CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 14, 1995
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13803
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13803
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13804
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13804
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13804
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13804
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13804
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13805
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13805
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13806
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13807
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13807
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13807
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13808
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 13808
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 13808
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 13808
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13811
Bill C-98. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13812
Bill C-333. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13812
Bill S-9. Motion for first reading agreed to 13812
Motion for Concurrence in 82nd Report 13812
(Motion agreed to.) 13812
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 13812
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 13814
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13814
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions Nos. 5 to 17 inclusive. 13816
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13819
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 13822
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 13828
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 13832
Motion Nos. 18 and 20 13832
(Motion negatived.) 13832
Division on motion deferred 13832
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred 13833
(Motion negatived.) 13833
Motions Nos. 22, 23 and 25 13833
Division on Motions Nos. 22, 23, and 25 deferred 13833
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 13834
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 179 13834
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 87;Nays, 140 13835
Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas, 48;Nays, 180 13836
Motion No. 6 negatived on division: Yeas, 53;Nays, 174 13837
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 59;Nays, 166 13838
Motion No. 8 negatived on division: Yeas, 65;Nays, 157 13839
Motion No. 9 negatived on division: Yeas, 33;Nays, 114 13840
Motion No. 10 negatived on division: Yeas, 37;Nays, 178 13841
Motion No. 11 negatived on division: Yeas, 24;Nays, 105 13842
Motion No. 12 negatived on division: Yeas, 22;Nays, 74 13843
Motion No. 13 negatived on division: Yeas, 6;Nays, 67 13844
Motion No. 14 agreed to on division: Yeas, 91;Nays, 62 13845
Motion No. 15 negatived on division: Yeas, 33;Nays, 79 13846
(Motion No. 16 withdrawn.) 13847
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 150;Nays, 12 13847
Motion No. 17, as amended, agreed to on division:Yeas, 158; Nays, 14 13848
Motion No. 20 negatived on division: Yeas, 59;Nays, 116 13849
Motion No. 19 agreed to on division: Yeas, 80;Nays, 36 13849
Motion No. 22 negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 75 13850
Motion No. 24 agreed to on division: Yeas, 107;Nays, 44 13851
Motion for concurrence 13852
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 167; Nays, 50. 13852
Bill C-69. Consideration of senate amendments 13853
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 13868
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 13875
13799
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 14, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to thank the city of Calgary for hosting
MusicFest Canada 95.
MusicFest Canada is the largest educational music festival in
North America. With school choirs, jazz ensembles and concert
bands from coast to coast, over 7,000 students were welcomed
by the people of Calgary. Their warm hospitality was
appreciated by all schools attending this event including Huron
Heights Secondary School which is in my riding.
The Huron Jazz Ensembles conducted by Kevin Anderson
represented Huron Heights with class in their role as
ambassadors of the York-Simcoe region in this prestigious
festival. Both c'est jazz, Huron's vocal jazz ensemble, and After
Hours, the senior jazz band, were honoured with silver awards
for their splendid performances.
In individual categories, Huron Heights again placed among
the nation's best. Andrew Jones was named lead trombonist in
the festival's Canadian All-Star Jazz Band. Andrew was also
honoured with a prestigious General Motors award of
excellence scholarship.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
cuts announced at Telefilm threaten successful festivals like the
international film festival in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the
Carrousel festival in Rimouski, which will lose their subsidies
entirely.
These festivals, however, have proven their success, often on
shoestring budgets, with the quality of their events and their
popularity with the public. They are local initiatives that are the
pride of their region and of all of Quebec.
Telefilm's director, François Macerola, revealed his true
colours with the dispassionate comment that the cuts had to be
made somewhere. Clearly, the aim is to cut in the regions and
concentrate everything in the major centres to benefit the
money-making cultural events and industries. That is what it is
all about. Quebecers cannot imagine their future as a people
without the support and vitality of all the regions in Quebec.
This is another example of Quebec solidarity that the federal
government fails to grasp. We wonder whether the directors
should not attend one of the Minister of Canadian Heritage's
$2,000 a plate dinners to ensure the survival of the regional
festivals. When is the minister's next dinner?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate a select group of men and women we as
parliamentarians have come to know on a professional basis.
The people of whom I speak are the men and women of the
House of Commons security services which is celebrating its
75th anniversary this year.
The history of the security services may be traced from the
original two parliamentary door guards appointed to keep watch
on the newly constructed departmental buildings in 1865
through the creation in 1868 of the Dominion Police Force
which was absorbed into the Royal North West Mounted Police
in 1920, to the creation of the House of Commons protective
staff. In recent years, in recognition of the broader scope of its
activities, the House changed the title to security services. It has
and continues to provide an excellent service, not only to the
members of this House, but to all who enter these buildings.
I invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating
members of the House of Commons security services on a job
well done as well as wishing them continued success in the years
to come.
13800
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the battle lines continue to grow each
day concerning who is right and who is wrong in analysing the
Canadian economy. On one side people such as Lloyd Atkinson,
former head economist at the Bank of Montreal, are saying that
unless the Bank of Canada eases up on interest rates, our
economy will be heading toward a recession within a year. On
the other side is Bank of Canada Governor Gordon Thiessen who
feared a move to decrease the interest rate because it would
undermine his bank's inflation fighting credentials.
Still other noted economists strongly believe that the Bank of
Canada will have no choice but to either lower interest rates or
let the dollar weaken to keep the economy afloat. Yesterday's
unexpected announcement by the Bank of Canada of a reduction
rate by 19 basis points to 7.19 per cent was a welcome relief for
Canadians. Our standard of living has steadily declined over the
past four years. We need a made in Canada interest rate policy.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
bringing to the attention of the House the plight of lesser known
diseases is neither exciting nor titillating, but the tragedies they
leave in their wake are real.
This is Spina Bifida Week in Canada. This illness occurs
within the first four weeks of pregnancy and causes various
levels of permanent nerve damage and lower limb paralysis.
One in every 750 children born in Canada has spina bifida.
We now know that giving folic acid to a woman during early
pregnancy can reduce the risk of spina bifida in the fetus. The
Spina Bifida Association would like to raise awareness of the
benefits of folic acid among women of child bearing age and
among the population in general.
In 1994-95 Health Canada contributed $55,000 to assist the
national level of the Spina Bifida Association of Canada in its
many developmental, promotional and service activities across
the country.
I congratulate the Spina Bifida Association and its many
volunteers for their quiet but excellent work, and ask members
to join me-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, culinary writer Marcella Hazan refers to it
as the best of its kind in the world. A Cornell University study
called it the best all round training school.
The success story they are referring to is the Stratford Chefs
School. The school is operated by Stratford restaurant owners
James Morris and Eleanor Kane. From November to March,
their restaurant kitchens are transformed into classrooms and
their cooks into teachers.
By learning from professionals in a working atmosphere,
graduates are able to make the transition to the workforce
without missing a step. Today, graduates are being snapped up
by the world's hottest restaurants in Germany, England, New
York and Japan.
Considering the 100 per cent employment record of the
school, there is little mystery surrounding the yearly flood of
applications to fill the 65 available positions.
I congratulate the Stratford Chefs School and wish it
continuing success in the international sphere.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
damning revelations were made yesterday by Dr. Perrault in
connection with the work of the Krever Commission.Dr. Perrault, formerly of the Red Cross, stated that only one
national political authority could have resolved the impasse at
the time and prevented the infection of hundreds of
hemophiliacs.
For the first time, Dr. Perrault indicated that this political
authority was the federal Minister of Health, since the products
used by hemophiliacs were clearly under federal jurisdiction.
(1405)
Despite these allegations, Justice Krever still does not intend
to ask the federal politicians involved in the matter to testify
before the commission. Why this stubbornness? Whose interests
are being served by not having this whole disturbing business
come to light? The Bloc Quebecois is wondering about the real
reasons keeping the whole truth on this terrible tragedy from
coming out.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Waterloo asked me
when I was going to poll my constituents on Bill C-68 and
follow the results. I did. The results of an impartial question
were 84 per cent opposed to government legislation.
13801
Last night after the Liberals rammed through the passage of
Bill C-68, a CTV program held a phone in poll asking whether
or not the public supported the government legislation. The
program Canada Tonight which is broadcast from Vancouver
to Toronto made use of two 1-900 numbers for the listening
audience to phone in and cast their vote. Twenty-three thousand
six hundred people made their wishes known. Eighty-four per
cent opposed the government legislation.
For Liberal backbenchers who wanted to represent their
constituents, the Prime Minister had a warning in caucus this
morning. Vote against me once, that is once too often. Vote
against me twice, you are out. That is Liberal democracy.
The Minister of Justice thought his problems were over last
night. They are only just beginning.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
usually not my style to rub salt in a wound, but after sitting in the
House last week listening to all the Ontario Liberal MPs state
how they were going to sweep the provincial election and wipe
out the Conservatives, I feel it is time for me to have my say.
Therefore, first and foremost, I am serving a special lunch
tomorrow in my office. I invite all of them to come. They will
eat crow as the entrée.
Also, it is truly sad to hear the Reform members taking credit
for the Conservative party win when they did not get a single
solitary Reform member candidate elected.
Let us give credit where credit is due. Let us congratulate
Premier-elect Mike Harris and the PC party on such a decisive
victory.
All I have to say to the Liberals and the Reformers is that in
1997 I will see them once again. I will be serving the entrée of
crow.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Minister of Health presented Canada
volunteer awards to several outstanding Canadians. Among
them was Brian Ducharme of Tecumseh, Ontario in the riding of
Windsor-St. Clair.
Brian Ducharme has served as a volunteer board member with
Hiatus House in Windsor since 1981. Hiatus House is a shelter
for battered women and their children. Because of the
contributions of Brian Ducharme and others like him, it is a
shelter with a difference. Indeed, it is the premier facility of its
kind in Canada.
I am proud to be able to acknowledge Mr. Ducharme and his
contributions in this House.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week we paid tribute to the tremendous
contribution of the federal Public Service of Canada. With all
the pain associated with downsizing where many employees are
deemed surplus and unnecessary, it is critical during this
difficult period that we dispel the many stereotypes that exist
about our public service.
It is also critical particularly at this time that we offer support
to those public servants and their families who have been
affected. We are at a crossroads in our history where the role and
direction of government is being scrutinized.
Canada is a great nation that is making great strides to remain
competitive in an ever changing global marketplace. Canada's
public service is known as one of the best in the world. All
Canadians benefit from the many services they deliver which
makes Canada the number one country in which to live.
Today I salute the many public servants in my riding of
Cumberland-Colchester. I thank them for their dedicated
quality service and their commitment to finding better ways to
improve Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to announce that Mrs. Claire Culhane of Vancouver
East has been selected as one of the 23 recipients of the 1995
Canada Volunteer Medal and Certificate of Honour.
Mrs. Culhane is a respected and admired Canadian who is a
competent fighter for justice. Some of her campaigns against
injustice include: anti-Franco activities in Spain in the 1930s;
anti-poverty activities in Montreal in the 1940s; assisting her
husband with the Shipyard Labour Organization in 1944;
leading the Workers Education Association in 1945; and
opposing Canada's involvement in the Vietnam war.
(1410 )
She is currently forming the Association in Defence of the
Wrongly Convicted. She became involved in the support group
for the wrongful imprisonment of Christine Lamont in Brazil.
She has written books which are required reading for
criminology courses in many of Canada's universities.
Mrs. Culhane received the commemorative medal for the
125th anniversary of Canada's Confederation and is an honorary
member of the British Columbia Humanist Association.
13802
I would like to thank Mrs. Culhane for her outstanding work
and congratulate her for her many achievements.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, twelve
Canadian peacekeepers are among the hostages still being held
by Bosnian Serbs, while several other UN peacekeepers and
observers were released yesterday.
We hope that they will not be used as the ultimate bargaining
chip and demand that they be released immediately and
unconditionally.
We deeply regret the rather low key involvement of the
Canadian government in this crisis. Not only is Canada not a
member of the contact group, which considerably limits its
influence, but it has no policy regarding a Canadian contribution
to the new rapid reaction force.
Such a lack of leadership could harm not only Canada's
reputation but also the efforts of peacekeepers on the site, as the
Bosnian army prepares to launch an offensive north of Sarajevo,
which could lead to another crisis.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41
destroys the principle that as Canadians we all stand equal
before the law. Section 718.2 of this bill would have the courts
administer greater penalties for violent crimes committed
against certain groups identified by the justice minister in this
bill.
The courts already take aggravating and mitigating
circumstances into consideration when determining the penalty
to impose on an offender. This section tells the court that some
acts of violence are to be taken more seriously than others
because of who the victims are. This creates special status and is
unacceptable.
Section 718.2 serves absolutely no purpose other than to grant
an opportunity for the justice minister to make a politically
correct statement. The Criminal Code, the law of this land, is not
the place for the government to be making politically correct
statements. The Criminal Code must uphold the most
fundamental principle of law: that all Canadians, all citizens
must stand equal before the law.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of France has just announced that it plans to resume
nuclear testing in the South Pacific, ending a moratorium on
testing that has held since 1992.
The statement of principles from the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty signed in May of this year commits all
nuclear weapons states to exercise utmost restraint on nuclear
testing pending the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
The French announcement is clearly a step in the opposite
direction.
The Canadian government was one of the many nations that
pushed to make this treaty binding and permanent. Now, just one
month after that signing, the spirit of the agreement is
threatened.
I call on the Canadian government to show that it means what
it says by protesting France's decision and to restate this
country's commitment to a ban on all nuclear testing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Deputy Premier of Quebec took the opportunity,
while visiting the Parliament in Strasbourg, to make waves and
try to discredit Canada over the issue that has become known as
the turbot war.
``We were extremely disappointed'', he said,``to see our
country reduced to opening fire on fishing vessels from friendly
countries''.
Must we remind the Deputy Premier of Quebec of the
extraordinary support received by Canada both at home and
abroad in this conflict? Perhaps he should be reminded that the
Bloc Quebecois and a very large majority of Quebecers also
supported our position.
These remarks on the part of the PQ Deputy Premier are
unjustified and reek of separatist expediency. A certain
premier's personal totem is vibrant weasel; did we witness the
birth of the thoughtful catfish, yesterday?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
June 19 the city of St. Catharines will honour one of its own with
a special certificate of merit for the heroic events of Carol
Colangelo.
Last September a little girl fell into the water off the west pier
in Port Dalhousie. The little girl's aunt who could not swim saw
Carol Colangelo and her husband and ran to them for help.
(1415 )
Carol kicked off her shoes and jumped in. Four-year old
Kaitlyn Theobald was unconscious and sinking when Carol
13803
reached her. The heavy clothing Carol was wearing made it
difficult to rescue Kaitlyn. With the help of her husband Ron,
both Carol and Kaitlyn were pulled to safety.
I join with the city of St. Catharines in congratulating Carol
Colangelo for her heroic actions.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish you
would have waited until I had finished my statement before you
did that. It makes it more difficult for me.
I would like to publicly thank the members of the House and
the constituency of Nepean for the many kindnesses shown to
me these past few months during my surgery and illness. I have
been overwhelmed with letters, phone calls, flowers and gifts,
personal testimonies, prayers, love and good wishes. I have
quickly come to realize how important it is to have friends like I
have. For this I thank you.
I must also thank the surgical team headed by Dr. Rolando Del
Maestro of Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario. I am so
grateful that the professionalism of his team has allowed me to
quickly return to this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Welcome home, Beryl. I like your hat.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we all like the hat and the person
under it. I am very happy and very proud that she is back in the
House. Welcome.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13803
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in a report published today, the National Council of
Welfare launched a stinging condemnation of the Canada social
transfer. According to the report, this brainchild of the Minister
of Finance was the worst initiative in 30 years because it
threatened to destroy the very foundation of social services and
programs in Canada. According to the Council, the reform of
transfer payments would inevitably lead to a reduction in
spending on social assistance.
My question is of course directed to the father of this
brainchild, the Minister of Finance.
Does the minister agree, as the Council stated, that by
reducing federal contributions to social programs funding, the
Canada social transfer will cause the provinces to reduce their
budgets for social assistance and make the most vulnerable in
our society even poorer?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I liked the
preamble much better than the question.
[Translation]
The fact is that the Canada social transfer as such will not
involve any cuts in transfers to the provinces. What it does
provide, whether there are cuts or not, is far more flexibility for
the provinces in deciding how to meet the needs of their
residents. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition
should complain that we are giving the provinces the flexibility
they want.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance and its minister seem to
live on another planet, because if they were right about this
explanation, it would mean that the demand for health care has
dropped and that to adjust to a changing world, in other words, to
a reduction in the need for health care and social services, the
Department of Finance would, very sensibly, have reduced its
contribution.
That, however, is not the case and I wonder how the minister,
who is unable to justify the reduction in the Canada social
transfer, would be able to justify the new cuts totalling $1.6
billion in the Unemployment Insurance Plan, cuts that will have
a more severe impact on the regional economies of Quebec,
which has more seasonal workers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, there
will be no cuts in the Canada social transfer concept. The
transfer is a concept that will give the federal government a
chance to maintain its transfers and at the same time give the
provinces more flexibility.
I think the Prime Minister was very clear about this last week
when he said, in referring to medicare, that it would put the
federal government in a position where it could protect and also
maintain cash transfers which, according to a timeframe
established some years ago, will disappear if no action is taken
immediately.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I know that political speeches and responses in the
House may be somewhat complex and sometimes unnecessarily
so, but this is a real masterpiece.
How can the federal government tell us that Canada transfers
will help the federal government protect medicare, for instance,
13804
while in the same breath it says that it intends to make
substantial cuts in the government's contribution to medicare? I
would appreciate an answer.
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister was very clear last week, as was the minister of HRD,
as I was, that the cash contributions of the federal government
are steadily declining, according to a schedule that was
established a long time ago.
With this particular measure we have put the federal
government in a position where it will be able to flat line those
cash contributions over a period of time while maintaining the
federal government's contribution to the very important social
programs of the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a year
ago, rumours were flying that the Canada assistance plan was
headed for the chopping block. In the last budget, it was
announced that the cash payments to the provinces for social
programs would be cut by $7 billion within two years, which
was the amount previously allocated to social assistance.
Does the Minister of Finance confirm that the Canada social
transfer's sole objective is to progressively reduce to zero the
federal government's contribution to social assistance funding,
while preserving its ability to continue setting national
standards?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
premise is totally wrong. First of all, the provinces, including
Quebec, started to cut well before the federal government tabled
its budget.
Second, for this year and next year, not only does the budget
not prescribe any cuts but it actually increases federal transfers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin: I must tell you that the hon. member's figures
are wrong. I cannot answer a question based on an invalid
premise.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
speechless. In case he forgot, the Minister of Finance announced
$7 billion in cuts in his last budget. Today, he tells us that there
are no cuts.
An hon. member: No, he says there are increases.
Mr. Gauthier: Well, I am dumbfounded. Mr. Speaker, I will
give the minister a second chance.
(1425)
Since the funds allocated to the provinces for social
assistance will dry up in two years because of the federal cuts
announced in his budget, will the Minister of Finance frankly
admit that it would have been impossible for him to impose
federal standards on the provinces had he not invented the
Canada social transfer ruse?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member says
he has a little difficulty understanding French, a little difficulty
understanding Latin. My Latin is not too good either.
Let me say it again in English. The Leader of the Opposition
says his colleague has no difficulty understanding math. He now
says I have got the wrong person.
Since the government took office, transfers to the provinces
have increased. Transfers to the provinces have not been cut for
this year and in fact are going up.
Ultimately there will be a cut but that is no excuse for
provincial action. The fact is any province, including the
province of Quebec, has as much money to work with today as it
did when we took office. Let us be very clear about that.
As far as social programs are concerned, a mechanism has
been put in place that stops their continuous erosion all the way
down to zero. There have been reductions but we have set in
place a mechanism and any province that wants to sit down with
us or the minister of HRD and is prepared to look at national
values, that mechanism is in place.
There is a pre-condition to all of that. That is the goodwill and
the understanding that this is one country and that this country
wants to build, not destroy.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, another day and yet another troubling revelation about
the heritage minister and his dollars for contracts dinner in
Montreal.
André Bureau, the former head of the CRTC and the current
president of The Astral Broadcasting Group, has now revealed
that he received an invitation to the minister's private money
gathering event, as did his business partner, Harold Greenberg.
Astral has direct business dealings with both the CRTC and with
the heritage department. Mr. Bureau and Mr. Greenberg,
however, could see a potential conflict of interest in the dinner
and to their credit declined the invitation.
If André Bureau, a former and respected public servant, aware
of the federal code of ethics, could clearly see the potential for a
conflict of interest in the minister's dinner, why is it that the
minister, the Prime Minister and the government cannot see that
conflict?
13805
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could ask the leader of the Reform Party in return
why the hon. member cannot see that this is an open and
transparent event because of the way the donations are reported
according to the election law of Canada. Therefore what the
hon. member is looking for is simply not there.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are wondering why the government
pretends it cannot see the ethical issue which is involved here.
Legitimate political fundraisers involving a minister do not
target clients having business or regulatory dealings with the
minister's department.
The heritage minister was clearly in the wrong and the
government is making matters worse by pretending that it does
not see the wrong.
By the ethical standards of the red book, is it right or is it
wrong for ministers to participate in political fundraisers
targeted to clients having business or regulatory dealings with
their departments? Is it right or is it wrong?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's
question.
Ministers take part in fundraising activities just as the leader
of that party takes part in fundraising activities. It is a normal
part of the political process in this country to take part in
fundraising activities.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister or House
leader can present themselves to this House as the guardians of
ethics in government unless they can tell right from wrong and
unless they are willing to act on discernments of that kind. That
is what ethics are all about.
I ask the government House leader one more time, and I will
say it slowly so it is clear. Is it right or wrong for ministers to
participate in political fundraisers targeted to people having
business or regulatory dealings with their departments? If it is
wrong, will the heritage minister resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's
question. It is clear when it comes to this topic that it is not the
hon. member's strong suit.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. In its
recently tabled report on Bill C-76, the Liberal majority on the
finance committee states, and I quote: ``The Committee
recognizes the obligation of the Minister of Human Resources
Development to develop, through mutual consent with the
provinces, principles and objectives for the social assistance
and post-secondary education components of the CHST''.
What does the minister intend to do with the finance
committee's recommendation, which insists on his obligation to
develop national standards for education and social assistance?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we set out very clearly in
the budget what the process would be.
We will be inviting the provinces to meet with us to discuss
how we can arrive through mutual consent at a useful and
effective set of principles that will help guide the country in a
united, co-operative, integrated way to reach our social goals. It
is really based upon good faith that there is a real willingness by
all provinces and the federal government to come together and
arrive at a way in which we can effectively combine our
resources to target them to the groups of people who are in most
serious need and at the same time make sure we can protect and
maintain the fundamental principles underlying our system of
health care and social assistance.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister has yet to get together with his provincial counterparts,
will he now pledge not to impose new principles or national
standards if a province objects to them?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody
should prejudge the process. As I read the recollections, I was
very interested in the comments of the minister in Quebec who is
responsible for employment matters, who talked about the need
to come together to look at more active programming for
employment and to try to find ways in which we can facilitate
investment in individuals.
This is the same thing we have been saying for a year and a
half. It is nice to see that there is now a coming together of minds
on this matter from the Government of Quebec and that it now
shares the point of view that we need reform and reorganization.
13806
I am sure that if we can organize the goodwill we will find
effective ways to give Canadians a common, co-operative,
united framework to approach some of our most important
social concerns.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday it was revealed that Private David
Brocklebank, who was acquitted of all charges in the death of
Shidane Arone, was charged because of his conduct in the First
Airborne video.
Despite the minister's promises of openness, these new
charges were kept secret from the public and even from the
Somalia commission itself.
How can the public have any confidence in the government's
commitment to the Somalia inquiry when it insists on acting
behind its back?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Private
Brocklebank was informed, as was his counsel, on April 7 that
two charges were to be laid under the National Defence Act for
conduct unbecoming a member of the Canadian military.
(1435 )
Those charges were held in abeyance pending a legal review
of the case to see whether or not proceeding with that
disciplinary action would prejudice the commission.
The legal opinion was that proceeding with this would not
prejudice the commission. As a result, the charge was allowed to
go on in conformity with the normal practices of the National
Defence Act and the nature of this particular offence, which in
no way related directly to the criminal charges and others related
to the death of Mr. Arone.
Therefore, this particular matter was allowed to proceed and a
summary hearing was heard. This was all in accordance with
normal practices. It is not anyone's intention to go behind
anyone's back. We did this in the normal way.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand it, this was a weapons handling charge.
If such charges are not included in the Somalia commission
inquiry, they should be.
The minister has frequently told this House, and yesterday
said it to the face of a tearful wife and mother, that he cannot
prejudice the inquiry. In my view, keeping the Brocklebank
charges secret for two months prejudices the inquiry. Mark
Boland's imprisonment prejudices the inquiry. Barry
Armstrong's sudden deployment to Bosnia prejudices the
inquiry.
How can the minister defend the contradiction between his
professed wish for openness and his department's policy to lock
up, shut down, or ship off eyewitnesses to the events in Somalia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject
categorically all of the accusations contained in the hon.
member's question.
It seems that the hon. member, for whom I have great respect
as an individual, and the members of his party are more
interested in putting partisan considerations before justice.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
During the year and a half that the federal government has
been in power, the reforms it has proposed have had only one
purpose: to increase its inefficient intervention in several of the
provinces' jurisdictions. More than ever, flexible federalism
means that Ottawa decrees and the provinces must
accommodate.
Will the minister acknowledge that the Canada social transfer
not only offers nothing new or of interest to Quebecers, but also,
on the contrary, that it brings the federal government closer and
closer to its dream of creating a highly centralized Canada,
which is unacceptable to Quebecers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
has contradicted himself in his own question. What we are in the
process of doing with the Canada social transfer is, first of all,
keeping the fiscal burden under control, which will enable the
federal government to continue transferring money for social
programs to the provinces.
Second, what we are trying to do is give the provinces the
flexibility they need to adapt their own programs to the needs of
the people. I must say that I find it utterly absurd that a Bloc
Quebecois member is actually criticizing the federal
government for having given more power and flexibility to the
provinces.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the real contradiction lies in the fact that it is
irresponsible to impose national standards without pledging the
corresponding funds.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crête: Will the minister not admit that everything that
his government has done since it was elected, the single window
13807
concept, the rationalization of employment centres and the
creation of the human resources investment fund, goes totally
and utterly against the consensus in Quebec, which is that
Quebec must gain full power over labour?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker.
Everything we have done, everything we have said, whether it
was regarding single window service, the fund for entrepreneurs
or community initiatives, has addressed the requests and wishes
of local communities.
Not only are we in the process of decentralizing, but we are
doing it because that is what the regions have requested.
[English]
Let us be very clear what the member said in the preamble to
his statement. He said that he, on behalf of his party, was against
national standards in the CHST. The most important national
standards in the CHST are the principles of the Canada Health
Act. This government stands behind the Canada Health Act and
so do the people of Quebec. He had better learn that.
* * *
(1440 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this highway 104 controversy is not going to go away, much to
the dismay of the minister of public works. As I stand here, a
lawsuit is being initiated by the Citizens for Fairness in the
Wentworth Valley of Nova Scotia naming the minister of public
works as a defendant. This moves us not only into morally and
ethically wrong behaviour but also illegal actions.
Since the Prime Minister refuses to call in the ethics
counsellor, why will this government not cut its losses on this
mess now and commit to returning the misappropriated funds
back to the Wentworth Valley bypass project on highway 104?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question of allocation of funds to highway
construction, as the hon. member should know by now, is a
provincial responsibility.
In the event that the Government of Nova Scotia or any other
government in the country wishes to discuss the reallocation of
funds, we will be prepared to do that, as we have done on dozens
of occasions as a federal government over the past 10 years.
The case in question the hon. member refers to is a situation
that arose when the Government of Nova Scotia decided to
reallocate funds within the existing agreement. Section 12 of
that agreement allows for the reallocation of funds by
consensus.
If the Government of Nova Scotia wishes to reallocate funds
to this or any other highway, as is the case with any other
province where a similar agreement exists, we will look at it,
because that is what the hon. member often refers to as being
flexible federalism.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor gets about as much work
as the Maytag repairman. The only difference is the Liberal
machine is in desperate need of repair.
I wonder if corruption is a federal or a provincial
responsibility.
Since the Minister of Transport is also going to be named as a
defendant, I will place the question to him. Will he recommend
to the Prime Minister that he tell the public works minister to
return the money he diverted to buy votes in his riding or at least
step down pending the results-
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would urge you not to impugn
motives of any kind in your questions.
I would ask the hon. member perhaps if he could rephrase that
question, but just the question with no preamble.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I did not mean
to suggest the minister of public works would buy votes.
Would the Prime Minister be willing to look at the situation
and ask the minister of public works to step down pending the
investigation of the auditor general's report, pending litigation,
pending the complaints from the Reform Party, pending
Liberal-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to have the hon. member stand in this House and
lecture us on ethics is somewhat akin to listening to a tom cat
talk about morality.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House in response to a question from
the official opposition, the Minister of Finance admitted, for the
first time and publicly, that Canada's economy is in a slowdown
and might not recover until next year.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Given that, for the first time, the minister is admitting that the
economy has slowed down and that, furthermore, there has been
no net creation of jobs in the past six months, is the minister
13808
prepared to drop his lax approach and come up with some
concrete support and job creation measures?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said
the economy had clearly slowed down, I did not say that the
slowdown would last the entire year. In the opinion of most
economists, it is a pause, and we should see a recovery in the
third and fourth quarters.
Having said that, as I repeated yesterday, I point out that over
220,000 jobs were created in the private sector, for example, in
the past year-a fairly substantial number.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, the economy
is in a slowdown at the moment. In his recent budget, he
predicted that the 1996 slowdown would be even worse than this
year's. Most economists are talking about a possible recession
in Canada for 1997.
I would ask the Minister of Finance where the unemployed
should look for hope.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development- Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hope may be
found in the infrastructure program the government has set up.
Hope may be found in the job creation programs of the Minister
of Human Resources Development. Hope may be found in the
programs of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and of the
Minister of Agriculture. Hope may be found in the high tech
policies of the Minister of Industry. Hope may be found in the
policy of this government, which reversed the policies of the
previous government in order to give Canada a real future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
director of the mountain parks division of the department of
heritage recently accepted a Japanese junket courtesy of CP
Hotels. Canadian Pacific, it turns out, has major development
plans in the Jasper and Banff national parks, which come under
the mountain parks division of the heritage department.
Why was a top Parks Canada official allowed to accept a nine
day junket from a corporation which has direct business
dealings with his division?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
happy to take note of the question and get back to the hon.
member.
Is the hon. member suggesting that parks officials should not
be promoting tourism in his region?
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, given
the ethical standards set by the minister it is a wonder public
servants did not ask CP for a donation to the heritage minister's
dinner.
The actions of the director of mountain parks clearly violate
Treasury Board guidelines and seriously compromise the
heritage department's objectivity.
Will the ethics counsellor be investigating the matter or is the
Prime Minister planning to handle this one personally?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
doubtful the health budget can cover the cost of therapy for all
the conspiracy syndromes members of the Reform Party have.
I understand the deputy minister is reviewing the matter to
which the hon. member has referred and I will be happy to
inform him of the results as soon as they arrive.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, during his visit to the European Parliament,
Quebec's deputy premier openly condemned Canada for its
action against Spain in the turbot dispute. This new change of
direction by Mr. Landry goes against the support expressed by
his leader, Mr. Parizeau, regarding our intervention, as well as
by the Bloc Quebecois.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Can the minister assure Canadian fishermen, particularly
those in Quebec, that Mr. Landry's change of direction will have
little impact on the issue of overfishing off Canada's coasts?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent
question.
On behalf of all members in the House, including I am sure
members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we are shocked at
the statement of the deputy premier.
An hon. member: Over here in the Reform Party.
Mr. Tobin: Nobody would take the risk of speaking for you
fellows.
We are shocked that the deputy premier of Quebec in
Strasbourg condemned the Canadian government position in the
13809
turbot dispute when it is clear all members of the House in all
parties strongly support these measures to protect Canadian
fishermen.
[Translation]
It is clear to me, and to Canadian and Quebec fishermen, that
Mr. Landry's positions-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tobin: Just a second, please. This is very important. Mr.
Landry seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
When he appeared before the transport committee, the
minister refused to guarantee the survival of CN's subsidiary,
AMF, which employs over 1,300 workers in
Pointe-Saint-Charles, one of the poorest areas in Canada. The
minister even said that AMF's situation was precarious.
Given the economic situation which currently prevails in
Montreal, and particularly in Pointe-Saint-Charles, will the
minister tell us why he refuses to guarantee that AMF will
survive and that its 1,300 employees will not lose their jobs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that AMF's situation is precarious. I
hope that the hon. member will realize that other regions in the
country have experienced the same situation. As a New
Brunswick native, I can tell you that we had the same problem in
Moncton, when CN decided to pull out of there, a decision which
affected over 1,000 employees.
AMF's best chance of survival is to find a solution to CN's
current problem in its negotiations with an international
company interested in moving there. A solution must not only be
found to the impasse related to the acquisition costs, but also to
the productivity of that plant.
We all recognize the problem which exists at AMF, and I hope
that CN and the eventual buyer will find a solution to the
difficulties which, so far, have been a major obstacle.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance, who is
responsible for regional development in Quebec, agree that
saving 1,300 jobs in Pointe-Saint-Charles should be at least as
important for the federal government as buying capital assets to
make CN more interesting for its future buyers? Beyond the
minister's rhetoric, where is the hope for these 1,300 workers?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the possibility of commercializing CN is a very serious
issue. So is, of course, the future of AMF, both for its workers
and for greater Montreal. We are all aware of that, and every
effort is being made to try to find a solution.
We will continue to co-operate with CN, in the hope of
finding a way to reach an agreement which would ensure the sale
and survival of AMF, which is a very important industry for the
Montreal region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week it was revealed the government is prepared to
allow Hughes Aircraft to delete three main features of its
contract to provide a new automated air traffic control system
and stick Transport Canada with the cost of training and
installation which was included in the original contract and
lease us the equipment we were supposed to own.
(1455)
Also, the completion date has been pushed back two years. To
add insult to injury Hughes wants more money, and the
government is actually considering giving it.
Will the minister please tell the House why Hughes was not
told to live up to its original contract or have it cancelled?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member of the Reform Party who is critic in
matters of transport obviously lives an exciting life. On one
hand for months in the House he has talked about the
cancellation of the Pearson contract as an example of what
governments should not do. Now in the case of the Hughes
contract he wants it cancelled.
We have to do the best we can in any commercial undertaking
to arrive at a solution in the best interests of the Canadian
taxpayers.
I have said that with respect to the Hughes contract and all of
the CAATS arrangements so far the government is extremely
concerned about them. We are concerned about cost overruns,
about glitches. We are attempting to find a solution in the best
interests of both air safety and the Canadian taxpayer.
The hon. member will have to decide whether he wants to
cancel contracts, support contracts or try to negotiate out of a
specific contract. In the case of Hughes I wish the hon. member
would decide which way he wants to go.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my position is quite clear. It is the minister who is very
inconsistent.
13810
No value has been placed on the deleted items. No value has
been placed on transport's new obligations and no figure has
been given on how much transport is asking the Treasury Board
for.
Knowledgeable air traffic controllers are now questioning the
value of the diminished system. Will the minister agree to hold
off on any amendments to the contract and have the Standing
Committee on Transport review the whole issue and make a
recommendation to the minister?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there were a knowledgeable air controller on that
committee I might consider it.
Because we have to deal with this issue in a fairly short order
we will proceed as best we can to deal with finding a solution to
this problem. We will make sure whatever deal is arrived at is
absolutely transparent.
As this matter came to my attention I immediately advised the
auditor general of our concerns with respect to it. We will try to
resolve a very serious problem.
The hon. member should recognize that our intention to
commercialize the air navigation system, which I hope he will
support, should avoid any problems like this occurring in the
future.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
In spite of laws regarding safe storage of guns in Canada there
are a lot of guns sitting behind kitchen doors. In order to flush a
lot of those weapons out of the system and therefore reduce the
need for compliance with the law, would the Minister of Justice
in dialogue with the Minister of Finance consider an incentive,
perhaps a small tax credit, for each gun turned into police as a
way of making our communities safer?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure
to dialogue with the Minister of Finance, particularly in light of
the suggestion for tax credit to rely on the legendary generosity
of the Department of Finance.
The point the hon. member raises is important with respect to
the safe storage of firearms. Registration aspects contained in
Bill C-68 passed in the House last night are intended among
other things to encourage compliance by owners with those very
safe storage obligations.
With respect to firearms no longer wanted or where an owner
wants to dispose of them, Bill C-68 provides that even in the
case of prohibited firearms those who own those firearms can
sell them to others in the same class. That was a change
introduced on the recommendation of members of the Liberal
caucus. Furthermore, firearms that are unwanted can always be
surrendered at an amnesty or delivered to museums for a credit.
The suggestion made by the hon. member is an innovative
one. I will be happy to take it up with the Minister of Finance and
pursue it.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last year, the Minister of Agriculture declared a moratorium
on the use of bovine somatotropin, or BST, to allow the dairy
industry to adjust and to give the public the information it needs.
Although these two requirements have still not been met, the
minister indicated in this House yesterday that he had no
intention of extending his moratorium.
Does the minister recognize that the public still does not have
the information it needs on BST and that the dairy industry is in
no position to meet consumers' demands for a way to
distinguish dairy products with BST from those without?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while not necessarily accepting
all the suggestions made in the hon. member's question, I would
point out to him that a tremendous amount of information has
been made available. There is obviously a difference of opinion
with respect to this product.
Might I say that in all the very legitimate questioning about
rBST we should be careful not to feed unfounded doubts and
fears. We do not yet have the scientific analysis that is presently
being conducted by the Department of Health. I think we should
wait for it and we should get all the facts on the table.
In the meantime we should not engage in comments or
allegations that question the safety of Canadian milk. To do so
would be to harm the Canadian diary industry, including that
very significant portion of the industry in the province of
Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week's election in Ontario spelled the end of employment
equity in the province because the new government is going to
scrap this discriminatory legislation.
13811
During the election the leader of Ontario's Liberal Party
called employment equity outrageous and said that numerical
targets in employment meant the same thing as hiring quotas.
The minister knows that Bill C-64 includes these same
outrageous numerical targets. If the minister will not listen to
Canadians, will he at least listen to his Liberal friends and scrap
his own version of a quota bill, Bill C-64?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
possibly knows-it is not always easy to tell whether the Reform
Party knows what is going on in Parliament-the committee has
been holding hearings for the past four months on the
employment equity bill and has listened to well over a couple of
hundred representations from a wide variety of Canadians. One
thing they all understand, except the hon. member, is that there
is no quota system in the bill.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, the political minister for Newfoundland.
Last week I met in St. John's with executive officers of the
Newfoundland Dockyard Trades and Labour Council as well as
Mike Apostilidis, president of the dockyard.
In view of the uncertainty about the future of the dockyard
which employed 850 people last year, will the minister agree to a
full independent review of the books of Marine Atlantic? Will he
finally meet with the dockyard workers and not pass this off to
his colleague, the Minister of Transport from New Brunswick?
Will the minister finally stand up for the dockyard workers just
as much as he stood up for the turbot in Newfoundland?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member from the other side of
the country, from the great province of British Columbia, finally
had an opportunity to visit Newfoundland. It is regrettable that it
took a large convention and a sought after position to bring him
to this part of the land, but we welcome him to the island.
I met with the dockyard workers and with the management
this week in a meeting arranged by my colleague, the Minister of
Transport. We had a very frank and open discussion about the
future of the dockyard. There is currently an ongoing
negotiation between an interested party and the dockyard
management on a possible purchase of the dockyard. We will
have an answer on the negotiation within a matter of days.
Following that negotiation we will see whether or not it is
successful. Other discussions are under way with the workers.
This problem requires careful attention, careful
consideration, and will not be solved by unduly raising
expectations or setting out simplistic solutions. I know my
colleague who wants to assume the leadership of his party would
agree with those criteria.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery today of the members of the Select
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the British House of
Commons, led by the Right Hon. David Howell.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Also I draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ola Ullsten, present head of
the World Commission on Forestry and Sustainable
Development and former Prime Minister of Sweden.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
13811
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
13 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 82nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
a change to Standing Order 36 in relation to the acceptability of
petitions.
13812
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence
in the 82nd report later this day.
I also have the honour to table the 83rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs relating to the
selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order
92.
In accordance with that standing order the report is deemed
adopted on presentation.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill
C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
It is reported with amendments.
* * *
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-98, an act respecting the
oceans of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-333, an act to terminate Canadian
assistance to Indonesia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to introduce
this bill which would terminate Canadian bilateral government
to government aid and multilateral aid to Indonesia. Aid to
NGOs that work in Indonesia and humanitarian assistance
would be exempt.
To explain the purpose of the bill, I would note that human
rights abuses in East Timor perpetrated by the Indonesian
government are indisputable. Human rights organizations have
reported evidence of gross violations, including repression of
freedom of expression, arbitrary arrests, torture and killings.
Similar human rights abuses go on elsewhere throughout
Indonesia, including appalling labour conditions, the banning of
the country's only free trade union, and the shutting down of
Indonesian weekly newspapers.
Finally I would note that the Government of Indonesia has
continually flouted international law and ignored United
Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions
calling for Indonesia's immediate withdrawal from East Timor.
For these reasons I believe the Government of Canada should
terminate its bilateral and multilateral aid to Indonesia and call
for respect of human rights.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States
Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move that the 82nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred in.
I may say, just by way of explanation, that this very modest
change to the standing orders of the House simply makes it
possible to file petitions where there has been an interlineation
on the petition but not in the text of it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present three
petitions on behalf of over 200 constituents from my riding of
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
The petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that
has been circulating across Canada. This petition comes from
the Calgary, Alberta, area.
13813
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for
its value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Harry Verran (South West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour and the privilege to present three petitions on
behalf of the constituents from the Middleton and
Margaretsville areas of Annapolis county, Nova Scotia.
(1515 )
One petition comes from the Digby and Weymouth area of
Digby county in the federal riding of South West Nova.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions.
[English]
The first petition is from 60 Canadians, some of whom reside
in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier. The petitioners call on
Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full
equality of same sex relationships in federal law.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition which I would like to present is from 37
constituents of Ottawa-Vanier.
They call on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code, which
states that in no case may a father or mother, without serious
cause, place obstacles between the child and grandparents.
Failing agreement between the parties the modalities of the
relations are settled by the courts.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the constituent Valerie Morrow I would like to present
two petitions under Standing Order 36.
The first petition protests the appointment of co-chairs to a
political party.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition calls for stronger enforcement of the section of
the Criminal Code which deals with arson.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by
residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway as well as
residents elsewhere in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that
the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from
terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the
assistance of a physician.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to amend the
Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with
dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and
debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in
ending their lives at the time of their choice, subject to strict
safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is
free, informed, competent and voluntary.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from Canadians who point out that acts of
discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are
an every day reality in all regions of Canada, that this kind of
discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its
commitment to human rights, equality and dignity for all
citizens and that the citizens who are so discriminated against
pay taxes and make contributions to employee benefit plans and
are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as other
citizens.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to act quickly to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all
necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex
relationships in federal law.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from 777 people of British Columbia. I concur
with the petition.
13814
The petition states that we the undersigned residents of the
province of British Columbia draw the attention of the House
to the following: that discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation is a real and hurtful form of discrimination in this
country; that all forms of families in this country, those based
on financial and emotional interdependency, are equally
meaningful and important to the social well-being of Canada;
and that both protection against discrimination and recognition
of relationships based on financial and emotional
interdependency are necessary to ensure the equal treatment of
gays, lesbians and bisexuals under the law.
Therefore your petitioners request that the Parliament of
Canada amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
sexual orientation as a basis for protection against
discrimination and to include recognition of relationships based
on financial and emotional interdependency.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition from constituents from Fraser
Valley West.
The petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of
rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
(1520 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today on behalf of
the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
The first petition requests that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase, sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 296 petitioners
which will add to the total which I have presented in this House
of 4,324 signatures opposing the gun legislation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from 161 of my constituents.
They state that dangerous sex offenders and paedophiles should
be locked up for life, that statutory releases should be revoked,
that stiffer sentences should be imposed on violent offenders,
that violent criminals should serve their full sentences and have
time added for bad behaviour, and that a central registry of the
names and addresses of violent offenders should be established.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
The final petition, Mr. Speaker, is from 783 constituents who
send the message to the government: ``no new taxes''.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present two petitions, both asking Parliament
to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
they have my full support.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners point out that alcohol is a drug and is addictive. They
believe there is risk to the foetus when taken by women who are
pregnant. They point out that drinking alcohol is a leading cause
of death among young people. They also underline the fact that
seniors can get into difficulties when there is an interaction
between alcohol and medication taken. They believe that
alcohol can lead to health problems and chronic illnesses. They
point out that alcohol is toxic if it is taken too quickly in great
quantity.
The petitioners want warning labels on containers in order to
alert the population to this effect.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition points out that unnecessary violence and abuse
in all forms, be it verbal, physical or other, in society in general
on radio, television or by other means have become a major
concern of the Canadian population. The petitioners point out
that abuse and violence is not necessary to inform or to
entertain.
They want government to ensure that the CRTC regulates
violence and abuse. They point out that there have been some
efforts and some accomplishments, but they encourage the
government and the CRTC to do even more.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
The petitioners call on Parliament to act quickly to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures
to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in
federal law.
This is a petition which I wholeheartedly support.
13815
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present six
petitions adding 2,944 names to the already 14,549 names that
have been placed before the House requesting that Parliament do
something to keep dangerous offenders off the streets of our
nation and in support of Bill C-240 which allows for
post-sentence detention of dangerous offenders.
It is my pleasure to add more names to that growing list of
concerned Canadians.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition from my
constituents calling on Parliament to enact legislation against
serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk
offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention
orders and specifically by passing Bill C-240.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
174 and 178.
[Text]
Question No. 174-Mr. Robinson:
Does the government plan to participate with NORAD or NATO allies in joint
research initiatives examining ballistic missile defence as proposed in the 1994
defence white paper and, if so, (a) what previous Canadian defence research,
will the government propose to use as a basis for such joint research (b) will the
Canadian government use previous research into an EHF space-based radar
system as a basis for further joint research, and (c) what kind of new research
will the government propose to initiate as a part of such joint research efforts?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
(a), (b) and (c) As outlined in the 1994 defence white paper,
Canada is interested in gaining a better understanding of missile
defence through research and consultation with like-minded
nations. We expect that these consultations will address both
limited missile defence for North America and theatre missile
defence within Europe. Whether Canada will choose to
participate in joint research initiatives will depend on what
opportunities arise, and most significantly, whether these joint
initiatives are cost effective, affordable, and make an
unambiguous contribution to Canada's defence needs.
In the NORAD context, the NORAD renewal negotiations are
set to begin this year. Joint reseach with the U.S. in ballistic
missile defence will be discussed during the negotiations,
however, the outcome of these discussions cannot be prejudged.
Accordingly, it would be premature to speculate on the specific
form and content of possible joint research activities in the
absence of any agreement that such research should in fact take
place.
Question No. 178-Mr. McClelland:
With respect to the October 24, 1994 signing of a treaty between the
Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of India on mutual
assistance in criminal matters, (a) when the treaty was signed, was the
government aware that India has in place a law known as TADA (Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities Act) and (b) can Canadians of Indian origin be threatened
or prosecuted by Indian law as a result of TADA legislation?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
(a) The preamble of the treaty between Canada and India on
mutual assistance in criminal matters makes specific reference
to Canada and India desiring to improve the effectiveness of
both countries in the investigation, prosecution and suppression
of crime, including terrorism related crime.
The Minister of Justice is unable to comment on the full scope
of India's Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
(TADA) and on the extent of its extraterritorial reach, if any.
(b) The mutual assistance treaty does not make India's TADA
legislation part of Canadian law. The treaty generally provides
for assistance relating to the gathering of evidence for the
purpose of a criminal investigation or prosecution pending in
the state requesting assistance. The assistance contemplated
under this treaty does not include the arrest of persons for the
purpose of their return to the requesting state through
deportation or extradition.
Requests for assistance made to Canada under the mutual
assistance treaty are executed in accordance with canadian law
once their execution has been authorized by the Minister of
Justice. For this purpose the requests must contain information
prescribed by the treaty. This includes the relevant law of the
state requesting assistance.
There is no requirement under the treaty that an offence under
investigation or prosecution in India also exist in Canada
(referred to as double criminality requirement). This is common
in mutual assistance treaties.
Canada may refuse or delay assistance based on grounds set
out in the treaty. The treaty provides that assistance may be
refused where executing the request would impair Canada's
sovereignty, security, or public order and that assistance may be
postponed where executing the request would interfere with
ongoing investigations or prosecutions. These grounds are
intended to protect the fundamental interests of Canada, where
Canada is the requested state. They can be relied on in
appropriate cases based on a consideration of the circumstances
of each case in view of the treaty and the relevant law and could
apply to
13816
a request by India pertaining to an investigation under the TADA
legislation.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1525 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an important weekly event but I would ask that
all motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13816
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in
consequence thereof, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and on Motions No. 5 to 17 inclusive.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me a great deal of pleasure to speak on this section of Bill C-41.
Coming to this House has been really quite instructive. One
can learn from many members. I have learned from the member
for Burnaby-Kingsway that it does one good to express exactly
where one is coming from in terms of one's own personal
perspective.
In keeping with that, before I speak specifically to section
718.2, I might state to the House very clearly where I am coming
from. I stand clearly, unequivocally and in a very
straightforward way in favour of and in full support of the
traditional family unit as generally understood within society.
To that end, it might be of interest to the House for me to very
briefly read something that is in the public domain that I wrote
to an editor at the Calgary Sun last March. The editor had stated:
``Decision targets family values'' and ``marriage and family, as
we all know, are not only cornerstones of our society, but are the
bedrock of our civilization''.
I wrote:
I tend to agree with him.
The preferential treatment given to mom, dad and the kids, I believe is
reflective of the value that our society places on the biological reality of
propagation.
There are many instances of cohabitation in our society: The single parent and
child, siblings living together or good, long time friends of the same or opposite
sex. They may choose not to become involved in physical sexual contact. To
extend spousal benefits to homosexual partnerships and not to other couples
would be a grave act of discrimination.
A redefinition of family unit that would step outside of the obvious biological
relationships to include same sex or opposite sex couples must include all
relationships. It must not have reference to sexual orientation or activity.
Otherwise, we would be extending a financial reward for sexual involvement
between people who cohabit.
Max Yalden, Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, has stated the Human
Rights Act should be amended ``to reflect today's reality'' by prohibiting
discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals on the basis of sexual
orientation. He is wrong. If we extend spousal benefits to people who cohabit on
the basis of sexual orientation and not to all couples, we have truly engaged in an
act of discrimination.
Fooling around and ignoring the obvious reasons for spousal benefits will
cost our society much more than countless millions or billions of dollars. It has
the potential of costing society its cornerstone and the bedrock of our
civilization.
I give that as a background because it is true that all of us
arrive at this House with predisposed attitudes and values that
come from our very soul. I want to make it clear what my
motivation is in taking a look, hopefully, at the deletion of
section 718.2 from this bill.
In reading the notes that were given to the Liberal members I
was interested to see that they say: ``We will keep our campaign
commitments and send a strong message against hate crimes. As
an election promise and a matter of fundamental human rights,
Bill C-41 will not be subject to a free vote''.
(1530 )
The heavy hand of the whip is coming down on all of the
Liberal members in this House, and we have seen the
devastation that will do to their political careers as long as they
toil within the Liberal Party. However, that does not change the
fact that there are many people within the Liberal Party who
have a serious concern about this issue, I suggest perhaps
because of the same reasons that I have stated from my own
personal background and belief.
It is also interesting that this document given to the Liberal
members includes what I consider to be some terribly erroneous
advice. It reads:
It is essential to list the grounds in Bill C-41. The hate crime section is
meaningless without the list. In several court rulings, the Supreme Court of
Canada has warned that any hate-related legislation must be very precise and must
13817
identify target groups it intends to protect, otherwise it may be subject to
constitutional challenge.
I think it passing strange that in exactly the same legislation
the government is bringing forward a total patchwork in terms of
alternative measures. In other words, it is saying in one section
of the act we will not have any national standards and in the
other section of the act saying that we must have precise
standards. The question must be asked: Which is it?
Last evening I was very interested to listen in the debate to the
hon. member from York South-Weston, who is a lawyer. I
respect the fact that he would be able to read this bill as it is
presently before the House and I concur totally with his
perspective. In part, from Hansard, page 13767, he says:
What are those alternative measures? We do not in this legislation describe
what those alternative measures are, what crimes will be subject to those
alternative measures. In fact it says any crime. We do not know. Does that mean
that a rapist, someone who is alleged to have committed a rape, can for example be
diverted out of the criminal justice system and into some alternative measures?
What can those alternative measures be? We do not know. This bill does not
define what alternative measures are. The bill leaves it up to the attorneys general
of the provinces.
For sake of time, I will not read further, but he went on to
say-again, I concur with him totally-that what we have here is
a total patchwork.
I ask the Liberals, I ask the justice department, I ask the
parliamentary secretary: How can we have within Bill C-41 on
one side of the coin an absolute patchwork and on the other side
of the coin something that has to be very specific and very
precise? The two things in the same bill do not make any sense.
I suggest to the Liberal members that in fact the advice they
have received in their documentation, in their talking notes
when they stand to talk on this act, is simply not good advice.
I suggest very strongly that section 718.2 is unnecessary. In
the judgment of many Canadians, it is put in specifically so that
the undefined term sexual orientation may be put into federal
legislation. This is the first step of putting that undefined term
into federal legislation. It is not an innocuous thing. It is not an
inconsequential thing. It actually is the first step in a logical
legal sequence for that undefined term to be included in the
charter of rights and freedoms.
Again, I read from the Liberals' documentation. They tell
their members:
We've heard a lot lately about the myths of ``special rights''. C-41 does not
confer special rights. No one is ``left out''. C-41 protects all Canadians. Every
Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender, a sexual orientation.
We've heard that C-41 will result in sweeping changes, including the
recognition of same-sex marriages. That is nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, in the strictest sense of the term, that is
nonsense. Bill C-41 will not achieve that objective on its own. I
submit that the reason Canadians are concerned about Bill C-41
is because they see this very clearly as a very transparent, thin
edge of a wedge that is an important stepping stone in order to
get the undefined term sexual orientation included.
(1535 )
The Liberals know this. The justice department has received
over 70,000 letters opposing this bill. Furthermore, until
yesterday there had been 7,250 names in favour of the inclusion
of sexual orientation in petitions presented to this House. That is
7,250 for, and 83,471 against. These are people in Canada who
take the time to put their names on petitions, to gather these
petitions together. Yet this government is prepared to absolutely
turn its back on these representations from ordinary Canadians.
Mr. Keyes: Based on misrepresentation.
Mr. Abbott: It is interesting that a member opposite has said
based on misrepresentation. May I suggest to that member that
exactly the same statistics were used to theoretically justify the
imposition of Bill C-68, the gun control, which was based on
lack of information. Those polls are being quoted and were
being quoted as justification by the justice minister.
Here we have 83,000 people taking the time to sign petitions
and send them to this House, and they say those polls do not
count, they are not based on good information.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. But for
those who have eyes, I implore them to vote for the exclusion of
section 718.2.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege and honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-41.
There has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation
being disseminated about this bill. Unfortunately, a lot of the
verbal shadow boxing around Bill C-41 has almost entirely
focused on one phrase in one clause in the overall bill. The term
sexual orientation seems to have piqued the interest of many
narrow minded individuals whose sense of reason has been
drowned out by the self-righteous pontificating about the so
called provision of special rights to designated groups and
individuals.
Last week an impatient man approached me in my
constituency office. He asked me whether I was going to vote
yes or no for that ``same sex benefits bill and special rights for
gays''. I proceeded to try to explain to the gentleman that he had
it all wrong, that the legislation was not about same sex spousal
13818
benefits or special rights for gays and that it had more to do with
protecting individuals from hate motivated violence. The man
stormed out of my office before I could get a further word in
edgewise. That is exactly the kind of intolerance and confusion
that underlines most of the opposition-especially from the
third party in this House-to provisions in Bill C-41.
For the edification of the man who stormed out of my office
last week and for many others like him, many to be found in the
third party opposite, who may have forgotten or perhaps never
took the time to find out what Bill C-41 was actually all about in
the first place, I want to highlight for them the main objectives
of this legislation along with some of the compelling yet often
misunderstood and ignored portions of this bill.
Some of the most significant provisions of Bill C-41 are those
related to enhancing the rights of the victim. This bill includes
an unprecedented amendment to section 745 of the Criminal
Code that would provide victims of violence with the
opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the criminal justice
system by presenting victim impact statements when convicted
criminals apply for early parole consideration. This would
ensure that victims of violent crimes have the opportunity to
speak out about the harm done by the offender.
Quite frankly for me, and I know for another member at least
in this House, maybe that is not enough. To my way of thinking,
section 745 should be rescinded. But that is what is in the bill
today, and it has gone a lot further than what members opposite,
especially in the third party, are proposing. Therefore, the
victim's experience will now be taken into account at the very
least when deciding whether the parole ineligibility period of an
offender should be reduced.
(1540)
The bill also encourages tougher sentences for the abuses by
offenders in positions of trust or authority. It encourages
alternatives to fines for those unable to pay them and provides
for stricter penalties for offenders who breach probation and
provides cost effective alternatives to those expensive and often
unnecessary formal court proceedings. Furthermore, the bill
will allow judges greater leeway to impose certain conditions on
an offender to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
This bill follows through on the government's commitment to
Canadians who have so passionately expressed the need for
meaningful and progressive criminal justice reform. It should be
noted that Bill C-41 adds a statement to the Criminal Code that
provides clear direction from Parliament on the purpose and
principles of sentencing.
The reforms provide a balanced and sensible range of options
that address the public's need for safety, the victim's desire for
restitution, and the important principle that serious offenders
should be dealt with more severely than minor or first time
offenders.
This legislation clearly indicates that the purpose of
sentencing is to contribute to the maintenance of a just,
peaceful, and safe society and to promote respect for the law by
imposing just sanctions.
The statement sets out objectives for sentencing, which
include protection of the public, rehabilitation, promoting a
sense of responsibility among offenders, making reparations to
victims and the community, and deterring crime. These
objectives are guided by the idea that a sentence must reflect the
seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the
offender. In this regard, the courts will be required to consider
aggravating and mitigating circumstances associated with a
particular crime.
Accordingly, the proposed statement of principles indicates
that when an offence is motivated by hate based on the race,
nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability or sexual orientation of the victim, this must be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. On this point,
people have asked why hate motivated crimes warrant harsher
sentences than non-hate motivated crimes, suggesting that such
provisions and the use of the term sexual orientation would
grant special rights and magical privileges to
non-heterosexuals. Some people have even gone so far as to
suggest that use of the term sexual orientation would encourage
a homosexualist agenda, if you can believe it. Quite frankly, this
is surely and simply ludicrous.
As stated by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, we are
talking about the criminal law here. We are talking about crimes
motivated by hate. To say that including sexual orientation in
Bill C-41 is encouraging a lifestyle is like saying that because
we have included religion we are encouraging people to become
Catholics.
Hate crimes are distinct in that they are not only an attack on a
single individual, they are also an attack on an entire group in
our society. For example, if someone paints graffiti on
someone's house, that person would probably be charged with
mischief and the house owner would likely be the only victim.
But if someone were to paint swastikas on one of the five
synagogues in my riding of Hamilton West, the victims would
include all members of the Jewish faith. Try to understand that,
members opposite.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, tell us about the bar association. Come on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would ask
colleagues for the co-operation of the House on this subject
matter, which has certain sensitivities. I certainly want to be
able to hear the interventions of all members.
13819
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, targeting members of a single group
and attacking them simply because they belong to that
particular group is loathsome, deplorable, and must be taken
into consideration at sentencing.
With regard to the notion of special rights, perhaps someone
can explain to me how protecting Canadians who are victimized
by hatred and harassment constitutes special rights. Perhaps
someone can explain to me how seriously punishing a neo-Nazi
for splitting a person's head open with a baseball bat just
because they are gay constitutes special rights.
(1545 )
Maybe someone can tell me how a humane government can
simply ignore the plight of the innocent law-abiding Canadians
who are sadly victimized by violent attacks just because of their
skin colour, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or mental
or physical ability.
I wonder if someone can show me how reneging on our
commitment to the overwhelming majority of Canadian voters,
who elected me and my colleagues on this side of the House on a
solid platform advocating equality for all Canadians and
cracking down on crimes motivated by hatred, would advance
the principles of Canadian democracy.
When we told Canadians that the sentencing practices in
Canada must be responsive to their concerns and social values,
we meant it. When we said heinous crimes motivated by pure
hatred would not be condoned by a Liberal government, we
meant it. When we said that we would protect the rights of all
Canadians and strengthen justice in our nation by coming down
hard on those who chose to victimize Canadian communities, we
meant it.
As a member who was elected on a platform that emphasized
the need for criminal justice reform, I am proud to stand on this
side of the House with the right hon. Prime Minister, the
Minister of Justice and all my colleagues in support of this
legislation and the Liberal notion of a humane and anti-violent
society.
In closing, I move:
That Motion No. 17 be amended by striking out all of the words after
``mitting the offence,'' and substituting the following therefor:
abused the offender's spouse or child, or
(i.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a
position of
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I sat here until 11.30 last night. I just sat and listened to
all of the debate. I laid my speech aside.
We often refer to this place as the highest court in the land. We
should all be setting aside our ideology and our politics. We
should be examining every bill to see whether it is good
legislation. We are making the laws of the land in this place. As I
sat and listened to the debate last night, I attempted to do it with
an unbiased mind which is difficult to do but that is what should
be happening in this place.
I am not an expert on all of the things that are going on here, it
is impossible. I have been working a lot on Bill C-68. However,
I listened to the various experts, people who analysed Bill C-41.
Many of them come from the other side of the House and I
listened to what they had to say. There is a variety of people in
this place and there are some very serious concerns with this bill
which have not been addressed.
Having listened to the debate and the arguments, I have come
to some conclusions which I am going to share with the House.
We really need to have democratic reform in this place. I have
come to that conclusion in the last few weeks as I see the
processes which are taking place. That is something which is
desperately needed.
We stand and debate these laws. We look at them. Recently
there has been the attitude to just get through with the debate;
summer is coming so let us get this stuff through the House.
Millions of Canadians out there will have to live with these laws
forever more. We should not have the attitude of simply getting
this done, having an arrogant, almost cavalier attitude about
what is taking place here and just getting it out.
(1550 )
The negative impacts about this legislation were related
yesterday. Canadians have expressed many concerns to us. Even
people in the legal profession who have analysed this bill,
lawyers at the top of the justice system, have seen the flaws and
we continue to push this bill through. That causes me grave
concern.
As I listened to the debate last night I saw some of the
members opposite trying to portray themselves as being more
compassionate than some of the other people in this House.
They were trying to show that they were more tolerant.
In the end we have to look at the nitty-gritty, the facts, the
very reasonable things people are saying about this legislation.
We must not let ideology or politics blind us. Common sense
must not be thrown out the window. We cannot play on people's
emotions.
When the dust settles we are going to have to live with the
facts. We are going to have to live with the content of Bill C-41.
We are trying to explain our intentions in this bill, but good
intentions do not necessarily make good legislation. That is why
we are here discussing this and debating it and doing all the
things we are doing. We have to listen to each other.
13820
I have a question for the last speaker. I was listening to the
debate his colleagues presented yesterday. The hon. member
said that we are protecting the rights of all Canadians. If we
are protecting the rights of all Canadians, why do we need a
list of categories? Why do we need to even include this? It does
not make sense to me. Do not all victims deserve equal
protection? Why do we have to have categories of victims? If
someone is assaulted by someone who is doing it just for fun,
that is no different from doing it for some other motive.
I am going to speak on behalf of my constituents this
afternoon on some of the things they have told me. I have
received hundreds and hundreds of letters over the last year and
a half on the issue of including the term sexual orientation and
many other concerns. That is not the only concern they have
with this bill but it is one that keeps coming up again and again.
We need to listen. I have the honour and the privilege to speak on
their behalf as I believe all members in this House should have.
To limit this debate to six hours is a travesty of justice and of
democracy. I hope it is not an example of an arrogant dictatorial
Liberal government, but I am afraid that is the way it is coming
across.
I said I have the privilege of representing my constituents in
this debate on Bill C-41. Many members of Parliament will be
denied that so I consider it to be a privilege.
Voters have sent me to Ottawa to be their voice in Parliament.
What we do is very important. We must not take
anti-democratic measures as has been done. We would all be
willing to go well into the summer to listen and analyse all of the
aspects of this Bill C-41 debate. It makes me very sad. It should
make every Liberal member who did not oppose this abuse of
power sad as well.
The Liberals have the majority. They can use that majority to
do almost anything they want to and voters can do nothing to
stop them, until the next election. By forcing time allocation the
Liberal government has declared its highest priorities to be gun
control, MPs pensions and including the term sexual orientation
in the sentencing legislation.
Personally I do not believe these controversial issues are
priorities with the people of Canada. I am sure that if people
knew how democracy was getting a kick in the teeth here in
Ottawa today, a lot more concern would be expressed. Most
people are not following all the debate here. I wonder if Liberals
are hoping that voters will forget this by the time the next
election rolls around.
There are some provisions of this bill for which I give my
conditional support. I heard the reasons behind them and they
are good. I support them particularly with respect to the
restitution orders and victim impact statements. There are some
excellent aspects to the bill.
(1555)
Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before the victims of
crime are treated with as much respect as the criminals. To this
end I will continue to work on my victims bill of rights which I
spoke about previously.
I support the Reform amendments to delete section 717
regarding alternative measures and to delete section 745.6
regarding the application for judicial review for premeditated
murders.
The most controversial idea we are talking about is section
718.2(a)(i) and the reason the Liberal government has waited so
long to get the bill before the House and why it had to invoke
closure in order to get the bill through the House of Commons.
This provision will call for greater penalties to be imposed if
there is evidence the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or
hate.
We complained a lot about the term hate, but what about bias
and prejudice? These things can be construed in many different
ways. We do not know five or ten years down the road what will
happen with bias, prejudice or hate based on the race,
nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability, or sexual orientation of the victim.
My first choice would be to support the Reform amendment to
delete the section entirely. Reformers believe that the courts
already take aggravating or mitigating circumstances into
consideration when determining the length of the sentence to be
imposed on a convicted offender. I agree with my colleagues
that this is an attempt by the Minister of Justice to get the
unnecessary and undefined term sexual orientation into a piece
of legislation so it can be used as justification for amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
Reformers believe in true equality and that all Canadians are
equal before the law. Every time the government divides us into
different categories it creates the politics of envy, which divide
us rather than unite us. We should not have all of these groups
mentioned in our legislation.
Back on March 24 the Globe and Mail editorial writers made
the statement: ``The real problem with section 718.2 is not that it
refers to homosexuals but that it is proposed at all''. They go on
to give many other valid points.
Because of the time allocation I will not have a chance to
finish my remarks.
We need to take a serious second look at this matter. The
Liberals are opening a door with this legislation which should
remain shut. We should take more time to look at this because
the concerns which Canadians have expressed to me are real and
legitimate ones which need to be addressed. I wish I had more
time to do that.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 covers a wide range of sentencing
initiatives, including provisions aimed at assisting victims of
crime, improving the administration of justice in Canada and
13821
tougher sentences for those offenders who abuse a position of
trust or authority. The bill also includes harsher sentences for
crimes based on hate for a particular race, nationality, colour,
religion, gender, age or sexual orientation.
In discussions with constituents, by correspondence and
through the electronic media I have heard from many opponents
of Bill C-41. Most of the opposition regards the inclusion of the
term sexual orientation in the bill. Opposition to the bill seems
to be based upon fundamental misunderstandings about the
intent and also the consequences of passing Bill C-41 into
federal law.
Bill C-41 asks the court to take into consideration not only
that a crime was committed, but that the offender was motivated
by hatred against the victim based on the listed grounds which,
as I have stated, include race, nationality, religion, age, gender
or sexual orientation.
(1600 )
I have emphasized to concerned Canadians this provision of
the bill comes into effect only once a crime has been committed.
Bill C-41 does not create any new crimes. It does not make
moral opposition to homosexuality a crime and it does not affect
freedom of expression.
I have worked hard to correct the spread of misinformation by
explaining to religious communities Bill C-41 will not prevent
churches and religious instructors from talking about their
beliefs regarding the morality of homosexuality. The bill is not
creating any new hate crimes or expanding hate provisions in
law.
The other major concern with Bill C-41 is that by including
the term sexual orientation in federal legislation we are setting a
major legal precedent. As the Minister of Justice has told the
House, sexual orientation is not a new term and has been in use
in Canadian legislation since 1977. It appears in provincial
human rights legislation in eight jurisdictions within Canada.
Another misconception I have encountered is that by not
defining the term sexual orientation, Bill C-41 will open legal
loopholes that will legitimize the actions of paedophiles. Once
again, the Minister of Justice has listened to this concern and has
assured Canadians the term sexual orientation is included in
provincial human rights legislation and that Canadian courts
and tribunals have never had trouble understanding or
interpreting the term which is unambiguous and does not
include acts set out in the Criminal Code.
The bill makes an important statement that society will not
tolerate crimes committed against individuals simply because
of their race, religion, colour, gender, age or sexual orientation.
Bill C-41 protects all Canadians. All Canadians have a
nationality, a race, a gender, an age, a religion and a sexual
orientation. Bill C-41 is an important part of the government's
efforts to improve public safety, enhance the rights of victims
and protect the rights of all Canadians to participate fully in the
social and economic life of their country.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of the
statement of purpose and principles in Bill C-41.
I fear the government is misguided on this issue. The bill
instructs judges to consider as aggravating circumstances in
sentencing any evidence the offence was motivated by bias,
prejudice or hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion,
sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of
the victim.
Judges have latitude already in sentencing. They have been
known to use it to hand out harsher sentences for crimes they
consider particularly harmful to society. Why pass a law that
asks them to be tougher in a few select categories? All crime and
violence should be condemned and the punishment should be in
proportion to the crime.
I agree with my colleague from Central Nova that respect for
our justice system stems from the notion we are all equal before
the law. I do not see that principle reflected in the statement of
purpose and principles of Bill C-41.
I hope none of us disagrees that it is completely unacceptable
and abhorrent that anyone should be the object of violent attack
for any reason. Why should one form of assault be judged or
condemned as more unacceptable than another?
(1605 )
In my mind any assault is completely unacceptable and should
not be tolerated regardless of motivating factors. It is the crime
that needs to be judged, not whether the accused held a personal
bias toward the victim.
Any type of act based on hatred for a group for whatever
reason should be recognized as something intolerable in society.
Section 15(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that every
individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
equal protection.
I believe Bill C-41 will to change this. It will say certain
crimes against certain victims are worse than the same crime
against any other victim. That is against the fundamental
principles of the charter of rights, that every Canadian has the
same equal right to protection under the law of Canada.
I also fear the inclusion of the words sexual orientation in the
statement of principle is a back door attempt at eventually
legalizing same sex benefits and same sex marriages. It has been
reported that on March 30, 1995 in New York City at a UN
meeting the top Canadian officials at the United Nations were
pushing for homosexual rights internationally so they can
13822
compel domestic compliance in Canada and justify the route
they are taking with Bill C-41.
The government should be up front about its agenda and
should also listen to Canadians. The hon. member for
Scarborough West recently shared some telling information
with other members about the statement of principles on Bill
C-41 and the government's intention to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act. According to the member for Scarborough
West 631 petitions have been presented in the House on the issue
of sexual orientation. Of these petitions 87 per cent were against
the sexual orientation amendment to the CHRA and/or against
including the phrase sexual orientation in the statement of
purpose and principles of bill C-41.
My feelings on this matter are the same as those of the
members for Scarborough West and Central Nova. In the face of
this overwhelming opposition why is the government not
listening to Canadians, for this is a slippery slope for Canada, a
slippery slope the government is taking for the traditional
family unit, and it is a dangerous route that will eventually
become an avalanche if it is adopted in the House.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while there is much that is
laudable in Bill C-41, public concern has focused on one issue,
the inclusion of the words sexual orientation as one of the
categories for which crimes motivated by hatred would merit
stricter sentencing in section 718.2 of the bill.
I have listened to those concerns from my constituents who
have spoken to me personally and hundreds who have written
letters to me, and I share their views. I do not feel the words
sexual orientation should appear in the bill and I support the
amendment proposed by the member for Ontario to remove the
list of categories altogether.
It is important to explain the basis of my objections as there is
a misconception that opposition to including sexual orientation
as a category in this bill is in itself motivated by hatred of
homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
My riding contains a significant gay community. I have met
with some of its organizations and have been very active in
trying to address its concerns. I am also strongly opposed to
so-called gay bashing or any crimes motivated by hatred against
a minority group in society. That is why I support the bill in
requiring stricter sentencing for assault and other crimes
motivated by hatred.
Yet I cannot bring myself to support the inclusion of sexual
orientation as a legal category in the bill, as it seems to me there
may be unintended consequences of this inclusion that may
affect our definition of the family, freedom of speech and
freedom of religion.
(1610 )
When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was
being drafted the then justice minister, the current Prime
Minister, said the term sexual orientation had not been included
in section 15 because of the problem of the definition of those
words. Speaking of sexual orientation he then stated: ``Do not
ask me to tell you what it is because those concepts are difficult
to interpret, to define, and that is why we do not want them in the
Constitution''.
Why should a term too vague for the Constitution of Canada
in 1981 suddenly be clear as day in 1995? Some hon. members
have proposed amendments to define this term for greater
clarity but I think the wiser approach is to avoid the problem
altogether by striking the list of terms from the bill.
I fear that by including the words sexual orientation in federal
law for the first time without clarification or definition, we are
extending an invitation to the courts to read sexual orientation
into other statutes as they have done with the Canadian and
Alberta bill of rights in previous provincial court decisions. The
legitimacy of this reading in has not yet been ruled on by the
Supreme Court of Canada. By including these words in a section
15 like list in a federal statute we are saying as federal
legislators that what we did not want to include in 1981 we want
to include today.
The courts may well turn to this wording for guidance on other
matters. What we have already seen is not encouraging. The
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled the Alberta human rights
code had to be read as if sexual orientation was included in the
Vriend case, which meant a private Christian Reformed college
had to hire a teacher who was a practising homosexual despite
its religious objections to his behaviour.
In recent years we have seen attempts to deny the Salvation
Army the right to use municipal property in the city of Toronto
as it will not hire openly homosexual employees or clergy.
We have seen Catholic school boards in Montreal forced to
rent property to homosexual organizations all on the basis of
including sexual orientation in human rights legislation and
despite freedom of religion and freedom of association.
Two weeks ago in Ontario a provincial court judge ruled
homosexual couples were eligible to adopt children despite the
fact that the legislators had defeated a similar measure only a
few months before.
If we as federal parliamentarians choose to include the words
sexual orientation in federal law for the first time we will only
encourage the courts in this practice at a time when many
Canadians are questioning whether the courts are being too swift
in striking down the decisions of elected legislators.
13823
While this bill may be a simple sentencing bill, not the
charter or a human rights bill, our use of this language sends
a message to the courts they may choose to interpret in ways
we had not intended.
We may not want to prevent a Salvation Army band from
playing a Christmas concert for the poor on public property. We
may not want private religious schools to be forced to hire
openly homosexual teachers despite their religious teachings.
We may not want paedophilia to be accepted as a legitimate
sexual orientation. That is what may happen not because of this
bill but because of what the courts may choose to do in applying
this statutory language in other unrelated contexts.
I hope I have made it clear why I, without any personal
disrespect or malice toward homosexual persons, do not feel it
would be prudent to include the words sexual orientation in this
legislation. We are opening the door to the use of this language
in other contexts that may lead to legitimizing other forms of
sexual orientation we would not want to approve or to the use of
the concept of sexual orientation to harm the rights of religious
and other groups to freedom of religion, freedom of expression
and freedom of association.
The whole problem can be avoided by accepting the
amendment by the member for Ontario and eliminating this
contentious list of categories altogether.
If the purpose of the bill is to ensure crimes motivated by
hatred are more severely assessed in sentencing, let us leave it at
that. If the purpose is to create a precedent of recognition of the
concept of sexual orientation, a concept the Prime Minister felt
was too ambiguous to include in the Constitution of 1981, one
that might be used in other contexts we would not approve of as
legislators, then this section of Bill C-41 does not deserve the
support of the House.
(1615)
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be addressing Parliament today
on Bill C-41. To say the least, the legislation has caused quite a
stir.
The government has introduced close to 100 bills since the
election but next to Bill C-68, the gun bill, no other bill has
raised the kind of attention this one has.
Although the bill is extensive the focus has been on just one
small section. However the implications of this one section are
great and could create a social shift in the Criminal Code. The
general intent of the bill is reasonable. The Criminal Code needs
to be overhauled in terms of its sentencing guidelines. The code
is rather weak and soft as I know all Canadians will attest.
Canadians want a code that will protect them and keep our
streets safer.
On the first day the bill was brought before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, November 17, 1994,
the minister was present as a witness. I was at that hearing and
listened closely to what the minister had to say. In particular I
listened to his reasoning behind section 718.2, the clause that
would increase penalties for those who commit crimes while at
the same time they might have thought about someone's sexual
orientation or religion or whatever.
With regard to section 718.2 the minister stated:
It's there, provided that a court that imposes a sentence shall take into account
both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In connection with aggravating
circumstances, the court must consider evidence that the offence was motivated
with bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical disability or the sexual orientation of the victim.
As a court officer for over 20 years I have sat through enough
court cases to know that judges already take into account all
these factors in sentencing. I ask the justice minister, if
something is already being done in the courts on a regular basis
with innovation and flexibility, why it is necessary or
appropriate to write them into the code and thereby stultify what
is presently working. Where are the events in the community of
such a pervasive nature that begs this kind of legislative
response?
I refer to another piece of testimony given by the minister on
that day. The minister stated:
I'm asked why not define the term ``sexual orientation''-there's no need to
add a definition. It's perfectly clear what the intention of the legislation is.
The minister in that committee finally stated what he thought
was a definition of the term sexual orientation. He said:
That interpretation of that provision has been that sexual orientation
encompasses homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.
Fine, I can understand that definition. Why is it then that when
an amendment is proposed at the clause by clause stage to add
such a definition to the term sexual orientation-and I may say
the identical definition the minister stated at the
committee-every Liberal member except three voted against
it?
Witnesses had come before the justice committee and stated
that sexual orientation could mean anything, including
transsexuality and even pedophilia. Canadians need to know the
direction the government is taking. I think they are observing
that it is downhill. This type of leadership is unacceptable and
must be highlighted so that the public can see. Then it can infer
what kind of government we have.
I quote from the minutes of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs a question I asked of John Conroy from
the Canadian Bar Association on the definition of sexual
orientation. I said to him:
13824
-to my mind, the term ``sexual orientation'' is pretty broad. It could involve all
kinds of repugnant possibilities, even those that are illegal. So could you
address your mind to the definition of the term ``sexual orientation'' and
support what you are saying when you say that it is carefully and narrowly
drafted? I ask this because my assertion is that the term ``sexual orientation'' is
not defined and is too broad.
Here is the response that was given to my question:
I would take the definition that you raised a minute ago. That has certainly been
the definition I've always understood: homosexual, heterosexual, or some other
sexual orientation. It could be any kind of sexual orientation, and it could be
something that, as you say, is illegal.
The definition could be any kind of sexual orientation. One
would assume from this that someone who practises bestiality,
pedophilia or transsexuality would be considered under this
section. The minister says no, but he is unwilling to define the
term sexual orientation. His social agenda is clear and it has
little to do with getting tough on crime.
(1620)
The proposed sentencing guidelines are redundant and ill
considered, injecting politics and social fashion into the
administration of criminal law. Judges already have wide
discretion in sentencing within limits provided by the courts of
appeal. They often use this discretion to hand out particularly
harsh sentences for crimes they consider harmful to society.
As far as I can determine, the government has presented no
evidence that judges are being unduly lenient with criminals
motivated by hate as compared to the leniency for other
offences. Why pass a law that in effect asks judges to conform in
accordance with a fashionable list?
The Criminal Code is not a toy or a political manifesto. Nor
should it be a showcase for the government's style. It is the law
of the land, the moral border of tolerance where the state will
intervene. Before the government makes any changes to the
Criminal Code it should show first that there is a problem and,
further, a problem that can be effectively addressed by the
criminal law. Demonstrate, then legislate.
The problem contemplated by section 718.2 of Bill C-41
relates to an important principle. I said from the very beginning,
and I will continue to say it, that the legislation ignores the
fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law. It
suggests that violence against one person is less or more
significant than against others, and that it provides special
recognitions and advantages to select groups of people. I do not
believe it is a wise course for the administration of justice.
Several years ago a boy was murdered in Calgary by a young
offender. His reasoning: the victim was overweight, shy and too
brainy for his liking so he stabbed him to death. Not one of these
characteristics is in the listed schedule in Bill C-41. Clearly the
young boy was victimized based on discrimination of
aforethought. Where does the list of discriminating
characteristics end? The list is indefinite and that is why the
Reform Party wants clause 718.2 of the bill removed to keep all
persons equal before the law.
The courts already take into account the surrounding
circumstances of the offence at the time of sentencing. If
someone commits assault causing bodily harm that person is
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. The
judge makes the decision concerning the length of the sentence
not exceeding 10 years.
As it currently stands, if the judge feels that a person was
assaulted because of religion, the accused could be given a term
of up to 10 years in prison. What many do not understand is that
even if the amendments to Bill C-41 come into force, the
maximum penalty the judge can give in such a case is still 10
years. The legislation will not strengthen the limits of the
Criminal Code.
It is evident that section 718.2 is not presented for any
criminal justice purpose but rather to mollify some loud
political voices. This section of the Criminal Code is for a social
fashion purpose, what is currently politically and socially
correct as defined by the Liberals.
By slipping section 718.2 into Bill C-41 the government
manoeuvres one step closer to its overall agenda to include
homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would
then enable gay couples to claim spousal benefits and perhaps
overturn by legal challenge any pro-traditional family social
policy of the federal government. All in all section 718.2 should
be deleted from Bill C-41. Deleting it would make it a better
piece of legislation and more in line with the true will of the
Canadian people.
I want to address another amendment that we as a party have
proposed. It is simply to delete anything to do with section 745
of the Criminal Code. The clause has no right to be part of the
code at all. Bill C-41 should not be referring to it. I know the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce feels differently as this had
become his legacy when he was the solicitor general. Liberals
see section 745 as the glimmer of hope. Reformers see a life
sentence as just that, a life sentence. Life should mean life.
Today a court in Ontario is in the midst of the very disturbing
trial of Paul Bernardo. He is charged with the murders of two
young girls. If convicted he could receive a life sentence, but
because of section 745 he could be walking our streets in 15
years. I cannot even bear to think of the possibility of this
occurring. Yet the bleeding hearts condemn Reformers for even
thinking of repealing this offensive section.
The member for York South-Weston has a private member's
bill at committee stage that would get rid of section 745. If clear
heads prevail, the bill will pass through the committee stage.
The bill passed second reading and I believe that 74 members of
the Liberal caucus supported it. We have hope then that our
amendment will have similar results when it comes to a vote.
When 74 Liberal members vote differently than the justice
minister and the Prime Minister, one can only come to the
13825
conclusion that these members are simply doing what is right for
the justice system in our society.
(1625)
Repeal of section 745 represents what the majority of
Canadians want. It is a bellwether issue to measure the
appropriateness of the social philosophy of the section 745
defenders. Who could ever even vote for and support in
Parliament any MP who has the kind of mind that would
continue to defend section 745? Canadians want it repealed. I
hope the government is listening.
In conclusion I am saying that the underlying social
philosophy of Bill C-41 is a measure of the basic value structure
of the Prime Minister. He alone is ultimately responsible and
accountable for the devalued tone of the bill's inherent message.
Everything in the bill has his stamp of approval.
The Prime Minister sometimes appears as a likeable guy.
However his legislation and values represented in the bill are not
very likeable. The bill does not represent mainstream Canadian
values. Consequently it is revealed that neither does the Prime
Minister. Improvement will only come with a new government.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell you today that I rejoice in
participating in this debate. I must confess that I do not. Like
many members I suppose I hesitated before doing so.
I speak in the House as a practising Roman Catholic, a
pro-life supporter against euthanasia. I believe strongly in what
hon. members would consider to be family values. I also speak
in favour of the bill before us today. I suppose it would be far
easier to keep quiet.
However the debate I have heard over the last couple of days
has put me in a position where I feel I have to speak. Lest any
member think that I am wearing my MP hat as opposed to my
whip hat and so on, I say to the House and to all hon. members
that there is no difference. I cannot take off the jacket and tie and
put on the team jersey when I feel like it. I have to reconcile the
fact that I operate in both roles at the same time and all the time.
Some of the things I have heard make it such that I feel
compelled to express my views on the issue. I want to address
two topics: first youth offenders and second the hate crime
provision.
[Translation]
On the topic of young offenders, I must say that I was
disappointed with some of the speeches I heard yesterday. I am
the father of two teenagers and the remarks made by the hon.
member for Wild Rose yesterday aroused in me a feeling of
helplessness to see what I would call a generalized inclination to
tar young people in this country with the same brush by
ascribing criminal tendencies to all, most or at least a large
number of 16- and 17-year olds.
[English]
Paragraph after paragraph of the speech of the member for
Wild Rose-and I have a copy of Hansard before me-describe
16 and 17-year-old hooligans. They indicate that sentences are
inappropriate for young criminals, that youths raised in poverty
have no excuse for adhering to a life of crime; that alleged
dysfunctionality was not a reason to be a criminal; and that 16
and 17-year-old butchers have to be treated like their victims
and so on.
All of us want sentences that are appropriate and that fit the
crime.
(1630 )
Each one of us has a moral responsibility in the Chamber
when we speak to ensure what we say does not create more
misery than the good we are pretending to espouse in our views.
[Translation]
Which brings me to my second topic: hate crimes. Never,
since first arriving in this House a long time ago, have I read
letters from constituents and others expressing such disturbing
grievances.
[English]
Let us remember the bill is about sentencing with regard to
crimes already committed.
[Translation]
I received letters and preprinted cards from people in other
ridings, like this one, which talk about the government wanting
to legitimize the lifestyle of a group that undermines basic
family values.
I have here another letter I have received.
[English]
Another letter says Bill C-41 would harm the rights of parents
to protect their children, the rights of institutions to have a
preference over adoption policy, historical rights of freedom of
religion, the right of religious institutions to have hiring
practices consistent with their religious belief and so on.
I am not mocking anyone, I say to the hon. member across,
and if he had listened carefully the letter I am reading does not
come from a constituent. The hon. member may make fun of
what I have to say but I do not believe anything we do which in
any way shows that kind of intolerance is beneficial to any of us.
If the hon. member will be patient, once I finish my speech he
can give us his wisdom.
13826
The B'nai Brith of Canada, the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, the chief of police of the Ottawa-Carleton
regional police force, the Canadian Jewish Congress and others
have all asked us to support this legislation. I have in hand a
letter from the United Church of Canada talking about the bill
and the need to have it, talking about hate crimes, crimes are
motivated by the vulnerability of certain individuals and groups
within society. It urges these groups to be explicitly included.
I must say with regret that my church did not send a letter of
support of this kind. I do not wish to elaborate on that but I have
to state it because it is a fact. That does not change what I believe
to be intolerance on the part of some, lack of knowledge on the
part of others and selfish motives on the part of yet others
making it such that the debate today has taken on the ugly
tangent I see attached to it.
[Translation]
It is unfortunate that, as we sit here asking questions on a bill
partly aimed at protecting hate crime victims, there is so much
controversy surrounding this bill.
[English]
One amendment says that for greater certainty, referring to
sexual orientation, it does not include preference toward any
sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under this
act. That is to clarify that presumably a sexual activity that
would be criminal would not be legal by virtue of passing the
bill.
(1635 )
The minister indicated there was no need for such an
amendment. Notwithstanding that, for greater certainty he put
one in. If they are clear in their conscience members opposite
will look at group No. 7, Motion No. 24:
For greater certainty, conduct that constituted an offence under the Criminal
Code before the date on which this section comes into force constitutes the same
offence after that date.
In other words, for greater certainty anything that was
criminal before is reaffirmed this way in the same way as we
reaffirm through a greater certainty clause in the gun bill with
respect to a certain group. We have done it again here just to
ensure there was no doubt.
Will that make the members who are heckling right now vote
for the bill? I regret to say that probably will not happen.
[Translation]
What we must do in this House, if we see ourselves as living in
a mature democracy that has embraced certain basic rights, is
not only to believe in these rights but also to ensure that some
groups in our society do not become the victims of intolerance.
The least we can do is not to make speeches in this House which
promote intolerance against others.
[English]
Today we are not having a debate or a speech about family
values, about the promotion of gay rights or anything like that.
They have nothing to do with the bill. They could have
something to do with other bills and we will deal with those
when the time comes if and when it does. Those are not the
issues before us today. The issue before us today is the
protection of victims when crimes have been committed. That is
what we have to remember. To twist that in order to achieve
some other objective is not correct. It is not the kind of tolerance
I was brought up to live with and to live by. I ask my colleagues
to share with me in that kind of tolerance toward other people, as
I was taught to do in the church of which I am a member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Davenport, the environment.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-41.
I begin by voicing my absolute disgust with the government in
its move to invoke time allocation on the bill. Bill C-41 is an
important bill with serious implications. My constituents of
Comox-Alberni deserve to have their opinions heard through
their representative in the House. The government's move to
silence MPs by preventing reasonable debate of legislation is
undemocratic and unprincipled.
Bill C-41 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to restructure
sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Code and rules
for evidence and procedure for use in the sentencing process.
Bill C-41 ensures harsher penalties are imposed for crimes
motivated by hatred based on race, nationality, colour, religion,
sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.
I agree with the concept that legislation should provide for
victim impact statements to be used in court proceedings. The
Reform Party has also been a strong advocate of victims' rights
and it is high time this be given priority by the government.
However, the bill before us hardly addresses the issue. Bill C-41
does little to protect victims' rights.
The bill provides only for written statements to be filed with
the court, which is simply not adequate. The bill fails to provide
for oral or written statements to be made directly to the court by
the victim or by the victim's representative. With this provision
the legislative proposals are virtually meaningless.
If the government is serious about victims' rights, provision
to allow for both oral and written statements to be made directly
to the court by either the victim or the victim's representative
should be provided for.
13827
When the Reform Party suggested a number of amendments
to the bill at committee stage which would provide for these
provisions, the lack of commitment by the government was
demonstrated when all amendments were voted down by the
Liberal majority in committee.
(1640 )
As much as I support provisions for victim's rights, I am
dismayed to note that passing this legislation will hardly change
the status quo.
The implications of victims' rights within the bill may be
insignificant. However, I have serious reservations about the
implications of section 717, which requires serious revision
before it is passed by the House.
Section 717 proposes to make provisions for allowance to
bypass court proceedings for those accused of offences. If an
accused person admits to committing or to having involvement
in an offence this section would eliminate the use of the courts to
determine guilt or sentencing.
Reform supports the use of alternative measures for specific
offences, particularly non-violent offences, but this clause is
too open ended. Offences punishable by alternate measures are
not specified and this needs to be spelled out more.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommended
section 717 be amended to restrict the availability of the
program to persons who have committed less serious offences as
well as first time offenders. I support such an amendment before
the bill becomes law.
In addition, the bill fails to give any indication of what will
constitute an alternative measure. This must be spelled out. It is
not enough to delegate responsibility to the provinces because
even though provinces are given authority to design their own
system there will be vast differences in measures from province
to province.
When Reform proposed an amendment to clarify the situation
the Liberal majority voted it down in committee. Without
clarification the bill leaves the system of fair trial and
punishment wide open to abuse.
I cannot support section 717 without the necessary
amendments, which the government is unwilling to make. As it
stands, section 717 should be scrapped.
Another section which needs serious revision is the
controversial hate section 718.2. It has raised the ire and
concern of many Canadians. Section 718.2 stipulates that a court
which imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration that
sentences should be increased or reduced to account for any
relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the
offence or the offender.
Furthermore, the bill goes on to propose that sentences take
into account that evidence the offence was motivated by bias,
prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion,
sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of
the victim shall be deemed aggravating circumstances.
One problem with this section which has been raised by many
Canadians is the loosely defined use of the term sexual
orientation. Canadians have repeatedly attempted to get their
concerns regarding this section heard by the government.
Numerous petitions and calls in the House for a legal definition
of the term sexual orientation in the bill have fallen on deaf ears.
The government still insists proceeding with the section as it
stands; so much for consulting the people.
Without a definition of sexual orientation the government is
leaving itself wide open to a whole new era of legal challenges.
The bill opens the door for the public and courts to define sexual
orientation as they see fit. This could include legitimizing
paedophiles' engaging in sexual activities with young children,
suggesting that because it is their sexual orientation it is a
legitimate activity. This is nonsense. It is a major concern.
Canadians are aware there has been an active movement for
paedophilia to be considered a legitimate sexual orientation.
This has to be addressed.
Another problem with section 718.2 is it opens the door for all
kinds of confusion before the courts. If a person who fits into
any one of the categories has been assaulted, this person will
have the right to insist the crown attorney show the offence was
motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on sexual orientation
of the victim.
Clearly bias, hate and prejudice against another person should
not be tolerated. However, opening up this section as a basis for
increased penalties opens a can of worms the government will
not be able to close.
(1645 )
In determining appropriate sentences for crimes, courts
should only consider the nature of the offence: Was it a robbery
or a sexual assault? Was violence involved? Whether or not the
offence was directed against a heterosexual or a homosexual, a
Catholic or an atheist, a Caucasian or non-Caucasian is simply
irrelevant. The whole concept of adding hatred threatens equal
treatment under the law.
Hatred, bias and prejudice cannot be defined. The nature of
the crime should be judged and punished accordingly, not the
race, religion or sexual orientation of the victim or the
perpetrator. It should not matter who or what kind of person the
victim or perpetrator is when a crime is brought before the
courts. Law has no business investigating or questioning these
attributes. In doing so the proposed law will infringe on the civil
rights and liberties of individuals.
Just as this government proposes to impose on civil rights and
liberties of Canadians with its prejudicial hiring quotas in Bill
C-64, the act to impose hiring equity, the government also
proposes to entrench inequities through this bill. Just as all
13828
Canadians should be able to compete equally for jobs
irrespective of race, religion, gender or disability, so should all
Canadians be able to defend themselves in a court of law
regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
Canadians will not tolerate the big brother attitude of this
government. The Liberals may be able to hide from Canadians
the contents of their bills now by invoking closure on debate but
Canadians will not be silent when their rights and liberties are
threatened.
Over 71,000 Canadians have petitioned this House not to pass
Bill C-41 as it stands. Over 10,000 letters opposing this bill
were delivered to the justice minister last week. The justice
minister has received over 70,000 letters opposing this bill.
There is no question Canadians clearly do not agree with the
Liberal government on this issue.
The minister states that he consulted with Canadians before
implementing legislation, but with whom did he consult on Bill
C-41? The growing arrogance of this government is becoming
very apparent and Canadians simply will not continue to tolerate
it.
Come next election the message of Canadians will be loud and
clear. Just as the people spoke in the 1993 election, so they will
speak in 1997. The government may be able to ignore and
silence the will of Canadians today but no government is above
the democratic voice of the people. The Liberals, like the
Conservatives before them who did not listen to the people, will
go down in flames.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, originally, my speech
was supposed to be in French but as you know, this is an issue
that has caused some controversy in many parts of English
Canada and especially among representatives of the third party
here in the House.
[English]
There is only one part of this bill which is controversial. Let
us cut to the chase and talk about that one part, namely crimes
motivated by hatred, particularly hatred of a person's sexual
orientation.
In this debate, we have heard that sexual orientation is an
ambiguous term. Not only is this term in the bills of rights in
almost all of our provinces, but only two weeks ago the Supreme
Court of Canada acknowledged that sexual orientation was a
form of discrimination and used those specific legally definable
words.
We have heard talk about special rights being given to one
segment of society. This bill does not give anyone special rights.
It tries to restore basic human rights which are being stolen from
some segments of our society.
Gangs of neo-Nazis are not prowling the streets looking for
straight, white males to beat up and throw off cliffs. There are
however gangs of neo-Nazis beating up and killing gays.
We have heard that looking at intent sets a dangerous
precedent for our criminal justice system. Intent is the basis of
our entire criminal justice system. After all, what is the
difference between manslaughter and first degree murder if it is
not the intent of the perpetrator? The sentence for the latter is
life in prison, yet both deal with killing.
(1650 )
We have heard the argument that a crime is a crime and that
punishment for beating and killing should be the same for all
people. There are different crimes and the punishment should fit
the crime.
When a Jewish cemetery is desecrated the damage is not to
property, it is to the entire community. As a result Jewish people
feel unsafe in their homes as they recall their history and an
entire segment of our society is scarred. That is exactly what the
neo-Nazis want. When a gay person is beaten or killed it is not
simply that person who is murdered but the entire community is
victimized. This is exactly what the neo-Nazis and bigots of all
kinds want.
We have heard the right wingers talk of conspiracy and
agendas. The only agenda is that of the radical religious right
trying to advance religious beliefs on the Canadian public. After
all, this is not about new rights but about saving lives. The polls
show that the Canadian public overwhelmingly wants this
legislation, more than those who wanted gun control and that
was well over 70 per cent.
I realize there are some members in this House who feel their
personal religious beliefs are more important than either their
constituents' views or an individual's fundamental rights and
freedoms. However I would urge them to follow the lead of
Quebec, the only province in Canada which has an official
religion and the first province in Canada to acknowledge that
there is widespread discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I would also urge these members to remember what we are
talking about here. We are not talking about same sex benefits.
We are not talking about adoption. We are talking about
stopping gay people from getting systematically beaten and
killed by bigots of all kinds.
Not too long ago a person walking across the bridge out here
from Hull to Ottawa was seized upon by a gang of so-called
neo-Nazis. His crime was only that these bigots thought he
looked gay. The media later made a point of saying he was not
gay but that should not have been relevant. This young man was
thrown to his death at the foot of the cliff beneath these
Parliament Buildings because the neo-Nazis thought it was
good and right to kill gays.
13829
I know some of my colleagues believe that their religion
prohibits homosexuality. I also know that their religion
prohibits killing. In Christianity the basis for the former is an
obscure passage written in prose and the latter is one of God's
Ten Commandments. I sincerely hope they will see their duty
clear and join us in trying to stop these killings once and for
all.
As a Roman Catholic and as a married man, I fully recognize
the obligation of this House to recognize equal rights for all. All
we are asking is that these fundamental rights which we hold
especially on the government side be extended to all Canadians
and that includes gays and lesbians.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to enter into the public debate on Bill C-41. I was just having a
private debate with one of the government members on the
controversial section 718.2.
There are some good points in this bill as well as the bad ones.
The emphasis has been on section 718.2 regarding the phrase of
sexual orientation. I wish to go on the record as being totally and
absolutely opposed to the point that we would introduce that
phrase and give the protection under the Criminal Code.
I may be wrong but I think this is the first time the House has
given to people the protection of sexual orientation which is
totally undefined, whatever their sexual orientation may be and
however repulsive that may be to a large number of people. They
will now be protected under the Criminal Code.
If we go back to the charter of rights and freedoms that was
passed in 1980 at that time the House specifically said that
sexual orientation shall be left out. Then we found that the
courts have introduced it. They said it shall be read in. I wonder
who gave them the power to read it in when this House said it
shall not be in there.
(1655 )
Thousands and thousands of petitions have been presented in
this House and the government has not listened to any one of
them. There is an article in today's Ottawa Sun regarding some
members of the Reform Party who delivered to Parliament in a
wheelbarrow thousands and thousands of letters objecting to the
term sexual orientation. Not one of them was listened to by this
government.
I do hope government members took note of what happened in
this province last Thursday when the government was thrown
out for not listening to the people. A new government was
introduced which promised some serious policy, not only in
balanced budgets but also in social reform.
Most unfortunately, perhaps the Liberals will pay more
attention to that than the tens of thousands of Canadians who
have registered their strong disapproval to this clause. It has
identified certain segments of society and has given them
special protection. That special protection is not available to
anybody else. We pride ourselves as Canadians for being fair,
treating everybody equally, that no one is better or worse than
anybody else.
Yet because of a person's sexual orientation, which is
undefined and may be reprehensible and disgusting, that person
is not only protected but we are also going to mete out a more
severe punishment to people who are victims within those
groups than those who are victims of a group not mentioned in
the section. That is why I find it repulsive. It is not only the fact
that sexual orientation is in here which I find repulsive, but also
the fact that a few Canadians have been identified and are being
told that they are entitled to special treatment but nobody else is.
All of us are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law but we
now find that is not the case.
I fully expect the citizens of Canada will remember this at the
next election. They will ask MPs how they voted on June 14,
1995 on Bill C-41 when this type of amendment to the Criminal
Code was introduced for the first time. I am fairly sure a large
number of people who voted Liberal last time will not be voting
Liberal the next time based on the fact that the Liberals have
totally ignored the wishes of Canadians and have pushed this
through much against their will.
Moving on to other sections, section 745.1 deals with people
under the age of 18. Because we have focused on section 718.2
we have not talked about the other sections. Section 745.1 deals
with the sentencing of people under the age of 18 convicted of
first degree murder and second degree murder who shall be
eligible for parole between five and ten years.
No more than 10 years shall the person spend in jail if he or
she commits a murder in this country while under the age of 18.
No more. What is the value of human life when we let our young
people run through the streets committing murder and violent
crime and we say the maximum is 10 years in jail for the crime?
There is a trial going on at this very moment which has
despicable and heinous videotapes of the most repulsive crimes
that perhaps have ever been committed in this country. Had
these people been under the age of 18, the sentence would have
been no more than 10 years in jail.
Where is this country going when it comes to criminal
justice? Canadians from coast to coast are saying that they want
safer streets and safer communities. And we turn around and pat
those criminals on the head saying: ``Do not do it any more.
Perhaps you should know better''.
It is time we got tough on crime, time that we told criminals
we do not want to see them back in court again. The sentence
should be appropriate. It should give them the message that we
are serious about being serious on crime.
13830
Section 717 regarding alternative measures and sentencing
allows more appropriate sentencing. A couple of weeks ago we
heard that a court in Saskatchewan banished a native for one
year to live in isolation because he raped and humiliated
someone. That is not sufficient.
(1700)
If we are going to give the courts the right to alternative
measures then we should have some real serious messages built
into the system that the punishment must fit the crime. To banish
someone to the wilderness who is perfectly capable and
acquainted with living in the wilderness is basically to tell him
to go home for a year and stay there. When this country is totally
and absolutely fed up with violence against women and
everybody, we find that a sentence like that is repulsive.
We already have a private member's bill to try to repeal
section 745.6. That is the open door for people who are
sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 15 years. It used to
be the faint last hope and now we find it is the open door to get
back on the street. That also has to be closed.
I have one final point, on section 722. We have to applaud that
one, because it now gives victims the right to be heard in court.
We must say that is an advancement, because victims need to be
heard. We need to hear the pain they have suffered. It is time that
criminals realized they are destroying our society and society is
going to speak back and hit back to ensure that criminals get the
message once and for all that we have had enough with crime
and criminals. We want to do what we can through tougher
sentencing and tougher laws to ensure that crime statistics start
going down rather than up.
I could speak all day on this particular subject, but I think I
have put my point across. There are five bad points and one good
point in this bill. Therefore, I think Reform and everybody else
in this country wants this bill defeated.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-41 has proven to be a very controversial bill based
exclusively on the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in
section 718.2, two words in a bill that runs 75 pages in length.
These objections, even with a cursory study, do not stand up to
scrutiny.
First I want to briefly deal with what the rest of C-41 talks
about. C-41 provides the courts with a clear statement of
principles and guidelines to be considered when sentencing
offenders. Sentencing is a very delicate balance between
competing principles. There is far more to consider than simply
locking up the offender and separating him from society. This is
not to say that the safety of society must not be the paramount
goal, but we must also rehabilitate where we can and use our
limited financial correctional resources in the wisest possible
fashion.
Canada has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the
western world. This is not because we are a violent or lawless
people. On the contrary, only 10 per cent of crime in this country
actually involves violence. Over half of all crimes involve
property, not people. And frequently offenders are locked up not
because they represent in any way a threat to society but because
we simply do not know what to do with them. We do not have the
resources at present in our code.
For example, nearly a third of the people liable to
incarceration in our provincial jails are in that situation because
they could not pay fines. Particularly hard hit of course are
aboriginal and poor Canadians. The bill provides measures to
help the provinces collect outstanding fines through the civil
court system or levy community service or withhold provincial
licences or permits in lieu of fines.
The bill also takes into much greater account the victims of
crime, the people so often overlooked in the sentencing process.
The new law will revise the parole provisions of the code.
Henceforth, when an offender brings an application for an
earlier parole eligibility date the court will specifically be
required to take into account the perspective and evidence of the
victim or the victim's family in deciding whether permission
should be granted to the applicant to seek early parole.
(1705 )
The bill also gives priority to the principle of restitution.
Offenders must be made to understand the consequences of their
crimes. To do this, the code will be amended to ensure that
restitution orders can be enforced through civil courts like any
other court order, through garnishment of wages, seizure, sale or
otherwise. At the same time, the restitution order will not
preclude the victim from suing for damages in the civil courts in
that province.
Jails should be reserved for those who need them. Bill C-41
proposes alternatives to create a more equitable, less costly, and
more effective system which Canadians can trust. It introduces a
diversion program for adults guilty of minor crimes, for
instance shoplifting, that will allow the courts to divert the
offender into a program of community service and counselling
to deal with the problem in a more humane and less costly
manner.
Another new aspect of the bill is the conditional sentence.
This provision will give authorities the discretion to have the
offender serve his or her sentence in the community where-and
I want to stress this-the court is satisfied that the offender
would not endanger the safety of the community. If the offender
does not comply with the conditions imposed as part of that
sentence, he or she is brought back before the court to explain. If
the court is not satisfied, it can order that the remainder of the
sentence be served in custody.
13831
Last, Bill C-41 will require that a judge passing sentence
state her or his reasons and enter those reasons in the record
of proceeding. This will increase public understanding of the
judicial decision making process, encouraging judges to make
consistent, well-informed, reasoned decisions based on the
principles enunciated in the bill.
Now to section 718. Hate crime is increasingly manifest in
Canada. There are over 40 organized hate groups operating in
Canada today, and there is no evidence that the number is
abating. It is with this in mind that the Liberal government has
moved to toughen up the Criminal Code to crack down on crime
and to make it known in absolutely unequivocal terms that we
cannot and will not allow hatred and prejudice to tear us apart in
this country. This was our promise to the Canadian people
during the election campaign. We say now that crimes motivated
by hate will be and indeed must be more severely punished.
Hatred comes in many guises. There is neo-Nazism,
anti-Semitism, racism. They are only the obvious forms.
Prejudice based on sexual orientation is just as real and one of
the most common forms of discrimination we encounter today.
Some studies estimate that as much as 12 per cent of the
population is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Others purport to put the
number as low as 3 per cent. Whatever the percentage, be it 1 per
cent or 50 per cent, the fact is that we cannot tolerate prejudice
and hate motivated crimes against any segment of our
population, no matter how small. In fact, I will argue that if it is
smaller then they need our protection more, since they do not
have the numbers to protect themselves.
Studies show that as many as one-third of the people we are
talking about here-or they are talking about, that great they
over on the other side-have been threatened or subjected to
violence simply because of who they are. According to the
Metro Toronto police force, hate crimes motivated by sexual
orientation today represent the third largest category of hate
related offences.
The evidence all points to a steady increase in hate crime,
particularly in the United States. It is naive to think that this
does not spill over to Canada. If we contemn hatred, we must
contemn all hatred, not just against some groups, but against all
groups equally.
Some people have expressed a concern that the new law would
legalize pedophilia. Let us be perfectly clear here. This
legislation does not legalize any sexual activity that is currently
outlawed, and the bill explicitly states so. A person's sexual
orientation no more includes pedophilia than it does sexual
assault or incest. I wonder how many heterosexuals think of
themselves as rapists.
People who violate the sexual offences in the existing
Criminal Code will continue to be punished to the full extent of
the law. In fact, section 718.2.(ii) of the bill will allow for even
harsher sentences to be imposed on sex offenders where the
victim is in a relationship of trust to the offender, for example,
where a doctor molests a patient, a teacher a young student, a
babysitter his or her charge, or a priest his parishioner.
I have also heard it said that the new bill will make it a crime
to speak out publicly against homosexuality. Again, let us be
perfectly clear. It is the right of every Canadian to be able to
speak his or her mind. A church sermon expressing a moral view
is not a crime. Freedom of speech and religion are both
specifically protected under our charter of rights and freedoms.
(1710)
Bill C-41 as a sentencing bill will become operative only
after someone is found guilty of a crime. Only at the sentencing
hearing may a judge hear evidence that the crime was motivated
by hatred, and only then may the judge take it into account in
passing sentence.
Some critics have expressed concern that the bill will open the
door to sweeping changes leading to the recognition of same sex
families or gay and lesbian spouses. Bill C-41 does not and will
not have this effect. You are in the wrong act, people. It does
nothing more than what it appears to do. It is a bill to give the
court guidance in determining a sentence where a crime has been
committed. The bill does not advocate or encourage any
lifestyle, nor does it undermine in any way the traditional
family. It does not even speak to the subject. It is relevant only to
the criminal law.
Bill C-41 is about many things. It is about the right of
everyone to live as they choose within the law and to live their
lives free from fear. It is far more than a debate on sexual
orientation. It is about sentencing. It is designed to restore faith
in our courts, faith in our system of justice, and faith in our
communities, where people need to be reintegrated.
I urge all members of the House to give their support to this
important bill.
I must say that I have felt ashamed in the last two days about
statements of intolerance I have heard in the debate. I hope I
never rise again saying that I feel ashamed about statements of
intolerance in the greatest democracy in the world today,
Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.12 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Thursday, June 8, 1995, and in
accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78, it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now
before the House.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the interest
of avoiding reading the list of motions aloud, I think you might
find a disposition on the part of the House to consider that all the
motions have been put, the division demanded and deferred, so
13832
that we can proceed at once with the ringing of the bells for the
division.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, if we could have unanimous
agreement that after the vote on Bill C-41 is complete the House
would adjourn for the evening, we would be agreeable.
Otherwise we will not give unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will not partake in the
negotiations. I will simply put the motion as proposed by the
parliamentary secretary and await the decision of the House.
The proposal of the hon. parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader is that the House deem moved and
seconded, deem read, deem deferred for a recorded division. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
The 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 (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 16,
with the following:
``amined that substance and stating the result of''.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 40, on page 33, with the following:
``garde d'enfant auxquels s'expose une''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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 (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
We will now move to Group No. 4, Motion No. 19.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended
(a) by striking out line 4, on page 26, and substituting the following:
``prison calculated in accordance with regulations made under subsection (7), and'';
(b) by adding, immediately after line 21, on page 26, the following:
``(7) The Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province may make
regulations respecting the calculation of the costs and charges referred to in
Clause (5)(a)(i)(B) and in paragraph 734.8(1)(b).''; and
(c) by striking out line 5 on page 30 and substituting the following:
13833
``conveying the defaulter to prison, calculated in accordance with regulations made
under subsection 734(7).''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands
deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now move to
Group No. 5, Motion No. 21.
(1720)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by
(a) replacing line 9, on page 44, with the following:
``743.6 Notwithstanding subsection''; and
(b) by deleting lines 27 to 32, on page 44.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion negatived.)
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended:
(a) by deleting lines 26 to 49, on page 47, lines 1 to 45, on page 48 and lines 1 to 24,
on page 49; and
(b) by replacing lines 26 and 27, on page 49, with the following:
``ment served for the purposes of section 745 or 745.4, there shall be included any''.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-41, in Clause 24, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 41 and 42, on page 62, with the following:
``ences to ``745'', ``745.1'', ``745.4'' and ``745.5'', respectively; or''; and
(b) by replacing line 3, on page 63, with the following:
``745.1, 745.4 or 745.5, there shall be''.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-41, in Schedule IV, be amended by deleting item 44, on page 74.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76, a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 23 and
25.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-41 be amended by adding immediately after line 28, on page 63,
the following:
``25.1 For greater certainty, conduct that constituted an offence under the
Criminal Code before the date on which this section comes into force constitutes
the same offence after that date.''
13834
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The 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 (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
(1740 )
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are going to have a few votes
this afternoon. We are going to take it nice and easy so that
everyone understands what is going on. We are not going to rush
at all. Here we go.
The first question is on Motion No. 3. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 3 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 3 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 4.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 278)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunziata
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
1Solomon
13835
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-179
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1750 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
The next 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 Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 279)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-87
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
13836
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-140
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1800 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. We are now in Group
No. 2. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the
necessity of putting the question on Motion Nos. 6 to 17
inclusive. A negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 6.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on
the following division: )
(Division No. 280)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunziata
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-48
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
13837
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-180
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1810 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 6 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motions Nos. 7 and 17. A negative vote on Motion No. 6
necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 7 and 17. 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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 281)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Iftody
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood-53
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
13838
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Young
Zed-174
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1820 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 7 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motions 8 to 16. A negative vote on Motion No. 7 necessitates
the question being put on Motion No. 8.
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.
Some hon. members: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 282)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Iftody
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunziata
Payne
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood-59
13839
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Young
Zed-166
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1830 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
We are still on Group No. 2. The next question is on Motion
No. 8. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 8 obviates the
necessity of putting the question on Motions 9 to 16. A negative
vote on Motion No. 8 necessitates the question being put on
Motions 9 to 11.
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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 283)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Arseneault
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Loney
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunziata
13840
Payne
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood-65
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Solomon
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wells
Young
Zed-157
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1840 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost.
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 Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 284)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
13841
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-33
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Bélair
Caccia
Catterall
Chan
Comuzzi
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nault
Pagtakhan
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young -114
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1850 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. 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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 285)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Savoye
Dubé
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-37
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Beaumier
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
13842
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-178
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
We are still on Group No. 2.
(1900 )
The next question is on Motion No. 11. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 11 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motions Nos. 12 to 16. A negative vote on Motion No. 11
necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 12.
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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 286)
YEAS
Members
Cummins
Forseth
Gouk
Hanrahan
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Jordan
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Strahl
Volpe
Wappel
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-24
13843
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Catterall
Chan
Comuzzi
Crête
Dhaliwal
Duceppe
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Goodale
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Skoke
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young -105
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1905 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 12 in Group No. 2. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 12 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motions Nos. 13 to 16. A negative vote
on Motion No. 12 necessitates the question being put on
Motions Nos. 13 and 15.
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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 287)
YEAS
Members
Cummins
Fontana
Forseth
Harper (Calgary West)
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Jordan
Lee
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Morrison
Nault
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Wappel
White (North Vancouver)
Wood-22
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benoit
Bergeron
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélair
Caccia
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
de Savoye
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
Epp
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
13844
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunziata
Peters
Peterson
Ramsay
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
Williams
Young -74
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1910 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like
you to clarify two things for me. I have noticed that a lot of
government members are going in and out of their seats. I
believe-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. whip of the Reform Party has the
floor.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rose to ask you to please check the
record on the last vote on Motion No. 12. I believe you will find
the minister of immigration cast his vote and should be in that
total, but before the totals were given he left his seat. That vote
should not count.
The Speaker: Colleagues, you will recall earlier in the night I
asked you to kindly stay in your seats from the beginning to the
end of each vote. Perhaps one or two members did leave a bit
earlier. I cannot see all members at the same time. I appeal to
you that when a vote begins, once you vote please stay in your
seat until the vote is terminated.
I will do it this one time. Because an hon. member questioned
another hon. member's presence, it is very simple, did the hon.
minister of immigration leave his seat during the vote?
(1920 )
Mr. Marchi: Yes.
The Speaker: There it is. His vote in this instance I rule will
not count by his own admission.
I ask members to please abide by the rules. We will get
through these votes, they will just take a little while.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 13 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates
the question being put on Motion No. 14.
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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived
on division:)
(Division No. 288)
YEAS
Members
McTeague
Serré
Skoke
Steckle
Wappel
Wayne-6
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Caccia
Caron
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Jennings
Johnston
Keyes
Loney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Mayfield
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ménard
Nunziata
Paré
Peterson
Ramsay
Rideout
13845
Ringma
Rompkey
Schmidt
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Young -67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1925)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. 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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 289)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bertrand
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Bélanger
Caccia
Chan
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Murray
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young -91
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Crête
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
Manning
Mayfield
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Ménard
Nunziata
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Thompson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-62
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
13846
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1935 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 carried.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I seek some clarification from
the Chair. My understanding is that the effect of Motion No. 14
by the member for Scarborough West is to insert a comma into
the legislation. Can you confirm that, please, or can the author
confirm the effect of that amendment?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to confirm that
the amendment adds a comma. I am very happy that the
government supported it.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 15. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 15 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motion No. 16. A negative vote on
Motion No. 15 necessitates the question being put on Motion
No. 16.
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.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the Motion No. 15, which was
negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 290)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Bélisle
Caron
Crête
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Harris
Jacob
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Loubier
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne-33
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Bridgman
Bélair
Caccia
Catterall
Chan
Comuzzi
Cummins
Duhamel
English
Epp
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nault
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Ramsay
Rideout
Ringma
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-79
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1940 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
13847
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My Motion
No. 16 calls for stiffer sentences against spousal abusers. Today
in debate a motion was put by the hon. member for Hamilton
West to amend Motion No. 17 that had been moved by the
Minister of Justice.
I am pleased that Motion No. 17, as amended, would very
nicely cover the intent of my motion. Therefore I ask for
unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 16.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 16 withdrawn.)
(1945 )
The Speaker: The next question is on the amendment to
Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment 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:
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
(Division No. 291)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Barnes
Beaumier
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duhamel
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-150
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Bridgman
Duncan
Gilmour
Hart
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Ramsay
Ringma
Solberg
Strahl
Williams-12
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
13848
(1950 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
This is the last question, my colleagues, in Group No. 2. The
question is on Motion No. 17 as amended. 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:
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, as amended, which
was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 292)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Assadourian
Barnes
Beaumier
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Comuzzi
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Wood-158
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Bridgman
Epp
Gilmour
Hart
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Strahl
Williams-14
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(1955 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17, as amended, carried.
We are now beginning Group No. 3. The next question is on
Motion No. 20.
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived
on the following division:)
13849
(Division No. 293)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Solomon
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-59
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Comuzzi
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Rideout
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wood
Young
Zed-116
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(2005 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 20 lost.
We are now on Group No. 4. The next question is on Motion
No. 19.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 294)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Comuzzi
Crête
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Gagliano
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
13850
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Jackson
Keyes
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McGuire
McLaughlin
Murphy
Nunez
O'Brien
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Rideout
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Solomon
Speller
Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Volpe
Wayne
Wood
Young -80
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Gilmour
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(2010 )
After the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The Table would like some clarification. Either
the member of Parliament for Beaver River voted twice or
someone like her voted. Would she tell us if she did vote and if
she did, which way she voted.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Fortunately
there only is one member for Beaver River in this House. I am
about as tired as the woman who is calling the vote. She is
exhausted. I stood to try to expedite it. I am in fact a nay.
The Speaker: I do not know if this is in order but maybe the
hon. member for Beaver River could pass this time.
Miss Grey: I am happy to pass, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 22. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 23 and 25.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. On December 13
the House passed at second reading private member's Bill
C-226, which deals with section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The House in principle supported the repeal of section 745 of
the Criminal Code. This amendment to this piece of legislation
purports to amend a bill or a section of the Criminal Code
Parliament has already pronounced on in terms of repealing it at
second reading.
The private member's bill is presently before the justice
committee. I seek some direction from the Chair as to whether
this amendment and the section in this bill are in order.
(2020 )
The Speaker: I have been asked for a ruling. I rule these
amendments are in order because the other bill is not now before
the House and therefore we will proceed with Motion No. 22.
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 295)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Maloney
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
Nunziata
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Terrana
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-47
13851
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bergeron
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brien
Bélanger
Caccia
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Comuzzi
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
Fillion
Finestone
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Kirkby
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Marleau
Massé
McKinnon
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
O'Brien
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Ur
Young -75
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(2025 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 23 and 25 lost also.
We are now at Group No. 7. The next question is on Motion
No. 24.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was agreed to on
the following division: )
(Division No. 296)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellehumeur
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Chan
Comuzzi
Crête
Culbert
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Kirkby
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rideout
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Venne
Wells
Young
Zed-107
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
13852
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-44
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(2035 )
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 carried.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was sure
which way I voted. I should like to seek unanimous consent of
the House to give a great round of applause to Audrey O'Brien
who has been on her feet for hours and called every vote here
tonight.
Mr. Fontana: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that
members of the Reform Party have been gracious enough to pay
tribute to someone who has done a lot of work for us tonight in
counting the votes, perhaps they would stop playing games and
get on with the votes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Neither of those were points of order.
Mr. Hermanson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The
hon. member on the other side impugned that we do not take
serious the democratic process. I would ask that he withdraw the
comments.
The Speaker: We have been at it now for three hours.
Everything is going quite well. I am reminded of the story of the
elephant and what he said when his tail was cut off. He said: ``It
won't be long now''.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 297)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
13853
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Reed
Rideout
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-167
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-50
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Calder
Canuel
Clancy
Copps
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dingwall
Dupuy
Easter
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Lalonde
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Sauvageau
(2045)
After the taking of the vote:
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think the
name of the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley was
called. I was listening quite carefully and I would like to
ascertain whether it was correctly registered.
The Speaker: His name was called and recorded.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 37, because of the
delay, Private Members' Business will be rescheduled for
another sitting.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments
made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this
House agrees to amendment number 4(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an
act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundary commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries, and this House disagrees with
amendments numbers 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 4(c), 5 and 6 for the following reasons:
The bill was, in accordance with the new procedures of this House, prepared
by a committee of the House. While amendment number 4(a) corrects an
omission, the other amendments address points, each of which were supported
by members representing at least two of the three parties officially recognized in
the House. Taken together, the bill represents a balance aimed at improving the
responsiveness of the system of readjusting electoral boundaries both to rapid
shifts of population and to the operative realities of effective representation of
the people, a balance that, in the opinion of this House, requires:
(a) in view of the varied Canadian geography and demography, the retention of
a variation of up to 25 per cent from the electoral quota of each province
(addressed by amendments number 1 and 6(a));
13854
(b) the avoidance of unnecessary electoral boundary adjustments in provinces
where shifts of population do not require them (addressed in amendments
number 2, 3, 5, 6(b)(i) and 7);
(c) the clear acceptance of the non-partisan status of members of commissions
through the provision of parliamentary oversight of appointments (addressed
by amendments number 4(b) and 4(c));
(d) the retention of the definition of ``community of interest'' developed on a
non-partisan basis by currently serving elected representatives, through a
consensus of all parties, in the House of Commons Standing Committee rather
than the substitution of another definition (addressed by amendment number
6(b)(ii)).
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the motion proposed by
the government House leader in respect of the Senate
amendments to Bill C-69.
The motion before the House accepts one of the amendments
proposed by the Senate to this bill and rejects the other
amendments proposed.
I am pleased to support the motion before the House.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under a little
used section on Private Members' Business, could the Speaker
indicate whether that private members' motion will be within
the closing session of the next seven days.
(2050 )
The Speaker: In response to the question of order it is the
responsibility of the Speaker to reschedule this private
member's day within the next 10 days.
It is my intention to try to reschedule it before the end of this
session. This session is scheduled to finish in the next seven
days and I will attempt to put it on there.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to assist you in
rescheduling it at 3.30 this morning.
I want to go ahead with the speech I have before me. This is an
attempt to obstruct my speech and I hope the Chair will put a
short end to it.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of
the proceedings earlier this evening it might be wise to now
move that the House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
has the floor and the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster cannot move that motion as a point
of order.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the government fulfilled its
obligation in respect of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act when it appointed a committee to draft and bring in a bill to
the House. The procedure and House affairs committee, which I
have the honour to chair, worked for a considerable period of
time drafting and bringing in amendments to the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. In most cases the amendments
were agreeable to all the members on the committee.
There were only a couple of items on which there was
disagreement. I am sure that will be reflected in the speeches
from the other parties in the course of the evening. Basically
there was substantial agreement on the elements of the bill.
The end result of the work the committee did was to give
Canadians a more open, transparent and effective system of
readjusting electoral boundaries. The bill which was brought to
the House by the government based on the committee report and
in substantial compliance with the committee report was
adopted by the House following on that committee's work.
In other words, there had been consensus at the beginning.
There was consensus basically all the way through, although I
respect the fact the opposition parties voted against the bill in
the end for two different reasons. One was unconnected with the
bill and condemned the bill for something it did not contain. The
other was due to disagreement with one of the provisions in the
bill which carried on a provision from the previous law that
allowed for ridings that vary by more than 25 per cent from the
provincial quotient.
As I have indicated, the motion proposed by the government
House leader agrees with Senate amendment 4(a) which would
add a requirement to the law that members of a boundaries
commission be resident in the province for which the
commission is established. That was omitted from the bill
largely by oversight on the part of the committee and we are
happy to agree with the Senate that the provision could be fixed.
I acknowledge the oversight on the part of the standing
committee and I am glad to see it corrected by this amendment.
(2055)
However, the other amendments proposed by the Senate in my
submission are unacceptable because they would repeal the
most important innovations set out in Bill C-69, each of which
was supported by at least two of the parties in the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when introduced
and considered in that committee.
These amendments therefore upset the balance struck by the
standing committee in improving the system for electoral
boundaries and in my view should therefore be rejected.
I respectfully disagree with Amendments Nos. 1 and 6(a) to
reduce the maximum deviation from the electoral quota for a
province from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. This quota was agreed
on after extensive discussion, after extensive hearings in the
committee and I admit over the objections of the Reform Party
which wanted to reduce the quota to 15 per cent. There is a
genuine difference of opinion on that. Members of the Reform
Party will likely maintain that difference of opinion tonight.
13855
Members of the Bloc and members of the Liberal Party are
both of the view that in a country as large and as geographically
diverse as Canada limiting the boundaries to 15 per cent of the
provincial quotient, a deviation of 15 per cent either way, would
be too restrictive and might result in serious inequities, leaving
members to represent enormous ridings scattered over a vast
distance with very few people in them but obviously trying to
make up for the lack of population by adding to those ridings
in a very substantial way.
We do not feel the system in the past has worked that badly.
The most recent set of commissions has done a poor job and we
have come up with a new and better way of appointing of those
commissions and in our view a better way of having the
commissions work where there is public input early in the
process. That was a provision agreed on by all parties in the
committee.
I also disagree with proposed Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5,
6(b)(i) and 7 which would repeal the provisions that would avoid
unnecessary electoral boundaries readjustments in provinces
where shifts in population did not require them. Again, this set
of provisions was agreed to by all parties.
Why would we spend money on having an electoral
redistribution in a province when there has been no significant
change in the population, no new seats in the province and the
boundaries are more than adequate? Yet the committee formed
that view very strongly. We put this in the bill. The Senate has
decided in its view this should come out. We disagreed with that
and are requesting the Senate simply acknowledge the House is
insisting on these amendments and accept that we disagree and
allow the bill to proceed.
Amendments Nos. 4(b) and (c) which in my view are
unacceptable eliminate the provision of parliamentary oversight
of appointments to electoral boundaries commissions. The
appointment process in our view had flaws. The committee
agreed on this. After extensive discussion in committee we
agreed on this new appointment procedure.
Mr. Speaker, under the procedure in the bill you have the right
to make nominations of persons to act as commissioners. Those
names are to be submitted to the House of Commons and will be
considered here. If members object motions can be moved that if
carried could result in your having to come up with a new
appointment. We think that is a fair and reasonable way to
proceed. We supported it. The House supported at the time the
bill came here and we hope it will be supported in the Senate
later.
Also we disagree with Amendment No. 6(b)(i) which would
redefine community of interest by incorporating the definition
recommended by the royal commission on electoral reform and
party financing. I think all members of the committee
considered whether to adopt that definition. The definition was
agreed on after extensive discussion among all members of the
committee, and there was substantial agreement on it.
[Translation]
Bill C-69 was a good agreement, approved by all committee
members on almost all points. There are, however, some clauses
in the bill that are not to everyone's liking.
The member for Bellechasse, who is here now, did not agree
with the bill, because he felt certain provisions were not
included. He will probably talk about them in his speech. That is
fine, but unfortunately everybody cannot have everything they
want in the bill.
(2100)
We have before us a fine bill, and I hope that all the members
here will support the motion currently before the House
proposed by the government House leader to send these
amendments and the wishes of the House to the Senate for its
consideration and quick adoption of the bill.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): No, Mr. Speaker,
I am not rising to move that the House do now adjourn but to
speak to the substantive motion addressed by the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands.
First of all, I may say it is rather ironic that a House whose
members are appointed by the governor in council, by cabinet,
to all intents and purposes, to sit until the age of 75 tries to teach
us a thing or two about democracy in connection with such basic
issues as electoral boundaries readjustment.
I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands is listening carefully to my speech, as is the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. We have
worked very hard without a hint of partisanship. I would also
like to mention the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior who
showed a great interest in this bill. The hon. member was
instrumental in having the bill drafted in its present form,
especially one specific point that I will discuss later on, and I am
referring to the 25 per cent deviation from the electoral quota.
I said earlier that the non-elected House, the Canadian
Senate, wants to teach us a lesson about democracy, and I think
there is something fundamentally wrong with this Parliament. It
should be up to us to say that the other House should either cease
to exist and be abolished or its members should be elected, one
or the other.
In any case, the process started a long time ago with Bill C-18
which suspended for a certain period of time the work of
commissions which had already been appointed until June this
year so we are getting close to the deadline, and the Committee
of the House on Procedure and House Affairs was subsequently
instructed to draft a bill.
13856
Strictly speaking, it is not a government bill, although it was
tabled on behalf of the Government House Leader. This is a bill
that was drafted in committee, before the Standing Committee
of the House on Procedure and House Affairs, as I said before.
There was a very broad consensus among committee members
on most clauses. In fact, there were far more items on which we
agreed than on which we disagreed.
Unfortunately, there was one item on which we could not
agree and since it was a fundamental rule, the crux of the whole
debate, this meant that the official opposition, the Bloc
Quebecois, could not vote for Bill C-69 on third reading. This
item was the subject of a motion that I tabled in this House and
that was defeated, a motion that guaranteed Quebec a minimum
representation rate of 25 per cent, irrespective of its population
at the time of the census.
We hope we will never have to apply this minimum guarantee,
because in the next federal election, I assume or in any case I
hope we will then be living within a new Quebec-Canada
partnership so that this legislation would not apply to Quebec,
which will have its own legislation that will apply to Quebec's
125 ridings.
(2105)
This basic characteristic of holding 25 per cent of the seats
was, and still is, related to the fundamental notion that Canada
has two founding peoples, not equal in numbers but equal in
rights. A pact, an agreement, was made in 1867 between two
nations: the anglophone nation and the francophone nation.
They decided to pool certain things to be managed by this
Parliament and they decided to grant the legislatures of the
founding provinces, and those which subsequently joined
confederation, specific jurisdictions which made them
autonomous and sovereign states, when it came to their spheres
of jurisdiction. Did they ever fool us in 1867. And I use the
polite term, because I cannot use any other in this House.
Today, the interpretation of events given by our Reform
colleagues, in particular the hon. members for Calgary West and
Kindersley-Lloydminster, has made us realize that the Canada
of today is no longer a bicultural and biethnic country, but a
multicultural and multiethnic one: this is not the Canada of
1867, the one in which our fathers, mothers, grandfathers,
grandmothers and ancestors so strongly believed.
In 1965, the premier, Daniel Johnson Sr., said that Canada
will be made up of two nations and two cultures or it will cease
to exist. We have already seen this in practice, the proof. Just
look at what is happening today. This is what Mr. Johnson said in
1965, Sir George-Étienne Cartier said in 1867, Louis Riel said
after him, and Franco-Ontarians were saying at the time that
they were making demands-remember Regulation 17 in
Ontario- at the time that they were pursuing the issue of having
to fund public schools and fund their own private schools,
because public funding for their schools was dropped
altogether. These are the kinds of things that tend to be forgotten
in this country.
There is a tendency to forget the heroic battles led not only by
francophones in Quebec, but by francophones outside it and by
Acadians to protect their rights. These were major battles. The
fight against the Greenway laws in Manitoba. From 1889 on, the
rights of francophones were suspended in Manitoba and they
were only restored by the Supreme Court almost 100 years later.
Over the past 100 years in Manitoba, the percentage of
francophones has gone from 50 per cent, one in every two
Manitobans was francophone, to 4 per cent. That is the result of
having no constitutional guarantees.
If only we had known. We had no way of knowing or those
who should have seen it coming did not. And now we are faced
with a situation where the survival of francophone communities,
in particular outside Quebec, is a daily struggle. Even the
survival of the francophone community in Quebec is a weighty
issue, and we have to deal with it every day because each new
day brings with it new menaces.
Do not forget that we only represent two per cent of the
population on the North American continent. Therefore, we
should be equipped with some legal protection in our battle as
North American francophones. Where were those who, in the
Senate, claimed to have promoted a guarantee of 25 per cent for
Quebec?
Where was the senator for Stadacona, the one who claimed to
have promoted protection of 25 per cent of seats for Quebec?
Where was the senator for Lasalle, the one who claimed that
Trudeau had made an offer that Quebec had rejected?
There is nothing in the Senate's report about a guarantee of 25
per cent. The Senate's greatest omission is to have failed to
consider the issue of representation for Quebec and probably
francophone communities as well, to ensure a guaranteed
minimum in this House.
We must not forget that other provinces such as Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick have, because of the
senatorial provision of 1915, a constitutional guarantee of never
having fewer members in this House than they have senators in
the Senate.
Quebec does not have this guarantee. The national home of
the francophone people in Canada has no guaranteed
representation in this House.
(2110)
Some passages in Canada's history have been forgotten.
Oddly enough, the forgotten bits almost always have to do with
one party. I think that we are at the point where, to solve this
puzzle, we are going to have to cut our losses and define what
should have been defined in 1867, go back to the real spirit of the
founding fathers, which was to see the two nations work
together, as equals, neighbours and partners.
13857
The Senate's motions in amendment are totally unacceptable,
except for one, which merely corrects a technical error we
made. The first amendment proposes reducing the allowable
variation from the provincial quota from 25 per cent to 15 per
cent. For Quebec, which, like Ontario by the way, has no
constitutional guarantee as I mentioned earlier-we think about
franco-Ontarians who are scattered across a large area and have
no more protection than Quebecers at that level-reducing the
allowable variation from the quota from 25 per cent to 15 per
cent directly imperils the ridings in the Gaspé Peninsula and
the Lower St. Lawrence.
I can hear behind me my colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who represents a riding that
would be directly affected if the allowable variation from the
quota were reduced to 15 per cent from 25 per cent. The only
way it would be possible to guarantee adequate representation
would be to eat into the metropolitan region of Montreal, to ask
ridings in that area, Montérégie and the Laurentides to have 125
per cent representation everywhere. Given the territory, given
the uniqueness of the people there, given the fact that the
Magdalen Islands are stranded out in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
there is no way we will be able to maintain adequate
representation in these regions if we have to accept that the
allowable variation from the quota will be reduced from 25 per
cent to 15 per cent.
It would also be impossible to keep the riding of
Manicouagan, which stretches far to the north and we would be
putting at risk ridings like Abitibi, at least in the future-not
with the current figures but in coming censuses, if this law were
to apply in Quebec.
The same reasoning would certainly apply regarding the
boundaries which would be imposed in Ontario's north.
I believe that by maintaining the 25 per cent variation which
has been the standard for the past 30 years, ever since the first
legislation on electoral boundaries readjustment, we have kept a
very sensible provision on the books that allows for making
adjustments where necessary.
The 25 per cent variation reflects the situation in rural
Canada. The fact is that in Quebec and Canada we have a number
of cities with a high population density because of developments
that have taken place during the past fifty years. However, rural
Canada, which in the process lost some of its population, must
maintain a strong and powerful voice in this House.
In the past few days, and I do not have to elaborate, we have
seen the effects of reduced rural representation in this House.
Some votes would probably have been different if rural areas
had been represented as they were 30 years ago in the House of
Commons, when the regions were far better represented.
Obviously, we cannot support the first amendment proposed
by the Senate. Therefore I suggest retention of the variation of
up to 25 per cent from the electoral quota of the province when
establishing electoral boundaries.
The Senate also suggests deleting provisions that would allow
20 members of this House to challenge appointments made by
the Speaker of the House to provincial commissions instructed
to establish electoral boundaries.
I believe this provision is a guarantee that will simply
encourage the Speaker to conduct consultations prior to these
appointments with the various political parties recognized in
this House.
(2115)
I would be very surprised if appointments made by the
Speaker of the House following consultations with the
recognized parties were subsequently criticized by members. I
think it is quite simply a precaution to ensure that the process
follows normal procedure.
So the Senate is asking us to remove this provision. The
non-elected House is saying: ``You who have been elected by
the people do not even have the right to discuss who will sit on
provincial commissions and who will be appointed by your
Speaker''. Let them get on with their own rules, but they better
not meddle with ours.
If they want to discuss, we will discuss. We will not, however,
be told how to behave by the non-elected House, by the
honourable senators, who do not have to put their head on the
chopping block every five years, like the members of this
House, and who are not accountable for their actions to the
public, who are accountable to no one. We will also not support
the Senate's proposal with respect to allowing this House to
overturn an appointment made by its Speaker.
The Senate is also proposing that the provisions providing
exceptions to the establishment of a commission after a
decennial census be removed. The best example in this regard is
the Province of Newfoundland and the region of Labrador. The
latest census reported a change of fewer than 1,000 persons over
the previous one, if memory serves me, in Newfoundland and
Labrador. However, a provincial commission was set up and it
turned the whole electoral map upside down.
We had provided, in Bill C-69, that no commission would be
set up in such a situation. We can see that the population did not
change and that the population did not shift from one region to
another, and so no commission is set up. Taxpayers' money is
saved, and people continue to feel they belong to their region.
The people of St. John's, Newfoundland, know that they are
going to vote in St. John's East or St. John's West or some other
riding- Bonavista, for example-it does not matter, the feeling
of belonging remains. So, why set something in motion when
13858
there is no need to? We will also oppose the motion the Senate is
sending us to this amendment.
We are also asked to eliminate the discretionary power of the
provincial commissions to reject changes to the electoral map if
these changes are not significant enough. Excessive change
must be avoided. Many, I would say, even, almost all, members
appearing before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs in June and July of last year, made the same
complaint, regardless of their political affiliation, with a few
exceptions among Reform Party members, who wanted to
muddle things even more.
But the Liberal and Bloc members who appeared before us all
shared the same concern. They wanted to retain this sense of
belonging, so that someone who lives in Lachine, for instance,
will not be in one riding for one election, in another riding for
the following election, and goodness only knows where for the
provincial election in between. This was one of the concerns
expressed by all the members who appeared before the
committee.
Therefore, the provincial commissions should, of course,
have discretion to correct certain small problems that may arise
because there is a realization that, at a given time, a
municipality has closer ties with a nearby town or,
economically, leans in a particular direction. The commissions
should be able to make these small changes, but not to turn
everything upside down if there is no need to. Here, as well,
moderation is preferable.
(2120)
The Senate is also proposing that the notion of community of
interest be redefined. In clause 19(5) of the bill we set out the
criterion of community of interest as follows:
-``community of interest'' includes such factors as the economy, existing or
traditional boundaries of electoral districts, the urban or rural characteristics of
a territory, the boundaries of municipalities and Indian reserves, natural
boundaries and access to means of communication and transport.
The amendment proposed by the Senate would make
community of interest the basic criterion from which all
subsequent changes would flow.
Let us remember that the amendment which the Senate is
proposing and on the basis of which we would have to decide
electoral boundaries must be read with the other amendment
being proposed by the Senate, which is to reduce the variation
from the quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, in other words a
minimum variation, with community of interest as the basic
criterion. The criterion of community of interest is extremely
important, except that it comes up against the mathematical wall
of the 15 per cent deviation. They cannot seriously be telling us
that the boundaries will be defined on the basis of community of
interest, having just said that the variation is only 15 per cent,
because the criterion of community of interest is subordinate to
the 15 per cent variation which the Senate is also proposing.
Therefore, not only am I of the opinion that we must not
change our definition of the criterion of the community of
interest, but that we also have to retain a variation of 25 per cent
from the electoral quota of each province in order for the two
criteria to have a real impact in practice. The constituents of
Bellechasse, my riding, should know what to expect from one
election to the next, which parish could become part of the
riding and which one could cease to be, what minor or major
adjustments could be made to take demographics into
consideration, but still take into consideration the community of
interest.
This community of interest is not an abstract notion, it is a
notion that can be seen in action. And the people in the best
position to define communities of interest, all partisan politics
aside, are probably the hon. members of this House who, each
day, each week or each month, depending on the distance they
have to go, travel the roads of their ridings. And when there are
no roads, they take the plane, or use a helicopter, sometimes
even a snowmobile or a dog sled-whatever means of
transportation is available.
Therefore, who is in the best position to define a community
of interest? I will not pass judgment on my own case, but, take
the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, whose riding is huge,
for example. Is it he who is in the best position to talk about the
community of interest in Cochrane-Superior and to tell us that
the town of Kapuskasing is the community of interest for such
and such a region or is it a senator from Ontario representing this
region who is in the best position to talk to us about it? There can
be only one answer: the representatives elected by the public,
whose basic mandate is to defend the interests of all of their
voters, of everyone who voted for them, of course, but also the
interests of everyone, of everyone who voted against them, of
everyone who did not vote or have the right to vote, because MPs
basically are the representatives of everyone who lives in the
territory they represent. What an important role! A role which
must not be subordinate to the interests of a minority appointed
to the other place, most of whom are there for purely political
reasons and were either defeated or were never successful in
getting elected in general elections.
It takes some nerve to come and propose amendments on
behalf of people who were defeated, people who, with a few
notable exceptions, just cannot get elected.
It is high time we slashed government spending, and one of
our first decisions should be to suspend the other House for a
time, perhaps five years, to find out whether we really miss it.
This could be in the form of a constitutional amendment or we
could agree to get rid of the Senate for five years. If we really
need it, nature, like Parliament, abhors a vacuum. We will create
a new Senate and make new appointments according to a system
13859
to be determined by the Canadian people, by the members of the
other House.
(2125)
But for the time being, we should get rid of the surplus. Let us
have a garage sale but keep the main House, the House of
Commons. We represent the people, and we are elected by
universal suffrage. The rule should be that from the president of
the largest mining company down to the worker doing the
simplest tasks, everyone has the same right to vote so everyone
should have the same access to his member of Parliament. The
House is what counts.
In Canada there is a consensus on at least one thing: there is
one House too many at the federal level, and it is certainly not
the House of Commons where people's elected representatives
speak on behalf of the people, but the Senate. The problem is to
decide whether we should reform the Senate or get rid of it. I
suggest getting rid of it for five years.
The Senate does have its uses, however. It pointed out that we
had overlooked a clause that would provide that commissioners
should reside in the province for which they were appointed.
That is what the Senate pointed out to us. This from
parliamentarians who in most cases do not even have an office in
the senatorial district they happen to represent.
A legal adviser earning a modest salary could have done this.
Our employees are not overpaid, and members of the House are
not overpaid either for the work they do. If they are, it will be up
to the voters to determine whether the member who represents
them is getting too much money for the kind of work he does.
That is up to the electorate in a general election.
One or two legal advisers could have pointed out that the
clause was missing. We do not need a House with 104
individuals and their staff, their operating budgets and all the
expense and waste of time that entails. How many bills are
languishing before the other House right now?
The bill concerning Pearson Airport has been lying around for
quite some time. It was passed in this House when the
government first came to power, by a House of Commons that
had just been elected, and then put on hold by the other House.
The same thing happened to Bill C-69. In this case, it is even
worse because Bill C-69, which concerns electoral boundaries
readjustment, is not a case of gerrymandering and is not
intended to give special privileges to parliamentarians. Bill
C-69 met with a very broad consensus on its wording, with the
notable exception of the request for a minimum of 25 per cent of
the seats for Quebec. We will have a chance to get back to this
issue in the debate that will take place this fall in Quebec. In our
proposal for partnership to be extended to Canada, we will
suggest a number of institutions where we will have a
representation rate of 25 per cent.
That being said, as the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands indicated when he spoke for the government, we will
only support the Senate motion that would make it mandatory
for a commissioner appointed for the purpose of electoral
boundaries adjustment to reside in the province for which he or
she is appointed.
I hope that when it comes to a vote, the Senate will sit up and
take notice and stop these delaying tactics that are useless, futile
and cost money. They prevent us from allowing electoral
boundaries readjustment to take its course and, I also hope that
these commissions can be set up again so that hon. members and
the public will be able to resume the process under the rules
established by Bill C-69, and we will have a balanced electoral
map for the next general election, in which I do not hope to
participate.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 rings a familiar bell. It was Yogi Berra
who said it was déjà vu all over again.
This issue of electoral boundaries readjustment will not go
away. Before we get into the amendments that have been
proposed by the Senate to deal with Bill C-69, we should
quickly review the chronology of events which have led us to
today when we are dealing with this bill yet again.
(2130 )
I first became aware of some perceived problems with the
electoral boundaries readjustment process when the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands cornered me one evening
and said: ``We have a real problem with the new electoral maps
that are being presented by the electoral boundaries
commissions. They are just incompetent. They are doing a
terrible job. The boundaries are all drawn in the wrong places.
They have made some grave errors and our caucus feels we have
to do something about it. We can't put up with this type of
incompetence.'' He suggested that a major review of the whole
process needed to be undertaken.
This was shortly after we had launched out on this first
session of the 35th Parliament. In fact you could say that those
of us who are newly elected were launched from the electoral
womb out into the cold, cruel world. It seemed like a number of
Liberal MPs were rather unhappy with the uncomfortable
climate they found themselves in. They were not prepared for
the political realities.
13860
I think there was a little revolt in the Liberal caucus, which
I suspect was mainly composed of Ontario members of
Parliament, and probably some Atlantic Canada members as
well, who found that their boundaries were redrawn and that
those people who had elected them and the organizations that
had won the election for them had suddenly become irrelevant.
They were concerned. They were inexperienced
parliamentarians, many were inexperienced politicians, and
they were not able to cope with the prospect of change.
With this revolt in the Liberal caucus the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands came with all of this concern. We asked
what the problems were. When it came down to brass tacks it
was not so much the system that was the problem but the
outcome of that system with which they were unhappy. They felt
the way to solve the problem was to pretend it never happened,
strike new commissions all across Canada and let them redraw
the boundaries in a way the Liberal government might find more
acceptable. They were quite certain they would be able to draft
some master plan, some revolutionary new boundary
readjustment plan that would solve their problems.
In March 1994 the Liberals introduced Bill C-18. Not
surprisingly, they time allocated the bill. We thought that was
extremely unusual. What was the emergency? After all, we had
just been elected and they were time allocating this Bill C-18 to
suspend the electoral boundaries process so they could cook up
some new and wonderful scheme to readjust our electoral
boundaries.
We have seen time allocation and closure imposed on this
House many times. We should have know then what was
coming, that this government is not prepared to deal with reality.
It finds unacceptable any opposition whatsoever and uses its
clout and the might of its majority to ram things through the
House with very little regard to other members.
After the government had suspended the process it had to
launch a new process, so it introduced a motion to this House,
Motion No. 10. I have an Order Paper from Tuesday, April 19,
which has Motion No. 10 in it. For the record I will read the
motion:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed
to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5),
respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the
House of Commons by Electoral Boundaries Commissions, and, in preparing
the said bill, the committee be instructed to consider, among other related
matters, the general operation over the past thirty years of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, including:
(a) an assessment of whether there should be a continual increase in the number
of Members of the House of Commons after each census, as now provided in
section 51 of the Constitution Act;
I will break there for one minute and review what happened
with regard to that instruction put forward in Motion No. 10.
We considered the expansion of the House that is called for
under the existing provisions of the electoral act and the
Constitution of the country. Our seats currently are 295. Mr.
Speaker, as you can tell, we are pretty well stretched to the
maximum, but we are going to have to find room for six more
seats in this House. It seems very odd that we would want to be
adding seats to this House when the trend in Canada is to go the
other way.
Currently in my province of Saskatchewan a provincial
election is being fought, and it is being fought for fewer seats
than in the last election. In 1991, 66 seats were available for the
taking in the election. In this current campaign only 58 seats are
available to be contested.
(2135)
I understand there was an election in Ontario the other day.
We do not hear too much about that election from members on
the other side, but I happen to know that the successful
campaigners were also campaigning for a reduction in the size
of the Ontario legislature. They wanted to see fewer seats in
Queen's Park, not more. And they won. I think they wanted to
reduce the seats by something like 30 per cent, if I am not
mistaken.
However, do the Liberals in Ottawa, listen to the Canadian
public? Do they think Canadians want smaller government or
less government? Did they take it seriously when this motion
was drafted that stated we should look at reducing the size of the
House or freezing the number of seats so it could not expand?
Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. They thought they had it made.
They thought they were in lotus land and that no one was going
to take away any of their seats. They refused to consider
reducing the number of seats in this House of Commons. They
wanted it the way it was. In fact they wanted more seats. They
refused to do anything that would keep this House from
expanding. It would have to go on to 301 seats, and in future
years, after censuses, they would see even more seats added to
this House.
That was the first point in Motion No. 10, to deal with
freezing the size of the House and reducing the number of seats
in the House, but to no avail.
The second point in Motion No. 10, point (b), states: ``A
review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of
members of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions''. Now
these commissions were supposed to be terrible. They had done
a terrible job, so we really had to revolutionize the way we
structure these committees and the way they choose these
commissions.
The Liberals scratched their heads and tried to think of ways
in which they could recraft the appointment of these
commissions. They tried to think of ways in which they could
restruc-
13861
ture them. It was almost to no avail. There was a little tinkering
around the edges and a few little new wrinkles were put into the
process. But if we look at Bill C-69, the bill we are debating
here tonight, we will see that the composition of the
commissions and almost every aspect of the commissions is
very similar to what was in place before.
We have to wonder about the concerns the government
expressed in the first place about the way in which the
commissions were chosen or appointed and the way they were to
function.
We go on to point (c). Point (c) of Motion No. 10 states: ``A
review of the rules governing the powers and methods of
proceedings of Electoral Boundaries Commissions, including
whether these commissions ought to commence their work on
the basis of making necessary alterations to the boundaries of
existing electoral districts wherever possible''.
I will admit that there have been some improvements in this
area. The fact that there have been some improvements does not
justify suspending the process, wasting $5 million of taxpayers'
money and getting ourselves into the bind we now find ourselves
in, still dealing with Bill C-69.
Those improvements could have been introduced without
suspending the process and they would have come into play
when the next boundary readjustment took place. While this is
one small reward for the fruit of our labour, it certainly was not
justification for all the pain this House has had to go through, the
procedure and House affairs committee has had to go through,
and those Liberal MPs who were so concerned about the process
have had to go through.
Point (d) in Motion No. 10 states: ``A review of the time and
nature of involvement of the public and the House of Commons
in the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions''. Here
again some minor changes were made. Hopefully they will be
improvements. They were certainly ideas or proposals the
members of the Reform Party in the procedure and House affairs
committee saw as small improvements. Again, this certainly
was not justification for the suspension of the process and for
the dilemma we now find ourselves in, having to deal with Bill
C-69 once again.
When I began my speech tonight I talked about this all
beginning before March 1994 when a panicked member for
Kingston and the Islands said: ``Disaster has struck. The sky is
falling. Our electoral process has broken down and it is
irreparable. We have to fix it.''
The Liberals introduced Motion No. 10 on April 19, 1994, and
with very little improvement over what we had prior to that.
(2140 )
What did we do? Like all good parliamentary committees, we
brought in witnesses. Sometimes the government agrees to bring
in witnesses and sometimes it does not. If it is dealing with
electoral boundaries, which affects MPs, it is very important
that members of Parliament be allowed to appear as witnesses
before the committee. It is imperative. No MP should be denied
the right to appear before the procedure and House affairs
committee. However, if it happens to be MPs' pensions,
members of Parliament have no business appearing before the
procedure and House affairs committee. They were refused the
right to appear before the committee. The Liberals found this
issue very embarrassing. We have to question the motives of the
Liberal government.
However, we had members of Parliament appear before the
committee. We also had expert witnesses who appeared before
the procedure and House affairs committee. They told us that we
have one of the best processes in the world. We talked about
what they did in Australia, what they did in Europe, and how the
process works in the United States.
When we started to draft Bill C-69 on the basis of the
information from the witnesses, we made very few changes.
Commissions are still composed of three members. One is still
appointed, the chief justice of the province, and two are selected
by the Speaker. There are a few new wrinkles and a little more
consultation in the process. That is fine, those are small
improvements. But again, there is absolutely no reason to
suspend the process, as was the case in Bill C-18.
We heard the witnesses and we met with the government
House leader, who appeared as a witness before the committee,
and then we began going through the clause by clause study of
the bill. We made some changes and achieved some
improvements. We found that during our initial discussions with
Liberal members on key issues of the legislation there was
co-operation and often agreement.
I remember the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
telling me: ``I think 15 per cent variable quotient is superior to
25 per cent. I agree with you absolutely.'' However, as we got
near the end of the crafting stage of the bill suddenly 15 per cent
was just impossible. ``It is unacceptable to my members'', he
said. He said that it had to be 25 per cent, that it just would not
fly if it was 15 per cent. Suddenly the members in the committee
who had been saying yes, it is reasonable to have a 15 per cent
variable quotient, withdrew that support and went back to the
comfortable old familiar 25 per cent variable quotient. Here we
are in Canada, in 1995, a modern, highly educated, highly
developed country, and we have to stay in the dark ages; we have
to stay in the days of yore and allow for a wide variant of at least
25 per cent.
13862
We met with Elections Canada officials and they were
extremely helpful. They helped us with the technical
components of the bill and they provided resources that helped
us in the crafting of the bill.
While the Liberals were inflexible on key principles such as
the schedule and the variable quotient, and to a degree on the
communities of interest, although we were able to make some
small improvements there, this bill was passed here in the House
of Commons earlier this year and sent off to the Senate.
I should backtrack for a minute and talk about the Liberal
backbenchers who came to appear before the procedure and
House affairs committee. They were mainly rural members and
members from large, growing, urban areas. It was quite
interesting to watch the rural members saying ``We want to
make sure the bill is drafted in such a way that our already very
large rural ridings will not be made any larger, so that in areas
like northern Ontario, where we have few rural ridings, we will
not lose some of those and have even fewer rural ridings and
more urban ridings''. They were very concerned about that. The
Liberal brass, the chairman of the procedure and House affairs
committee and other Liberals said ``Don't worry. Everything
will be fine. We will leave the 25 per cent variable in there and
you will be all right.''
The members from the large urban ridings came before the
committee and said ``We are very concerned. Our areas are
growing so quickly and we are concerned that we will be
representing 200,000 or 300,000 people, like we are now, if we
do not have a readjustment process that takes into consideration
the growth in our areas.''
Now the Liberal brass had to worry about another problem.
They said ``Don't worry, we have the 25 per cent variable
quotient''. They said: ``We will make sure your ridings are
smaller when we start out so there is room to grow and they will
not become too large''. They are trying to pull the wool over
their own members' eyes.
(2145)
It cannot be both ways. We cannot have the large growing
urban ridings with a small population and maintain a smaller
rural riding to keep from eliminating rural ridings. It is
impossible. The Liberals try to say one thing to urban members
and another thing to rural members to try and sneak this through
all on the basis of a 25 per cent variable quotient. It reminds me
of Liberal economics: It just does not work and it gets us into
trouble. The government is going to pay a price for
miscommunicating to its members.
The bill was sent to the Senate without Reform approval.
There were flaws. Principles were violated that should not be
violated, principles of democracy and proper representation.
But the government had its way and the bill was sent off to the
Senate. Lo and behold, as our leader has aptly said, the place
which is known more for its consideration of protocol, alcohol
and geritol actually must have read some of the speeches the
Reform Party made with regard to the bill because it actually
came up with a couple of conclusions that were the same as ours.
We will be speaking to the amendments proposed by the
Senate. The hon. member for Calgary West will deal with them
in more detail.
In my concluding remarks I will talk about what is going to
happen if we expand the size of the House. What does bigger
government mean for Canadians? I just got my statement of
expenses, what it costs to keep me as an MP here in the House.
We have the average as well, so we know these figures are
similar for all members.
Currently there are 295 members. The average travel cost of
members of Parliament using the 64 point system is $32,885. If
we add six more members as Bill C-69 recommends, the costs
would add up to over $400,000 because there are telephone costs
and other office costs that are not included in the MOBs. If we
take the $66,000 it costs to keep each MP and multiply it by six,
it comes to about $400,000. Then there is the MOB which is
about $185,000 each. If we multiply that by six it adds up to
approximately $11 million in additional costs. Then of course
there are our salaries of approximately $64,000 which if
multiplied by six comes up to $385,000. The expense allowance
of $27,000 multiplied by six comes out to $160,000.
Then there is the big one so many people have been talking
about, the pension. Of course, Reform MPs will opt out of the
pension plan. However if the impossible happened and the six
new MPs were Liberals or Conservatives, and I hope that does
not happen, or NDPers or members of the Bloc, we could look at
about $1 million per MP for pension costs. That would be
another $1.1 million.
We are looking at about $20 million or $25 million just in the
basic costs of more MPs in the House, not including the costs of
handing out contracts if members of the House are trying to
wheel and deal and get special deals for-
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I find it curious
that we are talking about costs and this is the same member of
the same party who just took us through three hours of voting at
$48,000 an hour when we could have done it in half an hour.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I see by the clock that it is 9.50
p.m. The House was scheduled to sit until 11.30 p.m. because of
a special government order. Therefore this party has not cost the
Canadian taxpayer one cent. We are taking democracy seriously.
This means that the added costs of having extra members
here-
13863
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, there would not have been a waste
because there would have been more legislation put through the
House.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' rationale is
sometimes very hard to understand. They do not seem to think
that debate and taking the votes seriously is important. They
have become so arrogant on that side that they think just because
they introduce a bill it should get speedy passage through this
place without the cut and thrust of debate and serious
consideration in voting.
(2150 )
There were a lot of members tonight who put great effort into
some of the amendments on that bill. Members on that side
would have quickly rushed through the process without allowing
those members to stand and vote for the principles in which they
believe. We know the Liberals do not believe in free votes
because they sent talking points around saying that it was not a
free vote. The Liberals want to bring six more MPs in here and
tell them that they do not want free votes. The Liberals want
them to be their little voting machine slaves. It is a shame and
this House deserves much better than what the Liberal
government is giving us.
The government is supporting one of the amendments that
came back from the Senate. I assure the House that it makes
sense. We will be supporting it as well. That is the
commissioners must be residents of the province which they are
serving.
There are some other changes. The Senate suggested that the
variable quota be reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Of
course, the Senate heard us arguing a very good case here in the
House and agreed with it. I believe there is one other amendment
Reform can support. The other amendments we do not find
acceptable.
Part of the reason for the problem tonight was because the
Liberal government mismanaged this evening's activities. We
talked to the Liberals. We wanted to arrange the situation much
better than we did, but they were not interested. It is very typical
of what they have done with Bill C-69. They have mismanaged
the process. They have set targets which they cannot reach. They
have tried to pass legislation that is unacceptable to Canadians.
It is receiving obstruction or meeting a roadblock in the Senate
and with real justification.
In wrapping up, I want to thank the Senate for sending this bill
back. I certainly wish the Senate had been elected so that it
would have more legitimacy. It could do this on a more regular
basis. It could offer sober second thought, as it is supposed to, to
legislation this House passes that is ill conceived and not of the
quality Canadians deserve.
The government has introduced a motion to send this bill back
to the Senate with some amendments. These amendments do not
concur with the wishes of the Reform Party because of the
arguments that not only myself, but my colleague from Calgary
West and perhaps some others will bring forward.
I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following:
a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House
agrees to Amendments Nos. 1, 4(a), 6(a) and 6(b)(i) made by the Senate to Bill
C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundary
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, and this House
disagrees with Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4(b), 4(c), 5, 6(b)(ii), 6(c) and 7.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will reserve on the
amendment to see if it is valid.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, who commented rather negatively
on the reception given members by the standing committee, that
it must have taught him a lot about Quebec. When I made my
proposal on the ridings in eastern Quebec, he asked me whether
it was to protect the ridings of real French Canadians, to use his
expression. He felt that what was happening was self-serving.
So, we had an opportunity to give him a good history and
geography lesson and show him that there is also a strong
anglophone minority in eastern Quebec and in the Gaspé.
(2155)
We argued that the ridings should be left as they were. One of
the reasons was in order to support this section of the
population, which is both substantial and historically important.
These people are the descendants of the loyalists, who came and
settled of their own volition, particularly because they were
fleeing a system they could not live with. I was quite surprised
by the hon. member's ignorance of these facts. I hope he has
learned an important lesson he will long remember, that there is
an anglophone minority in Quebec and that it is scattered pretty
well throughout the province, in the Gaspé-
An hon. member: They are well served.
Mr. Crête: They are indeed well served, as the member says.
In the Gaspé, for example, the anglophone minority has
college-level courses in English in Gaspé. For all of the Gaspé,
there is a regular service and regular train service is maintained
because, for one reason, many of these people have family in
Ontario and elsewhere. They are very well served in many
places.
I particularly wanted the member to realize that not only
improper things had happened in committee, that one person at
least learned something.
My question concerns another matter. Does the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster not think that the Senate could have
considered many other aspects of the legislation? Including the
fact that a little more than half the Reform members were
13864
elected by fewer than 40 per cent of the electorate and that their
democratic claims are not really very high.
Could the Senate not have looked at that? While it was doing a
superficial job, it could have gone a little further and looked to
see if the members in the House representing the fewest voters
were not members of the Reform Party?
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from
my colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
I remember the procedure and House affairs committee
meeting the hon. member is reflecting upon. That committee
meeting was held just a few days after one of his colleagues
made the suggestion that in the referendum we expect to be
called this fall, if the separatists have the courage to call it this
fall, only old stock Quebecers should have the franchise. Those
are not my words. I am quoting his colleague. In other words,
only old stock Quebecers should be allowed to vote. Those are
not my thoughts and I would certainly not suggest that but one of
his colleagues did.
I saw some of the flip-flopping on the whole electoral
boundaries issue. For a while the critic for the Bloc was in
favour of the bill then later opposed it. He supported some parts
of it and then was not sure.
I began to wonder what was the rationale for the Bloc's
arguments regarding Bill C-69. I asked the hon. member the
reason. I asked whether the member was trying to design an
electoral system in Quebec that would give the advantage to old
stock Quebecers. That is a very honest question in light of the
comments his colleagues made, not mine. I assure the hon.
member that I am not as ignorant of the situation in Quebec as he
might have this House believe.
This goes to the more important issue of democratic
principles. If his colleagues can suggest that democracy can be
abused to the point where only certain people would have a
franchise based on their ethnicity, that causes some concern as
to whether or not they are legitimate spokespersons for the
democratic process and the whole process of determining how
the electoral boundaries readjustment act is crafted.
The other very interesting question is, why would they even
care? If they lose the referendum, they have lost the argument.
That means Quebecers have decided they want to stay in
Canada. I suspect that is what Quebecers will say when the
referendum is held, if it is ever held. Why would they care? They
have lost and would not represent Quebecers.
On the other hand, if the separatists win the referendum in
Quebec, they say they are going to leave, that they are going to
separate. It is going to be unilateral and they are gone. Therefore
what do they care about how Canada crafts the electoral
boundaries readjustment act?
It just shows how irrelevant the Bloc Quebecois is to
legislation we are considering in this House. It shows how
irrelevant the Bloc is as Canada's supposedly loyal official
opposition.
(2200 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has been speaking about keeping the
number of seats as they are at present. Under such a proposition
the province of Saskatchewan would lose about two seats, which
would mean that almost 20 per cent of the seats in Saskatchewan
would be lost.
Does he agree that the province of Saskatchewan should lose
almost 20 per cent of its representation in the House?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I touched on that in my
speech. Saskatchewan is seeing a reduction in the total number
of MLAs. They have gone from 66 to 58. The people in the
province with whom I have talked applaud that. They want less
government.
If we start reducing the number of seats in the House of
Commons the way we proposed in the procedure and House
affairs committee, Ontario would lose a few seats as well. The
province of Quebec would lose a few seats. Instead of B.C.
increasing its number of seats it would lose a few and, yes,
Saskatchewan would lose a few.
We are fair minded in Saskatchewan. We know what we could
lose. We believe in smaller government and we are prepared to
accept it.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment of the hon. House
leader of the Reform Party is acceptable as to form.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in replying to questions from my
colleague, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster suggested that I
had acted inconsistently and without due consideration on the
committee. I wish to point out that, throughout study of Bill
C-69, I supported the proposals made, offering my critical
analysis.
It was not until report stage, in the House, that an amendment
was proposed to guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the seats. It
was from that point on that I decided I could no longer support
Bill C-69, not because it had been badly drafted, but because the
issue of the 25 per cent guarantee for Quebec was not accepted
by the majority of members in this House. I therefore voted
against it at third reading.
13865
I wish to point out the facts, so as not to give rise to a debate
as indicated in Beauchesne.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): I rise on the point of privilege,
Mr. Speaker. If you were to review that point you would find
there is no point of privilege. If you were to review the blues on
the speech of the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster you
would see that he merely stated a fact, that there were several
changes of position by the Bloc Quebecois in the course of the
electoral redistribution debate.
The Bloc member is certainly capable of describing what was
his motivation. I think you will see that the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster was simply establishing the fact he
behaved that way, and in any case it is not a violation of his
privileges to do that.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I want the House to know that
I do not doubt the abilities of my colleague, the hon. member
who served with me on the procedure and House affairs
committee, but I brought into question why he and his party
would change position on the electoral boundaries process from
supporting the government to opposing the government. In fact I
believe they changed critics. I think that is fair comment. I do
not think I made any personal allegations against the member.
If the House deems that I did, I would certainly withdraw
them. It was certainly not my intent. I was trying to deal
specifically with the positions taken by the Liberals and the Bloc
Quebecois with regard to all the legislation including Bill C-69
which we are debating this evening.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues know very well that the
Chair always takes questions of privilege seriously. I will
therefore reread the blues and, if need be, communicate my
decision to the House as soon as possible.
(2205)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would find it interesting, as I begin my speech, to
go over the reasons that led the Bloc Quebecois to intervene on
several occasions during study of the bill on the readjustment of
electoral boundaries.
The Bloc Quebecois was elected to defend the interests of
Quebec, and in that sense, faced with this bill, it has shown its
complete respect for democracy by making no assumptions
about the choice Quebecers will make in the referendum. We
wanted to ensure that, in the event that Quebecers voted no, they
could continue to have the advantage of the best electoral map
possible in their continued representation within the
government of Canada. But I am sure they will decide to vote
yes, for a number of other reasons.
To answer the member's question, I have no doubt that
Quebecers will decide to vote yes, for all sorts of historical
reasons. For more than 125 years, and particularly over the last
30 years, they have tried everything they could to change the
system and they were never successful. The most recent
example was here in this House, when the Liberal majority
refused to give Quebec the 25 per cent minimum it was asking
for. This 25 per cent minimum, already agreed to in the
Charlottetown accord, would have been a demonstration of
respect for Quebec, but the present Liberal government, under
the direction of the Prime Minister we all know, refused to make
this minimum gesture. This is one more reason, symbolic but
practical, why Quebecers will opt for full control over their
future development.
I have spoken to this bill several times. I participated in
debate at each reading and in committee, always to argue that
rural regions must have adequate representation.
Unfortunately, I have never at any stage seen amendments
that are as out of touch with Canadian reality as those put
forward by the Senate. Before talking about the substance of the
amendments, I wondered why the Senate was so out of touch
with Canadian reality. Why do senators seem to be from Mars
rather than from the country in which we live?
My first thought was that it was certainly not for lack of travel
since, as we know, our senators travel a great deal within
Canada. They travel at taxpayers' expense on a regular basis.
There must be a real reason why senators decided, among other
things, to demand that the maximum variation from the quota,
which makes it possible to determine the number of ridings, be
reduced from 25 to 15 per cent.
I found a reason which I think is significant: an amendment
like this one will, somewhat insidiously, impose even greater
restrictions on Quebec representation. In fact, if we look at the
current electoral map as a whole, we see that there are
constitutional, historic protective measures for very small
ridings, like those in Prince Edward Island. Although I have no
intention of depriving the people of that province of their
members of Parliament, the Tories' amendment would give
Quebec ridings even less weight because lowering the maximum
allowable gap to 15 per cent would reduce the total number of
members and expand the areas represented by members to an
absolutely unrealistic extent.
Consequently, to replace the 25 per cent variation by a 15 per
cent variation would be somewhat disrespectful of Canadians
and Quebecers, while also showing a total ignorance of
geographical considerations, as well as a systematic attempt to
promote centralization. Indeed, to define boundaries strictly in
13866
terms of arithmetic would result in an overrepresentation of
urban areas, while also promoting a migration to those urban
centres, something which, in the long term, would be very
harmful to Canada's future. Should there be a snowball effect, it
could lead to the situation which exists in some southern
countries, where there are very large cities with shanty towns,
while the rest of the territory is very sparsely populated and
people have access to very few adequate services to ensure their
future.
Let us not forget that Canada was not developed by
concentrating its population in certain areas. Indeed, it was
always felt that the territory as a whole should be populated.
However, the amendments proposed by the Senate would go
against that historical pattern. I find it quite disturbing that a
House of non-elected representatives would come to such
conclusions.
(2210)
Another rather surprising amendment by the Senate provides
that a group 20 MPs would no longer be allowed to challenge
appointments to electoral commissions. We, as elected
representatives, and this is particularly true when we form a
sufficiently large group, should be considered a watchdog, for
the public, regarding this issue. I think that the Conservative
amendment would have an effect opposite to the intended one
and could create many more unacceptable situations.
There is another aspect to the Senate amendments which I
would like to bring to the attention of the House and I am
referring to the different definition it gives of ``community of
interest''. The people in the Senate use the same words as before
but provide a definition that restricts the concept of community
of interest to demographic and geographic considerations as
well as the existing boundaries of municipalities. However, the
definition now no longer considers the human factor.
For instance, in a riding like Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
which I represent, there are 55 municipalities and four regional
county municipalities I have to cover. Perhaps the senators
overlooked this or perhaps some of them are not aware of this
because they were never members of the House of Commons,
but a member has to sit in the House four days a week in Ottawa,
spend day five in his riding and on the weekend participate in
social activities and meet his constituents. In a riding like this
one where there are 55 municipalities, we get to the point where
people are no longer able to meet their member of Parliament.
Narrowing the definition of community of interest and
decreasing the quota will lead to situations that make no sense at
all. If we look at the draft electoral map the commission used to
conduct consultations in my riding, if, for instance, the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup were to go on in the same way
until the next election, it would include 72 municipalities. From
55 to 72, I do not know whether you have any idea what this
means in the way of additional work, but it has the effect of
creating an even greater gap between the voter and the
individual who is supposed to represent him.
Shutting off communications between constituents and their
elected representative has the somewhat perverse effect of
strengthening the power of the other House which cannot claim
to represent the electorate. Our strength has always been that we
can say we are there to represent the people. Even more so when
we represent more than 50 per cent of the population, as in the
case of most members of the Bloc Quebecois, many Liberal
members, but only a few Reform Party members. But in any
case, the way the legislation works, we are elected by the people,
and as far as I am concerned, that is the principle that gives us
the right to have the final say on bills, as opposed to the Senate.
Distancing us from our electorate would help weaken the link
between the electorate and government decisions and would
give very bad results.
In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to
the effect that such a decision as reducing the variation from the
provincial quota from 25 to 15 per cent would have on eastern
Quebec. Currently, there are five ridings in eastern Quebec:
Gaspé, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Matapédia-Matane, Rimouski-Témiscouata and
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, which is my riding. Keeping
these five ridings, even with the current map, would require a
decision from the electoral commission. But, if the variation
were reduced from 25 to 15 per cent, which is now being called
for, it is certain that one riding would disappear, possibly two.
This would have the following effects on all of the inhabitants of
those areas: it would encourage depopulation and the neglect of
their regions and it would take the weight of representation away
from these people who are in one of Quebec's resource regions.
The same thing would happen in several other regions in
Canada.
(2215)
We have discussed issues like unemployment insurance
reform, where the first proposal was quite bureaucratic, which
was to create a two-tiered system: one for people who do not use
it often and one for people who do. If the representation of the
people from these regions is reduced, decisions which are out of
sync with their reality will be more readily accepted.
If the human resources development committee had not been
able to meet with Quebecers and Canadians across the country, it
would not have achieved the result that it did, which was to
convince the government that this proposal was not in sync with
reality.
It is true for other legislation as well. When it comes to a vote,
in the end, if there are fewer members representing these areas,
the country's future will suffer. It is not true that Canada
comprises only large centres and nothing else. The people who
represent these various parts of the country must be given a real
13867
right. If they are not, we will be facing very negative situations
in the medium term.
By way of example for the members of the House, I would
point out that, when the rural fact is denied in one way or
another, the voters always have the last word.
The Conservative government had set up a devastating post
office strategy. They believed, in good faith, that a significant
number of municipal post offices had to be closed. We saw the
results in the election. I do not say this is the only reason for the
change in government, I think there were a number of good
reasons for it. However, the fact that the people in rural settings
felt they would not be properly represented by those they had
elected led them to terminate the relationship, because they felt
not enough attention had been paid to this detail.
If we do not permit the rural communities sufficient
representation, we will find ourselves in the same situation.
It is perhaps understandable that an institution, such as the
other House, should be so far removed from the concerns of the
public that it does not give the importance of representation its
due, but I think it is our responsibility here in the House, because
we are elected by the people, to bring things back to reality. The
quota is perhaps the most important criterion. In talking of a
variation in the quota in defining boundaries, 25 per cent was
rightly given as the most reasonable variation. In this regard, the
member for the Reform Party preceding me argued in support of
the 25 per cent.
If members appearing before the committee representing
urban centres felt that 25 per cent was the maximum permissible
and those representing rural communities felt it was the
minimum, it seems a pretty reasonable choice over the figure of
15 per cent. This figure would mean completely absurd
situations and the combining of communities that had nothing in
common simply in order to satisfy arithmetical criteria, which
should not be the case in my opinion.
To conclude, I want to say that we should take this opportunity
to ponder the usefulness of sending bills to an institution such as
the other place. In fact, nowadays, in the society we live in we
can no longer distinguish, as was done 100 years ago, between
members of the Commons and the Lords. We should keep in
mind that our system is based on the British one and that a
non-elected house was created to advise members coming from
the working class and whose real wisdom was in doubt due to
their lack of education. I do not believe that this was ever a
problem, but more than ever today, one cannot assume that
elected members are less educated. In this respect, we can hold
our own to the same degree as any senator. This situation no
longer reflects today's reality in this country.
(2220)
Keeping this in mind, this bill shows that we could perhaps
find a better use for the $40 million the Senate costs every year.
To conclude, I do hope that this is the last time we will revisit
the changes to the electoral boundaries. For my part, I am
convinced that the electoral map will never again be used in
Quebec, since in the fall, we will decide to take full control of
our destiny. After the referendum, we will suggest to the rest of
Canada an association which will put an end to the constitutional
industry, ensure that neighbours of equal status deal with each
other on an equal footing, and eliminate the negative effects, the
useless spending and the overlap due to the present system, so
that we can debate the real issues, and each of us build our own
house as we really want it.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour of having the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup as my neighbour, in the next
riding. The riding that he has the honour of representing shares
its eastern border with my riding of Bellechasse, so that we have
a common border. The communities of
Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies, Sainte-Louise-des-Aulnaies,
Mont-Carmel, that is from the St. Lawrence River to the Maine
border, are the eastern limit of the riding of Bellechasse.
My colleague from Chicoutimi was saying that it is a
beautiful riding. Indeed, all the ridings that we represent are the
most beautiful in Canada or in Quebec, because that is where we
live, those are the people that we represent. So, it is quite normal
for us to think that our ridings are the most beautiful. The South
Shore, most of which I have the honour to represent with my
colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is definitely a
beautiful region.
These ridings may look alike in many respects, with more or
less the same number of municipalities, about 60 of them, and
with the new map, about 70. I now realize that it took me about
18 months before I managed to cover my whole riding. I do not
know about the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup;
perhaps he will have the opportunity of enlightening me by
answering my question.
I am bringing up the point raised by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster in committee and here, during
debate. Let us expand rural ridings; that is no problem, we can
simply have more staff. Let us add two or three assistants in the
ridings. However, as far as I know, on the ballot, we do not vote
for parliamentary assistants, for riding assistants, we vote for
the member of Parliament.
Any constituent in my riding, whether living in
Saint-Pamphile- de-l'Islet, in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, in
Lac-Etchemin, in Bromont or in Sainte-Claire-de-Dorchester,
has the right to meet me. As a rural member, I find myself in a
situation where these constituents, because of distances,
because of all the
13868
restraints, because of the multiplication of municipal councils
and other municipal and regional organizations, are less able to
meet me than the constituents of an urban member.
I want to ask my hon. colleague whether he has the same
problems and whether he believes, like the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, that the increase in constituency
staff will compensate for the extension of rural ridings in such a
way that the voice of rural constituents will be adequately heard
in the House?
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, place names like
Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies and Sainte-Louise-des-Aulnaies
help me answer the hon. member's question. A few weeks ago,
we had the opportunity to meet with mayors of that regional
county municipality.
Our discussions dealt with the decentralization requested by
various regions in Quebec. To go to that meeting, I had to travel
75 kilometres through the regional county municipality which
includes those two communities, at one end of my riding.
That shows that having a larger territory would not be a
suitable solution, because we already have to cover a very large
territory.
(2225)
However, I would like to suggest another solution. I think the
hon. member for Bellechasse will agree. We realize that double
representation should be eliminated because it serves no
purpose. Today, we have federal MPs and provincial MNAs
whose ridings overlap and whose jurisdictions overlap also. One
never knows who is responsible for what. When people come to
us in our ridings, the last thing they want to know about is
whether their question concerns a federal or a provincial
jurisdiction. The only thing they know is they want to see their
member.
This is what Quebecers came to realize. A great many of them,
over 70 per cent of Quebecers according to the polls, would like
to deal with only one member of Parliament, someone who
would represent them at a National Parliament in Quebec City
and who could probably be sent to the joint Parliamentary
assembly in Canada to make suggestions on how to manage the
partnership between Quebec and Canada once Quebec has opted
for sovereignty.
We would then be able to reduce a lot of the unnecessary costs
and settle many of the problems we currently have. As federal
MPs, if we have to call a provincial MLA who is not a member of
our own party, we find it a bit awkward. Oftentimes, when our
constituents come to us, they do not know if they will be able to
find a solution to their problem at one level or the other. It is up
to us to try to find out if there are provincial or federal programs
that can be helpful to them. I think this is where we have a
problem.
Finally, I want to say that in a region like mine, the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, as well as in the riding of
Bellechasse and all along the shores of the St. Lawrence, home
to the only French-speaking community in North America,
where a lot of Lévesques, Pelletiers, Ouellets are living-
Mr. Langlois: Crêtes, Langlois.
Mr. Crête: Langlois and Crêtes, as well, yes, although there
are not so many Crêtes in that area, I think.
I want people to realize that Quebecers have gone beyond the
plumbing all the way to the architect's plan. We, in the Bloc
Quebecois, are here to protect the interests of Quebec, which is
why, during this debate on the redistribution of seats, we have
tried to ensure that Quebecers are as well represented as
possible. We are a few months away from a much more crucial
decision which would not only ensure us an adequate
representation, but also give us full control over our own
development. I think this is what the future holds for the
province of Quebec and this is what Quebecers will decide.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first let me explain exactly what it is we are debating tonight.
At the moment we are debating Senate amendments to Bill
C-69 which amends the previously amended bill from the
Senate, Bill C-18, which sought to amend and suspend the
Electoral Boundaries Commission. If that explains what we are
doing, let me add a little more. If we accept all or some of these
amendments the process will continue amended. It will amend
Bill C-18 which will then be suspended. The amended process
will begin again and we will have amended boundaries for the
next election.
However, should we decide not to proceed with any of this,
the process continues just as it was before with no amendments
whatsoever. This is the incredible journey we have been on in
the government's quest to, for reasons that are becoming less
and less clear by the day, redo the electoral boundaries all over
again. I think I will stop there before I confuse myself.
The member for Bellechasse addressed a very interesting
point in his speech. He really addressed the role of the Senate in
making these amendments. It is an interesting question because
I think all members of the House feel some concern about the
role of the Senate. We are here at the end of the 20th century,
nearly the 21st century, and we will be one of the very few
countries even if we include the non-democratic world that
actually has a quarter of the seats in its Parliament unelected.
13869
(2230)
There are two proposals to deal with that, as the hon. member
for Bellechasse suggested, either of which would be preferable
to the status quo. One is to abolish the Senate, the proposal of
the Bloc Quebecois. I find it interesting that it comes from the
Bloc because Quebec was the last province to eliminate its own
upper house, in 1968, in the living memory of virtually every
member of this institution.
At the same time, Mr. Parizeau has created a council of
ministers, a council of unelected regional advisors, to really
parallel the very role the Senate is supposed to play in the
Chamber, which it does not. It was admirable innovation by Mr.
Parizeau. I do not know if it is working quite as he hoped but it is
interesting that he would appoint an unelected second cabinet.
We prefer to have the Senate elected but the question we have
to ask ourselves, given the government supports status quo
federalism and does not believe in changing anything and
believes in appointed senators, is what the senators are supposed
to do. Senators have constitutional responsibilities to execute.
Bills go to the Senate, the Senate is paid to consider those bills
and the Senate has considered those bills.
The Senate has suggested six sets of amendments. It has taken
some time to study these. In all honesty, although some of the
people in the Senate are not my favourite people and that is
probably an opinion they share, they have conducted themselves
very responsibly on this issue. They have examined a case in
which Parliament has grossly abused its authority in a way that
is irresponsible financially because it is costing us $6 million. It
is irresponsible democratically because it is suspending a
process set up by Parliament to be independent. It is
irresponsible in a basic governmental sense. The reasons for
doing this are obviously for self-interest in interrupting this
whole process, so evident it is quite embarrassing to this body.
The Senate has examined these things and proposed a number
of amendments. I do not support all its amendments. If I have
time I will go into describing why I support some and why I do
not support others. The Senate has looked at a number of issues
that need examination and has given us an honest opinion.
Certainly no one here doubts the chairman of the committee in
the Senate that examined this bill is an outstanding
constitutional expert, Senator Beaudoin. Everybody recognizes
that and certainly he has tried to play a useful role in this debate.
[Translation]
It is also interesting to note that the Bloc Quebecois's
opposition is based on the absence of a guarantee of 25 per cent
of the seats in the House of Commons. The hon. member for
Bellechasse has repeated this fact tonight. It is also interesting
because that would obviously be an unconstitutional
amendment to this bill. Senator Beaudoin knows that, as do all
the constitutional experts, but this is also interesting because it
must be remembered that the solution to these problems, as far
as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, is in fact a Parliament
where Quebec would have 0 per cent of the members.
(2235)
The important course taken by Quebec at the present time, the
course taken by its premiers over the last thirty years, would
have disappeared, and this is the solution. Quebecers should not
forget that. The Bloc Quebecois's solution does not guarantee 25
per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Its solution lies
in a Quebec with 0 per cent of the seats in the Parliament of
Canada.
[English]
Let me go over these amendments in some detail to give my
party's considered position on them. To repeat what the member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster said, one amendment is certainly
acceptable to the Reform Party, just as it is acceptable to the
government. In Amendment No. 4(a) the Senate is proposing to
add a requirement for the two non-judicial commissioners to be
resident in the province for which the commission is
established. The Senate recognized that is a tradition and
something that really should be in the bill.
It is fair to say in the committee that studied this bill, of which
I was a member, this requirement was inadvertently omitted by
the technical drafters. This is an amendment the Liberal
government will accept and which we are certainly prepared to
accept. Our amendment also accepts this change and clarifies
something that should be in the bill. It would be an abuse to have
a commission that contained members who were not resident in
the province.
Consistent with what we have advocated in the past, the
Senate has proposed that the allowable deviation from the
provincial quotient be reduced in its general application from 25
per cent to 15 per cent. This is was one of a series of amendments
the Senate is proposing because it felt, not without some
justification, we have drifted so far from voting equality in a
number of clauses of the bill that there needs to be some
correction. Independent of that we in the Reform Party had
already supported this consideration when the bill was before
committee last summer and also when Bill C-69 was in the
House.
Our view is there should be more equalized voting power, that
the 15 per cent discrepancy should be acceptable between
various rural and urban constituencies in all but the most
exceptional cases. That would achieve this. We argued for this at
all previous stages of the bill.
The contrary argument is there need to be special
discrepancies for rural areas but 15 per cent is a wide
discrepancy. It means a variation from 85 per cent to 115 per
cent. We would actually have quite a wide variation in the
number of constituen-
13870
cies plus the fact the bill actually allows for exceptional
circumstances that go beyond that, not just those laid out in the
senatorial clause or the grandfather clause of the Constitution
but discrepancies that go over and above that for exceptional
ridings in the far north of the various provinces. We propose in
our amendment that this amendment from the Senate be
accepted and we have argued for it at all previous stages of the
bill.
The Senate has proposed along the same lines in its
Amendment No. 6(b)(i) to eliminate the provision that a
commission will only recommend changes to existing electoral
district boundaries where the factors set out are significant
enough to warrant such a recommendation. This was basically
designed to encourage the commission to give greater
consideration to electoral boundaries.
We had a lot of debate on this and related topics in committee.
(2240)
The government should remember I was troubled by the
comments of the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader in the House and before the Senate committee on
legal and constitutional affairs. He really tried to convey the
impression there had been massive agreement on this
legislation.
In our case we disagreed fundamentally with the entire
purpose of this legislation, with the idea of suspending electoral
boundaries right from day one. We had questioned also the
purpose of re-establishing the commissions prior to the next
census when it would be necessary. There were disagreements
beyond that in terms of the amending formula, for the number of
seats in terms of the quotient. Beyond that there were many
items in which we had multiple differences before arriving at an
agreement.
When the member for Kingston and the Islands suggests we
had agreed on all these areas, we had agreed on all these areas
only after our first, second, third, fourth and fifth preferences in
many cases had been rejected.
To say there had been enthusiastic agreement about all these
things from the Reform Party is certainly an exaggeration. As he
knows and knows full well, both opposition parties and
particularly the Reform Party have opposed this bill at every
important stage of its development.
With regard to Amendment No. 6(b)(i) the Senate has in its
consideration come upon something that deserves
re-examination. There are probably a lot of things like that,
given the timetable forced on this bill. The re-examination here
is that there should be this special factor, clause 19(2)(c), that if
factors are not significant enough to warrant such a
recommendation the commission should not recommend
changes.
That is covered in several other clauses of the bill, as the
Senate pointed out. There is the definition of community of
interest which describes existing constituencies as one of the
most important basis of any new electoral map. Wide deviations
are already allowed, the 25 per cent plus additional
consideration for constituencies that go beyond 25 per cent in
come cases. There are already many factors in the bill that give a
very high priority on keeping existing ridings intact.
As well, the bill as it is now probably provides to members a
bit of a false assurance. One of the things we were told in our
committee hearings last summer by people who had been
involved in the drafting process is to stop thinking of our ridings
as individual ridings. This is a trap that we fall into as members
of Parliament. We represent a riding and if that riding changes
we see that as a change to our riding. Commissions do not draw
ridings, they draw boundaries to ridings. It is impossible to
change one riding without changing another riding.
Once the criteria set out in the act require a change to any
riding, almost always that has a domino effect that impacts on
the vast majority of ridings in a province. Therefore in practical
terms once one hits the basic triggers laid out in the bill it is
impossible to preserve existing ridings exactly as they are in any
case.
For that reason the Senate has pointed out a consideration
which is probably not terribly useful and which the House
should withdraw. That is why in our amendment we propose
accepting Amendment No. 6(b)(i) from the Senate.
Let me now talk about those Senate amendments the House
should continue to oppose. In doing so I will lay out the
considerations the Senate did give in suggesting these
amendments. In every case they have some merit and we should
understand the reasoning.
The Senate proposed to eliminate this new clause we have in
the bill that would give 20 members of the Commons the ability
to challenge the Speaker's appointments to boundary
commissions. The Senate did that for a couple of reasons. It was
concerned about the role of the Speaker. The Speaker is required
to give rulings every day and his impartiality is an important
criterion of his effectiveness. The concern was that setting up a
mechanism in a bill that allowed people to challenge the Speaker
in and of itself provided a situation where the Speaker's
authority could be easily undermined not just on this issue but
on a number of issues.
(2245)
The Senate was concerned about the introduction of fairly
blatant partisan politics into the process. I would not deny that is
the case. In supporting this amendment we in the Reform Party
recognize that it would force the Speaker to consult with all
three parties and maybe in some cases with representatives of
other parties.
13871
We did that not because we prefer partisanship but because
we have come to the conclusion that a certain amount of
partisanship may enhance the independence of the process. Let
me explain what I mean by that.
There is no doubt that the process we have today is
independent. If we look at it on paper it is independent. It was
established in 1964 and nobody has suggested that it leads to
undue political interference. However, what has the reality been
since 1964? The reality has been that every time boundary
commissions have made proposals for change, the House of
Commons has intervened not to interfere directly in the process
but to use its power to quash the process completely.
In a sense the House of Commons can always interfere, and it
interfered on a grand scale. In the past the outcome of that
interference has been a new formula for distribution of seats
among the provinces under the Constitution. This time that
particular route was rejected and we made no major changes
along those lines. That was fairly blatant political interference.
We in the Reform Party are hoping that the process of
consultation, which will ensure that the Speaker not only hears
from the government but hears from all parties, will bind all
parties and all members into the process so they do not invent
the kind of wild stories and conspiracy theories that were
necessary to justify the kind of interference we had in 1994. That
is what we are hoping and I think the Senate should take that into
account. There is a dynamic here. The dynamic is partisan. We
have been unable to secure true independence and we feel this is
the next best alternative.
These appointments are not a ruling by the Speaker and thus
challenges to his appointments. While they would be
embarrassing and would certainly undermine the credibility of
the Speaker were he to propose any kind of commissioner that
was not accepted on a partisan basis, it is certainly not likely to
be seen as a non-confidence motion.
I would like to continue to analyse some of the amendments.
The Senate proposed to eliminate the use of the special trigger
based on population shifts for the very establishment of a
boundaries commission in the first place. The Senate was
concerned that we were in effect violating the Constitution by
not automatically having boundary commissions, and that
because the boundaries would not be considered in a certain
province it would easily put the legislation before the courts in
some kind of a court challenge.
Once again the Senate has something which it has a right to
consider. I believe in this case that the senators are
fundamentally wrong. Senator Carstairs argued, and I think she
is correct, that the Constitution requires only interprovincial
decennial redistribution and not intraprovincial decennial
redistribution. In other words, the failure to have intraprovincial
decennial redistribution would not in our view contravene
section 51 of the Constitution Act.
As well, by not changing the boundaries if they are at least
within 25 per cent we are in effect reasserting boundaries that
already exist and that presumably have survived any previous
court challenge.
The reason we supported the measure originally was that it
was a considerable cost saving. In the redistribution that will
likely recommence after the bill is passed, it will not be
necessary to re-establish commissions for Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, as well as the Northwest
Territories. That will save over $1 million in the next process.
While the Senate has raised some concerns of a legal nature, I
believe they are incorrect. I also believe they are dealing largely
with theory. I believe very few people would challenge a
redistribution simply because it failed to change a riding that
already existed.
(2250)
Finally I will comment on the redefinition of community of
interest the Senate is proposing. Its definition came from the
Lortie commission which had a number of worthwhile
recommendations on the electoral redistribution process. We in
the Reform Party worked hard to provide another definition
because we fundamentally reject the Lortie commission's
approach that there basically be affirmative action-racial kinds
of criteria involved in the drawing of boundary commissions.
The Senate and the Lortie commission have some legal
support in suggesting that there are court decisions. There are
legal precedents that not only recommend this but, in the case of
some courts, are actually pushing this kind of approach.
Whether or not that is the case, it is in our view clearly contrary
to the best interest of our country and to the idea of a non-racial
Canada that we support. We feel the Lortie commission and the
Senate are mistaken in that regard. We were satisfied that all
three parties in the committee agreed that approach was not
appropriate.
That is the Reform Party's review of the various amendments
the Senate has proposed. I hope it sheds some light on why it
proposed them as well as why we accept or reject them.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank and commend the hon.
member for Calgary West for wanting to know more about the
institutions which will be proposed to Canada by a sovereign
Quebec. I think he should be reminded, and I want to reassure
him on this, that the parliamentary assembly, one of the
institutions provided for in the economic association proposal,
will be an elected assembly.
13872
The members of this assembly will be elected by the
Parliament of Quebec and the Parliament of Canada or all
parliaments in Canada together, depending on the type of
representation they choose. They will not be appointed
randomly. This joint assembly will bring together elected
members from Quebec and Canada.
A decision on this economic association proposal will be
made after the people of Quebec have voted in a referendum to
take full control of their own development, which means passing
all legislation, collecting all taxes and making agreements,
including perhaps an economic partnership agreement with
Canada. It is very interesting to share views on this proposal. I
suggest that the hon. member for Calgary West do so at some
point in time.
Quebecers will have to choose between a federal system in
which they have very few powers and another one in which they
will have 100 per cent of the powers in the Quebec Parliament,
which has always been the heart and cradle of the Quebec nation,
formerly referred to as the French Canadian nation. This nation
will have the credibility and strength required to negotiate with
Canada a mutually satisfactory agreement to get us out of the
constitutional mess we are in.
I would like the hon. member to tell us if he would be prepared
to talk his colleagues into accepting the referendum results if, as
I suspect, it meant that Quebec achieved sovereignty and took
full responsibility for its development in the future.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find the
member's remarks very interesting. I am a bit confused. I think
Quebecers will be just as confused as I am during the
referendum campaign.
In responding to the member for Bellechasse, the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup talked about the need to have
only one member in Quebec City and only one level of
government and the need to eliminate duplication and overlap,
as members of the Bloc always say.
(2255)
Now, in the agreement signed by the three sovereignist
leaders, we see a proposal for a new Parliament for an
independent Quebec and the rest of Canada, and not only a
Parliament, but also a new cabinet, and we know what will
happen. There will be public servants, offices, etc. They are also
proposing a tribunal to solve some problems between the two
nations.
In fact, they are proposing a new level of government with
independence. I think that it is contrary to the commitment of
the Parti Quebecois, which is to eliminate a level of government,
and we must take into consideration the fact that this PQ
government has already promised to hire all federal public
servants here, in Hull. I cannot understand this position. It will
be interesting to see how they will explain to Quebecers the
creation of a new level of government after independence.
Regarding the member's question, he asked me if I would
accept the result of a referendum. Obviously, we cannot
recognize Quebec's power to determine the future of all the
provinces, but the result of a referendum is clear. It is the
expression of the will of the people. If the result is affirmative, it
means that the majority really wants to separate, and if the result
is negative, it means that they want to remain part of Canada.
What I want to know now is if members of the Bloc will accept a
negative result this time.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have thirty seconds left so I will simply say that
on the issue of civil servants, we now have 18 percent of all civil
servants and 24 per cent of the population. When federal civil
servants join the Quebec public service, there will be a
significant economy of scale for us and we will be better off.
As for accepting the results, I will return the question to the
member. Does he believe that people who form a nation, and
who have fought for the last 250 or 300 years to obtain the
complete control of that nation, will stop now? The struggle will
stop only when Quebec is absolutely sovereign and that is the
answer of Quebec sovereignists.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Speaker, as I said many times before, I am
not a Quebecer, but here is how I understand Quebec's history:
Quebecers want to form a society within a bigger Canadian
society. They want to keep both their Canadian identity and their
Quebec identity and that will only be possible in a federal state.
The Deputy Speaker: Before giving the floor to the member
for Chicoutimi, I should perhaps bring to the attention of all
members Standing Order 18 which states, in part:
No member shall use offensive words against either House or against amy
member thereof.
[
English]
I draw that to the attention of all members and obviously not
just the member who is about to speak. I remind members that
the rules bar us from using offensive words against either house
or any member thereof.
(2300)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the member for Calgary West, who has been in
this House for a year and a half now, and has finally realized that
Bloc Quebecois members are first and foremost sovereignists.
And of course, this means that what we are seeking is that one
day there will no longer be any Quebec members in this House.
13873
This is the reason why, as long as Quebecers are part of the
federal experiment, Bloc Quebecois members will oppose any
change to the present formula for riding distribution. Its effect
would be to weaken Quebec representation in the House of
Commons, as long as Quebecers have not made up their minds
on a new social covenant.
The present formula for the distribution of seats is not perfect
because, historically speaking, during the 126 years of existence
of this federation, Quebec has never had its rightful share of
seats in the House of Commons. The six amendments proposed
by the Senate, far from improving the content of the bill,
actually make the situation even worse for Quebec. This is like
the Robin Hood principle in reverse. We take from the poor,
Quebec, to give to the rich, the rest of Canada.
The first amendment would reduce the maximum variation
from the provincial quota from 25 to 15 per cent. What a nice
equity exercise on the part of the non-elected members of the
other place. According to the thinkers of the other House, one of
the fundamental conditions of democracy is the fair
mathematical share of regional representation.
I must admit that this is a very nice principle, but it does not
explain the senate clause and the grandfather rights.
While the Senate is concerned about a perfect equality within
the provinces, it seems to forget that there are several ridings in
English Canada that do not even have 35,000 people. I am
talking here, among others, about four ridings in Prince Edward
Island, the riding of Labrador, the riding of Yukon and a few
others. So, where is the senators' concern for equality for the
voters in these ridings?
This amendment does nothing to improve this bill, and they
know it very well. Besides, they even ignored what one of their
peers was telling them. Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, a former
advisor to Robert Bourassa, was demanding, like us, in the Bloc
Quebecois, that Quebec be given 25 per cent of the seats in
Parliament.
I would remind you very briefly that, concerning Quebec's
share of seats, the 1985 Act on Representation is quite clear.
(2305)
In fact, it stipulates that the returning officer must take into
account, before distributing any other seats, the fact that 25 per
cent of all seats in the House of Commons must be assigned to
Quebec.
I am taking the liberty of reminding the House, with all of the
respect it merits and which holds traditions so dear, that since
the very first parliamentary session, Quebec has always enjoyed
at least, and I stress at least, 25 per cent of all seats. This is
neither an acquired right nor a favour that Canada has bestowed
on Quebec: it is a simple mathematical calculation governed by
the Constitution Act, 1867, and by clauses 14 and 15 of the act
to provide for the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
It would therefore be a shame, and actually inadmissible, to
put an end to this tradition which has been handed down from the
very first Parliament. Why put an end to the tradition? Simply to
compensate, yes, I said compensate, English Canada for having
kept its allegiances straight when voting. Do not forget that
Quebec was the cradle of Canada. Quebec brought it into this
world, and not the other way around. The first amendment will
not only reduce the maximum variation from the province's
quota, but could also wipe certain electoral ridings right off the
map.
Yes, the population of several of Quebec's rural regions has
been steadily declining over the past several years. The
government knows it. So, what is it doing about it? With this
bill, it is ensuring that English Canada will get additional
ridings, and that Quebec will lose a few. What a great exercise in
democracy! This is what I would call the Robin Hood principle.
The other amendment I find particularly disturbing is
amendment No. 6 which seeks to redefine the concept of
community of interest.
The senators suggest establishing boundaries based on
demographic and geographic considerations. I realize that to say
this amendment totally ignores the human aspect is to say the
obvious. It is unfortunate, and it makes no sense at all. On paper
this might work, but theoretically, realistically, practically, on a
day to day basis, we cannot ignore the human factor because in
the end it determines how things work.
For a riding like mine that borders on several municipalities
and has a very large territory, this amendment could be a
disaster. Take the riding of Chicoutimi. Last year, when the
federal electoral boundaries commission came to the riding, it
suggested taking the municipalities of Ferland-et-Boileau,
Saint-Félix-d'Otis, Rivière-Éternité, L'Anse-Saint-Jean and
Petit-Saguenay away from the riding of Chicoutimi and
annexing them to the riding of my colleague, the hon. member
for Jonquière.
This problem illustrates the importance of community of
interest. In fact, these small rural municipalities on the Lower
Saguenay, those the commission wanted to take away from my
riding, have always considered La Baie, one of the larger cities
in the riding of Chicoutimi, as their economic and social centre.
(2310)
Most of the services used by the people in the Lower
Saguenay are located in La Baie. The closest employment centre
is there, as is the small business development centre.
Ferland-et-Boilleau, the municipality closest to the riding of
Jonquière is 45 km away. This is the community of interest
proposed by these amendments. It seems rather unreasonable to
me.
13874
A bill cannot be permitted to push aside-and I mean push
aside-the human factor without a thought in order to establish
electoral boundaries. This is a serious mistake, and I find it
most regrettable. My comment is, simply: ``Stop wasting
taxpayers' money with useless and pointless bills. Let us get
down to the real problems of our society, which are growing
with every passing day''.
It is time to deal with the economic slowdown, when statistics
indicate that for the sixth straight month there has been no net
job creation in Canada. The government is setting an example by
its inertia in this area.
The Prime Minister is too busy to study a new plan for
reducing unemployment insurance benefits. Perhaps he thinks it
will help the growth of employment, which is in a state of
exhaustion. Let us stop wasting our time and taxpayers' money
and get down to this country's real problems.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
for me to make this presentation.
I have come to this place with high ideals and really wanting
to understand the whole Canadian scene. I have been very
privileged to have my place in Parliament here right next to the
members of the Bloc and to hear the presentation we just had.
I have some questions for the member. One is that he indicates
that it is somehow fair that the Quebec people should have 25
per cent of the members of Parliament, irrespective of their
population. On the other hand, he speaks of the lack of fairness
when there is not a proportional representation in other parts of
the country. I would like to ask him how he can defend from a
fairness point of view that particular model.
I certainly have respect for the people of the province of
Quebec. I have said this before. During our campaign we had
people there who sported bumper stickers that said ``My Canada
includes Quebec''. Certainly I have that personal conviction.
Regardless of what happens politically in that province, we will
not take a chainsaw and cut them out and float them off into the
ocean. They will remain physically here, with whatever kind of
political arrangement we have.
I would like to have him explain how he proposes to justify
that in perpetuity they should have an advantage over other
Canadians in this particular regard and how he thinks that might
generate more love and understanding toward them from the rest
of Canadians.
(2315)
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. With regard to my preamble, I believe I answered his
question when I said that the present seat distribution formula in
this place was not perfect. One must remember that historically
Quebec never had its fair share of seats in the House of
Commons over the last 125 years.
In order to stop the gradual erosion of Quebec's influence in
our federal institutions and, especially-and I think this is the
key word-to reaffirm the Canadian duality, members from the
Bloc demand that Quebec retain 25 per cent of the seats in the
House of Commons as long as we are part of the federal
experience.
As you know, in the fall, Quebecers will decide their political
future. The member emphasized this in the preamble to his
question. It is then that Quebec, depending upon the choice
made by Quebecers, will be either a province or a country. This
is the choice Quebecers will have to make. In the meantime, they
know that if Quebec remains a province in this federal system
that cannot be renewed, this province will be limited. It will
remain a colony of English Canada and we will remain a
minority forever and ever.
An hon. member: Amen.
Mr. Fillion: Amen. And we will naturally be ruled by the
present unitary federal government, whereas we would have a
new lease on life if we became a country. I hope Quebecers will
make that choice. I am convinced they will. Then, with new and
more efficient methods, we will proudly develop this country.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure for me to let
the member for Elk Island have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer my
question. He simply restated what he said before about the
history and the present formula which I already know. What I
want to know is how he defends the premise that the number of
members of Parliament from the province of Quebec and only
from the province of Quebec should not be related to the
population.
In the past it has been a fixed number of 75. We know that
relative to the rest of Canada, Quebec's population has gone
down. The mathematical fact stands. If it were not for that we
would not be asking for more members in the House. That
results when either the population of Quebec goes down or the
population of the rest of the country goes up. That necessitates
more members in this House by the present formula.
How is it that the Quebec members believe that they and they
alone do not have to submit to the same rules of representation
by population that the rest of Canada does? How does he justify
that?
13875
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, of course, here we must refer to the
notion of the two founding nations. If Quebec had been
respected when this country was formed, it would not have been
allowed 25 per cent of seats in this House, but 50 per cent.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Fillion: Yes, fifty per cent of seats. Two equal founding
nations means a 50:50 sharing. Whereas now we are claiming
our fair share of seats, that is 25 per cent.
(2320)
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to make a short comment. Like my colleague from
Chicoutimi, I had the opportunity to hear the hon. member for
Calgary West, who seems to already understand a large part of
the proposed agreement to be submitted to Quebecers for
ratification in the fall. We all understand, of course, that the
Canadian fibre was first woven in Quebec, in Lower Canada, in
Ontario, and that we in Quebec naturally propose to repatriate
our own powers, while opening the door to a European-type
model and proposing economic integration and a certain kind of
political association with Canada.
Since Quebec is about to propose to Canada the free
movement of goods, people and capital, as well as the
establishment of some common institutions, does the hon.
member for Chicoutimi agree that, contrary to what our
colleague from Calgary West said, a major economic integration
would prevent any region of Canada from being isolated from
the others, and that this free movement, this major economic
integration, would involve some political integration and a
common political institution to manage the agreement, the
partnership that would result not from a law imposed by a
foreign Parliament but from a treaty freely negotiated between
Canada and Quebec?
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, when Quebec
becomes sovereign in the fall, you will see no boundaries or
barricades being built between Quebec and Ontario or the other
provinces. It is therefore in the best interests of Ontario and the
other provinces to do business with Quebec. Rules can certainly
be drawn up at the political institutions level, through
discussions between members from Quebec and Ontario, to
govern trade. In that case, I feel every Canadian province would
stand to profit from the birth of this new country.
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. The hon. member who has just been speaking continues to
mislead the House by talking about sovereignty association. He
is a separatist and he should tell it as it is. He is a separatist and
he should stop misleading the House.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, however,
the hon. member for North Vancouver now has the floor on
debate.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I feel
tempted to repeat what I just said and maybe I will as part of my
speech.
Before beginning my remarks on Bill C-69 I would like to
remind the House that almost two years after the 1993 election
the debt and deficit has risen by almost $100 billion. That is just
in the two years since the Liberal government took office.
In the past 24 hours the government has spent almost $100
million more than it took in. That is about $4 million per hour or
$67,000 per minute in money we simply do not have, money we
have to borrow. This borrowed money continues to collect
interest that adds to the more than $550 billion debt burden our
children and grandchildren will have to carry.
Some weeks ago at a public meeting in Vancouver the Liberal
member for Halifax said that as a traditional tax and spend
Liberal she had crashed and burned when the Minister of
Finance announced his budget in March of this year. If serious
action is not taken very soon to seriously start addressing the
problem of the debt and deficit, the hon. member is sure going to
crash and burn again and again and again. It will be to the point
where the international lenders will stop supporting our
foolishness.
(2325)
Today we find ourselves debating again Bill C-69, which
exists simply because of Bill C-18, which we debated earlier in
1994. I said then that the Liberal government should be ashamed
of itself because of what it was doing. It was imposing the will of
unhappy Liberal MPs on the voters of Canada. It was probably
because they were worried they would not be re-elected to
collect their gold-plated pensions at the pension trough. They
were worried that if the boundaries changed they would not be
able to collect their pensions.
They have protected the content of those pork barrel pensions
with Bill C-85, which they are also ramming through the House
this next week or so. Now they have brought back the electoral
boundaries issue in a last ditch attempt to control the shape of
their ridings. Without regard to the huge investment of time by
the Electoral Boundaries Commission and without regard to the
millions of dollars that have already been spent on a
non-partisan process, the government is still trying to jam
through ill-conceived and selfish political agendas.
Politicians have no business setting their own electoral
boundaries. Human nature being what it is, some members
might be tempted to act in their own interests, to trim areas of
opposition from their ridings or to add little areas of support to
their ridings. Even if that did not happen, there would be the
suspicion of course that it was happening.
13876
The important thing is that the whole process should not only
be non-partisan but it should be seen to be non-partisan.
Politicians should have absolutely nothing to do with the
process.
One of the disturbing parts about this whole process is that the
increase in population in the province of B.C. entitles us to two
more seats in the House under the present rules. Even if we were
to hold static the number of seats we presently have, at the very
least they should be redistributed so that B.C. has a greater
proportion of the seats.
I vigorously oppose Bill C-69.
An hon. member: Fifty per cent.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): My hon. colleagues say we
should have at least 50 per cent. Sometimes I would agree with
them. The west obviously has a much more sensible attitude to
politics than we have seen over on the opposite side of the
House. We could certainly do with a greater percentage of the
seats.
I am proud that Reform Party members stood against the
government's attempts to ram through Bill C-18. They tried to
do it in a clandestine fashion on a Friday afternoon when they
thought no one would notice. I am proud that my colleagues
stood and prevented that from happening.
Canadians are starting to see time and time again that
Reformers stand up for democracy while the government
continues to practice the old line Victorian style of politics. It
punishes any Liberal MP who dares to represent their
constituents by voting against a government bill. That method of
operation is completely outdated. It is not appropriate to the
information age. It may have been perfect in the olden days
when the present Prime Minister first came to the House, but it is
totally inappropriate for the information age. Shame on this
government.
In previous Parliaments the issue of constituency
representation in the form of free votes was never an issue
because the three worn out, old style, dictatorial, arrogant, old
line parties all played the same game of agenda politics. They
never did want to and still do not want to govern the country
according to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. They
simply saw government as an opportunity to enact their own
political agenda without regard to the concerns of Canadians.
The pressure for change is here in this House today and it is
not going away. At the moment, with the exception of Reform
MPs and a few independent minded Liberal MPs, most MPs are
nothing more than voting machines; no matter what their
constituents say, they follow the orders of the Prime Minister
when they come into this House to vote. All of the debates, all of
the questions, all of the committee meetings and hearings, all of
the witness testimony, all of the travel junkets are nothing more
than make work projects to keep MPs busy between votes. Those
votes we already know the outcome of because the Prime
Minister had already decided before the first word of debate was
spoken.
(2330 )
Last year the government introduced approximately 60 bills.
We debated them. We questioned them. We commented on them.
At the end of the term we had passed 60 bills. We may as well
have piled them up on a table 60 high and come here for one hour
on one day and voted once. The outcome would have been
exactly the same.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver North
will have 14 minutes left the next time the bill is debated.
_____________________________________________
13876
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
June 1, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether the
government planned to regulate emissions of dioxins, furans
and hexachlorobenzenes from incinerators. I also asked whether
the federal guideline for human exposure to dioxins and dioxin
related compounds was adequate to protect human health. In
response the minister stated that the exposure levels for dioxins
and furans were under review by Health Canada.
Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds such as furans are highly
toxic chemicals produced when various types of waste,
particularly chlorinated plastics, are burned. Every day
Canadians are exposed to dioxins and carry this persistent toxic
compound in their bodies.
At present Canada's dioxin guideline is set at 10 picograms
per kilogram of body weight per day. It has been maintained that
this level of exposure is safe. However a recently published
review, which took three years to conduct, in the United States
by the Environmental Protection Agency pointed to dioxin
being even more dangerous than was originally thought. The
Environmental Protection Agency's reassessment found that
even at extremely low levels dioxin affects human development,
reproduction capacity and the immune system. The
Environmental Protection Agency's reassessment of dioxin
strongly suggests that safe levels of exposure set so far in the
Canadian guidelines may no longer be safe or acceptable.
The time has come to shift the burden of proof so as to protect
the environment and public health in this respect. The existence
of safe doses needs to be re-examined because evidence from
human epidemiological studies, from animal cancer studies and
13877
from biochemical research tells us that dioxin represents a
cancer hazard to people.
The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency suggest
that the environment and our own bodies are already
overburdened with dioxin-like compounds. Given the
persistence and toxicity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds,
one must conclude that the prudent course of action would be to
prevent pollution, coupled most importantly with a reduction in
our dependence on dioxin producing activities such as
incineration.
In this context I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to
inform the House whether the federal government intends to
take steps to phase out airborne dioxin emissions from
incinerators across Canada and to reassess the Canadian
guidelines for exposure to dioxins presently set at 10 picograms
per kilogram of body weight per day.
I am looking forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary's
reply.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the major
source of dioxins and furans identified in Canada today include
municipal and hazardous waste incinerators, effluents from pulp
and paper mills, long range atmospheric transport from other
countries and contaminants in such chemical products as
pentachlorophenol and PCBs.
As a result of Canadian regulatory and guidelines initiatives
dioxin and furan emissions from municipal solid waste and
hazardous waste incinerators have decreased by 80 per cent in
the last four years.
Between 1989 and 1994 dioxin and furan emissions from
bleached kraft pulp mill effluents have decreased by 82 per cent.
Some dioxin contaminated pesticides are either strictly
regulated or banned.
In addition, the levels of dioxin and furans in the Canadian
environment have declined significantly. Annual releases from
pulp and paper mills have dropped from more than 350 grams of
dioxins and furans to less than 9 grams. Less than 50 grams of
dioxins and furans are released from municipal solid waste
incinerators in Canada per year. I am sure the member would
agree these are good news stories.
A federal-provincial task force has been established by
Environment Canada to identify and characterize additional
sources of releases of dioxins and furans in Canada. This group
will prepare and analysis of sectors and areas requiring further
action to eliminate measurable releases of dioxins and furans
and will recommend time lines for their virtual elimination from
the environment. This task force may recommend further
regulations under CEPA or modifications to existing guidelines.
Furthermore, federal guidelines relating to contaminants are
constantly under review as new scientific findings are reported.
Health Canada is currently looking at federal guidelines for
human exposure to dioxins set in 1990 to determine whether it is
necessary to revise them.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.)