solidarity.
Congratulations Mr. D'Amours.
* * *
[English]
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if a
working person owes Revenue Canada $100 it will hound the person
to the ends of the earth to make him or her pay up. Yet, when
the Bronfman family moved $2.2 billion out of the country without
paying a nickel in capital gains tax, the federal government did
not seem interested. It has not lifted a finger to try to
collect as much as $750 million in back taxes that this wealthy
family avoided paying, and time is running out. If it does not
act soon it will not be able to collect at all.
Thank goodness a private citizen from Winnipeg, George Harris,
is taking this matter to court. George speaks for all Canadians
when he argues that we could all pay a little less taxes if the
extremely wealthy paid their fair share.
Why is the government not trying to collect those taxes from the
Bronfman family? Why is it spending a fortune in legal fees
trying to make sure that this case is never heard in court?
Best wishes to Winnipegger George Harris in federal court on
March 9. George is fighting a fight for tax fairness for all of
us.
* * *
BURNS BOG
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, Burns
Bog is 10,000 acres of unique wetland in the heart of Vancouver's
Delta. This 5,000 year old living laboratory is probably the most
environmentally contentious area in the province.
Protecting this site is important to Canadians, yet the land is
under constant urban development. With global warming we need to
protect every bit of stored carbon. While peatlands, such as
Burns Bog, cover half the area of tropical rain forests, they are
capable of storing three and a half times more carbon.
Burns Bog is also crucial to the Fraser River. The bog acts as
a filter for freshwater flowing to the mouth of the largest
salmon-bearing waterway in the world.
The Minister of the Environment must do more than pay lip
service to the Ramsar convention on the protection of wetlands.
I urge the environment minister to, at the least, visit the
site, talk to the concerned citizens and appreciate firsthand how
important it is. With the minister's support, stakeholders, like
the Burns Bog Conservation Society, can successfully negotiate an
end to this looming environmental tragedy.
* * *
1410
EDUCATION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada confirms Canada as a world leader in education.
Among OECD members, Canada had the highest percentage of
population with post-secondary education in 1995. Canada's rate
was 48%, much higher than the OECD average of 23%.
Canada also excels at the primary and secondary levels. As an
example, Canadian students in grade eight placed well above the
international average in both mathematics and science.
This level of success could not be achieved without the
government's commitment to education. Per student expenditures
on education in Canada, in the report, were $6,396, far above the
OECD average of $4,717. Canada spent 7% of GDP on education, the
highest among G-7 countries; higher than the OECD average of 5.6%
and higher than the United States at 6.7%.
It is gratifying to see the results of this government's
commitment to education.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
heavy-handed and ill-advised Bill C-20 perpetuates the
confrontation between Ottawa and Quebec City and establishes a
veritable trusteeship for Quebec. It was in such clear terms
that Claude Ryan, the former leader of the Liberal Party in
Quebec, former head of the No camp during the 1980 referendum
and avowed federalist, commented on Bill C-20 yesterday.
Mr. Ryan added furthermore that, by wanting to make parliament
the arbiter of clarity in the referendum question and result,
contrary to the prerogatives of the National Assembly, the
Liberal government was contravening the very principles of
democracy. The decision must be made by the National Assembly,
and, once made, it must be implemented without interference.
This call joins the long list of democrats demanding the
withdrawal of Bill C-20.
Like Mr. Ryan, we repeat the message to the government: Have
faith in Quebec democracy.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
sadly, again I want to bring to the attention of the House the
deplorable situation of hepatitis C victims.
First, the government willfully chose to only acknowledge
victims of hep C who fell into an arbitrary window of 1986 to
1990. It ignored the Krever inquiry recommendation that all
blood injured people be compensated promptly and adequately.
In fact, over the past two years of negotiating the victims have
received absolutely nothing, only their lawyers. Meanwhile the
suffering continues.
The question of how children will be compensated in the future
remains unanswered. Unfortunately, there will be many children
who will meet the current criteria but who have not yet tested
positive. Lawyers have said “don't worry”, but hep C sufferers
and their families find little comfort in this.
Questions have also been raised regarding the accuracy of blood
tracebacks. With Red Cross records prior to 1980 destroyed, how
on earth are people able to get accurate records?
Furthermore, there are many unanswered questions surrounding the
use of prison blood from both Canada and the U.S. in our blood
supply system.
The health minister needs to be fully accountable for his
government's actions. When is he going—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the clouds over Canada's treasured health care system
are getting darker.
Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to pretend that Liberal cuts
to transfers have been fully restored. To quote from the Prime
Minister himself, his words have no relation to reality. The
truth is that the Liberal government still has not put back over
$4 billion it took out of health care in 1995.
The result: two-tier Americanized health care continues to get
a foothold in this country. Just look at Alberta where the truth
squads are out using public funds to explain why public health
care should be dismantled, and still the federal government stays
silent.
As Alberta has said “silence means acceptance”. Canadians are
saying to the government “Break the silence, find some backbone,
contain the privatization virus before it contaminates health
care across the country”.
With days to go before the federal budget, the government must
act and must act now. It has one choice and perhaps only one
chance: to put back all the money it took from health care in
1995. Take back Canada's public health care system.
* * *
ST. JOHN'S WEST
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
people of St. John's West need a member of parliament to
represent them in the House. Why is the Prime Minister dragging
his heels on calling the byelection. Is it the Prime Minister's
intention to leave this seat vacant until such time as he calls
the federal general election? Perhaps the Prime Minister is
having a problem getting a candidate for his party.
Whatever the reason, the Prime Minister was certainly very eager
to create a vacancy in St. John's West. Prime Minister, we now
have our vacancy, where is our byelection?
* * *
1415
ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, John McRae wrote those words 100 years ago to
commemorate the brave Canadian soldiers who fought in the Battle
of Paardeberg on February 27, 1900. The Boer War was Canada's
first overseas mission and the Royal Canadian Regiment became our
first war heroes. At 2.15 a.m., under clear starlight and dead
silence, six RCR companies crept toward the Boer trenches.
Suddenly a shot was fired and the Canadians were swept by
murderous fire. But we did not retreat and by dawn we had
captured over 4,000 Boers.
This Saturday evening at 7 p.m., Hamilton's ONTV will broadcast
We Stand on Guard, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the
heroic Royal Canadian Regiment. Let us watch and learn more
about our proud military history.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the HRD minister unveiled yet another showcase of
shame. The latest blizzard of paper had thousands of pages of
the Liberals' sanitized shopping list. It turns out that some of
those Liberal votes are fairly expensive. At least $1 billion
out of that was bungled. It is not exactly a real deal and a
bargain for Canadians.
She can roll her eyes, but I would like to ask either her or the
fellow in charge of it all, if they had to do it all over again,
would they again endorse such a billion dollar boondoggle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, will the hon. member go ask all of the people who
have received grants, which have created jobs in all of the
communities of Canada, if they agree or do not agree.
The reality is that through all of the programs of this
government we have managed to reduce the level of unemployment
from 11.5% to 6.8%, the lowest in 25 years, and 1.9 million jobs
have been created in this country since we formed the government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if this government had lowered taxes substantially we would see a
lot better unemployment rate.
The HRD minister and the Prime Minister make a great couple. Not
since Imelda Marcos have we seen anyone with such a nose for a
bargain than the Prime Minister. This couple is spending other
people's money.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: Let us look at the list that the Prime
Minister talks about—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister forgot
to mention the $12 million lost on 51 companies that went belly
up. They went bankrupt, so I would like to ask, in what way is
spending 12 million irretrievable dollars such a great bargain
for Canadian taxpayers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we deal with the private sector—and they
are supposed to be the advocates of the private sector—we know,
for example, that the banks lose more than 1% of the money
they loan to small and medium size enterprises every year. Of
course, in a market economy some people fail. But what is good
about Canada is that so many are successful that we have a lot of
prosperity in Canada today.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): That is right,
Mr. Speaker, but the banks are in the business of banking and it
is not taxpayers' money which they are responsible for. This
government is responsible for the taxpayer.
Let me say it again: $12 million was lost. It went into thin
air on 51 companies that went belly up. Those grants were
supposed to create more than 2,800 long term jobs. Do you know
what the answer is, Mr. Speaker? They created exactly zero
sustainable, permanent jobs.
For what reason, other than vote buying, could this government
waste so many millions of dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member knew a bit about business she would
know that when banks lose money, for every million dollars they
lose, we lose half of that in taxes. When they make a profit we
are happy because we collect half of it in taxes.
If I recall, an economy where there is no failure is called the
communist system. I do not think the hon. member is in favour of
that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it will be interesting to see what Canadians make out of
that bit of logic.
1420
Yesterday the government released thousands of pages listing
cheques written by the human resources minister. It shows that
the Liberals are very good at handing out other people's money.
But the minister failed to provide any evidence about how she
managed the billions a year she was shovelling out the door.
When will she give Canadians full evidence showing what they got
for all that money?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we issued exactly what the
members of parliament on the standing committee asked for. They
wanted to know what the grants and contributions were that went
to the ridings.
But the hon. member asked about external evaluations. We do
them.
Let me point to the 1998 Ekos Research Associates' evaluation on
the transitional jobs fund, which said that an estimated 30,000
jobs were created and 80% of the jobs created were permanent,
year-round jobs.
Let us look at the 1998 PricewaterhouseCoopers' evaluation of EI
active measures, which said that for 1997-98 120,000 unemployed
Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what I asked the minister for 10 days ago was how much
of the billions she spent which was not supported by proper
documentation, which was misused or which was paid out before
project information was in place.
She has never answered that question. She cannot tell us what
the money was really used for.
Is it not true that the Liberals' so-called job creation numbers
are just pulled out of thin air?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this money went to
community organizations and individuals in ridings right across
the country.
If the hon. member wants to talk about value for money, perhaps
she would take the time to visit some of these investments in her
own riding. We know that Gina Cameron, the program co-ordinator
for the Beddington Heights Community Association, said that this
member has not been in their doors. She has no concept of what
goes on there. Perhaps she could do that to see how well our
money is being invested.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in her
desperate attempts to manage the crisis in her department, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has flooded the
department's Internet site with a list of projects from the
transitional jobs fund.
What we fail to understand, because we refuse to believe that
the minister is trying to hide the truth—this cannot be what she
is trying to do—is why, in the list she is so proud of, the dates
on which grants were paid out have suddenly disappeared.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify: payments did not
disappear. Payments are found in the organizations and with
individuals in this member's riding and in the ridings of many
others.
What we showed yesterday was exactly where the $1 billion is to
be found. These investments are making differences in the lives
of Canadians in the province of Quebec and in every other
province and territory of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the minister said, let me clarify. Either the minister does not
understand the questions, or else she does not want to answer
them.
I clearly asked her why the dates on which grants were paid out,
which were indicated in the previous documents, had suddenly
disappeared in the documents presented to us. The reason is
because there was a problem with these dates. In some cases, the
grants had been paid out two years before they were approved.
I am not asking the minister to tell us the story of her life. I
am asking a simple question. Can she answer that question? Why
are the dates on which the grants were paid out no longer shown
in these documents? Is the question not clear enough?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information that we have provided
gives considerable data on all of the projects that are
available.
One of the important pieces of the undertaking is also to
provide an opportunity for individual members of parliament who
want more information on individual projects to make a request,
and that information will be provided to them in writing.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, before the scandal on the management of grants
at Human Resources Development Canada hit the fan, there was
never any mention of “pockets of poverty” as a criterion for the
transitional jobs fund.
Can the minister tell us when “pockets of poverty” were
introduced as a criterion for transitional jobs fund projects?
1425
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of public policy we included
flexibility in the transitional jobs fund. From our point of
view it was extraordinarily important for local managers to have
the opportunity to respond to local needs.
This has always been part of the program. The hon. member may
have wanted us to pick a one size fits all strategy, to have
Ottawa make all the decisions, but that was not the approach we
took.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is the minister waiting for to release
the document identifying the criteria she used and to tell the
House when she introduced them?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, details were provided yesterday to the
hon. member and to others about how the transitional jobs fund
works.
I quote from a 1996 brochure, which, in answer to the question
“Who Can Participate?”, says:
To participate in (the transitional jobs fund) projects,
individuals must be facing labour market difficulties as a result
of high unemployment in their area.
It was very broad because the program was flexible to allow
communities to respond to their local needs.
* * *
CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. When the Liberals took
office in 1993 health and social transfers to the provinces were
$19 billion. Today those transfers are $14.5 billion, and yet
the Prime Minister stood in the House yesterday and claimed that
the federal government has “restored the level of transfers to
the provinces to the level it was in 1993-94”.
How could the Prime Minister stand in the House and state
something that is so wildly inaccurate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should check her files. She will understand
that when we established the transfer payments in the 1970s it
was clearly defined that the transfer of money was to be twofold:
some had to be in tax points, some had to be in cash.
The tax points have been tailored to the needs of different
provinces because the tax points do not produce exactly the same
amount of money in every province. The tax points are constantly
adjusted to make sure that the transfer is adequate and that is
why we have—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Prime Minister be so out of touch? He must understand that
the tax points argument does not cut it.
One of his Liberal premiers, in fact the only Liberal premier
still standing in the country, stated recently that Canadians are
becoming fed up, frustrated and frightened by what is happening
to health care.
Tell the patients crammed into emergency rooms that everything
is fine. Tell the patients lined up on waiting lists that
everything if fine.
When will the government once again become a full partner in
health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we formed the government in 1993-94 transfers to
the provinces, including cash, tax points and equalization
payments, were $37.4 billion. In 1999-2000 they are $38.5
billion
That is the reality. These are the figures used by all of the
ministers of finance. We are paying more today than in 1993-94.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
There are grave concerns across the country about the allocation
formula that is in place for the new 21st century research chairs
to be included in next week's budget.
In the formula, only 2% or 40 of the 2,000 chairs will be
allocated to the Atlantic region. Will the Prime Minister assure
the House that these much needed chairs will be distributed in a
fair and even manner so as not to further disadvantage small and
medium size universities in Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what we intend to do.
* * *
1430
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister told truckers that the
solution to their problems was to raise their rates for goods.
This is the same Prime Minister who told Canadians if they did
not like paying high taxes, they should just move.
Clearly the Prime Minister does not understand the impact his
simplistic responses has on the cost to consumers. Did the Prime
Minister consult with his finance minister before he came up with
that one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very evident that the hon. member is really
confused. I did not understand what he meant at all.
I keep repeating to the Canadian people that here in Canada the
government has provided a situation that when the Tories left
there was a $42 billion deficit and now we have a balanced budget.
When the Tories left, unemployment was at 11.5% and now it is at
6.8%. I could go on and on and I know why the Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
always hear so many new and different stories from the human
resources minister. Over the last several days we have heard
many times that she delegated authority for approval of grants in
her riding to her own deputy minister. But yesterday she told
the House and the leader of the Bloc that really she did not have
to do that, that there was no requirement to delegate that.
Which is it? She says on one day that she delegated that
authority but now she is telling the leader of the Bloc that she
does not have to do that. Which story is it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my response is consistent. Yes indeed, I
did not have to delegate that authority but I did.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that would be a great new story again except for the fact that
according to the terms and conditions she cannot delegate that
authority. It is not for her to do that. Maybe that will come
as a surprise to someone who thinks that the money is her
personal money to throw around. She should learn after blowing
$1 billion on this boondoggle that Canadians will not accept that
type of attitude.
Given that the terms and conditions do not allow the minister to
delegate that, how could she tell the leader of the Bloc
yesterday that in fact that is the case when the terms and
conditions make it very clear she does not—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me try again.
It was not necessary for me to delegate the authority. I did
delegate the authority. Of course as minister I remain
accountable for all the things that happen in my department. In
this particular case the proof is in the pudding. I have not
approved any programs or projects in my riding.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development was very self-assured as she
tabled her department's documents in an attempt to limit the
damage caused by the Human Resources Development Canada grants
scandal.
How does the minister explain that the first list obtained from
her department through access to information showed $20 million
in funds received in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies,
while the new list shows $25 million?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the question very strange because
the hon. member herself is on the standing committee for human
resources development that asked for this information which we
provided yesterday.
With particular reference to Anjou, let me say that this is one
of the largest industrial parks in Quebec. By making wise
investments in that riding we found spinoff opportunities for
many constituencies around that area.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be
clear. The figures provided by her department to access to
information with respect to funds distributed differ from the
documents received yesterday by $5 million. That is the problem.
I ask the minister whether her cover-up operations have not
discredited both access to information and her department
because now we believe neither.
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not clear what the question was but
let me try to explain again. In the information we provided,
approved amounts and approval dates were on the list. If the hon.
member is interested in actual expenditures, she can turn to the
estimates of my department.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Human Resources Development
tried to dodge responsibility for approving grants to her own
riding. She said that she delegated that authority to her deputy
minister. When we showed her access documents which proved that
she did not delegate that authority, she said a letter would
prove otherwise. It did not.
Yesterday the minister told us that the authority was delegated
according to Treasury Board guidelines and 10 minutes later she
said there were no guidelines. Which is it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try it again. Treasury Board
allows me to delegate these authorities to my deputy and I did
that. It was not necessary that I do that. I chose to do it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to clarify this. Yesterday the member for
Edmonton North asked a question to which the minister responded
“in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines, it was the deputy
minister who approved Canada jobs fund money in the riding of
Brant in November”. Then to a question from the leader of the
Bloc she responded “there is no requirement to undertake this,
to create this delegation of authority”.
The minister's credibility is on the line. Will the minister
table the legal instrument used to delegate approval authority to
her deputy minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my view the right thing to do was to
delegate the authority for approval of projects in my riding. Is
the hon. member saying that he does not think this was the
appropriate thing to do?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development why her
predecessor had not signed a letter similar to hers delegating
signing authority to the deputy minister. She did not answer
me.
I am therefore asking the same question of the minister today.
Can she explain to us why her predecessor did not sign such a
letter?
The Speaker: The question as put is somewhat ambiguous—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the minister can know a
fact, but I do not think she can know a reason. If the minister
wishes to respond, she may.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as minister I am responsible for the
decisions made in my riding. It was my choice to delegate the
authority for approval for Canada jobs funds in my riding to the
deputy. It is not necessary that that be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by her
reply, is the minister implying that her predecessor did not
sign such a letter?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will respond again. As minister I am
responsible for the decisions that are made but I felt it
appropriate to delegate the authority to my deputy in this
particular regard.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, apart from putting up the occasional
Liberal caucus meeting, hotels in the Prime Minister's riding are
more in the government grant racket than in the accommodation
business.
Take the Hôtel du Boisé. It received $300,000 but no investments
were made and no jobs were created.
1440
Is the Prime Minister so unaware of normal business practices,
like providing services and sales, that he thinks that $300,000
was a good investment for Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here. The hon. members
opposite can play politics and pick and choose on individual
projects. They can undermine—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We have heard the question. I am
sure all hon. members would like to hear the answer. The hon.
Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that of
the well over 1,000 projects that were part of the transitional
jobs fund in the Prime Minister's riding, in my riding and the
riding of members of parliament across the country, people are
working that would not have had the opportunity otherwise.
That party suggests that everybody can do it on their own, but
we do not feel that way. We believe there is a role for the
Government of Canada to play in helping areas of high
unemployment define opportunities, to encourage diversity in
their economies, to provide opportunities for people.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we could talk about lists, but I have a
list here of companies that went bankrupt, $900,000, $260,000,
$920,000, none of them providing any jobs.
One example is New Source Bottling run by a good Liberal from
Kenora that created only 7 out of 18 jobs that it was supposed to
be providing. It went belly up after it got $200,000. The list
that I read from goes on and on and on.
In what way is pouring good money down the drain—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the hon. member for
Edmonton North talk about $12 million that did not result in
sustainable jobs.
We are talking about a program of $300 million that leveraged
$2.7 billion, that helped create 30,000 jobs for men and women
who did not have opportunities in areas where there was no hope.
From our point of view, it is the responsibility of the
Government of Canada to provide hope, to provide opportunities.
In this particular case, we have done that.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the heritage minister, who described as gratuitous allegations
the revelations by the Bloc Quebecois in the matter of film and
television productions, will have to admit she was wrong and
face the music.
Now that CINAR itself acknowledges that the Bloc's revelations
were founded, should we see operation CINAR as a new tactic by
the Liberal Party to protect its friends, as we saw in the
Corbeil affair, that is, when they get caught, they acknowledge
their error, pay the fine and bury the whole thing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that the member's allegations were important
enough that, the very day he made them here in the House, I
called for an RCMP investigation, which is continuing.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday Beijing issued a statement in which it threatened that
it would resort to all possible drastic measures, including war,
if Taiwan refused to set a date to start negotiating a return to
communist control. In view of the seriousness of this threat, can
the Minister of Foreign Affairs advise the House of Canada's
response to the escalation of tensions by mainland China?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
We have long urged both Beijing and Taipei to settle their
differences through negotiation by peaceful means. We believe
that in the present circumstances, the resumption of negotiations
is absolutely imperative to reduce any threat of destabilization
in the area. We will certainly bring this point of view once
again to the attention of Chinese authorities.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the shopping list that the human resources development minister
provided yesterday tells us about the government's targets but it
says nothing about what actually happened. That is because the
government does not know what actually happened. The assistant
deputy minister confirmed this yesterday.
Why does the human resources minister care so little about
taxpayers' money that she does not bother to track it?
1445
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will take the floor because I want to use the occasion
to prove how carefully members of the opposition are looking into
this file.
In the case of Hôtel du Boisé in my riding, the project was
withdrawn and no money was given to the project. They should do
their homework before getting up in the House of Commons.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we received 10,000 pages of job creation lists but no
tracking information or follow-up details. My question is for
the minister. Were these actually job creation lists or where
they actually creative job lists?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they were lists of programs in the
ridings of every member of the House. I ask the hon. member to
take the time to read his list to see where investments are being
made and to understand the people who are being helped.
They go from project to project. They cast aspersions and make
politics. What they forget is that these projects are focused on
people, on individuals. Very often no one else will help those
who are unemployed, who do not have the education or who do not
have the diversity of opportunity in their community other than
the Government of Canada. We are there to help.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, soaring energy prices are badly hurting Canadian
truckers, agricultural producers and consumers. When they turn
to their government for some action, for some help and even some
understanding, what do they get? The industry minister says let
the provinces do it. He passes the buck. The junior finance
minister says not to blame his fuel taxes. The Prime Minister
says there is nothing we can do.
Why is it that the U.S. energy secretary can find 17 things to
do to help Americans, but the Prime Minister cannot think of one
thing to help Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we should
recognize that when the NDP government was in power in Ontario it
raised the Ontario excise tax on fuel twice, taking it from 10.9
cents to 14.3 cents. As well, it increased the provincial excise
tax on gasoline twice, taking it from 11.3 cents to 14.7 cents. I
do not think we need to take any lessons from the NDP on excise
taxes on fuel.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting that a cartel of oil producing
countries, designed to fix and maintain the price of an essential
commodity like energy, is being held up by the minister and the
government as a shining example of competition in the
marketplace. Either energy costs will be passed on to consumers
or truckers will go bankrupt. Either way it hurts the Canadian
economy.
Again my question is for the Prime Minister. What is the
Liberal action plan to protect Canadians and the economy from
soaring energy prices and the international OPEC cartel?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just to set the record clear, the hon. gentleman should
know that Canada is not a member of OPEC and we do not support
that approach to the marketplace.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
over the last year diesel fuel prices have doubled. As a result
some truckers have been forced to leave their trucks at home and
some are protesting up and down the highways of Canada.
Meanwhile, the department has increased the tax on diesel fuel to
over a $100 million increase per year.
1450
Will the minister reverse some of the $100 million tax increase
per year that has been applied to the trucking industry? Will he
reduce it so the pressure being experienced by the truckers can
be alleviated?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here we have the
Tories calling upon the government to reduce the excise tax on
fuels. Let us just look at what they did when they were in
office. Between 1983-84 and 1993 they raised the excise tax on
gasoline not once, not twice but six times. They not only
introduced the excise tax on diesel fuel but they then raised it
twice.
That party was in power for nine years and raised the excise tax
on fuels nine times. Would it be out of order to call it
hypocritical when it calls for a tax cut like that?
The Speaker: In answer to your question, yes.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, there is no fuel like an old fuel, but anyway I want to
point out that the minister is trying to go back a decade. He is
responsible. That party is responsible today. In the last five
years—
The Speaker: Order, please. Dismiss the first part and
you can go on.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, the government has increased
fuel taxes by in excess of $900 million a year over the last five
years. That government has done it, and I am asking it to reduce
the increase a little so the trucking industry can survive, so
that people can pay their wages and pay for their groceries.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member is so anxious to see us cut the excise taxes on fuels then
why did his party's finance critic in its prebudget tax plan not
call for cuts to the fuel taxes? Is it because he is spent fuel?
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Recently there
have been concerns about the health of Canadian forces members
who may have been exposed to depleted uranium.
Would the minister explain to the House why the government has
now made a decision to offer independent tests to current and
former CF members who may want to avail themselves of such tests?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have offered independent testing for
those who may be affected by depleted uranium, those troops who
served in overseas missions, because we want to get to the truth
of the matter. We want to know if their health is being affected
by any exposure to depleted uranium. First and foremost we will
look after the health needs of our troops.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
HRDC spent millions of tax dollars on TJF and CJF grants to
companies based on projected job creation and not on actual jobs
created. The 10,000 documents released yesterday said nothing
about actual jobs.
In fact the minister's department said it had no way to prove
that jobs had been created. Yet the minister stated in the House
that 30,000 jobs have been created as a result of these programs.
Could the minister prove that 30,000 jobs have been created as a
result of these programs?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the party opposite is always asking where
are our independent reviews. Let us look at what we have here.
A reputable, highly regarded private company, Ekos Research
Associates, undertook a full review of the transitional jobs fund
using sound, widely accepted and often used methodologies to
analyze and assess the results of this program. It identified
that 30,000 jobs would be created.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
TAXATION
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
refusing to index the tax tables, the government pockets
annually some $3 billion to $5 billion unbeknownst to its
taxpayers.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, without full
indexation of tax measures, the upcoming tax cuts he will be
announcing will be artificial and will in fact be net tax
increases instead?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member need only wait. A budget will be brought down in
this House on Monday.
I can see that the opposition is a little nervous because it
knows we are in a very good position. We have eliminated the
deficit, and many Canadians, myself included, hope that the
Minister of Finance will be able to reduce taxes.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
close to three weeks now in the House we have asked the
government for two simple things on HRDC: a full accounting of
the funds spent and full and clear disclosure on what are the
rules for disbursements.
So far we have neither, only the revelation that the rules are
so vague and open to political Liberal manoeuvring that the
government has to rely on a pocket defence. Will the minister
now admit that the transitional jobs fund and other programs are
based on political consideration and not on the need for and
value of jobs?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat that there was
flexibility built into the transitional jobs fund. As a result
of that flexibility we see that well over 300 projects were
approved in areas of less than 12% unemployment. Over half of
those were in opposition ridings.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
junior finance minister is not fuelling Canadians with his
explanations. There is a lot of exhaust coming from that side of
the House about gas prices.
The fact is that the Liberal government increased gas taxes by
1.5 cents per litre, saying it was a deficit reduction measure
back in 1995. The deficit is gone. Why is the deficit reduction
tax not gone?
The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is coming
from the party that increased the excise tax on gasoline from 1.5
cents to 8.5 cents. They are the ones who increased it on diesel
fuel from zero cents to 4 cents.
They left us in such a mess that we have been faced with very
high taxes across the board. This is why the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance have committed that we will reduce taxes.
We will reduce them in a way that will increase Canada's
competitive position on a global basis.
The Speaker: It seems to me normal that when we ask a
question we cannot start heckling right away until we at least
hear what is being said.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister should
know what court orders are being made requiring non-custodial
parents to support their adult children as they study for a
masters, bachelors or even a Ph.D degree.
I would like the minister to tell the House whether the 1996
child support guidelines were intended to create a class of adult
graduate students who are still supported by court order as
children of a marriage.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we
introduced new child support guidelines in 1997 to make child
support calculations fairer and more consistent in the best
interest of the child.
The hon. member should also be aware that in the Divorce Act
there is provision for a court to award support for a child over
the age of majority, but it is not automatic. A court only makes
that determination on the basis of what is reasonable in the
circumstances of the family. Provinces and territories have
similar legislation. The hon. member should also be aware that
the House—
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period for today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1500
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act respecting
the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other
acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments
to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will put the motions in
Group No. 3 to the House.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-2, in
Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 16 on page 10 with
the following:
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 13, be
amended by adding after line 16 on page 10 the following:
“(1.1) In subsection (1), “resolution of the House of
Commons” means a motion of the House of Commons that has been
adopted by at least three quarters of the members of that House.”
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 14, be amended
(a) by replacing line 21 on page 10 with the following:
“while Parliament is dissolved, a substitute”
(b) by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 10 with the following:
“shall act as Chief Electoral Officer until 15 days after the
beginning of the first session of the next”
(c) by adding after line 3 on page 11 the following:
“(5) If the Chief Electoral Officer dies while the House of
Commons is adjourned or prorogued or, if the Chief Electoral
Officer is unable or neglects to carry out the duties of the
position for more than five days when the House of Commons is
adjourned or prorogued, the House shall meet within five days
following the end of that period to appoint a new Chief Electoral
Officer in accordance with subsection 13(1).”
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be
amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be
amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be
amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:
1505
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be
amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-2, in
Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 22 on page 12 with
the following:
“rupted on polling day by an emergency and the Chief Electoral
Officer is satisfied that, if the voting hours are not extended,
a substantial number of electors will not be able to vote, the
Chief Electoral Officer shall extend the voting hours at the
polling station for a period of time equivalent to the period
during which the polling station had to be closed because of the
emergency, as long as it does not in any case”
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 17, be amended by
replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 12 with the following:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be
amended by replacing line 23 on page 16 with the following:
“24. (1) Subject to section 24.1, the Chief Electoral
Officer shall”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be
amended by replacing line 25 on page 16 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be
amended by replacing line 13 on page 17 with the following:
That Bill C-2 be amended by
adding after line 31 on page 17 the following new clause:
“24.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall hold a
competition for the selection of qualified candidates for the
purposes of the appointment of returning officers under
subsection 24(1).
(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to
all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in
subsection 22(3).
(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a
proposed competition as in his or her opinion will give qualified
electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for
the position of returning officer.
(4) Applications for the position of returning officer shall
be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed
time and verified in the prescribed manner.
(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider
all applications for the position of returning officer received
within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and
shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition
from among the qualified applicants.
24.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations
(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 24.1;
(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section
24.1; and
(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to
carry out and give effect to section 24.1.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 32 to
37 on page 17 with the following:
“25. Between the 1st and 20th days of”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be
amended by replacing line 43 on page 17 with the following:
“26. (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), a returning officer
shall, without”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended
(a) by replacing line 45 on page 17 with the following:
“an assistant returning officer from the list most recently sent
to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6), who shall
hold”
(b) by adding after line 47 on page 17 the following:
1510
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 1 to
5 on page 18 with the following:
“(2) A returning officer shall not appoint his or her
mother, father, child, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister,
uncle, aunt, employee, a person who lives with him or her
or a child of a person who lives with him or her, as an assistant
returning officer.”
1515
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2 be amended by
adding after line 5 on page 18 the following new clause:
“26.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each
general election, hold a competition for the selection of
qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in
subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of assistant
returning officers under section 26, 28, 29 or 30. The selection
shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be
made impartially.
(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to
all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in
subsection 22(3).
(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a
proposed competition as, in his or her opinion, will give
qualified electors a reasonable opportunity of making an
application for the position of assistant returning officer.
(4) Applications for the position of assistant returning
officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the
prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.
(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider
all applications for the position of assistant returning officer
received within the time prescribed for the receipt of
applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in
the competition from among the qualified applicants for the
purposes of subsection (6).
(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the
highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral
district and shall send it to the returning officer for the
electoral district.
26.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations
(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed in section 26.1;
(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of
section 26.1; and
(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out
and give effect to section 26.1.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 24 to
26 on page 18.
That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be
amended by replacing line 36 on page 18 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be
amended by replacing line 41 on page 18 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 29, be
amended by replacing line 12 on page 19 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 30, be
amended
(a) by replacing line 31 on page 19 with the following:
“additional assistant returning officer from the list most
recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6)
and es-”
(b) by adding after line 33 on page 19 the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 34, be
amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 21 with the
following:
That Bill C-2 be amended by
adding after line 21 on page 21 the following new clause:
“34.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each
general election, hold a competition for the selection of
qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in
subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of deputy
returning officers under section 32 or subsection 253(1) or
273(1). The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and
experience and shall be made impartially.
(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to
all qualified electors other than persons referred to in
subsection 22(3).
(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a
proposed competition as, in his or her opinion, will give
qualified electors, a reasonable opportunity of making an
application for that position.
(4) Applications for the position of deputy returning
officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the
prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.
(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider
all applications for the position of deputy returning officer
received within the time prescribed for the receipt of
applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in
the competition from among the qualified applicants for the
purposes of subsection (6).
(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the
highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral
district and shall send it to the returning officer for the
electoral district.
34.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations
(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 34.1;
(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of
section 34.1; and
(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out
and give effect to section 34.1.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 35, be
amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 21 with the
following:
That Bill C-2 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 21 the following new clause:
“35.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each
general election, hold a competition for the selection of
qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in
subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of poll clerks
under section 32 or subsection 253(1) or 273(1). The selection
shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be
made impartially.
(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to
all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in
subsection 22(3).
(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a
proposed competition as in his or her opinion will give qualified
electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for
the position of poll clerk.
(4) Applications for the position of poll clerk shall be in
the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and
verified in the prescribed manner.
(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider
all applications for the position of poll clerk received within
the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall
select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from
among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection
(6).
(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the
highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral
district and shall send it to the returning officer for the
electoral district.
35.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations
(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 35.1;
(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of
section 35.1; and
(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out
and give effect to section 35.1.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 36, be
amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 21 with the
following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 36, be
amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 21 with the
following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 37, be
amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 21 with the
following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 37, be
amended by replacing line 39 on page 21 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be
amended
“273. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the returning officer
shall appoint”
“(1.1) Every appointment of a poll clerk made under
subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently sent
under subsection 35.1(6) to the returning officer making the
appointment and shall be made impartially.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be
amended
“273. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the returning officer
shall appoint”
“(1.1) Every appointment of a deputy returning officer made
under subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently
sent under subsection 34.1(6) to the returning officer making the
appointment and shall be made impartially.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be
amended by deleting lines 16 to 34 on page 108.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to address the third group of amendments
on Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.
We had very interesting debates through the first group of
amendments. As members know, that first group dealt with
self-employed workers. We were able to see, during the debate on
that group, that the government is not very open to this
category of workers.
The second group of amendments deals essentially with financial
issues, including all the issues relating to the financing of
political parties.
Once again, it seems that the government has been very
unreceptive to the various proposals put forward by opposition
members.
In this third group of amendments, we address the partisan
appointment of election officials, in particular the chief
electoral officer himself, returning officers and assistant
returning officers, in other words everyone responsible for the
proper conduct of elections, across Canada of course, but also
in each of the 301 ridings throughout Canada and Quebec.
But before saying anything more about the amendments in Group
No. 3, I would simply like to make a general comment about the
manner in which the government has conducted the debate so far
and to make an even more general comment about how the
government has operated for a number of months now.
1520
I think we could say, without the shadow of a doubt, that this
government, whose parliamentary majority is fairly slim, to say
the least, does not shy away from an almost autocratic style of
operating, imposing one gag after another. Indeed, this is a
government to whom bringing in closure has become second nature.
Parliamentary procedure, as we know, is part of the rich and
time-honoured parliamentary tradition, which makes available a
certain number of provisions for ensuring the right to speak of
the opposition and of various members of the House, but more
particularly of members of the opposition parties.
The opposition quite rightly relies on these various provisions
to put forward its arguments and points of view, as well as the
points of view expressed by the people of Canada and of Quebec
through the opposition parties.
But the government, convinced that it is right, that it knows
everything, does not wish to hear points of view that differ
from its own, and imposes closure. We saw this with Bill C-20,
when the government brought in closure at second reading in
order to speed up committee stage.
At the moment, on the committee, the government is preparing to
gag deliberations; it told us right off that it would probably
proceed in the same manner with subsequent study in the House,
that is, at report stage and at third reading.
I would add as a small aside that Bill C-20 is probably one of
the most important bills ever given us to study since our
election in 1997 and, certainly in my case, since the 1993
election. There have been a lot of other very important bills,
but none intended to question the very bases of this country,
the very bases of Canadian federalism, the very process the
provinces that chose to join together to form this country used
at the time.
Some very upsetting and scandalous things are happening with
Bill C-20. The government wants to prevent the people from being
heard on a bill that directly affects their future, the future
of Quebec in Canada or outside it, the future of any
province—although Quebec is clearly the focus—the future of any
other province in Canada either inside or outside Canada, and it
wants to rush this bill through in secrecy, without anyone
expressing an opinion. That is totally unacceptable.
The government is pushing its arrogance, adding insult to
injury, bulldozing, if I may put it that way, another basic bill
in a democracy and perhaps even the most fundamental bill in a
democracy, the Elections Act.
The government claimed to have shown goodwill in introducing
Bill C-2, saying “We will take into consideration the various
positions in this House; we do not want to impose closure; we do
not want to rush parliamentary procedure; we want to hear and,
if possible, even integrate the suggestions of the opposition”.
And what happened? First the committee deliberations were
hurried up in a rather cavalier fashion, I must say.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: That is not true.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The committee's deliberations, despite
the protests of my colleague, the deputy government whip, were
hustled through. There was no time allocation, since this is
not possible in a committee, but had it been possible to impose
a gag order, the government certainly would not have hesitated
to do so.
Committee deliberations were hurried up with little or no
consideration for the opposition's proposals. A few little
cosmetic changes suggested by the opposition were integrated,
and they will certainly improve the bill. There is no doubt
whatsoever about that.
1525
The bill itself is an improvement, albeit a slight one; it does
nevertheless represent some improvement over the existing
Elections Act. The fact that a few improvements, a few cosmetic
changes, have been made to the federal election legislation by
the opposition parties has improved it still more.
This represented a unique opportunity for the government to
carry out an in-depth reform of the Canadian electoral system,
taking into consideration the changes that have taken place,
with a view to finally clean up the political act somewhat at
the federal level, by integrating a number of proposals from the
opposition, the Bloc Quebecois included, on the public funding
of political parties. It has refused any in-depth changes.
It has limited itself to superficial changes only, useful but
superficial ones. The government has agreed to include the
matter of the trusts. This is the first time they have been
addressed by the Elections Act; transparency is required about
the monies put into trusts, but only during elections.
All of the money that goes into trusts when it is not election
time will still remain hidden from the public eye, as it is at
present. There are certainly grounds for concern.
Coming back to Group No. 3 amendments on the matter of
appointments of returning offices, the government has once again
taken refuge behind a lot of fallacious arguments in order to
claim that the present way of doing things must not be changed.
When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, to which Bill C-2 was referred, Quebec's former
director general of elections, Pierre-F. Côté, who was very
closely involved in the establishment of Quebec's electoral
system, of democratic institutions that make Quebecers proud and
that are recognized all over the world, said that “in a
democratic system, not only must democracy be served, it must
also appear that democracy has been served”.
I say that the current system, in which returning officers in
each riding across Canada are still appointed by the government,
deprives the whole process of any appearance that democracy is
being served.
In volume I of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral
Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie commission, I read the
following:
In any democratic system, it is essential that the electoral
process be administered efficiently and that the Elections Act
be applied impartially. Election officers must deal at arm's
length with the government in office and must be protected from
any partisan influence.
To be sure, the current situation does not reflect the wish of
the Lortie commission, a wish that was echoed by the chief
electoral officer himself, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who told the
committee, on October 28:
Obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not
recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to
the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I
do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under
the present system is an anachronism.
I will conclude by saying that the government is using the
fallacious argument that it would take too much personnel to
implement such a system, an independent system of appointments—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but his time is really up.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point order. Subsequent to
consultations with all parties in the House, I seek unanimous
consent to change the name of the mover of Motion No. 62 from the
hon. member for Thompson and Highland Valleys to the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to change the name of the mover of
Motion No. 62?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1530
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was about to conclude. I had only a few words left.
I appeal to the generosity of the House for an additional 30
seconds, one minute at most.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the consent of the House to continue for a few more seconds to
conclude?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for
their great generosity.
I simply want to say that the government is using the specious
reasoning that too many employees would be needed to implement a
more independent system of appointing returning officers, a
system that would ensure that returning officers were appointed
independently, following an administrative competition to
establish their objectivity, impartiality and qualifications.
The government claims that it would take far too many people to
implement such a system. The chief electoral officer himself
said that such a system would require two people at most.
Once again, I respectfully submit to members of this House that
introducing such a system is not too complicated, and that it is
being strongly urged by the chief electoral officer, who wants
to be able to appoint returning officers and to demote them when
it is very clear that they are not qualified to do their job.
I urge all members to vote in favour of provisions designed to
ensure that returning officers are appointed in an impartial and
independent manner.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the Group No. 3
amendments to Bill C-2, the Canada elections bill. I say it is a
pleasure for me because with the enactment of yet another example
of time allocation by the government, very few of my colleagues
will get the opportunity to address this important piece of
legislation. So it is a pleasure and a privilege as it always is
to speak in the House, but particularly in this case when the
government has enacted time allocation and once again has shut
down or severely limited debate on legislation.
I note at the outset of my remarks that this is the 63rd time
that time allocation has been used by the government. That is an
even worse record, a milestone achieved much more quickly, than
that of the Tories in a previous parliament. The reality is that
in the 33rd Parliament which commenced on November 5, 1984, the
Tories reached their 50th use of time restriction on September
15, 1992, a period of approximately eight years. The 35th
Parliament was the first parliament of the mandate of the
Liberals and commenced on January 17, 1994. The government
reached its 50th use of time restriction on March 23, 1999,
almost a year ago, which is a period of just over five years.
That gives the viewing public some idea of the comparison.
When the Liberals were in opposition during the two terms of the
Mulroney Conservatives, they would rant and rail against the use
of time allocation and closure to shut down debate on important
legislation. Yet we find that it is business as usual now that
the Liberals are in government. In fact it is worse under the
present administration.
I notice, Madam Speaker, that you had quite time trying to read
all the amendments in Group No. 3. There are some 35 amendments.
That gives some indication to the viewing public and those in
the House and the gallery of the need for improving the
legislation. One must ask the question, if there is that much
concern on the part of not just Reformers and the official
opposition but all opposition parties as to the need to improve
the legislation, why would the government move so quickly to shut
down and limit the debate?
I am sure that tonight amendment after amendment will be voted
down by the Liberal government majority. The Liberals will use
the weight of their numbers to vote down all the amendments.
Once again we will see that democracy does not exist in Canada
and that the work of the House does not really take place.
In other words, the work that should be taking place in this
Chamber does not take place here.
Quite the contrary, for purely partisan political reasons good,
worthwhile, well thought out amendments to this legislation will
not receive the time they deserve for debate in the House. They
will not receive a proper hearing before they are voted on by all
members of parliament.
1535
That brings me to the main thrust of my remarks. I want to talk
about the golden opportunity that was presented to the
government, to the Liberal Party of Canada, to dramatically
improve the system with legislation such as the elections act.
The Liberals were granted this opportunity when the citizens of
this country elected them to govern the country. What we see is
a dismal failure on the part of the government with Bill C-2.
I want to digress a bit and talk about my personal history.
About 14 years ago I was a farmer in the Peace River country of
northern British Columbia. I had farmed for quite a number of
years on our family farm. Gradually over a period of time my one
brother and I purchased the farm from my parents and we continued
to expand it. We were farming about 3,000 acres. It was a fair
size grain farm. We grew wheat, barley, canola, oats, all the
grains. The Peace River country in both Alberta and British
Columbia is noted for being the second largest region in North
America for producing grass seed. We grew a lot of grass seed as
well.
At that time I though that quite likely I would continue to farm
for the remainder of my working life. I certainly had no real
interest in politics other than to see good government in Canada.
Yet 1986 was a watershed year for me. It was the second year of
the first mandate of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive
Conservative government. In 1984 the Tories were handed the most
massive mandate up until that time in Canadian history. They
came to power in Canada with the promise of cleaning up and
changing the direction the Trudeau Liberals had charted for
Canada.
There was actually widespread support across the nation but in
particular in western Canada for the Progressive Conservatives. I
was one of those who grew up supporting the Tories at the ballot
box. I had hoped that we would see a major shift in the way that
government was done. I was bitterly disappointed.
By 1986 the country was rocked by scandal after scandal. I can
run down the list. I do not have enough time in a short 10
minute speech to explain them all but I am sure some of the
viewing public will remember them. There was the Oerlikon land
flip; there was what became known as tunagate; the Sinclair
Stevens affair; a prison that was put into Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney's riding that should have gone elsewhere. These things
sound familiar. Scandal after scandal rocked the government at
the time. It clearly showed to me, a farmer in northern British
Columbia, that it was business as usual and that the government
under the Conservatives was carrying right along with what the
Liberals had done before.
I got angry, I got damn mad. I got involved in a fledgling
political movement called the Reform association which in the
fall of 1987 became the Reform Party of Canada. This brings me
back full circle to the issue at hand today, Bill C-2, reform of
the elections act. One of the main issues that prompted me to
join the Reform Party was I saw that members of parliament did
not adequately represent their constituents. That is what I saw
with that massive majority and that is what I see with the
government today.
Liberal members sitting across from us today are disciplined to
the extent that they will stand up tonight, and it will just be
the latest example of this, and they will vote down amendment
after amendment purely because their party and their leader tell
them that is what they should do. It is not because it is the
best thing for their constituents or because it is the best thing
for Canada. It is strictly because of partisan politics in
Canada that this is what will happen.
That is exactly what has been happening for years and years and
years regardless of whether it is a Conservative government or a
Liberal government.
1540
One of the things I wanted to see changed was to have MPs truly
represent the interests of their constituents. One of the ways
that can happen is if a government institutes a system of real
free votes in this place, where MPs actually have the freedom to
vote in the best interests of their constituents. The reality is
that it just does not happen under the old party system. The
problem is that the old parties like the system just the way it
is and they are not about to change it.
Canadians ask me, and I am sure they ask MPs from all the
parties, “What would you do differently? If we elect you, how
can we trust you? What will you do differently?”
One of the things that is different and refreshing about the
Reform Party of Canada is that in our policies and principles we
state how we would change the way that elections are conducted.
There would be fixed election dates, the use of referenda, the
use of recall, the use of citizens initiatives, giving the power
back to the people.
The government had the opportunity to do that, to bring about
changes like that with Bill C-2, and it chose not to. Shame on
it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Could
you repeat, please? I did not hear the simultaneous translation
of what you were saying, even though I was listening.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry you did not
hear the simultaneous translation. I am sure it will be
available momentarily. In any case, you will have access to a
French copy as soon as possible.
[English]
Earlier today the Chair was proposing the motions in Group No.
2, and the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre proposed
to move three motions to amend clause 359 of Bill C-2. The Chair
took these motions under advisement. The Chair has had an
opportunity to review these motions and finds that they are in
order.
Accordingly, these motions will be numbered 143, 144 and 145,
and will be included in Group No. 2. A vote on Motion No. 113
will apply to Motions Nos. 143, 144 and 145. Copies of these
motions and of the report stage chart which groups these motions
will be available at the table and will be distributed to the
parties for their information.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.
The Canada Elections Act is perhaps the most important piece of
legislation upon which our democracy is built in Canada.
It is based on three principles: equity, transparency and
accessibility.
[English]
Above all this act is about the participation of Canadians in
the most fundamental democratic right, that is the right to
choose their government and the right to replace their
government.
One of the fundamental principles of the existing act, and one
which the amendments to the act we are bringing forward propose
to continue and enhance is the right of Canadians to have a broad
selection of candidates from which to choose; candidates that do
not present themselves only on the basis of having adequate
financial resources, but candidates who can present themselves on
the basis of a broad range of experiences comparable to those of
their fellow Canadians.
1545
One of the fundamental principles of this act is and has been
for 30 years that money should not determine who is able to run
for election or who is able to influence voters sufficiently to
get themselves elected. This law continues the principle of
limits on expenses for election purposes. It continues the
principle of the right of every Canadian to consider becoming a
candidate.
Members of the Reform Party have spoken at great length about
how unfair it is to limit third party advertising during election
campaigns. We have made sure that candidates are able to put
their views before Canadians on a fair and equal basis. In other
words, they have a limit on how much they can spend to promote
their views to their voters.
The government believes it is only fair that others who
participate in the electoral process by putting forward political
views about a party or a candidate should be similarly limited
and should not be able to spend in an unlimited way and therefore
have an undue influence on the formation of public opinion and on
the outcome of an election.
We are doing other things in this act to enlarge the capacity of
Canadians to participate in the voting process like extending
voting hours and allowing people out of the country to vote more
easily and more freely at embassies anywhere in the world. We
are making sure that Canadians who want to participate in a
campaign by showing their support for one or another candidate
through signs or volunteer participation are able to do so
whether they live in their own private home or they live in a
multiple residential dwelling unit.
[Translation]
I would also like to say a few words about certain amendments
that were brought forward with regard to financial contributions
to candidates during an election campaign.
Some have proposed that the right to make a contribution during
a campaign be restricted to voters, which means to Canadian
citizens. I have very strong feelings about the right of new
Canadians to participate in every aspect of Canadian life from
the moment they arrive in our country. I am particularly in
favour of their participation in the electoral process.
A large number of new Canadians came here because they were born
in a country where democracy did not exist. We have heard the
views of a number of separatists on the right of new Canadians
to take part in an election. On this side of the House, we
encourage them and are not at all in favour of limiting their
participation, whether it be as volunteers or as financial
contributors.
[English]
I will speak about some of the particular provisions in this
group of motions. The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has
made a great point about it not being a very democratic process.
He and I sit on the same committee. He knows as well as I do
just how long the committee has worked on this matter and of the
hearings we held with the media, interested Canadians and all
political parties, no matter how small or how large or whether
they do or do not have elected members in the House of Commons.
1550
He also knows that a number of the amendments the government has
put forward today are in response to suggestions from his party
or from other opposition parties. To suggest that there has not
been any opportunity for the opposition to influence the outcome
of this act is simply not fair.
I point out, for instance in this group, the amendment of the
government that gives the Chief Electoral Officer the power to
extend voting hours where an emergency has closed the polls for a
certain period of time during the day. We have responded to the
opposition by making sure that the Chief Electoral Officer
extends the hours where there has been an interruption in voting.
We have not agreed with the opposition on the appointment of
returning officers. I go back to the Lortie commission.
established earlier on in this decade, that consulted broadly
with Canadians. It recommended that we not change that aspect of
the election process and that it was a far more efficient and
cost effective way of running elections in 300 constituencies
across the country to have people involved who have experience at
the constituency level of the electoral process.
There is not a great deal more to say on this matter, but I ask
Canadians to remember that the bill is not about
parliamentarians, not about government, but about their right to
choose and their right to know that the candidates presenting
themselves to them are not advantaged by being privileged, by
having a lot of money, by having powerful and rich friends. We
all campaign, every party, every member of the House and every
candidate who was not elected, on the same financial basis, on a
fair and equal footing and on a level playing field. That is
exactly what we are trying to do, to ensure that continues under
the new act.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, thank you for
this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-2.
Right at the start, I would like to point out that we
Progressive Conservatives are constantly being forced to defend
our track record. According to the government and the official
opposition, we are responsible for all the ills of this country.
According to what my Reform Party colleague said earlier, one
would conclude that the Progressive Conservatives have not done
one positive thing.
I would like people to judge our reputation, not on what one
politician says in a speech, but on what our government
accomplished in the nine years it was in power. There is no
shame in rising in this House as a Progressive Conservative. In
the last century we were in power for only very short periods,
but these were always productive periods that made a contribution
to restructuring the country as a whole.
I will read the following excerpt. I know that my Reform
colleagues are not interested, but hon. members ought to listen
carefully to what one of the best editorial writers in the
country has to say about the record of the Progressive
Conservative government and of Mr. Mulroney. Hon. members will
see that this rises above prejudices and purely partisan
declarations.
I am doing this strictly in order to illustrate that what was
accomplished during those two mandates bore fruit, and will
continue to, in a progression that is more than merely
geometric. I am sure that my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic
has caught my drift, being a mathematician par excellence.
To quote the editorial “When the Chrétien government boasts of
the economic results, which are starting to look good, it does
so—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. The hon.
member knows very well that, in the House, members and ministers
are not to be referred to by their names, but by their
constituency and title.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, when one is quoting, it
sometimes—
1555
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not agree with the hon.
member at all. Using a quote is no excuse to mention a member's
surname.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I will continue with the
quotation. “When the current government boasts about the
economic results, which are starting to look good, it does so as
the heir to the Conservatives, as the manager of strategic
decisions that were made by its predecessor”. This is what Alain
Dubuc, a very well known editorial writer in Canada, wrote in La
Presse.
Whenever one of my colleagues rises, whether they are members of
the official opposition or of the government—they agree on
that—they start talking about the results of the Progressive
Conservative Party. After dozens of motions for closure on the
part of this government, I am not afraid to say that, at the
time, we were not afraid of what this government is now afraid
of doing concerning the Canada Elections Act, concerning Bill
C-20, which seeks to provide a framework for future referendums
in the country.
The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to
find out what it thinks of this measure. After decades of Liberal
governments, I think, and I do not want to engage in rhetoric—I
am well aware of the best way to emphasize a reality—that
arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons
and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is
beginning to spread throughout this government.
The government is ramming Bill C-2 through with mere technical
amendments and without an in depth review. It is not true that
Canadians, including people in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec
and Ontario, have nothing to say on the reform of the Canada
Elections Act. It is not true that Canadians do not know what is
going on in this country. It is not true that this exercise was
useless.
At the time, I was sitting on the committee considering free
trade, which held hearings across the country, with the current
Prime Minister. It is not true that we learned nothing from
listening to Canadians on this issue, which was just as vital.
Fortunately, because the government respected Canadians, it
consulted them. They made us aware of the importance of better
structuring marketing, coming up with a free trade agreement
that would enable the country to increase its exports to the
U.S. market by 150%. The government felt it important to do
that.
This was also the case for the tax reform that led to the GST.
This tax is bringing in $24 billion this year. The purpose at
the time of creating it was not to scrap it eventually, but to
scrap taxes. That did not happen.
It is not true that consulting the public and, for a committee,
going to hear what people have to say, is time wasted. I am
convinced that, be it Bill C-2 or Bill C-20, which concerns a
constitutional matter, it is not a waste of time.
I will mention, as an example, the 1995 referendum? What did
the present government say to Canadians? It said “Do not get
upset, we will assume leadership, we will take it in hand, you
may rest in peace”. Things rested in peace until the great
rally in Montreal. They rested so peacefully with the opium of
the present government that the yes side ended up with 49.4% of
the vote.
I say to my anglophone colleagues “Do not sleep too heavily with
a government that is afraid to consult the people”.
1600
This bill is extremely important. It will result in some purely
technical considerations. Why not have agreed to examine this
issue in greater depth?
With respect to appointments, I put a question to the chief
electoral officer. Some of my colleagues were in committee at
the time. I asked him whether he felt that his recommendation
that there be an objective process for appointing returning
officers was essential.
I can tell the House what he said. I cannot say that he is a
member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is one of the
most respected public servants in the country. He replied “Yes,
it is essential for all sorts of reasons.
Political appointments as returning officers have incredible
repercussions on the daily management of election campaigns. If
politically you appoint people without the qualifications,
without the necessary potential to do a good job, the result is
problems with day-to-day management”. This is what the chief
electoral officer told the committee.
Unfortunately, we are headed nowhere with this. I managed to
get a few technical amendments approved, but the rest amounts to
nothing.
On the issue of funding, members of other parties were open to a
study that might one day lead to increased funding from the
government so that elections could be conducted in full
objectivity.
The Bloc Quebecois has its own view on this issue, which was
very well explained by its whip. The same is true for the other
political parties. Unfortunately, on the issue of funding, we
are no further ahead.
I hope that one day the committee will be able to examine the
issue of the funding of the country's national political
parties. I think that this puts democracy in this country in
serious jeopardy.
There are numerous other aspects. One of the most detrimental
aspects of this bill is the control of the activities of third
parties during election campaigns. The people who promote
political involvement, third parties, are not millionaires.
These people will be so mired in administrative procedures that
are difficult to understand and impossible to manage without
professional resources that the government will be better able
to control the next election campaign.
I would have said much more, but I see that my allotted time is up.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
and standing to speak on the Group No. 3 motions to Bill C-2, the
Canada Elections Act.
Members will remember that the bill was originally sent to
committee prior to second reading on the pretence of making
meaningful amendments. The minister said that because the bill
was important he was putting it into committee so that we could
make meaningful amendments.
We deliberated on the bill for several weeks in committee for
long hours; from nine in the morning until ten or eleven at
night. We discussed many of the amendments or similar amendments
to what we are discussing here. However, the government never
took it seriously. The reason it sent the bill to committee
before second reading was to make a few technical amendments of
its own. It pretty much ignored, as the speaker before me said,
any reasonable amendments submitted by the opposition.
The Group No. 3 motions are mainly concerned with the area of
appointments to staff positions within Elections Canada. As
speakers before me have mentioned, the returning officers
throughout Elections Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister.
Why would Canadians be happy to have in their electoral system,
which is supposed to be totally non-partisan, the Prime Minister
appointing all of the 301 returning officers across the country?
The answer is that they are not happy. It is outrageous that the
government can use this bill to appoint Liberal Party hacks to
positions within Elections Canada all the way down to returning
officers and deputy returning officers. Out in the field
positions of Elections Canada, all the parties get to appoint
people.
1605
During the last election many of my colleagues, myself included,
told the returning officers that we would not participate in this
patronage exercise. We told them that they should advertise the
positions and get the best people for the job. That is the way
it should be done, from top to bottom in Elections Canada.
The member who spoke before me mentioned the questions we asked
the Chief Electoral Officer in committee. I asked the Chief
Electoral Officer if, when Elections Canada was helping third
world countries and emerging democracies to set up their
elections legislation, he ever recommended the system of
patronage that we have here in Canada.
Jean Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada,
said:
—obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not
recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to
the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I
do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under
the present system is an anachronism.
It is plain wrong and improper, in an elections act that is
supposed to be non-partisan, for this political patronage to go
on.
I would like to speak at length about the patronage aspect of
the bill but, in many ways, it is actually other areas of the
bill that have come to overshadow this section. For example,
there are a series of legal challenges that are certain to be
launched against the bill based on previous legal activity both
at the provincial and federal levels.
A series of legal challenges are certain on a thing called the
50 candidate rule, which requires a party to have 50 candidates
before it can put a party name on ballot. The Communist Party of
Canada took the federal government to court on that issue. It
won its case in Ontario. I cannot understand why the minister is
persisting with a ridiculous and stupid provision in the bill
that has already been struck down by the courts. Why would he
not just reach a consensus with the small parties that came to
committee and said that they would be satisfied with 12 members?
They did not have to have the two that the courts had said. They
would agree to 12 because that was sensible and it related to the
rules of the House. The minister would not agree.
Then we have the third party spending, which has just been
struck down again in the courts of B.C. In the court in British
Columbia, the judge specifically mentioned that the evidence used
in the Libman case by this minister to justify a gag law in his
elections act is invalid because the evidence used was based on a
preliminary report by a UBC political science professor, Richard
Johnston, which indicated that third party spending might
influence election outcomes.
Although that finding went into the Lortie commission report,
which was subsequently used in the Libman case, Professor
Johnston later concluded that third party endorsements had no
discernible effect on election outcomes.
There have been three studies done in Canada, as well as studies
done in other countries, on the effects or non-effects of third
party spending in elections. After studying that evidence,
Justice Brenner, in the B.C. case, stated:
To override Charter rights it is necessary that there be more
than a general hypothetical concern about a problem when there is
no evidence to demonstrate that it has existed in the past or
that it is likely to exist in the future.
Professor Johnston's report, which was used in the Libman case,
actually concluded, by studying the different impacts, that
sometimes third party spending had the apparent effect of working
against a candidate in one riding but, on exactly the same issue,
had the apparent effect of helping a candidate in another riding.
For example, on the National Citizens' Coalition issues, that
are often a part of the third party spending activity, there was
no evidence in Professor Johnston's studies that could conclude
that the spending had any particular effect in a riding. So that
part of the bill is definitely flawed and will be subject to a
court challenge.
Judge Brenner, in a February 9 ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court,
stated that there were certain circumstances in which the goal of
fairness in elections would support an argument for third party
advertising.
1610
If, in a future election campaign, for example, all of the
political parties were to agree on a significant policy, then the
lack of third party advertising would deprive the voters of a
alternative view of that policy. That is a very strong argument
in favour of third party spending limits.
Although the main thrust of the motions that we are discussing
right now deal with patronage appointments to Elections Canada, I
know that the minister is completely unresponsive to any of the
amendments that were proposed to fix the problem, just as he is
completely unresponsive to any of the court rulings which have
shown him he is misguided in other areas of the bill. He is
misguided with the 50 candidate rule. He is misguided with third
party spending. He is also misguided as far as the publication of
poll results goes.
I do not know why he persists in trying to reinstate parts of
the bill that are continually being struck down by the courts. Is
it a game for him? Is he trying to make the National Citizens'
Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation spend their money
in court challenges knowing that the minister does not have to
pay out of his own pocket for his side of the thing? It is the
taxpayers of Canada who end up paying. I wish he would not treat
it like a game. I wish he would treat it with seriousness. I
wish he would sit down and actually negotiate amendments to the
bill that would make it more meaningful.
When members on the other side say that we do not free vote,
that is simply not true. We often support their amendments. On
this very bill we have supported at least 20 of their amendments.
We have analyzed them, taken a look at them and have said that
they are sensible amendments. We are supporting some of the Bloc
amendments and even some of the NDP amendments because we have
looked at them sensibly and logically. They make sense and they
should be supported.
Look at the government side. Every single amendment that has
been proposed will be opposed by government members. It is not
because the amendments make no sense. They are all good and
sensible amendments that should be discussed. They will opposed
because government members are afraid their nomination papers
will not be signed when it comes to the next election. I wish
they would reconsider and start thinking about what is good for
the people of Canada instead of their pocketbooks at the next
election.
In the last parliament we told the government that bills like
the Employment Equity Act, conditional sentencing and bills that
had flaws in them would be challenged by the courts, just like
the one before us today. We predicted that but they never
listened. I wish they would listen on the Canada Elections Act
because that minister over there will be responsible for the
waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars on meaningless court
cases which he could be avoided. I wish he would listen.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that Thursday, February 24, 2000 shall not be an allotted day.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act respecting
the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other
acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and
of Group No. 3.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, would you not just love to have that kind of power that
you could just wipe a day out? It is amazing.
While listening to the previous speaker and the ones before, I
was trying to understand the point of view of the opposition. I
found that there was some reasoned debate by the speaker who just
finished, until the end.
Frankly, I also play at the game a little bit from time to
time, but one of the reasons that we have such difficulty in this
place is because of things like the accusation by an hon. member
opposite. He tried to suggest that all the Liberals in this
place are only concerned, as he put it, about their pocketbooks,
that somehow there are no hon. members on this side of the House
only on that side. He said that we only cared about ourselves
not about our constituents or the country. It is that kind of
rhetoric that makes the hair on the back of our necks stand up
and takes the temperature in this place to new levels.
1615
I find it incredible. There is no doubt we are rushing the
bill. Let us take a look at the history. In 1991 there was the
Lortie commission on electoral reform. This is a slam dunk. We
are hammering it home. In 1993 there was the special committee
of the House of Commons. Then in 1998 this draconian hard headed
government, which does not care about public opinion according to
the bright lights opposite, brought in a bill.
That bill was debated in the House and sent to committee. The
member opposite remembers serving on the committee late into the
evening. Why? It was because they wanted to hear opinions. I
have news for members opposite. They are not the government. We
on this side are and we have a responsibility as the duly elected
government to put forward an agenda.
Members opposite form the opposition. I understand that. I
served five years in opposition in the province of Ontario. I
respect the fact that they have a job to do, but each party,
particularly my dear friends in the Reform Party, continually
mislead and misrepresent the issues. This is part of the reason
that we wind up—
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think you would agree it is improper for the member opposite to
say that we are misleading or misrepresenting any of the issues,
or that we are misleading our constituents.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has a
point. I am sure the hon. member for Mississauga West will
choose his words more judiciously.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I will choose my words
this way. It would be a wonderful experience if just once on one
issue members opposite would stand and say there are some
reasonable points.
Mr. Ken Epp: We did.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: They do not at all. They stand and
say that this is the most draconian bill they have ever seen and
that it is being jammed down people's throats.
Do members know why we have to use the tool called time
allocation? If we did not, we would never get anything done in
this place because opposition members get out of bed every
morning and ask themselves one question: What shall we oppose
today? They do not ask what they can do for Canadians today or
what they can accomplish for their constituents?
They also ask what minister they can go after today? It does
not matter if it is based on the truth. It does not matter if it
is based on any kind of fact. It only matters if they think it
will get them in the media or if they think they will get some
points at home.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is particularly important in a debate when we are rushed for
time to stick to the topic. I would ask you to ask the member to
be relevant.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I was following the
debate. I am sure the hon. member will speak to the matter
before the House.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I am equally sure that
this is simply an attempt to stop me from getting my points
across. I understand that because they do not like to hear the
facts.
What are they opposing? Let me talk about third party spending
on elections. We know the Reform Party would love to give a
blank cheque to Charlton Heston and the NRA out of Washington,
Dallas or wherever to ride into Ottawa on horseback, shooting
their pistols in the air, and let them spend whatever they want.
On the other side of the coin I am not sure Reformers would want
to see money being allocated to a third party group like the
National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I suspect they
would not want to see that organization being given this kind of
power.
What is fair in an electoral process?
What is fair is that there are registered parties. There are
registered candidates. For all the disagreements we have in this
place, I personally have nothing but the utmost respect for
anyone who stands for elected office for any party at any time.
It takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of commitment. It is
not just for a Liberal. It takes a lot of courage to run as a
Reformer in Canada. Let us imagine running in Ontario as a
Reformer. It must be sort of like the appliance guy with the
loneliest job in town. They have trouble getting their deposits
back.
1620
I respect the fact that the candidate who ran against me for the
Reform Party came out more than the Tories did to the all
candidate meetings to put forward his viewpoints, his ideas, what
he believed in. He is a man in the community. I might even
convince him to vote for me one day. I suspect he votes for my
wife because he lives in her municipal riding, so he has some
common sense.
Why should someone with an axe to grind, a third party that does
not have the commitment or dedication, be allowed to have blank
cheque to influence the outcome of the election or to be
manipulated perhaps by a party that knows it does not have
support in a certain region, whether it is Atlantic Canada,
Ontario or the province of Quebec? Maybe they want to manipulate
the voters through advertising. Does that work? I ask members
to use the analogy of why tobacco companies advertise to try
attract young smokers to their products. It is because it works.
The reality is that advertising in politics works as well.
It is a very serious issue. It is not like we are saying they
cannot have a say. They can spend up to $150,000 across the
nation. I do not think that is unreasonable. They can put their
viewpoints across. They can attend all-candidate meetings. They
can go to the candidate of any party they want and demand that
the person explain why he or she believes in whatever the issue
happens to be. This is the democratic process. This is not a
government and this is not a country that will tolerate the
ability of any special interest group to hijack the agenda during
an election campaign. That is very important.
I want to deal with another issue that members talked about, the
appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer. Let us be clear. In
this case a resolution is required of the House, not of the
Senate, to approve that.
There is much about democracy in the bill. If the opposition
thinks it is democratic for us to be sitting here tonight voting
on 67 nonsensical amendments which they want to put forward,
keeping members of parliament in this place until two or three
o'clock in the morning, I do not call that productive. I call
that destructive democracy. It will not improve the bill and
they know it.
They have had every opportunity to have their oar in the water.
We should support the bill. We should pass the bill. We should
stop the silly political games that are being played opposite.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-2 today. We
have before the House a very important piece of legislation which
outlines in finite detail the democratic process in Canada. It
outlines for Canadians how we should be electing our
representatives in a democratic way, in an inclusive way and in a
transparent way to represent the interests of the House of
Commons in issues which pertain to all Canadians.
We have seen the Liberal government opposite continue on its
anti-democratic path. It is very unfortunate but it continues to
crush debate in the House of Commons. This is parliament. We
have been sent from all parts of the country to speak about
issues which are important to all of us.
What do members of the Liberal government do? They spend hour
after hour strategizing on how to reduce debate and reduce the
importance of parliament.
They do this by time allocation. They are implementing a
shortened debate period.
1625
We will be sitting for seven or eight hours in the House of
Commons on this bill and 301 members of parliament will have
maybe three hours to debate it. The government has used time
allocation to shorten the debate from a natural progression of
spending a few days to hear the views of other members on the
bill, how to improve it and make it better. It has spent all its
time taking democracy away from Canadians. Time allocation is
when the government invokes a time period of two or three hours
to debate a bill which is hundreds of pages long.
I am not sure whether the Prime Minister or the government House
leader had time to read the bill. It is 258 pages long and they
want 301 members of parliament to speak no more than 10 minutes
and condense that into three hours of debate. This is
anti-democratic. It is an indication of Liberal priorities. They
do not want any debate on democracy because they like the closed
system. It is a very closed system where very few people are
elected to the House of Commons to represent 30 million
Canadians. When we get here they shut down debate because they
do not like exactly what has been going on.
We in the NDP are very concerned about that. We object to the
strategies and the terrible lack of democracy Liberals are
pushing on Canadians. We feel the motions we are debating now
have some problems, but some of them are very good.
We believe there are five cornerstones of democracy and we want
to apply those cornerstones to Bill C-2. The government House
leader knows exactly what those cornerstones are. That is why he
is suppressing debate. They are responsibility, accessibility,
accountability, inclusiveness and transparency. We put Bill C-2
to the test on those five cornerstones and the bill fails in many
ways in each and every one of them.
With respect to the particular grouping we are talking about,
the issue of numbered companies contributing to political parties
and candidates was put forward by the NDP as an amendment. We
are asking all parties to embrace and support it because it
provides additional transparency with respect to who is giving
money to political parties and candidates. Concerning
transparency, the way it works now is that if a numbered company
makes a contribution to the constituency of the industry minister
or to the Liberal Party in general, it only has to provide its
number, for example 651391 Canada Inc. There is no indication
who that represents or who is behind that contribution.
Our amendments make it more transparent by calling upon the
numbered company making a contribution to outline who is its
chief executive officer or its president and to outline their
addresses. Many Canadians may not know but the addresses of
numbered companies are primarily those of law firms. Lawyers are
the legal bodies behind the entities and they just use their law
offices as the head offices of numbered companies. It is very
difficult to obtain this information. We feel this is one
amendment that should be supported.
In addition there is the issue regarding voting hours in British
Columbia. My three NDP colleagues from Vancouver East,
Burnaby—Douglas, and Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
believe very strongly that the hours in the act should be
changed. The amendment in this grouping makes that suggestion.
They are calling for the hours in British Columbia to be from 8
a.m. until 8 p.m. instead of 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. because the
lower mainland is a very congested area and the transportation
system is not as up to par as it should be. People in the lower
mainland tend to work far distances from their residences and
therefore will have difficulty voting by 7 p.m.
As critic on Bill C-2 they asked me to make that recommendation
to the government. They had many instances and anecdotal stories
about how people were unable to exercise their franchise in the
last election because the polls in the lower mainland closed at 7
p.m. We are asking the government to consider supporting this
amendment.
1630
I have put forward amendments with respect to numbered companies
which would apply not only to candidates in political parties but
to third parties as well. We hear that the Reform and the
Conservative parties are very cautious about this amendment. They
want third parties, which could be the oil companies, the
prescription pharmaceutical corporations, the banks or the
National Rifle Association in the States, not to be transparent
in terms of contributions made to them in order for third parties
like these organizations to attack, personally, individual
candidates or members of parliament who are seeking re-election.
We find that to be unfair. Third parties should qualify and
follow the rules of Bill C-2 with respect to numbered companies
and the transparency of political contributions so that when the
oil companies attack my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst in an
election campaign we will know where the moneys came from. We
will know whether they came from corporations, Imperial Oil or
Shell, or from third parties which feel we have been fighting
these issues to defend consumers, that we have been taking and
holding accountable the oil companies which have undertaken to
gouge consumers. We feel that the contributions which are made
to these particular organizations have to be crystal clear and
transparent.
We in the NDP also support the notion of regular, fixed election
dates. We would like to see the federal election held in the
middle of June every four years. The writs would be issued on
the second Monday of May, every fourth year. The election would
take place in the second or third week of June, depending on the
season and the calendar. We feel that regular election dates
would take away a lot of the politicking that members opposite
are so inclined to participate in, rather than deciding on what
kind of action they are going to take on behalf of Canadians.
The biggest problem we have was mentioned by the member for
Mississauga West a few minutes ago: “What shall I oppose
today?” That was his line about the opposition. Some members
of the opposition get up every day to oppose things. New
Democrats get up every day to make recommendations as to what
actions we could take to solve the problems of the country. The
Liberals do not seem to get it. They do not listen to our
recommendations, which, by the way, are embraced by the majority
of Canadians in many ways.
For example, today in question period I stood in the House to
ask the Prime Minister what action plan he was instituting to
defend the Canadian economy, consumers, truckers and agricultural
producers from the OPEC oil cartel and soaring energy prices.
Rather than saying that we have a plan or we are working on a
plan, I said that maybe the Prime Minister should look to the
Americans. America is the home of capitalism and free
enterprise, where this sort of thing was born, and it has
undertaken a 17-point program to support its consumers, truckers
and farmers. Yet all our government does is pass the buck to the
provinces. Rather than saying that we oppose what the Prime
Minister is doing, we say this is what he should be doing with
respect to oil prices. He should be calling together the
provinces and the oil companies to figure out what can be done.
They should look at the recommendations of the U.S. to know how
it is helping its consumers and business people.
The Liberals only listen to what they want to hear. They do not
want to have any debate on issues like Bill C-2, as we have
proposed. We feel that it is unacceptable to have this kind of
suppressive government. It suppresses debate and discourages
members from putting forward alternatives. It does not like the
views of the grassroots in the House. It does not even like the
views of the majority in the House. It tends to discount this,
say that it will deal with that, and it just calls the opposition
names. I think that is pretty low class. On behalf of the NDP,
I put forward our opposition to Bill C-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-2 redefines the federal government's position on the way
elections are conducted.
1635
I will focus my remarks on the funding of political parties, the
appointment of election officers in the various ridings, the
transparency of postal voting, equity, compliance with the
Elections Act on which we will be voting democratically in this
parliament, and the sacred principle of one person one vote.
First of all, I will discuss the one person, one vote principle in
the last election in Quebec. It would seem that Quebec has
one of the most advanced and strict electoral systems of all
countries in the world. Yet, the Liberals have found ways to
literally steal an election. That is what happened in the riding
of Anjou where they stole—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I ask the member to refrain
from using such words and to choose his words very carefully.
There are words that cannot be used in the House.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You just drew the attention of the House to some words used by
my colleague opposite. He started his speech by saying that
Quebec was a country. Everyone knows that Quebec is still—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not think this is a
point of order, but rather a point of debate.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I thank you for your
co-operation.
In the riding of Anjou, Minister Pierre Bélanger lost the
election by a handful of votes—
An hon. member: Come on.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:—votes that went to Jean-Sébastien
Lamoureux. It was proven beyond any doubt that Jean-Sébastien
Lamoureux and his team managed to get hundreds of people to vote
more than once—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:—and it would seem that these people got
paid $10 per vote. One such person collected $130. At $10 per
vote, we can quickly figure that this floater voted 13 times.
As I said, Quebec is recognized world-wide for having the
strictest system. Be that as it may, we lost the riding of Anjou.
I know that, when Jean-Sébastien Lamoureux rises to vote in the
National Assembly, several members of the government party tell
him “Jean-Sébastien, you just vote once here. This is a
democratic institution”. Even the Liberals are laughing up their
sleeve, because they know full well that a number of people in
that riding each voted several times.
Speaking of money, which, in my opinion, is the core of the
issue, the distinguished Pierre Corbeil and Marcel Massé, the
former member from across the river here, had an interesting
arrangement. Pierre Corbeil was apparently provided by Marcel
Massé, his department or his office, with the list of future
recipients of substantial grants from HRDC, a topic which is the
subject of much debate these days. Pierre Corbeil received cash
amounts of between $5,000 and $25,000.
We do not have the file indicating what became of it, if some
did not get lost in the back of his car, hon. members know what
I mean by that.
Pierre Corbeil, like CINAR, admitted his guilt. Probably the
party footed the bill, including the fine.
This leads me to speak about my riding of Frontenac—Mégantic.
The people of Lac Mégantic are proud folk. The people living in
the Granit regional municipality are proud folk and they are
respectful of laws and regulations. In the last election, on
June 2, 1997, the local member of the National Assembly, a
regular citizen with several elections under her belt, both
provincial and federal, took it upon herself to go around
shaking hands with people at the Centre Monseigneur-Bonin as if
she were running for election.
1640
She was given several warnings, but the Primeau's, the people in
charge of security and of seeing that the voting ran smoothly,
had to ask her to leave, after of course the usual solicitation
of support for the Liberal candidate.
The Bloc Quebecois organization for Lac Mégantic filed, with the
assistance of Pierre Greffard, an official complaint with the
office of the chief electoral officer. The outcome was more or
less the same as in Anjou, the same as with Pierre Corbeil, in
the biggest possible mess.
If an elected member of the provincial legislature can scoff at
federal legislation at a poll, how can there be any respect?
When we see, for example, that the Parliament of Canada is
sending a mission abroad to monitor an election when, here, we
are not even capable of ensuring one person, one vote, and
limiting the power of money in an election, I think we are
patting ourselves on the back unjustifiably.
The opposition raised the question of postal votes when Bill C-2
was considered in committee. Postal voting is one more devious
way of getting dozens of votes out of one person. The envelope
for a mail-in ballot can be bought, as we have seen in Anjou,
with Jean-Sébastien Lamoureux. In some poor neighbourhoods, they
can be bought for under $10.
It involves taking a busload of people to the office of the
chief electoral officer, where everybody gets off one after the
other with an envelope, and on the bus, they give it to the
organizer, who, naturally, has the money.
The Liberals know full well what I mean, because they are expert
at organizing elections. They are so expert that sometimes they
get told things in private meetings, how they can proceed, and
that is a scandal.
I heard earlier the deputy government whip say that money should
not play a determining role in the election of one candidate or
another. I can tell her that she spoke out of both sides of her
mouth at the same time, since the Liberal Party uses CKAC's
slogan “The Power of Words” in conjunction with another one:
“The Power of Money”.
The list of generous contributors to the Liberal Party is really
scandalous. Bombardier contributed over $75,000 to the Liberal
Party in 1998—that is what is in the books—and $30,000 to the
Progressive Conservative Party. That makes for good collecting.
To collect $30,000 in my riding, I have to work very hard
collecting $10 here, $25 there, and $100 somewhere else, while
the Liberal Party collects $75,000 and the Progressive
Conservative Party, $30,000, from a single contributor. Members
will understand that, if Mr. Beaudoin, the CEO of Bombardier,
gives $75,000 to the grits, he will reap $7.5 million a month
later. It does not take long.
Now, moving to appointments, because I see my time is quickly
running out. In 1993, in the riding of Frontenac, Ms. Roy was
the returning officer. She was very competent, totally above
suspicion and popular with all the political parties.
When it came to power in 1993, the Liberal Party turfed her out
and appointed my friend André Pomerleau, a man who was very
dedicated to the community, but particularly to the Liberal
Party.
1645
Ms. Roy was relieved of her duties and replaced by André. He was
retired, while for Ms. Roy the job was a means of supplementing
her income and being able to afford some of the niceties.
In Quebec, in our nation, we do not fire returning officers
after every change of government. In Frontenac, Chantal has
been returning officer since 1985, if memory serves, and she
will continue in that position as long as she continues to do a
good job in the Government of Quebec's elections.
In closing, the Bloc Quebecois will, of course, not support Bill
C-2, because there are too many issues that we cannot agree on,
particularly with respect to the funding of political parties.
I propose a change in the way political parties are funded. Not
surprisingly, what I would suggest is that the government give
each candidate a certain amount—a bit along the lines of what
Quebec does—so that he or she can conduct a truly democratic
election campaign, and let the best man, or woman, win.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak against this legislation. Unless
otherwise amended by members from all parties and approved by
members from all parties, it will turn out to be a bad piece of
legislation. This legislation is being pushed through the House
in order to suppress debate and yet again, time allocation has
been invoked. Shame on the government for cutting off debate.
There have been over 60 time allocations in six years. That is
the Liberal record, which is about double the Mulroney record.
Shame on the Liberals for shutting down debate on legislation
with provisions that would stifle Canadian citizens their freedom
of speech during federal elections. It stifles freedoms and
liberties that go back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Rather than
keeping the powers of government in check, Bill C-2 is expanding
the powers of the federal government.
Bill C-2 is a gag law. It gags the freedom of Canadian citizens
the right to speak up and be heard, hence it is dangerous
legislation. The Liberal government dubs Bill C-2 as legislation
that will limit the influence of money in politics. That is for
everyone except of course the Liberals themselves. That is what
it is doing.
Under the legislation the Liberal governing party will be
allowed to spend almost $20 million in the country's various
ridings, but it does not stop there. It can top that off with
another $12 million nationally which it can spend in any riding
it wishes. It is all taxpayers' dollars. Some limit. The sky
is virtually the limit for Liberal spending.
What about private citizens groups or other organizations? The
following just shows the kind of bastion of hypocrisy the Liberal
government really is. Bill C-2 would limit the spending of a
private citizen, or an organization no matter how large, to an
average of $500 per constituency across the country with no more
spending than $3,000 targeted at any one riding.
Here is the stark contrast and hypocrisy of it all. Liberal
candidates can spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to get
themselves elected to office. However private citizens can spend
at the most a few paltry thousand dollars and they are not even
trying to get elected to office.
1650
That is why Bill C-2 is so dangerous. Where do the millions
that the Liberals can spend come from? Under Bill C-2 the
majority of the $30 million plus will come from taxpayers. How
can this happen? How in heaven's name is this done? It is done,
as all political bagmen know, through a generous system of tax
credits and rebates. It is interesting that under this bill a
limit really would never be reached.
It is the private citizens that the Liberals are trying to
muzzle, even if the citizens are spending their own money. Bill
C-2 really is not about how much money is being spent, but about
who is spending it.
Here is what it boils down to. It is entirely okay for Liberals
to spend the voters' money to spread Liberal opinions, but not
for voters to spend it on their own opinions. That is even if
they are not asking for a dime in tax breaks and slush funds.
Speaking of slush funds, Bill C-2 leaves contributions to
Liberal associations and party campaigns a private matter, just
like the deliberations of caucus and cabinet. In other words, it
remains perfectly legal for wealthy contributors to meet
privately with government decision makers and arrange to make
money available to a Liberal association in exchange for a
favour. The public of course would never really know about it
unless there is an internal audit, like the billion dollar
boondoggle at HRDC.
On the other hand, if private citizens and organizations use
their money to communicate their views directly and publicly to
voters, this would constitute buying influence in government and
they could go to jail. George Orwell would be proud and heck, so
would Joseph Stalin.
Here is the biggest scam of it all. Under Bill C-2 most of the
money the Liberals will spend in the next election will not even
count as spending and thus faces no limits at all. I am talking
about all the money the Liberal government can spend on
self-promoting advertising.
The federal government is the biggest advertiser in the country.
Here is a small example. Liberal backbenchers can send mailers
to their constituencies attacking private organizations. It may
cost more than $3,000, but it will not count as election spending
as long as it is mailed a few seconds before the writ is dropped.
This is a standard practice of government MPs.
A bigger example is in the Prime Minister's own riding. Through
various agencies and programs, $12 million in grants and loans
found their way to Shawinigan in time for the last election. The
amount is even larger than the spending limit for the Liberal
Party at the national level.
Under Bill C-2 that is the kind of pork barrelling that private
citizens could not expose and attack in the next election.
Private people would have to remain quiet, but will they? Will
they?
Do we really think that a group that believes in individual
freedom will comply with a law that threatens prison terms for
citizens using their own money to communicate their own ideas to
other citizens? Do we really think a group that believes in
democracy will support a law that gives governments virtually
unlimited use of public dollars to finance their re-elections? Do
we really think a group that believes in free elections will
adhere to a law that makes it a crime for citizens to publicly
advertise in a free press, but gives uncontrolled avenues of
private influence to friends and cronies? Of course not.
There is no doubt that Bill C-2 will pass in the House
unamended, but the gag law will be defeated.
This oppressive law will be overturned as others have been
overturned. That will be a good thing for the freedoms and
liberties of all Canadians.
1655
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to the
hon. member for Trois-Rivières, I want to put on the record the
fact that I listened carefully to the presentation of the hon.
member for Yellowhead and the word hypocrisy was used. As all
members know, no word is of itself unparliamentary; it is the
form and the context. As long as that word which has been
repeatedly ruled unparliamentary is not addressed to a specific
person, a specific member, but is used in general terms to
reflect an action, it is a word that is used in the English
language, it is descriptive and in my view it is parliamentary
and quite permissible.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
always with a lot of pride that we in the Bloc Quebecois are
called to speak as representatives of Quebec's heartland.
It is perfectly natural for us to discuss such an issue as the
elections act, given our tradition as Quebecers. We can truly
speak about tradition as it dates back to 1976-77, the year the
Parti Quebecois was elected under the late René Lévesque, who
had transformed Quebec election mores. This was a demand clearly
expressed by the people.
It is therefore with great pride that we participate in this
debate. We are proud, as Claude Ryan, this staunch federalist
Quebecer said yesterday when he testified with great courage and
paid homage to Quebec democracy. I was deeply moved to see the
pride with which he spoke of Quebec democracy and our
institutions in Quebec. I was also moved by the sadness which
was permeating his remarks about how our democratic institutions
are being trampled by a will coming from God knows where in
Canada.
This is a fabrication, not to say a machination, of the Privy
Council, presided by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Thus, in spite of the fact that there are some 20 members from
Quebec among government members, we on this side feel no
respect. However fine some of these members are, we feel no
respect for Quebec democracy. Quebec has nothing to learn about
democracy from this government, the people of Canada or any
other people in the western world or elsewhere.
The Quebec people accepted with great calm and dignity the close
result in the 1995 referendum. In other countries, it might have
lead to popular upheaval. It took only a few hours for everyone
to understand that this result had to be accepted, even though
it was eminently frustrating.
In a context of activism, losing a referendum with 49.4% of the
vote is hard to swallow, particularly since we were ahead for
part of the evening, as members will remember. It takes great
political maturity and a great sense of democracy for things to
be as dignified as they were on the evening of October 30, 1995.
All that to say that, in terms of democracy, we remain very
comfortable. It is all the more upsetting, not to say
humiliating, to see the sad spectacle that has been unfolding
before us since just before the Christmas holidays. It is being
perpetuated by this government's unreasonable desire to rush
through Bill C-20, which changes the eminently democratic rules
governing the way election are run in Quebec.
1700
I will begin my presentation by quoting the 1991 Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, which stated
in volume 1, page 483:
A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of
representative government is an electoral process that is
administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced
impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election
officials responsible for administration and enforcement be
independent of the government of the day and not subject to
partisan influence.
These words are very important. It is said that election
officials must be independent from the government of the day and
not subject to partisan influence. Yet, the very opposite is
happening today in Canada.
That is somewhat surprising when we know what the Canadian
government is claiming in foreign countries and it has the
audacity to lecture so-called underdeveloped countries and tell
them how to administer their electoral activities.
I had the privilege to meet a young and talented lawyer from
Quebec who was in Cameroon at public expense, for the Canadian
Department of Justice, to explain to Cameroonians how to
administer the electoral process. I believe he was not
comfortable with this task. He could not, honestly—at least I
hope not—make suggestions to Cameroonians, while believing in
true democracy, on the strategic and sensitive function of local
returning officer, as well as on the role of chief electoral
officer who, hopefully, is not designated on a partisan basis.
As we know, returning officers are institutionally chosen by the
political party in power, which is a true scandal, considering
the importance of this function and the claims of Canada in
foreign countries. I say that without necessarily judging the
persons in office. However, it is almost mandatory, though this
is probably not written down anywhere, for those who want to be
returning officers to be members of the Liberal Party of Canada.
It is even better if one has been a defeated candidate, a
Liberal MP or president or vice-president of the Liberal Party's
riding association. Then, one has a good chance at being chosen.
Decades go by, and it is truly indecent. It is even more
indecent if we consider that in Quebec—Canada's most important
neighbour for all sorts of reasons, historical as well as
economic, a special partner that will remain so in the future
with a good partnership agreement that people from both sides of
the Ottawa River will come to wish for one day—a process was
established when the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976 under
the determined leadership of René Lévesque, who had made it its
second priority, right behind the law on the French language, to
pass a law on the financing of political parties, designed to
ensure the independence of the whole electoral system. In the
dark ages when Duplessis—whom many federalist Quebecers love to
despise—was in power in Quebec, he ran things just like the
Liberals are running them today, as if we were in the dark ages.
We have corrected things by ensuring that that strategic
position—we cannot overstress this—is occupied by someone who has
been selected through a democratic and neutral process that
ensures that those who are designated today, in the most neutral
way possible, as returning officers in all the ridings of Quebec
are chosen for their personal and human qualities as well as for
their experience.
1705
This gives rise to a situation such as the one in the federal
riding of Trois-Rivières—this is not because she is not a nice
person and, furthermore, she has the same name as mine—where the
former vice-president of the Liberal Party of Canada, a very
charming person to whom I send my regards, has been and still
is, until further notice, the returning officer.
In Quebec, it is the former returning officer from the
Conservative era who has been chosen, and by competition. He had
the best resume, he made the best presentation and he defended
his case the best. He was chosen among other candidates who had
applied, probably people from the Parti Quebecois.
One must surely like politics to apply for this kind of job.
Given his skills and his relevant experience, it is the former
returning officer chosen by the Conservatives at the time who is
now the returning officer for Quebec in the riding of
Trois-Rivières.
This illustrates very well the nobility of the process in
Quebec, and it is urgent that the federal government copy that
process, particularly as the chief electoral officer of Canada,
probably an appointed official, has long been recommending that
the government act in a non partisan way.
The government only needs the political determination, instead
of trying to basely take advantage of the situation, as it is
doing right now.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
honoured to stand in this place today on behalf of the
constituents of Elk Island, whom I have the honour to represent,
in defence of democracy and in defence of our country.
The question we are dealing with today is that of democracy.
What is democracy? I humbly submit that the Liberals have it
wrong. They somehow feel that democracy is when they get their
own way, even though they received only 38% of the popular vote
in the last election. They feel that with a majority in this
place they can ram everything through.
That time allocation has been invoked on this bill is
despicable. We are at second reading and debate will end before
my speech is over. That will be the end of second reading.
However, by the force of their majority membership the Liberals
have already closed off debate on third reading, which has not
yet begun. We have not yet debated the amendments which were
made at committee and already the Liberals have put time
allocation on third reading. That was the vote which was held
earlier this afternoon, which all Liberals were forced to vote
for. I find this totally despicable. It is anti-democratic.
For the Liberals to do that on this important bill is
unconscionable.
I know that the technical name of the bill is an act to amend
the Canada Elections Act, but I would like to call it the pump
primer bill. We had a well on the farm where I grew up in
Saskatchewan. The rule was that we always kept the primer pail
full because if there was no water in the primer pail the pump
would not work. Water was poured into the pump to prime it and
when it was running the first thing we did was to replenish the
pail so that the next time we went for water the pump would work.
The Liberals are doing that with this bill. Bill C-2 is a primer
bill.
The Liberals, I believe, are aware of the fact that after the
next election they will no longer have a majority. They are
trying to increase their chances of electoral success by doing
everything possible in Bill C-2 to stack the odds in their
favour. The Liberals are doing this with a number of different
provisions in the bill, including the continuation of patronage
appointments in the election process. This will hopefully win
the favour of people in their ridings who could make money during
the election by being good appointees of the government. That is
one element of this bill which should not be passed. This is,
after all, a democracy. This is where we want to hear the will
of the people. However, the government does not know anything
about democracy.
I would like to quote the Prime Minister. I came across this
accidentally when I was looking at Hansard. Last week the
Prime Minister, in response to a question from a Bloc member,
said “I allowed a free vote in the House of Commons”.
We do not have to be very brilliant to see through that
statement. In other words, the Prime Minister has the power to
tell the people “You vote the way I tell you. When I choose, I
will allow you to vote freely”.
1710
I believe very strongly in the principle of free votes in the
House of Commons. I am very pleased that the new Canadian
alliance has that in its policies, as did the Reform Party. I am
proud to say that in every vote in this House I have voted
according to what I believed was best for my constituents. Not
once have I taken a voting order from the party hierarchy in
Ottawa or anywhere else, contrary to what is done by members
opposite. This is the essence of democracy. Does this
government believe in democracy? No, it does not.
Let me give the House another example. We now have over 500,000
names on petitions asking the government to deal with the issue
of child pornography. At the present time child pornography is
legal in British Columbia. It is making inroads across the whole
country because of this spineless government which is not willing
to take action. We have 500,000 citizens who have said “Do
something”, but the government does not do a thing. It just
sits on it and lets it slide by. In a democracy, the wishes of
the people, which have been so clearly expressed, would result in
some action that would reflect the wishes of Canadian citizens.
That is an area which is very important and the government is
doing nothing.
I am absolutely appalled at the fact that the government will
not accept even simple amendments. Earlier today the minister in
charge of this bill said, off the record, that the reason the
government had to invoke time allocation was because of all the
deleterious amendments put forward by the opposition.
There is another way to speed up the passage of the bill, and
that is to accept some of the amendments. To automatically
assume that those amendments, because they come from one of the
four opposition parties, are not worthy of respect or
implementation is a false assumption which the government
arrogantly assumes. Instead of listening to the amendments and
changing some of the rules, it jams it through.
On command, it gets all of its members to rise, one at a time,
when their strings are pulled, to vote for time allocation to
shut down the debate on the democratic process in this country.
I would be ashamed if I were a Liberal. In fact, if I were a
Liberal I would hide somewhere, put my head under a blanket and
hope that no one would ever find me. This is absolutely
atrocious.
There are interesting concepts in this bill that need to be
corrected. There are very, very important things. I would like
to say that the government's lack of response on these meaningful
amendments will backfire. It is saying that there will continue
to be the rule of 50 members per party, and all of these other
things. I do not have the time to go into them. We have
finished the debate. It is done. It is closure.
I will use my last 30 seconds to make a simple prediction. The
government thinks that it will jam this bill through with all of
the advantages that will stack the deck toward the Liberals in
the next election. That is going to backfire. Let it be said
that this was first said here. I predict that, at minimum, the
Liberals will be brought down to a minority level government the
next time. At maximum, they will be where the Conservatives were
after the election of 1993.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 report stage and second reading of the bill now
before the House.
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It has come to my attention that some of the amendments that were
put forward by Reform, which will be voted on tonight, are
seconded or proposed by a person other than the member for North
Vancouver, myself, or the member for Elk Island.
Some of those members unfortunately are not able to be present
tonight.
1715
Earlier this day we co-operated in the House to allow the
transfer of some amendments from the NDP to another person's
name. Therefore I would ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to transfer all the Reform motions which are not in the
name of the hon. member for North Vancouver or the hon. member
for Elk Island to be moved by the hon. member for North Vancouver
and seconded by the hon. member for Elk Island.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the agreement of the House to proceed in such a way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion
No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 4 stands deferred.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to change
Motions No. 53 and 138 standing in the name of the hon. member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to that of the hon.
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the agreement of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In view of the fact there is this magnanimity in the House right
now, I think there was a misunderstanding previously. I would
like to ask that you again ask for unanimous consent for what the
hon. member for North Vancouver asked just moments ago.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It would be my
pleasure to ask the House again for its consent to the request of
the hon. member for North Vancouver and the hon. member for Elk
Island. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault):
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 6 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 25, 27 to
29, 32 and 33.
1720
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 8 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 39 to 41, 44 and 76.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 9 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 37, 38, 42, 43, 75 and 77.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion
No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on Motion
No. 12 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 21 stands deferred.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My records show that if Motion No. 12 were negatived, then we
would put the question on Motion No. 13.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The division on
Motion No. 12 was deferred.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, are you putting the
question on Motion No. 13 later or now?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Motion No. 12 was not
negatived, the division was deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 23 stands deferred.
1725
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 24 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 30 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 62. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 62 stands deferred.
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am going to try again. Hopefully the House will be friendlier
this time. I seek unanimous consent to reassign Motions Nos. 14,
15, 16 and 17 currently listed on the notice paper as sponsored
by the member for Calgary Centre to stand in the name of the
member for North Vancouver.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in such a way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault):
We will now proceed to Group No. 4.
Hon. John Manley (for Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 325, be amended
(a) by replacing line 18 on page 129 with the following:
“a person with authority to authorize its transmission.”
(b) by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 129 with the
following:
“sion if reasonable notice has first been given to the
person who authorized the transmission; or
(b) the removal by an employee
of a public authority of a sign, poster or banner”
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 143 the
following new clause:
“348.1 The definitions in this section apply in this Part.
“election advertising” has the same meaning as in section 319.
“government election advertising” means election advertising
published by or on behalf of the Government of Canada, but does
not include publications that are intended solely to inform the
public about the law, government programs or public
administration in a factual and non-partisan manner.
348.1.2 No person shall knowingly authorize, on behalf of the
Government of Canada, any government election advertising during
an election period or the three month period preceding the month
in which a general election is to be held pursuant to subsection
57(2.1).
348.1.3 For the purposes of sections 422 and 423, where
government election advertising is published in contravention of
section 348.1.2, the cost of the government election advertising
is deemed to be an election expense of the registered party that
forms the government immediately prior to the election.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing lines 25
to 33 on page 148 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing lines 37
and 38 on page 148 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 496, be amended by deleting lines 13
and 14 on page 214.
That Bill C-2, in Clause 496, be amended by deleting lines 29 to
31 on page 214.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 79. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 79 stands deferred.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
seek clarification on Motions Nos. 83 to 86, 136 and 137. I do
not believe that those were properly disposed of. Do we not have
to vote and do that preliminary part? I just want clarification.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We just moved the
motions and we will get to voting now.
The question is on Motion No. 82. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
82 lost on division.
(Motion No. 82 negatived)
1735
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on Motion No. 83. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 83 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 84 to 86, 136 and 137.
We will now proceed to Group No. 5.
Hon. John Manley (for the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 18.1, be amended by replacing lines 5
and 6 on page 13 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing line 32 on
page 24 with the following:
“surname, given names, sex, date of birth, occupation,”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing lines 10
and 11 on page 25 with the following:
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I heard you say Mr. Manley for Mr. Boudria, Mr. Boudria not being
present. Does that not require unanimous consent?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As we all know, it is
usual for a minister of the government to propose a motion in
lieu of one of his colleagues.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing lines 16
and 17 on page 30 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 35 with the following:
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 81, be amended
“81. (1) No person who is in control of an apartment building,
condominium building or other multiple residence building may
prevent a”
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a person who
is in control of a multiple residence building whose residents'
physical or emotional well-being may be harmed as a result of
permitting canvassing or campaigning referred to in that
subsection.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing lines 13
and 14 on page 41 with the following:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 47 with the following:
“(2.1) Each list referred to in subsection (2) shall set out
the number assigned to each elector, the sex of each elector and
the number assigned to the polling division to which the list
relates.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 107, be amended by adding after line 21
on page 47 the following:
“(3.1) Each returning officer shall provide each person acting
as a candidate's representative
(a) at an advanced polling station, with a printed copy of the
revised lists of electors provided to the deputy returning
officer of that station under subsection (2), and
(b) at a polling station, with a printed copy of the official
lists of electors provided to the deputy returning officer of
that station under subsection (2).”
1740
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 117, be amended by adding after line 32
on page 51 the following:
“(3.1) Ballots shall contain, beside each candidate's name, a
recent photograph of that candidate to be sent to the Chief
Electoral Officer no later than 25 days before polling day.”
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 61 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 29 on
page 61 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 144, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 61 with the following:
“who has doubts concerning the identity of a person intending
to vote at a”
(b) by replacing line 37 on page 61 with the following:
“show satisfactory proof of resi-”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 144, be amended by deleting lines 39 to
41 on page 61.
That Bill C-2, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing line 44 on
page 61 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 62 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 148, be amended by replacing line 38 on
page 62 with the following:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 149, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 45 and 46 on
page 62 with the following:
“unless (a) the elector gives the deputy returning officer a”
(b) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 63 with the following:
“(b) the deputy returning officer ascertains”
(c) by replacing line 10 on page 63 with the following:
“(c) the elector gives the deputy returning officer a”
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 195, be amended by adding, in the
English version, after line 5 on page 85 the following:
1745
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 253, be amended
(a) by replacing line 17 on page 102 with the following:
“polling stations and shall, subject to
subsection (1.1), appoint a deputy returning”
(b) by adding after line 18 on page 102 the following:
“(1.1) Every appointment of a poll clerk under subsection (1)
shall be made from the list most recently sent under subsection
35.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment and shall
be made impartially.”
That Bill C-2, in Clause 253, be amended
(a) by replacing line 17 on page 102 with the following:
“polling stations and shall, subject to subsection (1.1),
appoint a deputy returning”
(b) by adding after line 18 on page 102 the following:
“(1.1) Every appointment of a deputy returning officer made
under subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently
sent under subsection 34.1(6) to the returning officer making the
appointment and shall be made impartially.”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault):
The question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 18 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 45 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 55 stands deferred.
1750
The next question is on Motion No. 56. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 56 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 57 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 58. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 58 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 59. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 59 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 60. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 60 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 61.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Perhaps certain members need to be reminded that cellular phones
are not allowed in the House. I understand that there are
members opposite who use their cellular phones very freely in
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Laurentides is perfectly right. Cellular phones are allowed
neither in the House nor behind the curtains.
1755
The next question is on Motion No. 61. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 61 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 64. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No 64 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motions Nos. 65 and 67 to 70.
The next question is on Motion No. 66. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 66 stands deferred.
The next question of on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 71 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 72. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 72 stands deferred.
1800
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 73. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 73 stands deferred. I will now proceed to putting the
motions in Group No. 6.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 25 to
37 on page 29 and lines 1 to 5 on page 30 with the following:
“(a) the date of issue of the writ for every electoral district
shall be the second Monday in May that is nearest to four years
after the previous general election;
(b) polling day shall be 35 days after the issue
of the writ; and
(c) the proclamation shall fix a date for the return of the writ
to the Chief Electoral Officer, which date shall be the same for
all of the writs.
(3) Paragraph (2)(a) does not apply to a general election after
a dissolution of Parliament that follows the resignation or
dismissal of a goverment.
(4) The Prime Minister shall not advise the Governor
General to dissolve Parliament except
(a) prior to a general election that is to be held on a date set
by paragraph (2)(a), or
(b) at the time of tendering the resignation of the
government.”
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 57, be amended by adding after line 32
on page 29 the following:
“(2.1) Polling day in a general election shall be in the month
that contains the fourth anniversary of the date of the next
previous general election.
(2.2) Notwithstanding subsection (2.1), if Parliament is
dissolved as a result of the resignation of the government on a
day that is more than 60 days before the commencement of the
month referred to in subsection (2.1), the proclamation referred
to in subsection (1) shall fix a date for voting at the election
that is no less than 36 and no more than 60 days after the day on
which Parliament was dissolved.”
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 235 the
following new clause:
“537.1 The House of Commons shall, without delay after the
coming into force of this Act, designate a committee of that
House composed of members from all parties in the House to
(a) carry out a comprehensive study of voter turnout in Canadian
elections,
(b) to make recommendations in respect of changes to the Canada
Elections Act designed to increase the rate of voter
participation in Canadian elections, and
(c) to study the possibility of implementing a system of
proportional representation for Canadian elections.”
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 248 the
following new clause:
“562.1 Subsection 31(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
31. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the House of Commons, a writ
shall be issued between the 11th day and the 144th day after the
receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of the warrant for the
issue of a writ for the election of a member of the House.
(1.1) The date fixed for the election in the writ issued under
subsection (1) shall not be later than six months after the day
the Chief Electoral Officer received the warrant for the issue of
the writ under that subsection.”
1805
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will now put the
question on the motions in Group No. 6. The question is on
Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 53 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 138. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on
Motion No. 138 stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 142. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 142 stands deferred. The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the
bill.
Call in the members.
1830
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: It is possible that we will have a long
series of votes. I would urge all members to be patient. We
will go through them systematically. As always, if members
wish to rest they may go to the lobbies. That is where they will
be able to eat and drink tea, et cetera.
The first question is on Motion No. 1 in Group No. 1.
1840
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 105
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 140
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 87. The vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 89, 91 and 95 to 99 in Group No. 2.
1850
(The House divided on Motion No. 87, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Reynolds
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 87
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 153
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 87 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 89, 91 and 95 to 99 lost.
Naturally we take all hon. members at their word. After I have
begun to read whatever we will vote on then members should not
vote if they are not in their seats when I start. Members should
remain until the end of the vote so that we do not make any
mistakes.
The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1855
(The House divided on Motion No. 88, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Reynolds
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 88
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wilfert
| Wood – 124
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 88 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 92. A vote on this motion also applies
to Motion No. 93. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1905
(The House divided on Motion No. 92, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 71
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| McCormick
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wood – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 92 lost. I therefore
declare Motion No. 93 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 100.
[Translation]
The vote on this motion applies as well to Motions Nos. 112,
115, 117, 119, 132 and 134.
1910
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 100, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Nystrom
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jones
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Mark
| Marleau
| McCormick
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Normand
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Williams
| Wood – 130
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 100 lost. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 112, 115, 117, 119, 132 and 134
lost.
1915
The next question is on Motion No. 101. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1920
(The House divided on Motion No. 101, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Jacques
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Williams – 61
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Byrne
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Ianno
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Myers
| Normand
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 101
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 101 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 113. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 114, 116, 118, 143, 144 and 145. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1925
(The House divided on Motion No. 113 which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Grewal
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lee
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| Paradis
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 134
|
NAYS
Members
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brison
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Goldring
| Hanger
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Price
|
Schmidt
| Stinson
| Vautour
| Wayne
|
Williams
– 25
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 113 carried. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 114, 116, 118, 143, 144 and 145
carried.
1930
The next question is on Motion No. 120. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 121.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 120 carried. I
therefore declare Motion No. 121 carried.
(Motion No. 120 agreed to)
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 102.
1935
(The House divided on Motion No. 102, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Desjarlais
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Ianno
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Paradis
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Szabo
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 169
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 102 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 109.
1940
(The House divided on Motion No. 109, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Paradis
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Szabo
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 165
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 109 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 111.
1950
(The House divided on Motion No. 111, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Paradis
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 160
|
NAYS
Members
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Brison
| Casey
|
Doyle
| Harvey
| Jones
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Muise
| Price
| St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wayne – 14
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 111 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 122.
1955
(The House divided on Motion No. 122, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Folco
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Richardson
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 177
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 122 carried.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 123.
2000
(The House divided on the amendment to Motion No. 123, which was
agreed to on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Chan
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Folco
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Richardson
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 177
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to Motion No. 123
carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 123 as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
2005
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2010
(The House divided on Motion No. 123, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chan
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Obhrai
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 169
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 123, as amended,
carried. The next question is on Motion No. 128.
2015
(The House divided on Motion No. 128, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 74
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Manley
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Parrish
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pillitteri
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 93
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 128 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 129.
2025
(The House divided on Motion No. 129, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Blaikie
|
Canuel
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Duceppe
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lill
| Marceau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Nystrom
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 34
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Borotsik
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grose
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Price
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Schmidt
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 149
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 129 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 130. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 131, 133 and 135. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2030
(The House divided on Motion No. 130, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Bonwick
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dockrill
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
| Richardson
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| Steckle
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Konrad
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Muise
| Price
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 40
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 130 carried. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 131, 133 and 135 carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 139. A vote on this motion
applies as well to Motions Nos. 140 and 141.
2035
(The House divided on Motion No. 139, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Blaikie
|
Canuel
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lill
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 39
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Brison
| Bryden
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Lee
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Normand
|
Parrish
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Price
|
Proud
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wappel
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 97
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 139 lost. I declare Motions
Nos. 140 and 141 also lost.
2040
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 3. The question
is on Motion No. 4.
2045
[English]
During the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: We should, as much as possible, try to keep
track of our votes. We are now voting on the nays and as yet
the Progressive Conservative members have not declared which way
they are voting.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. That was my fault, not
the fault of the party. I want that to be understood.
Before we go any further, rather than missing your turn, please
pay attention to the way that you would like to vote. When we
call the yeas, those in favour please stand. When we call the nays,
those opposed please stand.
I am going to finish with those who wish to oppose this
particular section. For this time only I will come back to the
yeas, but we are not going to do this again.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bergeron
|
Blaikie
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lill
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 65
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Doyle
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Price
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Richardson
| Rock
| Saada
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
Steckle
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Whelan – 109
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
2055
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Gruending
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Price
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 57
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guay
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Matthews
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 125
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
2100
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bergeron
| Blaikie
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lill
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 68
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Doyle
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Matthews
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 115
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 25, 27 to 29, 32 and 33.
2105
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Debien
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lunn
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Sauvageau
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 47
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Saada
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 125
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 25, 27 to 29, 32 and 33 lost.
2110
The next question is on Motion No. 8. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 39 to 41, 44 and 76.
2115
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Lunn
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 24
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Canuel
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
Paradis
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 145
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 39 to 41, 44 and 76 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 37, 38, 42, 43, 75 and 77.
2120
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Konrad
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Price
| Schmidt
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 38
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fournier
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
Paradis
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 37, 38, 42, 43, 75 and 77 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 28, 31 and 34 to 36. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2125
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 64
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 113
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 28, 31 and 34 to 36 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
2130
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laurin
|
Lill
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Venne
| Williams – 58
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| DeVillers
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Finlay
|
Fry
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St - Jacques
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 106
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
2135
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2140
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 179
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 carried. The next
question is on Motion No. 21.
2145
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Williams – 78
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fry
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Maloney
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 101
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
21 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
2155
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wayne
|
Williams – 61
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Fry
|
Gallaway
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
23 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 24.
2200
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Wayne – 61
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dhaliwal
|
Dockrill
| Earle
| Fry
| Gallaway
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 108
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
24 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 30.
2205
(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Perron
| Price
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp – 69
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Dhaliwal
| Fry
| Gallaway
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Proulx
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 93
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 30
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 62.
2210
(The House divided on Motion No. 62, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 49
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Drouin
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fry
| Gallaway
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wood – 114
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
62 lost.
We will now proceed to vote on the motions in Group No. 4. The
question is on Motion No. 79.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. At
this point, you should be calling for the vote on Motion No. 14,
not on Motion No. 79.
2215
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In response to the question
by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, Motion No. 14 was never
put to the House. I think the hon. member referred to the old
list, not the most recent one.
We will continue therefore with the question.
2220
(The House divided on Motion No. 79, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Folco
|
Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 181
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 79
carried.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 83. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 84 to 86, 136 and 137.
2225
(The House divided on Motion No. 83, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Price
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wood – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
83 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 84 to 86, 136 and 137
lost.
[Translation]
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 5. The next
question is on Motion No. 18.
2235
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Bryden
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Williams
| Wood – 172
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
18 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 45. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 47.
2240
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Casey
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| DeVillers
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Gallaway
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pillitteri
| Price
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 99
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Hardy
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 69
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 45
carried. I also declare Motion No. 47 carried.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 55.
2245
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 55, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 73
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Copps
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Gagliano
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Normand
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 94
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 55
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 56.
2250
(The House divided on Motion No. 56, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Chatters
| Epp
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lunn
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Strahl
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 22
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bélair
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Bryden
| Calder
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Coderre
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Finlay
| Gagliano
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
| Gruending
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Laliberte
| Lee
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Muise
| Normand
|
Paradis
| Perron
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Proctor
| Robillard
|
Sauvageau
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 96
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
56 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 57.
2300
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 57, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gruending
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Robillard
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 119
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Chatters
| Epp
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Mark
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Strahl
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 13
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
57 carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I
would simply draw to your attention the fact that the House has
been very flexible and very indulgent with members all evening,
but there is one colleague, the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia, who is taking the liberty of eating ice cream
in the House. I invite you to call him to order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
I admit having seen nothing, but if someone is indeed eating
anything at all in the House, I would ask them to withdraw and
return subsequently.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. The matter
is closed.
The next question is on Motion No. 58.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We have heard from the whip of the Bloc Quebecois. He
seemed to indicate that there is a spirit of sweetness in the
House. I would like to know if we could apply some of these votes
so we might be able to get out of here to eat ice cream in the
lobby.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have ruled and the
matter is closed.
The next question is on Motion No. 58.
2305
(The House divided on Motion No. 58, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Eggleton
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pillitteri
| Price
|
Proud
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Vautour
| Wood – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 49
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
58 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 59.
2315
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 59, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Muise
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Sauvageau
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 57
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Bryden
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 101
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 59
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 60.
2320
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 60, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
|
Sauvageau
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 105
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
60 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 61.
2325
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 61, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Epp
| Gagnon
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Loubier
| Lunn
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 49
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gruending
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Ianno
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Laliberte
| Lee
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Pagtakhan
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wood
– 98
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 61
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 64. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 65 and 67 to 70.
2330
(The House divided on Motion No. 64, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dumas
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Loubier
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Perron
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 49
|
NAYS
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Blaikie
| Bryden
|
Cauchon
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Cotler
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Myers
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Patry
| Pettigrew
| Pillitteri
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 81
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion
No. 64 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 65 and 67 to 70 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 66.
2340
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 66, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Epp
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Strahl
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 25
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Asselin
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bryden
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Gagnon
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Myers
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Patry
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Pillitteri
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 110
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
66 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 71.
2345
(The House divided on Motion No. 71, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Epp
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Perron
| Sauvageau
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 48
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bellemare
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dion
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Fry
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gruending
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laliberte
|
Lee
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| Paradis
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wood – 82
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion
No. 71 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 72.
2350
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 72, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Calder
| Caplan
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Wood
– 148
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Perron
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis) – 24
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 72
carried.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 73.
2400
(The House divided on Motion No. 73, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Epp
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Proctor
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Cauchon
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Patry
| Perron
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 119
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion
No. 73 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 74. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2405
(The House divided on Motion No. 74, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Epp
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Lunn
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Schmidt
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 23
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Cauchon
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Eggleton
| Fry
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Mifflin
|
Minna
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Pagtakhan
|
Perron
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis – 87
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion
No. 74 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 53.
2410
(The House divided on Motion No. 53, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Gruending
| Hanger
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Nystrom
| Proctor
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 39
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Myers
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Patry
| Perron
| Pettigrew
| Price
|
Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 101
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion
No. 53 lost.
2415
The next question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2420
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Proctor
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Catterall
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Cotler
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| DeVillers
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Graham
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McWhinney
| Myers
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Perron
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
|
Price
| Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Whelan
| Wood – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 54
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 138.
2425
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No.138, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Price
| Proctor
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 74
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 114
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 138
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 142.
2435
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 142, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Price
| Proctor
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| 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
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 123
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion
No. 142 lost.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-2, as amended, be concurred in
at report stage with further amendments and read a second time.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2440
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| 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
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 124
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Nystrom
| Price
| Proctor
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 70
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will
be no Private Members' Business hour today. Accordingly, the
order will be rescheduled for another sitting.
It being 12.44 a.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.44 a.m.)