CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 8, 1996
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2471
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 2472
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 2473
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2475
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2475
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2475
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2476
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2476
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2476
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2476
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2477
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2478
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2478
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2480
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2480
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2481
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2482
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2483
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2483
Motion moved and agreed to 2483
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2484
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2485
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 136; Nays, 87 2487
Bill C-33. Consideration resumed of report stage 2487
(Motion No. 1 negatived.) 2498
Division on motion deferred 2498
Division on motion deferred 2499
Division on motion deferred 2499
Division on motion deferred 2499
Division on motion deferred 2499
Motion Nos. 9 and 13 negatived on division: Yeas, 53;Nays 169 2503
Motion No. 10 negatived on division: Yeas, 50;Nays, 82 2504
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 169; Nays, 49 2505
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 49; Nays, 172 2506
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 50; Nays, 167 2507
Motion negatived on division: Yeas: 54, Nays: 162 2508
Motion negatived on division: Yeas: 63, Nays: 159 2509
Motion negatived on division: Yeas: 47, Nays: 164 2510
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 59; Nays, 121 2511
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 45; Nays, 120 2512
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays, 118 2513
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays, 95 2514
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 80 2514
Motion No. 6 negatived on division: Yeas, 55;Nays, 80 2515
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 54;Nays, 80 2516
Motion No. 8A negatived on division: Yeas, 48;Nays, 102 2516
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays, 104 2517
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 48; Nays, 88 2518
Motion for concurrence 2519
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 153; Nays, 62 2519
2471
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 8, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As is our practice on
Wednesdays, we will now sing O Canada, which will be led by the
hon. member for for Victoria-Haliburton.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the pleasure of participating in the ceremony held to
announce the British Columbia winners of the Canada Day poster
challenge.
[Translation]
In British Columbia, the winner is 9 year old Eric Stockand, a
young man who loves to draw, play the piano, swim and go
camping.
[English]
This is the second time I have had the pleasure of presenting the
first prize for B.C. to one of my young constituents. Kevin Su won
in 1994. Both Eric and Kevin had the same teacher, Mr. Kenson
Seto. Mr. Seto is an art teacher who believes in Canada's
multicultural nature and its unity.
Eric Stockand was also one of the Honda poster finalists for the
Future of Transportation competition and has won several
colouring contests. His drawing, representing a dove in a Canadian
context, has been described by Eric as reflecting Canada as a land
of joy, a land where all people can live together in peace and
harmony.
Canada is lucky to have young people like Eric Stockand and
Kevin Su and teachers like Kenson Seto. Congratulations to all of
them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, another
voice has been added to the general vehement objections to the
Coast Guard fees the government is preparing to ram through.
The Quebec urban community, which is directly affected, on
April 23 unanimously adopted a resolution demanding that the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans reverse its decision and carry
out an in depth assessment of the economic impact of the various
options.
I am asking the government to halt this direct assault against the
Quebec economy. I am asking the government to listen to the
taxpayers, the municipal authorities and the economic
stakeholders. Perhaps an equitable solution can then be found.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, imagine
for a moment that you have been working abroad for a number of
years. You spent long periods of time away from your family and
have endured many hardships. The only benefit to you was the
overseas tax exemption.
Suddenly you find out there has been a big mistake. Even though
Revenue Canada accepted your tax returns for all those years, it
now turns out that your company and all of its employees did not
qualify for the tax exemption. You owe back taxes all the way back
to 1991, big time.
In my riding and all through Alberta's oil patch, there are people
who now find themselves in this situation. These people should
have been advised much sooner.
Revenue Canada was lax in its enforcement and lax in checking
the credentials of the companies involved. Therefore, the minister
must take another look at such circumstances which allowed this to
happen. The minister must do something to offer relief to people
who now owe thousands of dollars which they cannot repay.
2472
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, since the
Canada-United States tax convention was modified, thousands of
people living in Beauce, Quebec and Canada who are drawing
American pensions are losing a sizeable chunk of those pensions.
Their cheques have been cut 25 per cent, an extremely harsh
penalty.
The new convention hits those receiving U.S. disability pensions
even harder, since most of them have dependants and the pension is
often their main source of income. Some have experienced cuts of
several hundred dollars a month.
I am therefore asking the Minister of Finance to look at
appropriate measures to lighten the financial burden we have
recently imposed on these people, most of whom already had
barely enough to live on.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to bring to the attention of all members and
all Canadians the hard work and commitment shown by our
professional firefighters.
Firefighting is an honourable profession in which men and
women place themselves at risk in order to serve their fellow
citizens. It is important for all of us to realize the contributions our
firefighters make to society.
(1405 )
This week members of the International Association of Fire
Fighters are in Ottawa to discuss issues within their profession. I
welcome them and I thank them. On behalf of all Canadians I say
thanks for the services of our firefighters, their dedication and
professionalism.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to welcome members of the Canadian Fraternal Association to the
nation's capital. It is a pleasure to have members of the association
in Ottawa this week for their annual meeting.
The Canadian Fraternal Association represents some 400,000
Canadians and their families from across Canada. There are 22
fraternal organizations which belong to the CFA, including several
organizations from the United States.
Members of the Canadian Fraternal Association provide a range
of services in their respective communities. They contribute
hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, scholarships and
educational programs. Communities and individual Canadians
from across the country benefit from this work. Members also
provide financial products and services such as insurance, savings
and investment vehicles as well as educational programs, volunteer
services and social activities.
I am pleased to join with other members in this House to
welcome the Canadian Fraternal Association to Ottawa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are in May 1896, and in approximately five weeks from now
Wilfrid Laurier will be the first Quebecer to become Prime
Minister.
He said, at the time: ``I look forward to the day when Canada
will have a population of 30 million people and when its word will
shape the destinies of the world''.
This and Canada's future were the subject of discussions by the
people of Brome-Missisquoi last weekend at a forum bringing
together the members for Burlington, Ontario, and
Fredericton-York-Sunbury, whom I wish to thank.
Vigour, conviction and sincerity are what Laurier has to offer to
those who would hear him. The same message may be heard today
in Hamilton East.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to draw the attention of the House to the agreement reached at the
international congress on antipersonnel mines in Geneva last week.
Rather than completely prohibit the use of antipersonnel mines,
the new protocol proposes that the 57 signatory governments make
future mines detectible or self-destructible. These governments
will even have nine years to implement it, and no verification
process was established.
This absurd agreement completely sidesteps the present situation
caused by existing mines.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to express its profound
disappointment at this agreement, because, between now and the
next review of the agreement, five years from now, 50,000 more
people will be killed and another 80,000 will be wounded or
mutilated. It is just shameful.
2473
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the words of the auditor general in his May report with
regard to environmental stewardship: ``Somebody needs to accept
full responsibility for the overall implementation of the greening
process. There is no one in charge who is reporting objectively on
the status of the greening process across government and as a result
there is no way to know if the government is meeting its
objectives''.
This is not the first time the auditor general has reported on
Environment Canada's ineffectiveness. Like the past, probably
nothing will change in the future.
Reform has repeatedly asked for the Minister of the
Environment to show objectiveness and reason. Sheila Copps
would scoff at our suggestions and say: ``Look what we have
done''. Well Sheila, look where you are now.
The current minister is showing signs of moving in the same
direction as Sheila Copps. If he continues to ignore the suggestions
of the auditor general and of Reform, he may soon find himself in
poor Sheila's shoes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 26, the bike path in Verdun linking Nuns Island to
the mainland will be officially opened as part of Bicycle Safety
Week.
The family biking activity to be held on that day in my riding of
Verdun-Saint-Paul will be organized jointly by the City of
Verdun, the Government of Canada, and the Optimist Clubs of
Verdun and Nuns Island.
I therefore invite all members of this House and their families to
take part in a bicycle safety day that will be filled with fun and
surprises with good weather thrown in.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the
House the outstanding contributions of two residents of Saskatoon
who are being awarded the Order of Canada today.
The Hon. Sidney Buckwold is no stranger to Ottawa having
served honourably in the other place representing Saskatchewan
for many years. Today he is invested as an Officer of the Order.
Mr. Buckwold also served as mayor of Saskatoon, having a record
as one of the most progressive and forward looking mayors in the
city's history. As well, Mr. Buckwold has served our community
through work as a volunteer with many charitable organizations.
He is one of the most prominent businessmen in Saskatoon.
(1410)
Walter Podiluk is best known for his work at St. Paul's Hospital
in Saskatoon but his contributions go well beyond to include
service as superintendent of the Saskatoon Catholic Board of
Education and as deputy minister of health in Saskatchewan.
I ask my colleagues to recognize the contribution of these two
outstanding individuals.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
announce that the 1996 Global Vision cross-Canada regional
seminars will commence this week in Vancouver.
These seminars, which will also occur in Calgary, Winnipeg,
Thunder Bay, North Bay, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax give
Canada's senior high school students the opportunity to interact
with business, government and trade officials to prepare them to
participate in the new global economy.
As the parliamentary chair of this non-profit organization, I
would like to thank the many sponsors of Global Vision which
include: the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Canadian
Airlines, ACOA, Multiculturalism Canada, Corel Corporation,
FITT, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Microtronix, Mitel, Nova, Western
Star Trucks, A-Wear and in my riding, Boart-Longyear Limited
and the Redpath Group.
I would also like to thank the universities that host the seminars
and the members of this House who continue to support Global
Vision.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we now know the Reform Party's position regarding
discrimination based on sexual orientation. The hon. member for
Macleod, with a lack of consideration unworthy of a member of
Parliament, has associated the word ``sexuality'' with disease and
physical degeneration. Moreover, sounding quite sure of himself,
he stated, and I quote:
2474
The specific problems promoting this lifestyle relate to HIV, gay bowel
syndrome, increasing parasitic infections, lowered life expectancy and finally,
the one I have chosen to highlight today, an increase in hepatitis in Canada.
Not to be outdone, his colleague, the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette, said that if Canada went ahead and banned
discrimination based on sexual orientation, it could well become
the Liberia of North America.
These analogies are unacceptable. The Reform leader has more
cleaning-up to do within his party.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at
the same time the people of Goose Bay, Labrador are being told the
Liberal government has to cut back the local military base, they
learn that a military general has thrown himself a $250,000 cocktail
party.
The government is thumbing its nose at the taxpayers of Goose
Bay. It downsizes at the base but has no problem funding free
spending party animals in the military. The government cannot
afford updated equipment and new military hardware but still has
money for fancy office furniture for the top brass.
The people of Goose Bay, Labrador and all Canadian taxpayers
have once again been let down by this government which refuses to
crack down on outrageous and flagrant abuse of taxpayer's dollars.
There is no defence for this careless and indiscriminate waste.
If the defence department can afford to do things like host a
$250,000 party for an egotistical general, why can it not help save a
first class military installation and keep the base at Goose Bay fully
operational?
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discrimination in any way, shape or form
should never be tolerated anywhere in our country. While I strongly
believe that all members in this House agree on this important
issue, they will also agree that the sanctity of marriage is
paramount in our society.
The government's proposed amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act has caused a fury within our ridings. The
overwhelming majority of Canadians believes that this legislation
will ultimately change the definition of the traditional Canadian
family in the courts.
There is a very simple solution to this dilemma. Today, all
members in this House can support a number of motions at report
stage of Bill C-33. These motions will protect the definition of
family status or marriage. This gesture would show all Canadians
that our federal government is committed to the sanctity of the
traditional Canadian family.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to read a statement today of what it means to be
Canadian to 12, 13 and 14-year old visitors from the Froebel
School in my riding.
We want to continue to live in a united Canada. Being Canadian to us means
safety and peace. We are protected from fear and war, we feel secure. We have
splendid cities. Canada is a great and beautiful country. We are working on
pollution. We are all treated equally and respected regardless of race. We have
freedom of thought. I am free to be me and able to make my own choices. We
enjoy our freedom of speech and the right to believe in our own religion. We
have a government that listens to Canadians and is fair. We help other countries
in need. We can enjoy all the opportunities Canada has to offer.
We are proud to be Canadian.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a number of socio-economic and environmental groups,
as well as professional fishermen, have formed a major coalition to
condemn the alarmist and inappropriate comments of the Quebec
environment and wildlife minister.
Last week, at a press conference on the raising of the Irving
Whale, the minister mentioned various alarmist scenarios,
including the possible contamination of snow crab stocks, to justify
his opposition to the project.
The minister should remember that a security perimeter has been
in place around the wreck for over ten years to prevent any
contamination risk.
At a time when the fishing and tourism season is getting into full
swing in the Magdalen islands, the PQ minister would be well
advised to avoid fearmongering, for such comments can only hurt
economic activity in the region.
_____________________________________________
2474
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at a time when governments table their budget, and at a
time when taxpayers are convinced that the fiscal burden could be
better shared, we learned from the auditor general that some family
trusts are believed to have transferred assets of $2 billion to the
United States, free of tax, with the government's approval. In fact,
2475
senior officials from the Department of Finance made Revenue
Canada reconsider its position and grant these exemptions.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the minister
justify the fact that two family trusts were allowed to transfer over
$2 billion worth of assets to the United States, without paying any
tax on capital gains, this with the government's approval?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that the Minister of National Revenue answered this
question quite satisfactorily yesterday. This was something that
happened under the previous government, in 1990-1991. Since
taking power, we have put into place many measures to rectify this
sort of situation.
That being said, as the minister announced yesterday, we, too,
are concerned about statements such as this one, and she therefore
thought it best, and I agree with her, that the matter be referred to
the finance committee for thorough examination.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would certainly not wish to play cat and mouse with the
finance minister on a question such as this. He knows full well that
the very minimal measures he has put in place do absolutely
nothing at all toward resolving the case we have mentioned here.
His measures will not resolve this case. It could happen again, it
could have happened again yesterday. We need some clear answers,
some real answers.
We will simply ask him how he can explain that senior officials
of the finance department, his department, who are still there,
according to our information, applied very strong pressure on
Revenue Canada to allow this tax free transfer of $2 billion in
assets to the United States. How does he explain that these officials
still have their jobs and that they work in his department?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we obviously have here a situation calling for very serious
consideration. Indeed, I would say that the questions asked by the
Leader of the Opposition in a very serious and responsible tone are
to the point.
That said, the auditor general did not mention any pressure from
finance officials. He said discussions took place, but there were no
transcripts.
(1420)
Let us be quite clear. Since coming to office, we have put in
place many measures dealing specifically with family trusts. In
fact, not only were measures dealing with family trusts introduced
by our government in our February 1995 budget, but they went
much further than recommended by the finance committee.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): I am
sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will not dispute the
fact that, ever since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to the House of
Commons, as everyone will recall, we have always condemned the
unfair advantages attached to family trusts. The minister will also
recall repeatedly turning the official opposition's claims to
ridicule, saying that family trusts are no big deal.
But the auditor general cited examples. After reviewing two
cases, just two, he found that $2 billion in assets had been
transferred. That does not seem insignificant to me.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge today that the
carelessness he has displayed over the past two and a half years,
while we were demanding aggressive action on his part, is costing a
small fortune to ordinary Canadians, who do pay their taxes and do
not benefit from family trusts? If only two cases led to the
discovery of $2 billion in capital being tax-sheltered abroad, you
can imagine what the overall amount could represent for Canadian
taxpayers.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, the minister said yesterday that she would refer the
matter to the finance committee. The auditor general himself has
admitted that this is a grey area, and one that is highly complex.
Because we feel transparency is of the utmost importance, I believe
an open discussion in the finance committee is the best way to
discuss the matter and find a solution. I am sure that the Leader of
the Opposition will accept this as a responsible reply.
Having said this, yes, the Leader of the Opposition is right in
saying that the Bloc Quebecois were the ones to raise the matter of
family trusts. That is, moreover, the reason we referred the matter
of family trusts to the finance committee right at the start of our
mandate. The Bloc Quebecois has continued to talk, while we have
acted, doing away in our latest budget with any possibility of using
family trusts as a means of evading taxes owed to the people of
Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there must be no more attempts to pull the wool over
people's eyes. The February 1995 budget contains no measure for
avoiding such cases, for stopping Canadian capital from being
siphoned off to the U.S., nothing. As for referring the matter to the
finance committee, that would require the committee to meet. We
have been calling for that for two months now, and there have been
no serious meetings yet to review the taxation system.
Since it is obvious that senior finance officials have intervened,
and in highly dubious circumstances, does the minister
acknowledge that it is his duty to cast light on the circumstances
surrounding a decision which will mean the loss of hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue to the federal government and to
Canadians?
2476
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a shame that, in a debate as important as this one, the
opposition finance critic is unable to assume the same responsible
tone as his leader.
Let me just repeat that, in our 1995 budget, we eliminated any
possibility to use family trusts for tax purposes.
I would like the hon. member, who advocates transparency, to
tell me this: Is he afraid to see the finance committee review this
matter? I think the important thing is transparency in showing the
responsibility borne by the department of revenue, the department
of finance and the Government of Canada.
(1425)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Let me put
the question to the Minister of Finance again, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister is not afraid of reforming the tax system, why is
he having the work done behind closed doors by the very experts
who advise their clients to transfer $2 billion to the U.S.? That is
what is happening.
My question to the Minister of Finance is quite simple. Will he
call for an independent review to be conducted immediately to shed
light on both cases identified by the auditor general and any other
case that may have surfaced since, particularly since he became the
Minister of Finance, because he certainly did nothing to eliminate
these scandalous family trusts?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House should be aware of what the opposition is asking.
A situation had arisen under the previous government and in
1991 the auditor general reported on it. As in other instances, this
government takes very seriously the reports of the auditor general.
We have said we believe that the Canadian people are entitled to
have all of the facts. We think this should be looked at openly in the
finance committee.
What is the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois saying? He is
saying: Do it behind closed doors. Do not do it in front of us. Do
not let the Canadian people have the facts. Do not sit there in open,
public debate to take a look at it. What is the matter? Are you afraid
of the truth?
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he was
willing to enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to
ensure that tax cuts given by provincial governments like Ontario
remained in the pockets of taxpayers.
The finance minister responded by saying that the issue had been
discussed extensively at federal-provincial meetings and that a
general agreement existed that one level of government would not
tax away tax reductions made by another.
Does such a general agreement in fact exist, and if it does, will
the finance minister table it in the House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member asked this question yesterday and I answered it.
I said that there was a general understanding among all of the
finance ministers that it would be counterproductive for one level
of government to fill in tax room given by another. What we really
wanted to do was to get the economy going.
He knows there is not a written agreement. I said that yesterday.
I made it very clear the previous six times he asked the question.
The matter was discussed among all of the finance ministers and
that agreement exists. I repeat it here again in the House.
If the hon. member would like to ask me the question another 16
times I will give him the same answer.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government, through its GST harmonization
program, temporarily left $170 million in the pockets of New
Brunswick taxpayers, a tax reduction.
Two weeks later the Liberal premier of New Brunswick
announced that he was working on a new business tax to get that
$170 million into provincial coffers, a case of one level of
government taking away a tax reduction granted by another,
precisely the thing that the finance minister had said the federal and
provincial governments agreed not to do.
Given the fact that his verbal agreement with the provinces is
obviously being disregarded, will he commit to reaching a written
federal-provincial tax relief agreement with the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
because the leader of the opposition party cannot find anything real
to talk about, he continues to set up straw men. Let me take the hon.
member's situation.
In order for the governments of Atlantic Canada, the
Government of New Brunswick in this instance, to go through a
period of profound structural change leading to very deep tax
reform, the federal government embarked on a cost sharing
proposal with Atlantic Canada.
2477
Effectively that cost sharing proposal said that the provincial
governments involved would pick up the first 5 per cent loss on
their revenues and then there would be a sharing after that.
(1430)
It was very clear that the provincial governments were going to
have to make up their losses in two ways: through increased
economic activity and the possibility of tax increases elsewhere.
The hon. member has talked about the shift from consumers to
business. What may well happen in some of the provinces is that
they may well go back and take some of that tax savings from
business in order to keep the consumer cost down.
The hon. member really ought to understand, first, what was
done and, second, he ought to try not to contradict himself
consistently every-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The leader of the Reform
Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): In other
words, Mr. Speaker, a tax reduction granted by one level of
government has been sopped up by another level of government,
which is precisely my point.
Yesterday Ontario cut its payroll taxes, something that the
finance minister and everybody else has said creates jobs.
However, the federal government is killing jobs by holding its
payroll taxes high to support an inordinate level of UI contributions
and proposing further increases to try to stabilize financing of the
CPP.
If there really is a federal-provincial understanding of
harmonization for tax relief, why is the federal government
creating upward pressure on payroll taxes while the Ontario
government is trying to cut payroll taxes at the same time?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me point out to the leader of the third party minus three that in the
last budget, payroll taxes were cut by $1.2 billion.
Second, as a result of the deficit actions taken by this
government and by the provincial governments, interest rates in
this country are close to 4 percentage points lower than they were
over a year ago. That is a substantial tax decrease for Canadians.
The question I would put to the leader of the Reform Party is
this. If today he recommends that there be further decreases in
unemployment insurance premiums, why did he not recommend
that in his budget of a year ago but recommended instead that
unemployment insurance premiums be kept at a very high level.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As we go into the second
round of questions, I hope, and I will be looking for your
co-operation, for shorter questions and shorter answers.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last Friday, the minister's remarks on the federal government's
withdrawal from the area of manpower were distressing to say the
least. So with no follow-up to the proposed agreement tabled by
Quebec on January 18 and negotiations with Quebec at a standstill,
the minister acknowledged that the time had come to sit down at
the table, but with representatives of all the provinces.
Are we to understand from the minister's response that Quebec
should wait until all the representatives of all the provinces reach
an agreement, when, in Quebec, a consensus was reached years ago
on the patriation of manpower policies and programs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member is
right. The consensus in Quebec is well known. However, I think
everyone would agree that, before the federal government puts its
position forward, we should all be sure what we are prepared to
propose.
Quebec's proposal contains some very interesting points. Our
commitment is simply that, when we have a proposal ready, and we
should have one soon, we would like to put the federal proposal to
the representatives of all the provinces. However, Quebec is
obviously much further ahead in its approach, and the consensus
there, which the member referred to, is well known.
I hope that once we have clearly defined Canada's position on all
the issues, not just on manpower training but also on active
measures, we will be able to move rapidly by sitting down at the
table with Quebec's representatives and reach an agreement.
(1435)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has reassured me by saying that the mother of all
negotiations is not dead.
Can the minister confirm he is ready to negotiate with Quebec
not only on manpower training but on all active measures, as
requested by Quebec?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, there will be rather
significant differences among the 10 provinces and the territories
with respect to the resources and networks needed to deliver
programs. But, to get back to the situation with Quebec, there is no
doubt that, even in Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, which
is now before Parliament, all active measures are on the table.
As I was saying to the hon. member, the first thing we want to do
is look at the commitment made by the Prime Minister and by
others to withdraw from manpower training, but we are also
2478
prepared to look at all the elements, including active measures,
being discussed with Quebec and the other provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
holy harmonization hymn book, chapter 7, verse 5, states on the
harmonized GST: ``We think that Albertans will applaud this move
to an improved tax system''.
I invite the Prime Minister to come to Alberta and say that. I
hope when he comes he brings a very large Inuit carving with him
because he will need it, I guarantee that.
Can the Prime Minister explain how his taking a billion dollars
out of the pockets of Canadians to finance a tax break in Atlantic
Canada demonstrates the Prime Minister's commitment to equality
and why will Albertans really applaud the picking of their pockets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member requires is a bit of a lesson in understanding
the nature of the Canadian economy.
The Canadian economy is very different in Alberta than it is in
Nova Scotia. It is very different in Ontario than it is in British
Columbia. For instance, would the hon. member suggest that the
oil and gas taxation policy be the same in Alberta as applies to the
manufacturing industry in Ontario? Clearly not, because they are
different circumstances.
We are dealing with deep structural change. It is the kind of
structural change that let the Canadian government help the
western grain farmers. At this time Atlantic Canada is going
through a very positive set of changes and it is the responsibility of
the Canadian government to enable and facilitate that change.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
Canadians want from coast to coast is equal treatment.
Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta, has called for equal tax
treatment. Even the Prime Minister's little buddy in Alberta, Grant
Mitchell, has called for equal treatment. He says: ``Albertans
expect to have the federal portion of the harmonized tax collected
in Alberta reduced to equal the level collected in those provinces''.
When will the Prime Minister demonstrate his true commitment
to fiscal equality by either lowering the GST for the rest of Canada
or trashing this obvious payoff to Atlantic Canadian premiers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by
equal treatment, is the member saying that the same taxation
regime should be applied to the oil and gas industry in Alberta as is
applied to the manufacturing industry in Ontario? Is the hon.
member saying that Ontario should not have been given a billion
dollars in stabilization payments in the 1990s? Is he saying the
federal government should not have helped out with tax reform in
1972 to compensate for the revenues lost by provinces?
If that is what the hon. member is saying, then it is very clear that
he does not understand the Canadian economy, what holds it
together and what is going to make it grow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In 1982, the Liberal minister of immigration decided that Victor
Régalado, a Salvadorian national, was a refugee within the
meaning of the Geneva Convention. In the past 14 years, Victor
Régalado married a Canadian, had two children born in Quebec,
and has shown that he was not a threat to national security. Yet, we
learned this morning that departmental officials have decided to
deport Mr. Régalado for reasons of national security.
(1440)
Since these officials could not justify Mr. Régalado's deportation
order, could the minister tell us in what way Mr. Régalado is a
threat to national security?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, under the Privacy Act, it is
very difficult to publicly discuss the case of a person currently in
Canada.
I also want to say that, as Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, I have a duty to ensure the integrity of the system. I
do not see why we would not, in this particular case, clearly follow
the acts and regulations relating to immigration.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
has the discretionary power required to resolve this situation. The
minister, her predecessors and her officials have demonstrated
negligence and a lack of compassion in this case.
How can the minister explain that a foreign national having no
status can live, work and study here for 14 years without
immigration authorities making a decision in his case?
2479
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not a lack of compassion to apply the law and
thus act fairly toward those waiting to emigrate to Canada.
It has taken a long time, yes, but I must point out that people
have the right of appeal to all levels in Canada. Right now, this case
is being handled according to the provisions of the Immigration
Act and Regulations. I can assure members of this House that we
are acting in all fairness in this case.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have received a long term policy initiative document marked
``protected'', dated March 8, 1996, from the justice department
listing the following initiatives related to personal relationships:
marital and family status, same sex couples and family and
dependant benefits.
Canadians have the right to know the minister's agenda. Is it his
intention as a next step in his agenda to pursue family and
dependant benefits for same sex couples?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member
thinks he is on to something here, which might be his first
argument against Bill C-33. We would think for a party that speaks
so much about firearms it would know the difference between
finding a smoking gun and shooting blanks.
The hon. member should know the protected document that was
taken from my files refers to a discussion paper enabling the
government to participate in tribunals and before courts in which
there are claims for same sex benefits under federal programs.
As Minister of Justice I am obligated to defend those claims on
behalf of the government and I would expect to find in my office a
paper that discusses just how I will defend them. That is what the
document is about.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
the discussion paper that should be introduced into the House for
public debate.
My question to the minister is very specific. I want to know what
Canadians have the right to know, whether the government intends
now or in the future to legislate or regulate what is listed in this
secret initiative document, family and dependant benefits for same
sex couples and changes to marital and family status. Yes or no?
(1445 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand from recent
events why the hon. member would be afraid of public discussion
of ideas. There seems to be a price to be paid for it in his party.
I do not have to claim same sex benefits. There are parties before
the courts all the time doing that. As Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada I am obligated to respond on behalf of
the government. In the discharge of my responsibilities I am
preparing discussion papers which will frame a discussion of the
policies and approaches to deal with those claims.
If the hon. member's reference is to Bill C-33, the bill speaks for
itself. It does not deal with benefits; it deals with discrimination.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
A few short days after the famous top to bottom search of the
defence department, military police detained Corporal Purnelle, at
the Quebec City airport, in order to prevent him from meeting with
commissioners and lawyers of the Somalia inquiry in order to hand
over information. Worse yet, the chairman of the inquiry had to
intercede personally before the army would release Corporal
Purnelle. I think that operation camouflage is still going strong.
How can the minister justify the army's decision to place
Corporal Purnelle under surveillance for six months, thus
preventing him from speaking with the Commission?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has not addressed all the facts correctly.
Any member of the armed forces has the right, the duty and the
obligation to make evidence available to the commission. I have
stated that in the House previously and I state it again today. The
obligation to make evidence available does not obviate their
responsibility under the National Defence Act to abide by Canadian
forces discipline.
If someone wants to give evidence to the commission or if they
want to travel to Ottawa to see the commissioners, obviously they
have to seek permission of commanding officers so their posts are
not abandoned in a wanton way.
This individual had every right to come here. All he had to do
was ask before he arrived. That is the reason there may be a
disciplinary matter involved.
2480
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
disgusted by the minister's answer. I think he was arrested simply
for his own safety, probably.
The minister has no understanding of what goes on in his
department. Does he plan a quick response to the demands of
counsel for an end to the blackmail and intimidation of Corporal
Purnelle, no doubt for his own protection?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to turn the hon.
member's comment on him, sometimes I wonder what is going on
in his head because he obviously does not pay attention to the facts.
The Minister of National Defence does not get involved in
disciplinary matters with the Canadian forces. That is a matter for
the forces to deal with. However, I can assure the hon. member and
all members that no member of the armed forces will be prevented
from giving information to the Somalia commission.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans travelled
to Vancouver to meet with fishing industry representatives. While
in Vancouver the minister announced the reinstatement of
salmonoid enhancement programs in British Columbia. I
congratulate him for that decision.
Over the past two weeks the minister has met with a number of
stakeholders both here and in Vancouver. I thank him for taking the
time to meet with many of these groups.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question please.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Could the minister inform the House of the
results of these meetings?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in addition to announcing the return of salmonoid
enhancement programs, I did have the opportunity when in British
Columbia to meet with eight different groups representing many
sectors within the commercial fishery, union groups, aboriginal
groups, packers and coastal communities.
We all agreed on the objective, sustainability, viability of the
industry and conservation, although there was not a 100 per cent
consensus on the way it should be achieved.
In every group discussion was positive and many suggestions
were offered which, I am pleased to announce to the House, I will
be able to take into consideration and in the next few days
announce some adjustments and fine tuning to the main plan that
will remain as is but will be adjusted to soften the blow.
* * *
(1450 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to follow up on the last question put by the member for
Calgary Northeast to the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has indicated in introducing legislation
in the House that Parliament and not the courts should settle certain
important issues. Why then is he content on the issue of same sex
benefits to allow the courts and tribunals to settle those questions?
Why will he not table legislation that respects the vote of
Parliament that same sex benefits not be provided?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what vote my hon.
friend is referring to.
What the government has acted on is discrimination. That is
what Bill C-33 is about, and any effort to divert the discussion from
discrimination to collateral matters such as benefits or provincial
matters such as marriage or adoption is simply an effort to avoid
the true issue of Bill C-33.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
will check the record that Parliament voted on this in the fall.
It was the minister who made this connection when he said in
XTRA West on March 12, 1994: ``If the government takes the
position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic
that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''.
Is that his position? If it is not his position, will he clarify any
legislation before the House to ensure there is not mandatory
provision of same sex entitlements?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no need to clarify Bill
C-33; it speaks for itself. It deals not with benefits, it deals not with
marriage, it deals not with adoption. It deals with discrimination,
which we are against.
In terms of benefits and logic, I point out to the hon. member that
in the years since March, 1994, when that quote was recorded, the
Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It
decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground
within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is
prohibited, the benefits do not automatically follow; so much for
logic, and that is the law.
2481
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
The Sims report on part I of the Canada Labour Code was
divided in its opinion on the use of replacement workers.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us his position on the use of
replacement workers, commonly known as scabs. I would like a
clear answer.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member said, the Sims report was divided on the
matter.
In April, I consulted within the department. That is now
concluded. Here again, unfortunately, there was no consensus. I am
currently giving the matter consideration and will soon submit my
position to cabinet and to caucus. When the amendments to the
Canada Labour Code are tabled in the House, the hon. member will
have the opportunity to learn the government's position, which he
will no doubt comment on.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister prepared to say that the use of strike
breakers aggravates labour disputes and that anti-scab legislation
would contribute to establishing and maintaining civilized
negotiations?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I could propose
the best labour legislation in the House. If the parties do not bargain
in good faith, there will always be disputes. So I hope I will be able
to propose amendments that will bring some balance to collective
bargaining so we may have industrial peace.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence tried to
blame a $250,000 retirement party paid for with taxpayer money on
his previous chief of defence staff.
(1455)
He said: ``We have a new chief of defence staff who has laid
down the rules to senior military officers that they have to behave
in a way with the public's money as the public would have them
behave''.
Will the minister today tell the House and Canadians specifically
the new rule on spending limits on retirement parties?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this
question fully yesterday.
Members of the armed forces must be very cognizant of the
fiscal realities facing the country. They have to be very careful how
they administer their budgets.
The example given yesterday was obviously extravagant and
unacceptable. I appreciate that in military tradition ceremony is
very important, but this must be balanced with the need to be
prudent with taxpayer money.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported serious
problems with the Department of National Defence's ability to deal
with the government's increased demands on our troops.
How can the minister allow expenditure of taxpayer funds on
retirement parties when the auditor general reports that equipment
deficiencies do not allow our troops to perform their assigned tasks
within acceptable risk levels?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much of what
the auditor general said yesterday in his report has been debated in
the House. It has been the subject of questions and answers in
question period.
Since this government has come to power we have addressed
those concerns. We have re-equipped by announcing the armoured
personnel carrier purchase. We have provided new bullet proof
vests, new guns, new night time vision goggles. We have given a
lot of new equipment to the army so it can do its job in
peacekeeping missions.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Today is
International Red Cross Day.
On Parliament Hill and across Canada young Canadians are
embarking on a worldwide campaign to ban the use of
anti-personnel land mines. What will the government do to support
this initiative by the Red Cross and young Canadians to ban land
mines?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, three weeks ago when I visited Bosnia perhaps the most
disturbing sight was a number of young people who had lost limbs
due to the vicious weapons of anti-personnel land mines.
That is why it was so encouraging today to go on the front lawn
of Parliament Hill where young Canadians were out showing their
2482
faith and solidarity with other young people around the world to
share some of the responsibility for bringing to an end the use of
these awful weapons.
Canada is one of the few countries that have banned outright the
use of anti-personnel land mines. Furthermore, we are leading the
fight in the United Nations and the OAS to have an outright ban. It
was very encouraging this morning when the Prime Minister met
with the German foreign minister who indicated they will work
with us in a culmination of partnership to bring an end to the use of
these weapons.
That is the way we keep faith with the victims of land mines I
saw three weeks ago.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A Canadian citizen, Stéphane Sbikowski, has been a prisoner in
a Venezuelan penitentiary for 17 months now, without his case
having even been heard.
Three weeks ago, we asked the Secretary of State for Africa and
Latin America if she intended to use political pressure to speed up
the hearing of Mr. Sbikowski's case. Her reply at that time was that
her department would contact us-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Would the hon. member
please put his question?
Mr. Bergeron: -to inform us of developments. The response
left something to be desired. Given the danger Mr. Sbikowski is
faced with each and every day-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but the hon.
member for Delta has the floor.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the stated
objective of the minister of fisheries is to downsize the B.C. fishing
fleet by 50 per cent.
The minister knows full well the practical effect of treaty
negotiations is to reallocate half the fisheries resource. How can the
minister justify asking the B.C. industry to finance its own
downsizing when he is prepared to give away half its catch?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would make up his mind. Two
days ago it was 25 per cent; now it is 50 per cent. The truth of the
matter is that this has been taken into consideration. Whether or not
the hon. member can add, subtract or divide I have to say that the
allocations will be put in place as part of the fine tuning. Those
people who have to make the decisions will make the decisions on
all the information that it is possible to provide them with at the
time.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns
his handling of Patrick Kelly's section 690 application.
In this House on February 4, 1994 the minister promised that an
investigative brief would be prepared. He assured the House that
standard procedures would be followed. Neither has happened.
Did the Minister of Justice ever intend to keep his promises?
Why did he break them? Why did he change his mind and why
should we believe him in the future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the provocative
nature of the question in order to first acknowledge that the hon.
member had the courtesy of giving me notice before he asked it,
although he did not tell me how he was going to ask it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if we could have
the short version of the answer.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that an investigative brief
is a collection of a summary of the evidence. I have done better
than that in this case. I have given Mr. Kelly's lawyer all the
evidence. He has had it in his office and Mr. Kelly has had it in
British Columbia. They have got the evidence. They have got full
disclosure. I am going to be fully briefed before I make the
decision. We are going to do it in accordance with the rules.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to raise with the Chair the fact that there appears to have been
distributed on members' desks at least two pieces of literature, at
least they have been distributed in this corner. If I read it correctly,
one appears to be a piece of literature in favour of Bill C-33 and the
other, if I read it correctly, appears to be a piece of literature against
Bill C-33. I would like to know who authorized the distribution of
these.
As a rule, parties distribute things on the desks of their members
and sometimes the House leaves things on the desks for members.
However, I have been here a while and I do not remember my desk
2483
ever being turned into a post office or a propaganda platform for
whatever position other members may wish to advocate.
I would like the Chair to review this matter and at some point to
make it very clear that people should not be doing this sort of thing.
We have the right to come to an empty desk. If there are messages
there from the House or from our respective whips, fine, but let us
not get into this business of having junk mail on our desks when we
come into the Chamber.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I fully concur with the sentiments of the hon. member that
the kind of activity that was tantamount to lobbying on the floor of
the House via pamphlets is unacceptable.
Earlier today I discovered a document which was unsigned and
was in only one language. I removed it from the desks of Liberal
MPs, as it is my job as the government whip to do so. I had no such
authority to remove it from the desks of other members. As to the
second document, I did not authorize it in any way and only saw it
after question period started.
The two documents were not authorized by me. In the case of the
first one, I personally removed it from the desks of hon. members
because no such authority had been sought from nor given by me.
(1505 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
a second point of order, I would like to register my objection to the
fact that a New Democratic member was not recognized for
statements today despite the fact that I was rising from one minute
after until-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the issues in
reverse order.
As to the second point of order, it is possibly a matter of debate
and not a point of order. The chair occupants are conscious of
members rising and to the best of our ability we see that members
are recognized accordingly.
On the first point of order raised by the hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona who is a long time serving member of this
House, he raises a very important issue. I am pleased to hear the
participation and the contribution of the chief government whip.
I want to assure the House upon verification with the Clerk and
his staff that no member of the House staff distributed those
materials, so that in fact it would appear they were circulated and
deposited by a member or members of this House.
As your Speaker I would discourage that practice and join the
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. chief
government whip in their position on this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that Mr. Jim Silye, member for the electoral district of
Calgary Centre, has been appointed as member of the Board of
Internal Economy in place of Mr. Bob Ringma, member for the
electoral district of Nanaimo-Cowichan, for the purposes and
under the provisions of chapter 42, first supplement of the revised
Statutes of Canada, 1985, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act.
_____________________________________________
2483
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (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 eight petitions.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the first report of
the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to Bill C-20, an
act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation
services.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand there have been consultations among the parties and
that there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the subcommittee on HIV/AIDS be authorized to send one member and
a researcher to the conference on AIDS to be held in Vancouver, British
Columbia, July 6 to 12, 1996.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon. parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table two petitions, the first one with over 200
2484
signatures of people from Vancouver Island who request
Parliament not to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline.
The second petition is from 75 people living in the greater
Vancouver area who request Parliament not to increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline, and to strongly consider reallocating its
current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's national highways.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition from 732 of my constituents.
They ask Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
or the charter of rights and freedoms by adding the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
(1510 )
These petitioners state that society does not want privileges of
married couples given to same sex couples. They believe this will
certainly follow if Bill C-33 is passed.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from the people
in my riding.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend 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
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present petitions today on behalf of my constituents in
Mission-Coquitlam asking the government to not amend the
human rights act to include the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another five petitions totalling another 1,400 names on this
very same topic that has already been discussed here today.
The petitioners ask the House of Commons and Parliament not to
add the undefined phrase of sexual orientation to the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
This is part of the ongoing list of petitions deluging my office.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 11,250
people in my riding, demanding the total withdrawal of the
unemployment insurance reform bill and the repatriation to Quebec
of all powers relating to manpower and employment, along with
the budgets that go with them.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present about
60 petitions with about 600 names on them from people all across
Saskatoon and my riding.
The petitioners are protesting the price of gas in Saskatoon and
across the country. They focus on the fact that Canadians have little
control over this resource and that the federal government seems
not to be particularly concerned about that.
They call upon this House to establish an energy price review
commission to keep gasoline pricing and other energy products in
check.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I too am pleased to present a petition with 50
signatures to the House of Commons. These people are saying that
Canadians are paying approximately 52 per cent of the cost per litre
of gasoline at the pumps in the form of government taxes and that
over the past 10 years the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566
per cent. They ask that Parliament not increase the federal excise
tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this petition
contains 175 signatures.
The petitioners say that there are profound inadequacies in the
sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired
driving charges. They state that Canada must embrace a philosophy
of zero tolerance for individuals who drive while impaired by
alcohol or drugs. They state that as promised the government must
proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code
which will ensure that the severity of the sentence given to anyone
convicted of driving while impaired and causing death or injury
will be based on zero tolerance.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by 53
residents of Simcoe North. They request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, 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
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code or the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
2485
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to table with
this honourable House.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend 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
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first petition requests Parliament not to amend the human
rights code, the human rights act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relations or of homosexuality, including
amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual
orientation.
(1515 )
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament recognize our
Judaeo-Christian heritage and calls for the return to the holy Bible
as our nation's moral standard.
The petitioners call for a return to Bible reading and prayer in
our schools and to reinstate the name Jesus Christ in the Lord's
prayer in the parliamentary daily opening prayer, and in
recognition of the spiritual need of this nation to declare a national
day of prayer and repentance.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by 43 Canadians, mostly from the city of
Burlington, but also from Hamilton and Dorval, Quebec with
regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act and their desire that it
not be changed.
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your ruling, I will not make any
further comment.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions. The first petition is from Edmonton, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to 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
traditional 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 on 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 and the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Vancouver, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present two petitions to the House today from people
in my riding of London-Middlesex, every part of London and the
surrounding area.
The petitioners express serious concerns about changes to
federal legislation which would tend to indicate societal approval
of same sex relationships.
They call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to include the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I am very pleased to support the petitioners in their concerns.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to present a petition signed by people from Lindsay,
Bobcaygeon, Coboconk, Haliburton, Cameron, Little Britain,
Bethany, Janetville, Buckhorn and area.
The petitioners call on Parliament to embrace zero tolerance
toward individuals who drive a motor vehicle while impaired by
alcohol or drugs and they ask that sentencing reflect the severity of
the crime.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 1 will be answered today.
2486
[Text]
Question No. 1-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
Since 1934, how many crimes, in total, have been solved using the RCMP's
restricted weapon registration system and (a), how many of these crimes have
been solved by tracing the firearm back to the registered owner, and (b) how
much money has the government spent since 1934 to implement, maintain and
operate the restricted weapon registration system?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far as
the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and its agency is
concerned, the answer is as follows.
The statistics requested respecting the number of crimes that
have been solved by tracing the firearm back to the registered
owner are not kept at this time and are therefore not available. The
National Tracing Centre of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Firearms Registration and Administration Sections (FRAS) which
was implemented in January 1995 received 131 trace requests from
Canadian police agencies up to December 1995. Of these traces, 64
firearms were traceable to either a dealer or an owner. However,
these traces involved unregistered firearms.
The funds expended by the government to operate the restricted
weapon registration system and FRAS are as follows:
95/96 904,528.72
94/95 1,488,376.96
93/94 1,442,963.32
92/93 1,379,251.41
91/92 1,244,858.45
90/91 1,237,759.89
89/90 1,021,127.62
88/89 916,559.88
87/88 947,322.38
86/87 923,422.24
85/86 726,194.71
84/85 614,634.51
83/84 585,661.15
82/83 546,206.50
81/82 528,265.50
80/81 531,091.39
89/80 415,654.21
78/79 1,108,151.33
Total: $16,562,030.17
The source of these figures is the RCMP's finance and supply
branch. Since 1978 the reports available do not have unit names or
collator numbers identifying them. They are identified by unit
financial code (UFC) and these may have changed over time. The
only way to ensure that we are using the correct UFC is to factor in
program activity structure (PAS) for that period. Unfortunately, we
do not have a PAS before 1978.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2486
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Human Rights Act, not more
than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report
stage of the bill, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of
the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage
and on the allotted day to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order,
and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then
under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further
debate or amendment.
(1520)
[English]
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): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
2487
(Division No. 55)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-136
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-87
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-33. This legislation will amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act to include sexual orientation.
Currently the act forbids discrimination against Canadians
because of their race, national or ethnic origins, colour, religion,
age, marital status, family status or disabilities.
2488
(1605)
The purpose of this legislation is to insert into the act that which
the courts have already declared into law in Canada. We know there
is much emotion surrounding this bill. We also know this has been
a policy of the federal Liberals since 1978, affirmed again at our
last policy convention in 1994.
We know also that this has been included in the acts of eight
provinces and territories in Canada. My province of Ontario
introduced sexual orientation into its human rights act in 1986,
some ten years ago. We also know the human rights commissions
of all remaining Canadian jurisdictions have recommended that
sexual orientation be added to human rights legislation.
There seems to be a lot of confusion and misinterpretation
regarding this legislation. Much of it centres around its possible
effects on the family. I remind the House the family is important to
me, as it is to the people of Guelph- Wellington. Family must be
the centre of our lives. I would not hesitate to speak out against any
legislation which would end the importance of our families. That is
why I am pleased to note in the bill's preamble these important
words: ``And whereas the government recognizes and affirms the
importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and
that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society''.
Those are comforting words. The family is the foundation of
society and must continue to be respected and promoted as such.
The preamble's purpose is to remind Canadians and
parliamentarians that the act deals with discrimination in
employment and the provision of goods and services. The
fundamental role of family will not be altered by this amendment.
Canada is the best country in the world. We do not need the
United Nations to remind us of that, although it continues to do so
in poll after poll. It is the best country because of our cherished
tradition of caring for one another. Health care, social services,
education and public pensions are examples of why the world looks
to us as a nation to copy.
Canadians enjoy the unique privilege of being the world's best.
Our federal government must lead by defending the principle of
equality for all Canadians, everyone. Our social programs and our
health care are not the only reason we are the best. We are the best
because we have shown tolerance and understanding to each other.
We care for our aged. We look out for one another in need and we
do not accept bigotry, intolerance or discrimination.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the legislation which
would in effect cover about 10 per cent of the workforce. The act
specifies that a person cannot be fired, denied a promotion or
refused access to goods and services because of who they are.
However, sometimes it is important to remind Canadians of what
legislation does not say.
In this case the act does not apply to religious, cultural or
educational institutions. It does not apply to residential
accommodation. It does not apply to retail and manufacturing
businesses and it does not apply to provincial jurisdictions. It does
not tell us what to do in our homes.
Canadians cannot accept intolerance. Certainly no one,
particularly those in positions of power or leadership, would accept
that people should be fired or placed at the back of a room or a bus
because someone else finds their colour, their religion, their age,
their sexual orientation offensive. Or would they?
It is possible there are still some Canadians who would rather
fire an employee, no matter how good that person is, because a
client or a customer is somehow offended by their colour or who
they are.
(1610 )
Those ideas proved the worth of this legislation. Those ideas
proved Canadians still need protection, not special rights, because
they happen to be black, Jewish, Chinese or over 50 years old.
Reformers argue they want to see the list of prohibited grounds
repealed altogether, ensuring equal treatment for all Canadians.
Obviously they do not all agree.
However, let me challenge them to visit a seniors group and
remind them they want to end protection based on age. Let them
visit a synagogue, mosque or Christian church and tell the
congregation they want to end protection based on religion. Let
them visit women who have been fired or who lacked promotion
because of the simple fact they are women.
We need no lesson on equality from Reformers. The sad reason
we need to protect people is that there are those in this great
country who believe the back of the bus is the place for some of us.
There are those who believe the back of the room is the place to
hide while bigotry, racism and intolerance are accepted.
We as a government, as elected officials, must take a stand and
say we do not tolerate bigotry. We cannot accept that some
Canadians, our sons, daughters, mothers, daughters, co-workers,
employees and friends, are denied goods and services, are
overlooked for promotion, are ignored or, worse, beaten because of
who they are. The only thing we must be intolerant of is intolerance
against others.
This amendment has the support of such national organizations
as the Canadian Jewish Congress, the YWCA, the Canadian
Bankers Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the
Anglican Church of Canada.
2489
I know there is concern about this legislation. Much of this
concern has resulted from the importance of marriage and family.
I know there are individuals who enjoy stretching the facts. These
same people said that gun control would lead to confiscation and
that Bill C-41 would lead to the legalization of pedophilia.
However, what we are doing here is recognizing that certain
Canadians require our protection in certain parts of their lives. This
does not condone what they do elsewhere.
Allow me to quote Sean Durkan from the May 5, 1996 edition of
the Ottawa Sun:
Telling someone they must sit at the back of the bus until such a time as a way
can be worked out to place everyone at the back of that bus does not cut it.
It is time to get off that bus and back on the road to tolerance and
understanding.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
informed the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would like to
have Motion No. 8 withdrawn because it is substantially the same
as Motion No. 7. I have consulted with the whips of the two other
parties and they have no objection to this proposition.
There is a consequential amendment, I have been told. Perhaps I
could indicate to other members to examine Motion No. 1 because
I think it is consequential to Motion No. 8; it has a direct
relationship.
In any case, I would like to now ask if the House would consent
to have Motion No. 8 withdrawn.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 8 in
Group No. 3?
An hon. member: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have another point of order.
There is also Motion No. 1 which I would like to ask colleagues to
examine. I believe it is purely consequential by the information
given to me. Perhaps after the next debate we could have it
removed because it is consequential. Now that No. 8 does not exist
that amendment does not do anything. If the House is satisfied with
that I will come back to the House in a few minutes, perhaps after
the next speaker.
(1615)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member speaking about society.
I stand in a House that was built on the principle of democracy
and today I watched the government vote against democracy. By
moving closure on this debate it is stopping the people from having
their say. If members want to talk about hypocrisy they had better
start doing what they are supposed to be doing in a supposedly
democratic House.
I wish to express the strong opposition of my constituents to the
government's legislation for adding the undefined phrase sexual
orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Since I became a member of Parliament in 1993 no issue, no
government action or inaction, has provoked such an outpouring of
letters, faxes and petitions to my office. No issue has had a greater
impact, yet closure has been moved in the House on it.
People are concerned for many reasons. First is the needless
haste, the almost diehard rush of the government, to ram this very
important legislation through Parliament without giving the people
of Canada adequate opportunity to study its possible impacts and to
reach public agreement on whether it is advisable.
The government is pretending, because the bill is so short, that
there is virtually nothing in it. People give more apparent thought
to getting the oil changed in their cars than the government has
given to adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation to a list in
the human rights act of forbidden grounds of discrimination.
One other action of this government provoked a similar degree
of public protest and that was Bill C-68, which will take police
officers off our streets in order to process gun registrations for
law-abiding Canadians while doing virtually nothing to end the
criminal misuse of firearms. For that legislation the same justice
minister made a point of bragging how he had consulted with the
public.
Day after day he read to hon. members a list of the groups which
he visited, a list of the groups which supported that very
controversial legislation. He apparently made a point of at least
notifying such groups and now we hear from the groups that this
was not true in all cases. But he did express this. He seriously
considered amendments, if not outright in their opposition to his
legislation, to at least seek consensus and to answer their concerns
by modifying his original proposal.
I believe his legislation was bad because there is no proof that it
will ever reduce criminal misuse of firearms. At least the justice
minister gave an appearance of listening to the people. However,
not in this case.
Currently the Canadian pension plan secretariat has been helping
with hearings across Canada so that all Canadians can have the
opportunity to speak about changes to their pension.
When the subject of doctor assisted suicide came before
Parliament during the first session, the other place held extensive
hearings and produced a significant report. The government ap-
2490
peared to listen because it did not proceed with legislation. Even
now the government is listening to different groups.
Let us look at the Devco development, the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, which will seriously affect the future of
the Atlantic region, especially the Cape Breton coal mining
industry. It is prompting serious Senate hearings to examine the
plans put forward. Community members and labour leaders as well
as local legislatures have had opportunity to come to Ottawa and
lobby members, including officials of Natural Resource Canada, to
try to ensure that the best possible decision is made.
(1620 )
We are all aware that sometimes such hearings are more for
public relations than for the real purpose of listening to Canadians.
However, the people of Canada can at least hope that the
government will listen to them. The people can at least get the
impression that Parliament, including the Prime Minister and his
cabinet, is acting as responsibly as possible about issues which
Canadians perceive to be important. Not in this case.
Past governments have viewed it as being so important that
people must have hope they will be listened to that they even added
a special section to the Criminal Code so that some of the worst
criminals in our history would be guaranteed the opportunity of
getting a hearing for early parole, even if they have been a serial
murderer who has been tried and found guilty. Sometimes they
have even confessed their guilt for the killing of many people and
for the terrible pain and suffering they have inflicted on the
surviving family and friends. Supposedly even those murderers
must be assured that there is some hope they will be listened to by
the government.
Surely the fact that every member of Parliament has received
hundreds if not thousands of faxes, letters and petitions about the
government's plan to add the undefined phrase sexual orientation
to the human rights act ought to have convinced even this
government that the people of Canada view this legislation as very
serious business indeed.
What do we get? We get closure. A gag order. That is the
government's response to the people of Canada.
Is the government listening? No. Is it showing respect for the
fact that very often the people of Canada have a collective wisdom
which is far greater than anything displayed by a government? No.
Is the government holding cross country hearings? No. Will there
be a Senate committee appointed to look into the issue? No.
The Minister of Justice is turning his back on the Canadian
people. He is listening instead to a very small special interest
group. He has not made any significant effort to seek a consensus
from Canadians on how he should proceed.
The government has brought forward Bill C-33 with the kind of
extreme haste that reasonable people could only expect when
dealing with a major national emergency. By contrast, the west
coast grain handlers went on strike during the first session of the
35th Parliament, putting thousands of people out of work and
threatening Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier
of grain. Even then the government did not act with such haste.
What effort has the justice minister made on Bill C-33 to contact
groups which could reasonably be expected to have concerns or
perhaps to oppose the legislation outright? What effort has the
government made to seek the consensus of Canadians before
proceeding with legislation to add the undefined phrase sexual
orientation to the human rights act?
The laws that are made and passed in the House will affect the
people of Canada forever, yet the government refuses to consult the
people. It is shameful.
Unlike serial killers, which the government thinks must have the
hope of special hearings, it gives people opposed to including the
undefined phrase sexual orientation in the human rights act no hope
at all that their concerns will be examined. Instead it substitutes
name calling, like bigot, racist and homophobic to anybody who
stands up to question the legislation. That is how much respect the
government has for democracy.
The second reason I oppose the legislation is that members of
Parliament have not been given any proof that homosexuals and
lesbians are not being paid fairly, are not being promoted or are not
being admitted as students in our colleges and universities. On the
contrary, we have proof. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam
pointed out to the government that the gay population in North
America appears to have full access to a standard of living which is
considerably above average.
(1625)
The government usually presents hon. members with pages and
pages of statistics regarding, for example, the recognizably lower
household incomes of aboriginal peoples compared with
non-aboriginal peoples, or the much smaller percentage of women
compared with men in management positions. We gets reams of
statistics on these issues from the government.
Where are the pages, where are the statistics on this issue?
Nowhere. The answer is clear. The government has no statistics to
support this legislation. It has never had any statistics supporting
this legislation.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the government
also assured Canadians that passing the Young Offenders Act
would not result in an increase of any youth crime. on the contrary,
from 1986 to 1994, violent youth crime-
2491
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member's time has expired.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to comment on Bill C-33, an act to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act which will prohibit discrimination on
the grounds of sexual orientation.
The proposals have generated deep, passionate and powerful
discussion on both sides of the issue, and a maelstrom of notions of
family, religion and entitlement to benefits. There are strongly held
views among my colleagues in the House, among my constituents
of Erie, among the citizens of this country.
I respect and have considered the views of all who have written
letters, placed phone calls to my office and made personal
presentations. I am most appreciative of their time, their concerns
and their prayers. I listened intently to the differing opinions and
approaches of each individual and organization that made
presentations to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons. I have thought long and hard on this
issue, at times with confusion, at times with anxiety, at times with
anguish and finally with resolve.
Now the time has come to take a stand, to cast a vote. In full
knowledge of the free vote status of this decision, I have concluded
that I will support Bill C-33 for a very good reason: It is simply the
right thing to do. Let me explain.
This issue is one of human rights, of dignity, of equality, of the
universal principle that no individual should be discriminated
against because of who or what they are.
The federal government as well as every province and territory
in Canada has human rights legislation. The current Canadian
Human Rights Act contains a list of prohibited grounds of
discrimination which includes race, colour, religion, age, sex,
marital or family status and disability. Canadians are protected
whether they are of Italian, Sri Lankan or English stock, black,
yellow, brown or white, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, young or old,
man or woman, married or single, parent or childless. The act does
not create any special group or any special rights. This bill would
add the term sexual orientation to that list, no special group, no
special rights.
The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act is restricted
to employment in and the provision of goods and services by the
federal government and federally regulated businesses such as
banks, airlines and telecommunications companies. These
organizations employ about 10 per cent of the workforce which
makes for a very limited application. Most employers such as
schools, small businesses and religious and cultural organizations
are regulated provincially and would not be affected by the
proposed legislation.
There are four basic reasons why sexual orientation should be
included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. First, as a matter of
fundamental fairness, the amendment will ensure that Canadians
cannot be discriminated against in the areas of federal
employment, accommodation and access to goods and services
solely because of their sexual orientation. This means, for example,
Canadians cannot be fired for being homosexual or indeed
heterosexual.
Some may say it is not necessary in this day and age. Let me
remind the House of the recent intemperate, base and
discriminating remarks made against blacks and homosexuals by
two Reform members of the House, the highest court in the land.
These inexcusable comments sickened me and Canadians
everywhere. Some may say it is necessary, very much so.
Second, it is necessary to bring the text of the Canadian Human
Rights Act into conformity with the charter. The Ontario Court of
Appeal in Haig v. Canada held that the Canadian Human Rights Act
would in future be read as though sexual orientation were already a
prohibited ground of discrimination. It is already with us. The
courts are already setting policy which should be a prerogative of
Parliament. It is our responsibility, indeed our obligation, to codify
this fundamental right and principle of equality. The courts are
telling parliamentarians to do our jobs or they will do it for us.
Third, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Egan
and Nesbitt v. Canada that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground
of discrimination under the equality provisions of section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The problem is the
charter does not apply to private companies and federally regulated
industries. The Canadian Human Rights Act does. Accordingly the
Canadian Human Rights Act is being amended to give protection
on the basis of sexual orientation to gays and lesbians in the private
sector workplace.
(1630)
Fourth, the proposed amendment will bring the federal act into
conformity with eight provinces and territories which have already
amended their human rights legislation to include sexual
orientation: Quebec in 1977, Ontario in 1986, Yukon in 1987, Nova
Scotia in 1991, New Brunswick in 1992, British Columbia in 1992,
and Saskatchewan in 1993. The nature of this legislation is not new
or revolutionary. We are simply catching up to the provinces.
My constituents are surprised on being reminded that in 1986 the
province of Ontario added sexual orientation as a prohibited
ground in its human rights legislation. Did this open the
floodgates? Not as a matter of course, not automatically. Indeed
eight long years later the Ontario government introduced specific
legislation, Bill 167, directed at enlarging the definition of spousal
2492
relationships in Ontario, that same sex couples were entitled to the
same rights as applied to common law heterosexual couples.
It is interesting to note that the bill was defeated. Let us not lose
the logic of this event. Issues such as adoption by homosexuals
were separate and distinct and did not automatically follow the
adding of sexual orientation to the Ontario human rights
legislation. No, we were not consumed by the flood waters.
Let me continue with a brief but most important consideration of
what the Canadian Human Rights Act does not do. It does not
negatively impact on the traditional family nor change the
definition of marriage, family or spouse. This is explicitly
reinforced in the preamble where it is stated ``-the government
recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation
of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its
fundamental role in society''.
In fact the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mossop case rejected
claims that the term ``family status'' in the Canadian Human Rights
Act includes couples of the same sex. This was the decision of the
court then and remains the law now. It is good law that I agree with.
It does not condone nor condemn sexual orientation, neither
homosexuality nor heterosexuality. It does not extend same sex
benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. Again the Supreme Court
of Canada in the Egan case refused to support the extension of
pension benefits to same sex partners in its decision that the Old
Age Security Act does not violate the charter by defining spouse to
apply only to couples of the opposite sex.
It does not legitimize nor legalize pedophilia, which is a crime
under the Criminal Code of Canada, whether the perpetrator is
heterosexual or homosexual and is not a matter of sexual
orientation.
As mentioned, I also took note of submissions by the witnesses
before the human rights committee which coloured an overriding
element of this debate, the human element. I listened to the
opinions of psychiatrists who confirmed that a homosexual
orientation was not learned or influenced behaviour but set in the
womb by the mysteries of conception and fetal development. I
listened to a young female who stood in the top five percentile of
the officer rank only to be honourably discharged from the
Canadian Armed Forces solely because she was a lesbian.
There was the love of mothers of gay and lesbian children all of
whom struggled with their child's sexual orientation, fear, societal
rejection and persecution and ultimately acceptance and peace, as
well as the wasteful suicides of the many who did not. There were
comments and support by the Ottawa-Carleton regional police
chief and two officers from the bias crime units who denounced
discrimination, intolerance and hate. There were the
representations of various religious groups who came down
forcefully and convincingly on both sides of the argument.
It is interesting that those who opposed the legislation for
religious reasons adamantly affirmed their abhorrence for
discrimination but feared the slippery slope which they felt the
legislation could lead to. Am I to vote against the basic
fundamental human right on fears that it may lead to something
else? Is this correct, is this right, especially when one notes the
familial interpretation of our courts to date?
I also wish to send a message to members of the homosexual
community cautioning them not to chortle with glee on the passage
of this legislation. I strongly support the traditional family and
heterosexual spouses. I strongly oppose same sex marriages,
adoption or measures that advocate a homosexual lifestyle and
would vote against legislative initiatives in this regard. Bill C-33
does not fall in this category.
Bill C-33 is not a gay rights bill as its opponents and the media
delight in its reference. It is a human rights bill, pure and simple.
Bill C-33 is not about special rights for anyone. It is about equal
rights for everyone. All Canadians have a fundamental right to be
free from discrimination. It is not enough to be against
discrimination. We must act to prevent discrimination.
Let me bring this discussion to a personal level. What parent
could argue that a son or daughter who is gay or lesbian should
have less protection from workplace discrimination or less access
to services than anyone else? Not this parent of five children.
It is often said that a society is judged by how the majority treats
its minorities. Canada's world renowned and admirable human
rights record speaks volumes of who we are as a people. Bigotry
cannot be changed overnight. We must educate, we must learn. The
objective of this legislation is to end discrimination, nothing more
and nothing less. In all good conscience, who could not support this
objective?
(1635)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon.. member for Huron-Bruce-taxation; the hon.
member for Mackenzie-fisheries.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, recently I was
interviewed by a reporter from a major newspaper in western
Canada. It was an extended interview and she asked me about my
experience as a politician and a parliamentarian.
2493
I explained to her that I had never been a politician before 1993,
that it was the first time I had been elected to anything. When
she asked me how I found politics I frankly told her that I certainly
had had my eyes opened in the last two and one-half years. She
kept at me asking me what I meant and what kind of experience
it had been for me. I told her that to be bluntly honest, politics
is a dirty, rotten, slimy business in Canada. When she asked me
to explain, I said I could not think of a better way to illustrate
and underline that than what was going on with Bill C-33.
Hundreds and hundreds of letters and phone calls and faxes are
coming from people from all over Canada to my office and to all
the members' offices in Ottawa, to my constituency office and even
to my home. The only other piece of legislation that has caused as
much of an uproar in my constituency as this legislation has is Bill
C-68 which as my colleague pointed out also came from this same
minister.
At least on Bill C-68, we had the opportunity for a full and open
debate. Yes, the government adopted legislation that flew in the
face of what a majority of Canadians wanted. Yes, the government
forced its will on the people, but at least there was the opportunity
for the bill to be debated in public for an extended period time. The
justice committee had an opportunity to examine the legislation
and propose amendments to it and to call witnesses. It was a
protracted debate. At least there was an opportunity for Canadians
to express their widespread opposition to it. Unfortunately in the
end, it went through but at least the process was adhered to.
In this instance, a piece of legislation is being rammed through
this House of Commons without debate. The government is trying
to get this legislation passed before Canadians wake up and realize
what is going on.
The government would like to have it a done deal before it has to
face the music. Those who write editorials have not even had a
chance to pick at this and highlight some of the discrepancies in the
minister's statements and some of the discrepancies in what the
legislation purports to do and actually will do. The government
wants to have this all a done deal, put away in the closet before
Canadians wake up.
This bill is not about discrimination. As my colleague who also
asked, show us where there is a problem with discrimination
against homosexuals in Canada. Show us where this kind of
legislation is required. It does not exist.
This legislation is not about equality. It is about inequality. It is
about special status. In the minister's own words, he says one thing
to one group of people, one special interest group and then he
stands up in front of all Canadians and says something completely
different. He tells the gay community: ``This is a major win for you
guys''. Then he tells Canadians: ``Do not worry, this is basically
window dressing. It is an amendment to the human rights code so
that there is no discrimination against gay and lesbian people''.
Clearly, there is a real hypocrisy going on behind the scenes that
will not stand the light of day. I spoke with people outside on the
steps of this House who are protesting what is going on in here.
They know full well the hypocritical remarks the minister has
made, the duplicity of the government's bill and its attempt to ram
it through without debate, invoking closure time and again.
(1640)
Mr. Stinson: Unbelievable.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): It is unbelievable and it is unacceptable.
This is not democracy. This is a minister who has a very narrow
agenda. He is imposing his will not only on the Canadian people,
but on his colleagues as well. I am sure most of them did not want
to see the legislation come before the House and certainly do not
want to support it. However, this is the way democracy works in
Canada today.
It calls into question the parliamentary process and underlines
the need for the changes that the Reform Party of Canada has
proposed. But I will not get into that right now. I will stay on the
subject.
The justice minister has admitted in his public statements that
Bill C-33 will lead to special status. I do not have his quote in front
of be, so I will paraphrase: ``Obviously, when you recognize the
sexual orientation aspect of this bill it must lead to same sex
benefits and the recognition of marital status''. It cannot help but
do that.
The justice minister knows it full well because he said it. He is
the representative of the Canadian public on justice matters. He
cannot stand now and tell the Canadian people that that is not what
the bill is all about. I know we are not allowed to use certain words
in the House, and it is unfortunate because sometimes those words
are needed to describe the actions of some members.
I have received in my office about 180 calls and faxes from
constituents. They have said very clearly and overwhelmingly:
``Do not support this legislation. Vote against it''. On the other side
I got one phone call in the last two weeks saying: ``I want you to
support this legislation''. All the rest have said no. We are
receiving petitions daily.
The government is trying to ram and stuff this legislation
through the House so quickly that members cannot get petitions
through the clerk of petitions fast enough to get them into the
House before the legislation becomes law. How can this be called a
2494
democracy when people do not even get a chance to express their
opinions by petitioning the government and have the petitions duly
noted and recorded before the legislation becomes reality?
What is going on with this legislation? It does not stand the light
of day. It is what gives Parliament a bad name. It is what the
Liberals ranted and railed about when they were in opposition and
the Conservatives invoked closure and time allocation time after
time. Now, when they are the government they are doing exactly
the same thing. Obviously, they were crying crocodile tears back
then. They have no real commitment to democracy. They have no
real commitment to opening up the House and allowing proper
debate to take place. They have no real inclination to move with the
Canadian people on these issues. They want to impose their vision
on the Canadian people.
There is a gulf between the vision of this government and its
cabinet and the vision of the Canadian people. A gulf is widening in
many ways. This is another example. It is undermining the faith of
ordinary Canadians in their government and in the system.
I submit that as long as we continue down this road that gulf will
widen even more and the Canadian people will become more
disillusioned. I also submit, as I have said many times in the House,
this government by these actions, by this arrogant, top down social
engineering attitude is going to destroy itself. It has to face the
voters in the next election. It will have to explain to ordinary
Canadians why it invoked time allocation and closure and why it
rammed this legislation through the House of Commons, why it
ignored the wishes of ordinary Canadians right across Canada. It
will pay the price.
(1645 )
In the meantime, it is certainly a sad day for our nation that the
government is moving with as much speed as I have ever seen on
any piece of legislation to ram this through and make it a done deal
before Canadians even realize what is going on.
I conclude by saying what I said to the reporter. Politics in
Canada in 1996 is a dirty, rotten, slimy business.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very
proud to rise today to support Bill C-33.
I have listened for some time now to both sides of the argument.
I have listened to some exaggerations sometimes on both sides.
However, when we get right down to the essential facts of the issue
we have to accept that it is clearly a human rights issue. There is no
other way of looking at it.
We can look at every aspect of it. If we look at the provinces we
see that most have already adopted this measure in their human
rights acts. It has existed for 20 years in Quebec and for 10 years in
Ontario. It has not changed the interpretation of adoption in those
provinces. In the Ontario legislature it had to be introduced as a
separate bill which was defeated at that time. Therefore the courts
have not used this section as a way of interpreting spousal benefit,
adoption, marital status or whatever. It has nothing whatever to do
with that. It strictly deals with discrimination, plain and simple.
Many of us have in our lifetimes experienced discrimination.
Those people who have never had to deal with it have no idea what
it does to a person's sense of self-respect, self-being and the ability
to continue on with their lives. I have experienced some of that in
my lifetime. I come from a community where at the time that kind
of discrimination was meted out. There are many other groups that
still deal with that daily.
As a country, we are proud to deal with minorities. We have
always said we must protect minorities, otherwise we have no
democracy. If it is strictly a rule of the majority then there is no
democracy.
This issue does not deal with pedophilia, as some people are
suggesting. Pedophilia is a crime. To suggest this bill does anything
but give people basic human rights is distorting the facts. We can
distort and misrepresent people's statements all we want but the
facts will not change no matter which way we look at it. We can
read people's statements and misinterpret and misrepresent them
but that does not change the fact that this is a basic issue of human
rights and nothing else.
We talk about families. All the amendments refer in one way or
another to the traditional family and how this is to affect family
structure. I defy anyone to tell me exactly what the perfect family
is. Some of my colleagues will say it is husband, wife, children,
perhaps adopted, and maybe pets. However, we have single
mothers, single fathers, older siblings raising younger siblings,
aunts, uncles and grandparents raising children. We have all kinds
of family structures.
We also have children who go from one divorce to another where
the parent may have divorced two or three times. We have families
from which someone has been abandoned. We have families in
which there is abuse and the children must be taken away. We have
a majority of good families, but family is a term that basically
means a place where children are nurtured, looked after and raised
with love, attention and stimulation.
I have risen in the House many times to talk about issues like
child poverty, child care and assisting parents with their children so
that we do not have situations such as the one mentioned recently in
the Toronto Star in which a mother left her five-year-old to look
after a two-year-old in the library. Or another in which an
eleven-year old was at home looking after two younger siblings
because the mother was working. They are locked in the home after
school hours. There are many cases of latch key kids in society.
2495
(1650)
That to me is a moral issue. A society that does not make
children its priority, does not ensure the development of the
children both emotionally and nutritionally is protected, is
hindering the future of those children. That is a moral issue.
We do not have enough discussions about that. I do not hear a
great deal of uproar and indignation about those issues in the
House. I would like to hear members opposite talk about how we
might eradicate child poverty in Canada, how we might address the
fact that children are living on the streets and that education is
being cut back in Ontario and in Alberta. These are moral issues. I
do not hear any member opposite standing up and fighting for those
issues. Instead I hear fearmongering on the issue of rights.
I learned the other day that South Africa has a new constitution
and a new bill of rights. Guess what? South Africa has written into
its bill of rights sexual orientation without any qualifiers. South
Africa not too long ago practised apartheid, which we fought by
boycott. South Africa has acknowledged before we have basic
human rights in its society, a very interesting twist.
With respect to these changes we have heard talk about crime,
pedophilia and all kinds of horrible things, and spousal benefits and
whatever else. If anyone looked at the history of Canada, what has
happened in the provinces, what has happened in Supreme Court
decisions before this, that has not been the case. We cannot make
legislation on the basis of prejudice. We have to make legislation to
protect minorities. As a society that is the only way we can move
ahead and ensure we have a society which reflects in its every day
actions tolerance and respect for one another and which protects its
minorities.
I have no problem whatsoever supporting this legislation. To me
it is a basic issue of human rights. It has nothing whatever to do
with moral issues. There are many other moral issues on which I
wish to spend my time and for which I wish to fight so we can enter
the 21st century having eradicated child poverty. We must deal
with the very issues on which members opposite are talking. We
must strengthen individuals within society.
When we talk about family we keep forgetting that gay and
lesbians come from families. They are people's children. They
have not just appeared out of thin air. They are children of
heterosexual couples. I am sure they are loved and supported by
their parents. We are not inventing these people. This is not a
choice.
I dare anyone in the House to tell me that being lesbian or gay is
a matter of choice. If it were a choice, why would anyone choose to
be discriminated against, to be abused, to be attacked physically
and to commit suicide because life is so difficult? Why would they
choose such a tortuous way to live when they could easily choose
another, much easier way to live? It is not a choice.
The legislation must address that issue. We have to deal with
basic human rights in Canada. I am very proud to stand here to say I
support the legislation. I hope other members of the House will
find it within themselves to deal with the realities and be generous
enough to acknowledge the realities and to support the bill as well.
(1655)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to address at report stage Bill C-33 and to discuss the issue
itself.
There has been much debate about issues concerning the rights
and status of gays and lesbians in society. It is an issue of vital
importance. It involves many aspects of social policy.
This is a divisive issue. Whether members argue in favour of this
bill or against it, it should not be construed, as some in the House
have done, that they are bigots, racists or prejudiced. There are
solid arguments on both sides of this issue. There are many
Canadians who feel both ways on this issue, as witnessed by many
of the polls. Therefore it is our obligation to listen to what everyone
has to say and not start branding and labelling each other as bigots
and racists, as has been happening this past week.
This issue involves two things, and the legal rights of the
individual should not be construed as legal rights of groups. The
first is the matter of discrimination and the legal rights of the
individual. The equality rights provision in section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not specifically
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, although
several court decisions and a number of analyses have concluded
that section 15 is open and does cover sexual orientation. In other
words, many argue and judges have ordered that it be read into
court decisions, that it is there. Therefore many believe it should be
specifically written in the charter along with race and the rest on
the list.
One of the amendments the Reform Party will be putting forward
is not to have a list. We believe in the equality of all citizens and all
peoples, and no one, no matter who they are or what they are,
should be discriminated against, period. It is the list that causes
confusion. It is the list that causes hatred. It is the list that needs to
be removed.
On the legal rights of the group, there is the slippery slope
argument that if we add the words sexual orientation it will lead to
same sex benefits and same sex marriage, which at the present time
in Canada are not permitted. Spouse is defined in heterosexual
terms, not homosexual terms. These are the fears many in Canada
have, that this bill will lead to something else. They are against
2496
discrimination, as I am, but they are also against same sex
benefits, same sex marriage, same sex adoption and erosion of
the family.
Why not define sexual orientation? Why not look at the list and
not have a list? Those are some questions this party has asked. On
that basis many on the other side are saying we are for
discrimination.
I stand before the House and I say I am against discrimination
but I am also against same sex marriages, same sex adoption and
same sex benefits because those are rights and benefits society
gives, and they are privileges. It is not against the law for an
employer not to grant same sex benefits. If they want to do it, they
can. It should not be the law that they must. There is a fear that this
will lead to that. I do not have that problem but some do. I am
trying to point out there are arguments on both sides.
If this bill passes, as it will because the Liberals have enough
members to vote for it, if the homosexual communities then use the
Canadian Human Rights Act to say in a legal argument, in a court
case, that because company X has denied same sex benefits it is
discriminating against them, that will be wrong. That will be totally
wrong and it will prove that those people who voted against this bill
on that slippery slope argument are correct.
That is why both sides of this argument should have respect.
That is why both sides of this argument should restore some sanity
to this issue and look at it on a more rational and reasonable basis
rather than getting carried away with the emotional element.
(1700 )
I have done something in my riding which is very important to
the Reform Party. It represents how we are doing politics
differently. We have our policies and our principles on which we
were elected and which we are here to represent. We have policies
and principles in our blue book which I will defend at all times.
We also have a way to represent people between election years.
If I get a sense that people in my riding do not wish me to vote with
my caucus, or if they wish me to vote in support of the government
on a certain bill, if my ears perks up-on this issue they have
because it is a divisive issue-I will do what I did earlier. Two
years ago in my first householder I talked about this issue and
indicated what the Minister of Justice was planning. We had town
hall meetings. I sent a survey to all households to which I received
1,470 responses. In Calgary Centre the response was very strong
that I should vote yes to support such an amendment.
Since that time the issue has been percolating. I feel confident
that people in Calgary Centre, that little cosmos, that little part of
the world, deserve and should have the benefit of a member of
Parliament who will take the time to find out what they think.
Subsequently I conducted a scientific random sampling poll. I
hired a professional firm. I have just finished the poll with the
results. I have the report in my hands. There were three questions
this time around. I asked the very same question as the Angus Reid
poll which was held at the end of April, a poll that said 59 per cent
of Canadians were in favour of amending the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
However, if the results were broken down by province, 57 per
cent of Albertans were against adding sexual orientation to the
Canadian Human Rights Act. Manitoba and Saskatchewan were
lumped together to produce a figure of 49 per cent against, even
though they have provincial legislation that includes sexual
orientation.
There is proof that a lot of Canadians are against this. To call
those people who are against this bill prejudiced and bigoted is not
right. I wish the people on the other side would stop doing that.
Everybody has a right to their opinions and everybody has the right
to vote according to either their conscience or the wishes of their
constituents.
An hon. member: No one has the right to discriminate.
Mr. Silye: I agree, nobody has the right to discriminate, which is
what this bill is about, and I agree with that. However, there is that
slippery slope.
For the member who has pointed that out to me, if groups like
EGALE use this in a legal argument, that member might have some
red in her face. She will realize our job is to look ahead to see if
there are negative impacts of any bill. That is what some of these
members are doing. They have the right to do it. Let us stop calling
them prejudiced if they vote against this bill.
Getting back to my survey, currently in Calgary Centre 60 per
cent are in favour of amending the human rights act by adding these
two words.
I will be voting according to the sampling in the two polls I have
conducted. I have a clear consensus in my constituency that this is
what the people wish me to do. They also know my personal point
of view. This is that extra step. To me this is how we can do politics
differently and still be true to our policies.
Not everybody in the country agrees with every Liberal policy.
Not everybody in the country agrees with every Reform policy
although they are card carrying members of each party. It is about
time we recognized that and it is about time we tried to work on a
participatory democracy. It is harder to do this, but in the long run
it is worthwhile.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak in
support of Bill C-33. Members of Parliament have an obligation to
state the facts and clarify and dispel the myths that have existed in
society. Only then can we ensure we are really giving valid
information to our citizenry and thereby proper support to this bill.
2497
The bill will prohibit discrimination, the essence and soul of this
piece of legislation.
Let me start with the preamble of the bill. Let me restate:
Whereas the Government of Canada affirms the dignity and worth of all
individuals and recognizes that they have the right to be free from
discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services, and that
that right is based on respect for the rule of law and lawful conduct by all;
(1705)
Who would disagree with the preamble? Show me a citizen.
The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within
the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to
the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for
themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, consistent with their
duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or
prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has
been granted.
The purpose is very clear. Let us convey that message to all
citizens and we will have a fuller understanding of the bill and its
importance.
It is important to underscore that the purpose of human rights
legislation, as this amendment is to this piece of law, is to protect
vulnerable groups, not to prey on them.
Recently there was an advertisement in the Globe and Mail
which raised a couple of concerns, that Bill C-33 will give special
status to homosexuals, that the bill could have a profound effect on
Canadian society and would threaten the institution of marriage
and family.
I respect their concerns, but they have been based on a
misunderstanding of the bill itself and our laws and of the
separation of the church and the state.
Bill C-33 will not give special status to anyone. No one could
credibly argue federal and provincial human rights legislations now
confers special status on Catholics or Protestants, on husbands or
wives, or on those with disabilities. Although each of these is
expressly covered by the existing statutes, it is obvious no such
special status is conferred.
On the matter of the consequences of Bill C-33, we have to
restate some of the fundamental principles. The Canadian Human
Rights Act applies only to employment and the provision of goods
and services coming under federal legislation. The Canadian
Human Rights Act does not and cannot affect law on marriage. Ask
any constitutional expert or any lawyer.
Even the Supreme Court of Canada has already decided in a
recent case that family status does not include same sex
relationships. Therefore we should not worry about that. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion that
family status does not include same sex relationships.
With respect to the possible effects on benefits, Bill C-33 does
not change law on benefits. Again, the Supreme Court of Canada
has said unanimously that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground
of discrimination under the equality provision, section 15 of the
charter. However, the same court also held that such discrimination
did not support the extension to same sex partners of the pension
benefits which were the issue in that case.
The Canadian Human Rights Act and consequently the
amendment now before the House have absolutely no application
to marriage. The common law has always provided that marriage is
the union of a man and a woman. The common law has equal force
with any statute law.
With respect to a need for definition, over the years there has
been considerable understanding by which tribunals and courts
have looked at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
They have developed an understanding of this term. They have
interpreted it to mean homosexuality, heterosexuality and
bisexuality.
(1710)
The Canadian Human Rights Act and therefore Bill C-33 do not
apply to churches and religious organizations. The latter comes
under provincial jurisdiction. Even if for the sake of argument the
Canadian Human Rights Act were to apply, the Supreme Court of
Canada has already held that it is reasonable and justifiable for a
given religious school to require that the religious views of its
instructors conform with the view of the church.
Moreover, we have to remember the Constitution is the supreme
law of the land. It overrides all other laws, whether federal or
provincial. It has supremacy over the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Nothing that could be done in the Canadian Human Rights Act
could take primacy over the charter of rights and freedoms or affect
the freedom of religion, expression or association guaranteed by
the charter.
I state my full support for the bill. I hope that we all together
clearly state to our Canadian citizenry the facts of the case, the
governing Canadian constitution and its primacy over any piece of
legislation things that are feared could happen will not happen. I
suggest we all gather together and support the bill unanimously.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-33, an amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
2498
The legislation will add sexual orientation to the list of
categories offered special protection under the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
I speak to this for two reasons, to be a voice for my constituents
and to make the point as clearly as I can in such little time that
Reformers are strong defenders of equality in this country.
I begin by reading a quote from a clergyman, Martin Niemöller,
in March 1984, on his experience during the second world war and
on the lack of resistance to the Nazis. The quote was put on my
desk earlier today by the member for Don Valley North. I have
heard the quote before, but each time I read it I find it so powerful I
think it is worth presenting again. It certainly gives me a message:
``First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then
they came for the communists. I was silent. I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a
trade unionist. They came for me. There was no one left to speak
for me''.
Clearly we must stop this categorization of people in the country.
That message was given very clearly in the quote. I will explain
very directly and as succinctly as possible why Reform opposes
Bill C-33.
All Canadians are already equal before the law. This is a
fundamental principle of Canadian law. Section 15(1) of the charter
applies to all Canadians.
(1715 )
It states: ``Every individual is equal before the law and has the
right to the equal protection and the equal benefit of the law
without discrimination''. The protection is in our law.
This also incidentally and perhaps importantly is the first
principle in the Reform blue book, our book of policy and
principles. The very first principle says this same thing. That is
why Reformers believe passionately in the equality of all
Canadians. There is not nor should there be any Canadian more
equal than others.
I would like to end with one very short quote. I have to ask why
this legislation is before the House. Does it mean that Liberals are
all bad people or evil people? I say no. This quote explains why this
legislation is before the House-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In accordance
with the order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put fortwith all questions necessary to dispose of
report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
Accordingly, Motion No. 1 is negatived.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Would the Chair please explain why we are going
through all the motions when the bell has not rung to give notice of
the votes?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are going
to put all the motions and once we know which motions the House
wishes to have a recorded vote on, then we will ring the bells for a
recorded vote on those motions.
Mr. Thompson: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With all
respect, I would like to mention that before we even knew what was
happening-the translation was very slow-we were into the
second motion. We were trying to catch up with the translation
when we were already into the second motion. With all due respect,
it was a little bit behind.
I would have personally liked to have had a chance to stand
against Motion No. 1.
2499
(1720)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 10 is in the
name of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest and he is not
here. Can we accept his motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion
has already been moved and seconded.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
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 Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
that you would find unanimous consent that all motions on today's
Order Paper on Bill C-33 be deemed to have been read and that a
recorded division be deemed to have been asked on the following:
report stage Motions Nos. 18, 2, 3, 17, 19, 21, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8A,
because Motion No. 8 has been revoked, Motions Nos. 16 and 16A.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent for the hon. whip's motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2500
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the
following:
``3.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be
construed by any court or tribunal in such a way as to add, read in, or include the
words sexual orientation in Section 16 of this Act.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 12, on
page 1, with the following:
``And whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of the
traditional, heterosexual institution of marriage and family as the foundation of
Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in
society.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page
1, the following:
``And whereas the Government acknowledges that the term ``family'', for the
purpose of this legislation, means heterosexual couples and their natural or
adopted issue;
And whereas the Government acknowledges that ``family'', as the term is so
limited herein, occupies an irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing
of children, upon which the future of our society depends;''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the
following:
``(1.1) In subsection (1), ``marital status'' means the status of being married,
single, separated, divorced, widowed or cohabiting with an individual of the
opposite sex in a conjugal relationship for at least one year.
(1.2) In subsection (1.1), ``being married'' means being married to a person
of the opposite sex.''
2501
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the
following:
``(1.1) For the purpose of section 2 and this section, ``family status'' means
the status of heterosexual couples and their natural or adopted issue.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the
following:
``(1.1) In this section and section 2, ``family'' means individuals connected
by blood relationship, marriage or adoption.
(1.2) In subsection (1.1) ``marriage'' means the legal union between a man
and a woman as recognized by the state.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 33, on page 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
``2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the'';
(b) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
``2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, sexual orientation means, only,
heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality and refers only to consenting
adults acting within the law.''
2502
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
``2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the'';
(b) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
``2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, marital status and family status shall not
be construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal so as to mean or include two
or more unrelated persons of the same sex.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1,be amended
(a) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
``2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the'';
(b) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
``2.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be
construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal in such a way as to grant or
extend benefits available to persons of the opposite sex and related by marriage
or at common law, to unrelated persons of the same sex living together, or to
recognize as a family or as married, unrelated persons of the same sex.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 8A
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31, on page
1, with the following:
``origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, dis-''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
2503
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8, on page 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 16A
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 2, with
the following:
``sex, marital status, family''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report
stage of Bill C-33.
Call in the members.
(1740)
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 9. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the necessity for the
question being put on Motion No. 13. However, if Motion No. 9 is
defeated, the division will also apply to Motion No. 13.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 56)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Iftody
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-53
2504
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-169
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1755)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 defeated.
Therefore Motion No. 13 is defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on
the following division):
(Division No. 57)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-50
2505
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bélair
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Canuel
Cauchon
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Comuzzi
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
Deshaies
Dingwall
Duceppe
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gerrard
Goodale
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hopkins
Irwin
Jacob
Keyes
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Nault
Nunez
Paré
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1800 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 11. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 11 obviates the necessity for the question being put on
Motion No. 15. However, if Motion No. 11 is defeated, the division
will also apply to Motion No. 15.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 58)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-49
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
2506
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-169
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1810)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
Consequently, Motion No. 15 is lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the
fact that Motions Nos. 12 and 14 are under the same name, the
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I wonder if the House would
be willing to give its consent to apply the same result for those two
motions only.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 12.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 59)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-49
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
2507
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1820)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 60)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-50
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
2508
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-167
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1830)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 61)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-54
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
2509
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-162
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1835)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 in Group 2.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 62)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bélair
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Calder
Comuzzi
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Lee
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Ur
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-63
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
2510
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Irwin
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-159
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1845)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 63)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
2511
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-164
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 17. If Motion No. 17 is agreed to, it will
not be necessary to proceed to the division no Motion No. 20. If
Motion No. 17 is negatived, the division will also apply to Motion
No. 20.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 64)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Calder
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-59
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
2512
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-121
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1905)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost.
Consequently, Motion No. 20 is also lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 19.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 65)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-45
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -120
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
2513
(1910)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 66)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -118
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1920)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 4 in Group No. 3.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on
the following division:)
2514
(Division No. 67)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Cauchon
Clancy
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dupuy
Eggleton
Finestone
Flis
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-95
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1925)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was megatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 68)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Calder
Comuzzi
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Jordan
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Peric
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Steckle
Stinson
Szabo
Wappel
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-46
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Bélair
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dupuy
Eggleton
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gerrard
2515
Godfrey
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Nault
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Simmons
Speaker
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Thompson
Vanclief
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Wood
Young
Zed-80
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1930)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No.5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a clarification. It
has been indicated to me that I was not counted on the last vote.
The Deputy Speaker: I gather the member was not seen. If there
is unanimous consent she can be counted. Agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 69)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Calder
Comuzzi
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-55
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bélair
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
DeVillers
Discepola
Duceppe
Dupuy
Eggleton
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Northumberland)
Vanclief
Wood
Young
Zed-80
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
2516
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1940)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 70)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Calder
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-54
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Campbell
Canuel
Cauchon
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
DeVillers
Discepola
Dupuy
Eggleton
Finestone
Flis
Fry
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Payne
Peters
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-80
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1945)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. My apologies but we
could not hear the vote. The microphone system was not working.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote was 80 to 54.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 8A.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8A, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 71)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-48
2517
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wood
Young-102
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1950 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion 8A is lost.
I wonder if members would be kind enough not to leave during
the vote. It is making it very difficult for the people who have to
keep track.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 72)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Collenette
Comuzzi
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
2518
Kirkby
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young-104
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(2000)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 16A.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16A which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 73)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-48
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Campbell
Clancy
Collenette
Cowling
de Jong
DeVillers
Discepola
Dupuy
Eggleton
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Vanclief
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-88
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(2005)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16A lost.
2519
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy 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. 74)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed -153
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Calder
Comuzzi
Culbert
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-62
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chan
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
2520
(2015)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House,
I would like to thank the officers at the table and the Chair for a
very professional and well done job.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no Private Members' Business
today because of the delay. The motion will be postponed until a
future sitting.
_____________________________________________
2520
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 1, I
rose in the House to pose a question to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, asking him to extend the May 24 deadline and to commit
to begin serious discussions with representatives of the affected
communities who had already chosen the people to negotiate on
their behalf and had sent a group to Ottawa.
This group had some difficulty in having complete meetings
with the minister. He responded in a manner that left the May 24
deadline still in place. He did say, however, that he would be going
to the west coast the next day to meet with groups there.
I was concerned, as were others, that the minister would avoid
meeting the group that had been sent here by the communities at
great expense. Instead of meeting with them, he opted to go to the
west coast while they were still here in Ottawa seeking meetings
with him.
The next day the minister did met with a few groups that told
him he was doing a good job. At the strong insistence of the
fishermen's union, which still had representatives on the west
coast, he did meet with some of them. A day later he spent 45
minutes with the Pacific Salmon Alliance, which is the group that
was in Ottawa and had gone back in an attempt to have a meeting
with him. The community representatives that had been in Ottawa
did get to meet with him for a mere 45 minutes.
(2020 )
I find it amazing that among Liberal ministers they can spend
half a day flying halfway across the country to get away from a
group of legitimate representatives, in this case representing
fishing communities, commercial, aboriginal and sports fisher
people, environmentalists like the Suzuki group, the Georgia Strait
group, and the Save Our Wild Salmon group. Instead of having
serious meetings with them here in Ottawa to negotiate a workable
plan, the minister chose to go off to the west coast and grandstand
there rather than actually getting down to business.
Since that time as well we know some licences have changed
hands. The last report I have is that there are about 400 which have
changed hands under the aegis of the new program. I am told that
some owners have purchased up to 11 different licences. The cost
of these would amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This means we are leaning toward a new high investment type of
fishery, probably an urban based and not a community based
fishery. We have not really addressed with this policy the questions
of commitment to the resource. An urban based fishery which has
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in licences alone is to care
more about recovering its hundreds of thousands of dollars for an
annual licence than it is to looking after future stocks.
A community based fishery based on families doing the fishing
from communities will make certain the fishery has a much longer
life.
If the minister is truly honest in his promise he made in the
House when he responded to my first question to bridge some of
the gaps, address uncertainties and fine tune the program, he would
suspend the May 24 deadline, which I asked him to do, so true and
meaningful discussions can take place with no guns held to the
heads of the communities involved in the form of this deadline.
Tomorrow Peter Pearse and Don Cruikshank will be in Ottawa in
front of the committee, experts the minister could well afford to
heed. I hope he will would drop the deadline and work out a policy
that will leave the west coast with communities as well as with
salmon enhancement capabilities. People, after all, are a necessary
and important part of the west coast environment as well.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I should add in preface that the minister
went to the west coast and had met with numbers of representatives
of all segments of the fisheries industry before his departure and
has been meeting since. He had several meetings today.
The parliamentary secretary for the past month has met with all
three fisher groups, seiners, gill netters, trollers in Vancouver,
members of the processing plant, the coastal communities and the
union. The parliamentary secretary addressed the union at large
2521
meeting and met with the executive and addressed the coastal
communities. There has been an extensive contact with what are
called the stakeholders in this very important national asset.
The government recognizes, and this is part of this extensive
dialogue occurring and the reason for it, the Pacific salmon
revitalization strategy is all about conserving the precious salmon
resources and ensuring the sustainability and viability of the
commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia.
The fishing capacity of the commercial fleet far exceeds what is
required to harvest the available resource and this situation is
putting the conservation of the stocks at risk. No one, including
critics of the strategy, disputes the fleet is too large and needs to be
reduced.
The revitalization plan is based on recommendations from a
Pacific policy round table of some 70 salmon stakeholder
representatives as well as the recommendations of the Fraser River
Sockeye Public Review Board which identified various problems
undermining salmon conservation efforts.
(2025 )
Overcapitalization of the commercial harvesting sector was one
of the key problems identified by the review board. The round table
strongly recommended the fleet be reduced and the action be taken
before the 1996 fishing season.
The revitalization plan includes a federal government funded
$80 million licence retirement program and licensing policy
changes that are expected to contribute toward a 50 per cent
reduction in the fleet over time.
The licence retirement program will expire at the end of June. It
is a short term initiative to kick start the fleet reduction, but it is
only a start. It is expected to remove no more than 20 per cent of
the existing 4,400 licences. Other licensing measures are expected
to remove a further 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the fleet over time.
Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the fleet
reduction on coastal communities. It must be said that the future of
those coastal communities that are highly dependent on the salmon
fishery is not secure unless the salmon stocks are robust and the
harvesting industry is viable, which has clearly not been the case in
recent years. The revitalization strategy is necessary to give those
communities a solid basis for future viability and prosperity.
In meetings last week in Vancouver and again this week in
Ottawa with representatives of various stakeholder groups, the
minister indicated that he was prepared to consider what he has
phrased as fine tuning adjustments to the strategy, although the
core elements of the strategy plan will remain intact. An
announcement by the minister is expected shortly.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
evening I rise to expand upon a question I put to the Minister of
National Revenue on April 25. At that time I raised the question of
a ways and means bill which pertained to the issue of notional
taxes, the GST on used cars.
The previous day the minister had presented a ways and means
bill including 100 proposals for the improvement of our GST. The
GST has been a tax which has caused so much difficulty for
business.
For the most part Canadians never new that what is called a
notional tax was even in existence. It was not in the vocabulary of
most people. The fundamental change of the notional input tax
credit was one of the major changes. I felt it was important for
Canadians to realize that this important change was made in the
bill.
The way the GST was collected on used goods was certainly one
which was of great concern to many, many people. It was an
instrument of the tax system that was clearly not understood by the
majority of Canadians. When the issue was raised Canadians
simply did not understand it.
In the case of the auto industry, prior to the change, a person
buying a new vehicle paid GST on the full retail price. With the
changes announced by the minister, the GST now only applies to
the trade-in difference. This is a substantial saving of tax for those
who apply the trade-in value to the purchase of their new vehicle.
One element that remains unaddressed is the issue of curbside
trade which continues to flourish in this country. Many curbside
shops are still operating. They buy used products from private
individuals and resell them. Of course, these people are not subject
to the GST. We must address this. The point of my concern is that
these people do not collect GST on their business transactions. In
so doing, they directly compete against many storefront operations.
This is an unfair advantage.
As I conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the unfair
practice will only end when the province of Ontario joins with all
provinces in the harmonization of our provincial and federal taxes.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance if he would deal with this issue. What efforts are being
made through the business community to ensure early
harmonization by the province of this aforementioned tax?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce
raises an important question.
On April 23 the Minister of Finance introduced over 100
measures to streamline the operation of the GST. One important
simplification was the elimination of the notional input tax credits
and the introduction of a change in approach for used goods.
2522
The credit allowed dealers to claim 7/107ths of the price they
paid for used goods. It was assumed that the full credit was passed
on to consumers. However many consumers felt that this was not
always the case.
The notional input tax credit system was criticized for being
overly complex and susceptible to abuse. The tax will now be
applied on the net difference in price when a consumer trades in a
used good as partial payment for another good.
The new system for trade-ins is easier to understand and limits
tax compounding. The new rules came into effect immediately so
that consumers would not delay making decisions on the trade in
and purchase of automobiles. Such a delay may have led to revenue
losses during any transition period for businesses in this sector.
Delaying implementation may have also led to further fraudulent
activity.
In further response to the member's comments with respect to
harmonization, he is absolutely right. A move toward
harmonization in all provinces in this country will help to alleviate
and eliminate the sort of problems he outlined.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. Again, thank you to the pages and
everyone who stayed so late tonight.
(The House adjourned at 8.32 p.m.)