CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 4, 1997
Motion for concurrence in sixth report 8561
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8564
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 98; Nays, 73 8565
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 120; Nays, 78 8566
Bill C-71. Consideration resumed of report stage 8567
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8567
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8571
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8575
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 8579
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 8579
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 8579
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 8583
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8589
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8590
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8591
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8592
Bill C-71. Consideration resumed of report stage 8595
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8598
Motion No. 2 negatived 8601
Motions Nos. 6, 17, 33 8602
Motions Nos. 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 25 8602
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8605
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8608
(Motion No. 6 agreed to.) 8612
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred. 8613
Division on Motion No. 25 deferred. 8613
(Motion No. 33 negatived.) 8613
Division on Motion No. 20 deferred 8613
Motions Nos. 23 and 24 8613
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 8614
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 8614
(Motion No. 27 agreed to.) 8615
Division on Motion No. 32 deferred. 8615
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 201;Nays, 0 8615
Motions Nos. 8, 23, 24, 26 and 29 agreed to on division:Yeas, 201; Nays,0. 8616
Motion No. 3 agreed to on division: Yeas, 159;Nays, 42 8617
Motions No. 4 and 17 agreed to on division: Yeas, 159;Nays, 42 8618
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 44;Nays 158 8618
Motion No. 15 negatived on division: Yeas, 43;Nays, 159 8619
Motion No. 25 negatived on division: Yeas, 44;Nays, 157 8620
Motions Nos. 20 and 32 negatived on division: Yes, 42;Nays, 159 8621
Motion No. 34 agreed to on division: Yeas, 159;Nays, 41 8622
Motion No. 31 negatived on division: Yeas, 73;Nays, 128 8623
Motion for concurrence 8624
Motion No. agreed to on division: Yeas, 156; Nays, 44 8625
Bill C-66. Consideration resumed of report stage 8625
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 150 8626
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 147 8627
Motions Nos. 3, 9, 50, 13, 36, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 34, 27,38, 40, 46, 48, 52, 16, 17, 23, 39, 44, 53
negatived. 8628
Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas, 70;Nays, 123 8628
Motion No. 6 negatived on division: Yeas, 30;Nays, 163 8629
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8630
Motions Nos. 45, 49, 11, 24, 28, 29, 26, 31, 42 and 37negatived on division: Yeas, 28; Nays, 165
8630
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8630
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 40;Nays, 151 8630
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8631
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8631
Motion No. 54 agreed to on division: Yeas, 190;Nays, 0 8631
Motion No. 12 agreed to on division: Yeas, 154;Nays, 36 8632
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 76; Nays, 115 8633
Motion No. 19 agreed to on division: Yeas, 152;Nays, 40 8634
Motion No. 35 agreed to on division: Yeas, 145;Nays 47 8635
Motion No. 32 agreed to on division: Yeas, 163;Nays, 29 8636
Motion for concurrence 8637
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 123; Nays, 69 8637
8561
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 4, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
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 10 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the
parliamentary delegation to the Canada-France Interparliamentary
Association, which attended the 27th annual meeting of the
association held in Ottawa, Vancouver and Victoria from October 9
to 16, 1996.
There were three topics on the agenda of the working sessions:
the information highway, social security and the environment. Four
aspects of the latter were examined: environmental problems
relating to the agri-food industry, to energy use, to urban transport,
and the transnational aspects of environmental problems. The
meeting was a success.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
relating to Bill C-81, an act to implement the Canada-Chile free
trade agreement and related agreements.
[Translation]
The committee has examined the bill and agreed to report it with
amendments.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
That the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, tabled on
Wednesday, February 12, 1997, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to
speak to this motion. The sixth report of the Standing Committee
on Transport was about the need to reinvest as quickly as possible
in our national highway network.
(1010)
As you know, back in 1993 a report that was endorsed almost
unanimously by federal, provincial and territorial transport
ministers recommended reinvesting in our national highway
network. This is important because, with the free trade agreement,
new communications networks and increase in trade with the
Americans, one of the major tools we need is an adequate highway
network.
The work that went into this report included a strictly
non-partisan search for new financing methods. That the federal
government has failed to act since that time is mainly a matter of
availability of funding. That being said, our committee tried to find
new ways and received suggestions on the subject, including one
under the heading ``Public/Private Partnerships''.
This method of financing reverses the risk factor attached to
highway construction, which is a rather interesting point. In the
past, when the government decided to build or renovate a highway,
it had to find the money, make it available and award the contract to
a contractor so he could build the highway, which tied up
government money for a long time. As you know, there are times,
and that is the case now, when money is not available.
The new financing approach based on private and public
partnerships is a way to transfer the risk. It is up to the promoter,
the highway construction company that decides to invest in a
highway to find the appropriate financing, partners and other
promoters, and they do this because the government says: ``If you
build the
8562
highway, we will guarantee financing for the next 30, 40 or 50
years, as soon as the highway is built''.
What is attractive about this kind of financing is that during
construction, which could easily take two, three or four
years-financing is provided by the construction company and not
by the government. This can be an opportunity to get several major
projects moving.
The transport committee travelled across Canada to conduct
consultations on the relationship between trade, tourism and
transportation. We realized that a major overhaul was required, that
Canada's network of highways needed considerable work, and this
type of financing would make it possible.
The other interesting point in public/private partnership funding
is that, unlike in past years when the builder tended to work as
quickly as possible, to save as much as possible and to build a road
that would be adequate for the next few years, while the cost of
road repairs in the future and the fact that there were faults in the
construction were somewhat less of a concern, given that, once the
work on the road was approved, he was relieved of his
responsibilities.
Under the new system, as the road builder is the road owner, like
a good homeowner he will have to make sure that his property is in
tip-top shape. Developers and builders will be obliged to build
roads that are more solid and that will last longer, because they will
not have to invest in repairs after 10, 15 or 20 years, as is the case at
the moment.
I find this approach very interesting, and I wanted to point it out
to make it clear that solutions are possible and that the official
opposition can act constructively when it is possible to do so.
This type of funding was not invented by the transport
committee nor, necessarily, by those who made the presentation. It
has already been tried out in a number of countries, where a more
satisfactory and permanent highway network has been built.
What is interesting in the report as well is that provincial
jurisdictions were taken into account throughout the report and in
the recommendations. This has not always been the case in the
past. The official opposition had to be very vigilant during the
preparation of the report to make sure that the government did not
maintain a paternalistic and centralizing attitude.
We understand very well that several provinces feel they cannot
afford to invest in such highways, because we must bear in mind
that it is the federal government which has taxation powers. It is
important that this be done according to jurisdiction, and this is
why-in view of the criteria established by the committee and the
suggestion regarding the new funding arrangements-we believe
this step is so significant.
(1015)
We would have liked the Minister of Finance to be more explicit
in the budget regarding his support of those projects. When he
appeared before the committee, he encouraged us to explore the
situation, to study it in more detail, but this is a sector where
government decisions are urgently needed. As I said earlier, this is
not a matter of committing funds for the short term. It is a matter of
determining whether the selected projects are worthwhile.
I made suggestions that were included in the committee's report
recommending that a number of innovative pilot projects be
undertaken across Canada in the next five or ten years.
For instance, one pilot project could be undertaken in a very
densely populated area, on a particularly busy stretch of the
Canadian highway system. As well, pilot projects could be
undertaken in regions where traffic is much lighter, but they would
still have a major economic impact.
For example, after road 185 between Rivière-du-Loup and
Edmundston, New Brunswick, which is part of the Trans-Canada
highway, was upgraded some 20 years ago, there was a substantial
increase in truck traffic, and now this stretch of road is very busy.
Security is even becoming a problem.
I think it would be interesting to do an experimental project on
this section of highway, in that part of Quebec, to see if a
partnership with the private sector could work and how the
government and the private sector could agree on a way to pay for
the leasing of the upgraded highway.
Economically, this is important since, in fact, all trade between
New Brunswick and Ontario goes through highway 20, which only
goes up to Rivière-du-Loup. It does continue up to New Brunswick,
but not as a four lane highway. There would be some interesting
work to do in this area. No matter what the status of Quebec is,
whether it becomes a sovereign state or remains part of Canada,
this type of project would benefit the Canadian economy as a
whole. It would also benefit those who use the road on a regular
basis.
In a rural area like ours, in the Témiscouata region, this road has
a significant economic impact. It allows all regular road users to
get from one place to another. Today in various municipalities,
people live in fear of the truck they see coming in their rear view
mirror and of the dangerous situations they have to face.
Unfortunately, the high number of accidents is proof that there is a
need to act quickly in this area.
This pilot project would be worthwhile as it would stimulate
economic activity. This pilot project would also be worthwhile
because it would take place in an area less densely populated than
8563
major centres like Montreal, Toronto, or Quebec City, but it would
still be significant for the people living there.
It is important for all small and medium size businesses to have
access to the American market in a timely fashion. If you recall,
not too long ago there was a railway running along the road. The
tracks have been removed, putting additional pressure on the road
system. Unfortunately it would not be possible today to build the
railway tracks again, but it would be possible to ensure that the
road network benefits from the new partnership program between
the public and the private sectors, which would put us several years
ahead compared to more traditional financing. If tomorrow we in
Canada tried to meet all traditional road upgrading needs, we could
not do it for lack of financial resources. Therefore, we must be
creative and offer new suggestions like the one before us.
The wood industry in particular would benefit from this project,
since processing of raw materials is on the rise. There is room for
manufactured products on the U.S. market, and transportation costs
are becoming an important factor in North American competition.
(1020)
This is often the element that will make the difference between a
profitable contract, an adequate bid in reply to a request for
proposals, and withdrawing from the market. Therefore, when the
federal government proposes a penalizing reform like the
employment insurance reform in a region like ours, one way to
compensate for its negative impact is to diversify the economy
through the infrastructure.
A few years ago, Quebec sovereignists were not so well
informed on all aspects of rail, air and sea transport. But since the
Bloc Quebecois has been in Ottawa, we have realized that it is
imperative to link the different transportation modes. That is why
an idea as original as the one proposed in the sixth report of the
transport committee should be promoted, should get a chance to be
tried out in pilot projects, as recommended in the committee's
report.
I hope that one of the first places where such a pilot project will
be implemented will be on the stretch of road between
Rivière-du-Loup and Edmundston, because that section really
meets all the requirements to determine if joint funding by the
private and the public sectors could be worthwhile.
All this, in the end, to give to the economies of our regions the
best possible tools of development. The federal government has
often said that Quebec gets more in transfer payments than it
contributes. Quebecers react to this by recalling the years when
they depended on unemployment insurance. This is something
often mentioned by the federal government, but something we do
no longer want any part of. What we want is the money we pay in
federal taxes to come back to us in constructive ways, as
investments which would allow our regions to be competitive
while co-operating with neighbouring regions.
Northern New Brunswick would surely benefit from a project
like this one which would facilitate the transfer of materials from
one part of Canada to another. It is the same principle as the gas
pipeline which comes from Quebec City and goes through
Rivière-du-Loup on its way to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
When such projects are realized, everyone comes out a winner.
To conclude, I would like to restate that the official opposition
supported the testing of partnerships between the public and private
sectors in the area of transportation. We believe that it is a solution
for the future and we would like the federal government to state its
final position as quickly as possible and to launch projects which
would prove that it is not simply window dressing, but that it will
implement the recommendations of the parliamentary committee
so they can lead to concrete benefits. It would really benefit the
whole of the Canadian economy, given that transportation
infrastructures in this country have always been important means
of development, and we have to reinvest in that area in innovative
ways.
I would like to ask that the report of the Standing Committee on
Transport, tabled February 12, be concurred in. Once this is done,
the federal government could propose projects which would
stimulate regional economies and allow them to face the challenges
of the 21st century.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I commend
my learned colleague for his, I dare say, masterly speech. He never
ceases to amaze me; he is an expert on everything, and we realize
it.
However, I would like him to give a few extra details concerning
this partnership approach, because I did not fully understand how it
will be funded. What kind of funding will be used? I would like our
colleague to tell us a little more about the funding. I would also like
to know whether the transport committee, which he was a member
of, looked at marine transportation for heavy, surplus and off size
goods.
I would like to know if the committee talked about trying to
bring back coastal shipping, formerly used in Quebec to carry
goods from Montreal to Gaspé or from Montreal to the Lower
North Shore, for example, because it would spare our roads.
(1025)
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, as for the first part of the question about
funding, I belive it would go like this: a consortium of highway
builders makes a proposal to the government regarding sites
identified by the government as sites to be funded. Instead of
asking the government to pay to have the highway built and,
therefore, own it, the consortium takes it upon itself to raise the
8564
necessary funding. The consortium goes to the government and
says: ``Tell us what terms we can expect to operate under in the
future-basically, how much will the rent be for the next 20, 30 or
40 years-and we will raise funds accordingly, to ensure
completion of the highway''.
From the government's point of view, this approach has the
advantage of not costing a penny during the three to five years it
takes to build it. The consortium will pay for that part of the
project. It will certainly be paid back as part of long term financing,
but this type of funding can help boost to some extent the economy
or development in the industrial sector.
It has never been tried in Canada. In the past, there have been
experiments in the United Kingdom, for example, and a similar
project was carried out in the maritimes. Canada should have seven
or eight of these sites to assess the benefits over a five- or ten-year
period.
The second part of the question concerns shipping. The
committee has undertaken a major review of the relationships
between transport, trade and tourism. Because of the urgent need
for action in that area, it has focused much more on highways than
anything else.
Just the same, we have heard people from various sectors who
had all sorts of suggestions to make. People involved in tourism
have told us that, at present, the highway system in Canada does
not promote the development of tourism across Canada versus the
U.S. competition.
In Quebec for instance, we have been reminded of the fact that
the federal government still has not done anything about casinos on
cruise ships. The tourism industry and the shipping industry in
Quebec have ben making representations for years to be able to
operate casinos onboard cruise ships while on the St. Lawrence
river. This would be a plus in terms of tourist attractions. The
government has been dragging its feet on this issue for quite a
while. Representations were made to that effect.
Another aspect of the consultation process concerns Bill C-44
regarding ports reform. Currently, communities along the river, and
everywhere in Canada, are very concerned about what will happen
to these ports. We were told that the ports would be turned over to
the private sector and to local interests. What will be the conditions
governing this transfer? Will the facilities be in such a condition
that their service life will make them attractive when they are
transferred? All this is not very clear.
Bill C-44 has been shelved. We wonder why the government is
now delaying this legislation, after putting pressure to have it
reviewed at report stage, last fall. Maybe the government realized,
after seeing our proposed amendments, including on the status of
Canada port authorities and on other issues, that its bill was not up
to date and that some additional work was required.
The first thing that comes to mind about this tour is that, in the
past, Quebec suffered a great prejudice because of the shared
jurisdiction in the transport sector between the federal and
provincial governments. Quebec has jurisdiction over highways
and was able to take action in that area, but a large part of the
province's budget was eaten away in the process.
This was done at the expense of the development of an integrated
transport strategy. In Canada, no one has put in place an integrated
strategy that would enable us to know when to rely on marine
transportation, for example, or when to use trains, road carriers or
air carriers. The result is that we are now faced with totally absurd
situations that could have been avoided, had there been only one
level of government involved in these areas.
This is the primary conclusion I come to after that tour. As the
opposition's transport critic, I see a similarity between what is
happening in this sector and in the manpower sector. Things will
work only once the provinces have full jurisdiction over this sector.
This is important because, as in other areas, we are stuck with
duplication problems and with the fact that it is impossible, for a
government that does not have full and sole responsibility, to
develop strategies that would include all of these areas.
(1030)
Therefore, the transport committee has more work to do.
However, Quebecers will have to clearly express their will at the
next election and say that, in this sector as in others, our province
urgently needs to have full and sole jurisdiction, until sovereignty
is achieved.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, spring will be here soon, because, as I noticed while
driving in this morning, there sure are a lot of potholes out there. I
think my colleague's comments on the transport committee's
report are most timely.
The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned
a pilot project, the first of its kind, that would go from
Rivière-du-Loup up to Edmunston. He also talked about the
jurisdictions that would be involved.
I have not forgotten my geography. Since Edmunston is located
in New Brunswick and Rivière-du-Loup in the province of Quebec,
I would like my hon. colleague to describe for us what an ideal
public/private partnership would be, if this pilot project is
approved, of course.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, indeed, throughout the drafting of this
report, the Bloc Quebecois was careful to ensure that the various
jurisdictions were taken into consideration. We already have
funding mechanisms and agreements can eventually be reached
between the provincial government and the federal government.
As was mentioned in a feature article published in Le Journal de
Montréal last week, the Government of Quebec is open to this kind
8565
of experiment and since governments all have money problems,
they are ready to welcome some new action plans.
As for the pilot project from Rivière-du-Loup to Edmunston,
what is needed is an agreement between the provincial government
and the Government of Canada to experiment with this kind of
project. Since we are dealing with the Trans-Canada Highway, the
federal government has some say in the matter. If such an
agreement is reached, business people will set up a financing
consortium for this kind of project.
I intend to ask some of the stakeholders who took part in similar
projects in other countries to come here and see how such a project
could work, so that we can elaborate a concrete proposal in the
months to come, before the next elections, in such a way that all the
parties involved will have the opportunity to express theirs views
on the relevance of these projects.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(1115 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 230)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
McCormick
McGuire
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-98
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
8566
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Williams-73
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since the tobacco legislation is so important I would like to know
why there is not a single member of the cabinet present. I believe
there is a rule or-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sure the hon. member
for Macleod knows that it is improper to refer to absence of
members.
_____________________________________________
8566
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and
promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential amendments to another act
and to repeal certain acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the
third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the
report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this
order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill
then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further
debate or amendment.
(1120 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(1205)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 231)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
8567
Young
Zed-120
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-78
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The House resumed from February 21, consideration of Bill
C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and
promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential
amendments to another Act and to repeal certain Acts, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 1, 3,
8, 26 and 29.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we resume consideration of report stage of Bill C-71.
With the guillotine the government just imposed on this bill, we
unfortunately have only today's sitting to try to explain to
Canadians what the situation really is right now.
Thus, for the benefit of our viewers and in the hope that the
government will finally understand, I remind the House that the
Bloc Quebecois supports 80 per cent at least of this bill. We are not
ashamed of saying it out loud and clear: we agree with 80 per cent
of this bill.
This having been said, I want to stress an extremely important
matter. The government is missing the whole point with this bill,
since it does not recognize in the first clause that tobacco is a
hazardous, highly addictive and potentially lethal product. That is
what should appear in clause 1 if the government were really being
consistent.
But no, the government refuses to do that because it would then
have to crack down on tobacco and, eventually, to declare it an
illegal substance, thus losing billions of dollars in taxes. That is
where the problem lies. When the time comes to collect money, the
government has no problem with tobacco, but when the time comes
to let tobacco companies give money for cultural and sports events,
especially in Montreal, which receives half of the sponsorship
money, the government claims that its duty is to protect children's
health.
To protect children's health, the government would first have to
control tobacco. The government should be able to force tobacco
companies to reduce the nicotine content of their cigarettes.
With its insidious measures and fallacious arguments, the
government has brought us to a dead end because, in the past ten
years, it has financed tobacco producers to help them make tobacco
more addictive. Consequently, a young person who starts smoking
today needs another cigarette after an hour and a half. That is what
tobacco companies have decided. A smoker cannot go for more
that an hour and a half without having a cigarette. That is how long
he can go before having a nicotine fit. We even see people who,
unfortunately, have to slip out; even though they work on the sixth
floor, they rush downstairs to light up outside the building because
they cannot wait more that an hour and a half. That is the problem.
(1210)
The government should stop doing that, recognize that tobacco is
a dangerous product and force tobacco companies, which are
mostly located in Ontario, to reduce the nicotine content of their
cigarettes.
If it controlled tobacco products, the government could then
regulate access to these products and control tobacco advertising,
but it should not ban sponsorships because this is a dead end for the
government. There is not one serious study that shows a direct
cause-and-effect relationship between tobacco advertising and
smoking.
8568
I would really like to know how a young person can see the
Rothmans logo on Jacques Villeneuve's car zooming by at 240
kilometres an hour. One must really have good eyesight to see the
words Rothmans, Players or du Maurier at those speeds. One must
have really sharp eyesight. The ban on sponsorship will really put
us into trouble.
I repeat that tobacco should be a controlled substance, it should
be declared a dangerous product under the Food and Drugs Act.
This should be the first step, but the government refuses to take it.
The second step should be to regulate the inspection process.
There should be standards setting the maximum nicotine and tar
content. Instead of that, the government chose to spend millions of
dollars to try to show us that unidentified packages or plain
packages would prevent people from smoking. The clever ones lost
no time in designing even more attractive packages.
Complete and effective legislation would first control the
product and its publicity; not ban it, but control it, control the sale
of cigarettes. We have been saying for a long time that there should
be effective coercive measures against people who sell cigarettes to
children, one cigarette at a time.
In her magnificent letter, Senator Hervieux-Payette said that
when she was chairperson of a school board in a Montreal suburb,
she fired some employees who sold cigarettes to kids. As some
editorials pointed out this morning, we must first take certain
measures before falling into the trap of exaggeration or, worse,
extremism.
Sales must, therefore, be controlled. We need some coercive
measures. For example, the convenience store owner who sells
cigarettes to children, one cigarette at a time, could be fined $5,000
for the first offence, $10,000 for the second offence and, for a third
offence, he would lose his permit to sell cigarettes. If it is a
hazardous product, a permit should be required to sell it, and there
should be someone monitoring permits.
Access to tobacco should also be monitored. The government
has gone overboard: it is forcing convenience stores to conceal
their displays. We saw cases where a special gadget is required that
only store employees can operate in order to release a pack of
cigarettes. In bars, cigarettes are hidden from view so that no one
can buy them. We have seen some completely ridiculous situations.
In an effective bill, the government will first make sure it has
good controls in place, and then proceed to take action. Controls
must come before action. Behaviour can be dealt with later. The
best way to influence the behaviour of young children is through
proactive measures that build esteem and encourage.
It is extremely important not to tell young children that they may
not do something, because as soon as you do, what is the first thing
a child or an adolescent wants to do? The very thing he was told
not to do beckons to him. Rather than set restrictions, it is better to
tackle behaviour.
Rather than spend $3 million to fund research centres, the
government should take this money and put together kits
promoting health, exercise, outdoor activities, anything to keep
people from taking up smoking.
(1215)
Then, the environment has to be tackled. Yesterday evening, we
heard how Toronto had gone to some ridiculous lengths. Smoking
has apparently been banned in washrooms because they are located
in the wrong part of the restaurant.
It must be possible to alter the product. The government must
alter the product in order to make it less dangerous and less
addictive. It is extremely important that people be aware of the
difference between the cigarettes smoked in the past and those
available today.
The Liberal government is showing a great weakness in its
inability to come up with a global perspective on the hazards of the
product, smoking behaviour and the social and physical
environment in which all those concerned are evolving: smokers,
non-smokers, merchants, health stakeholders, tobacco companies
and distribution networks. There must be recognition at the social,
political and legislative level that the hazards and addictiveness of
tobacco products take priority over banning sponsorships.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-71 today because this issue is very
close to my heart.
We all know about the harmful effects of smoking. The
correlation between smoking and various forms of cancer affecting
the lungs, the throat, the mouth, the larynx, the digestive tract, the
stomach and the colon has been more than scientifically proven.
The increased risk of heart disease among smokers is also a well
known fact.
Today, however, I would like to examine this issue from another
point of view, namely the effect of second hand smoke on the
health of non-smokers, particularly on the health of children. But
first of all, I would like to talk briefly about the history of smoking.
In his book entitled Le tabagisme, Professor Bertrand
Dautzenberg tells us that in ancient times, the Greeks and the
Romans smoked the pipe, or rolled leaves sometimes, but they did
not smoke tobacco because it did not exist. They smoked pear tree
leaves, eucalyptus leaves and other plants.
In America, tobacco smoking goes back more than 3,000 years,
both in South America and in the Mississippi Valley. Pipes dating
back to 1,000 B.C. have been found in South America. The natives
called that plant ``petum''. The name tobacco comes either from
8569
the island of Tobago in the Lesser Antilles where it was cultivated
or from the name the natives gave their pipes.
Tobacco, as used by the Incas and the Aztecs during important
religious ceremonies, also had the virtue of appeasing hunger and
overcoming fatigue. It was also used as a medicinal plant either by
itself or in conjunction with coca leaves or other plants.
At this stage, it is important to clarify the terminology because
smoking produces three types of smoke. The best known is called
mainstream smoke, and it is the smoke that is inhaled by the
smoker when he or she draws on the cigarette. Then there is
sidestream smoke, which is released into the environment when the
smoker is not drawing on the cigarette. Finally, there is second
hand smoke, which is exhaled by the smoker.
We have to ask ourselves the following question: which of these
different types of smoke, mainstream, sidestream or second hand,
is the most harmful? The answer is this: the most toxic type of
smoke is the sidestream smoke that is released into the
environment, because it undergoes an aging process before it is
inhaled. What does the aging of smoke mean? It means that while
the cigarette is burning in an ashtray, for example, certain
substances such as carbon monoxide decompose and these altered
substances are found in greater quantities in side stream smoke
than in mainstream smoke.
(1220)
And what are the effects of these substances on our health and
our children's health?
Taking carbon monoxide as an example, everyone knows it
decreases the amount of oxygen going to peripheral tissues, but
how many people know that benzene is related to the development
of acute lymphoblastic leukemia?
Moreover, how many people know that the concentration of
nicotine is two to three times greater in sidestream smoke than it is
in mainstream smoke? One often wonders how much one can
smoke daily without harming other family members, especially
children. This is hard to say, because there are different definitions
of harm, and many factors involved.
It is easily understood that the smaller the room nonsmokers
have to share with smokers, the greater the risk to them. The most
dangerous places are on the job and in a car. Yes, a car. One of the
first studies in this area, if not the absolute first, dates back to 1981
in Japan, when Professor T. Hiramata proved unequivocally the
harmful effects of cigarette smoke on nonsmokers.
Why a study in Japan? First of all, because the Japanese live in
very close quarters, more often than not a single room, and at the
time of the study a poorly ventilated one. Second, because only 15
per cent of Japanese women smoke, one-fifth of the figure for men:
75 per cent. The study findings demonstrated that lung cancer
among nonsmoking women was proportionate to the husband's
smoking habit. Women whose husbands smoked were twice as
likely to have cancer as women whose husbands did not.
The focus of these studies was lung cancer, but it is most
interesting to note that the same study also showed an increased
incidence of breast cancer and leukemia in these same couples. All
studies agree on this; 330 Canadians died in 1996 from lung cancer
caused by someone else's smoking.
I will close on my favourite topic: children. We all have young
children or young grandchildren. Here are the facts: cigarette
smoke is directly linked to all forms of respiratory disease, from
pneumonia, to bronchitis, bronchiolitis, asthma and ear infections.
How so? The child inhales nitrous oxides, which increases the
sensitivity of its lungs. Children's contact with second hand smoke
can have major and serious consequences for the quality of life of
our young people in the short, medium and long term.
In fact, children of pre-school age are the most at risk. They are
often sick and are much sicker than children were 25 years ago. The
phenomenal increase in asthma, for instance, is very disturbing.
When children have ear infections, daycare is often blamed, but it
has now been proved that the smoke from parents' cigarettes is as
much to blame, if not more so, than daycare, with consequences
such as future learning disabilities, operations, and so forth.
In concluding, I would like to say that the purpose of my speech
today is not only to support this bill unreservedly but also to try and
make the Canadian public aware, through my humble contribution,
of the very real and harmful effects of second hand smoke and
especially of the beneficial impact of a healthy environment.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would first like to point out some very sad facts about
Parliament. I note that, in the case of such an important bill, it does
not matter what our viewpoint is, we are in Parliament, and in a
democracy the best way to oppose an idea is to propose a better
one. Today, however, we can take no pride in the fact that the
government and the members opposite chose an authoritarian and
dictatorial measure that provides very little for freedom of ideas
and discussion: the guillotine.
(1225)
I would like to remind our viewers of what a guillotine means in
parliamentary terms. Applying a guillotine limits the time for the
proceedings. At the end of the time set aside for debate, whether all
the members wishing to speak have spoken or not, the question is
put.
The issue of tobacco and its relationship to public health is a
complex one. I think our colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata
summed it up well when she said that we in the official opposition
8570
support the objectives sought in general terms, we support about 80
per cent of them.
Bills have objectives and this is why we asked those drafting
them to follow policy and use legal terminology in wording the
objectives. We agree that it is unacceptable, in 1997, for some
40,000 people to take up smoking, which will ultimately kill them.
We are also aware that smoking is more than just a personal
responsibility. If smoking were merely a personal matter, the
lawmaker would probably not be concerned and we would not be
having today's debate. We also recognize that the community has a
responsibility, because the health system pays out hundreds of
millions of dollars.
However, there is a discrepancy between the objectives and the
means proposed to achieve them. Not only is there a discrepancy,
but there is somewhat of a paradox in the fact that the government,
while trying to solve a problem, or at least while trying to
contribute to solving it, is going to jeopardize major sports and
cultural events.
I believe one cannot remain unaffected by what is going on in
this industry. I will take Montreal as an example. As you know,
Montreal is a favourite venue for cultural and sports events. It is a
well known fact. Indeed I believe the member for Saint-Hyacinthe
is an avid consumer. In the summer he can be seen wearing a
T-shirt and bermuda shorts, casual and yet serious, attending the
jazz festival, the Francopholies, and what not. I believe he does not
miss any.
Mr. Loubier: Oh no, I do not.
Mr. Ménard: I say it again, he is always welcome in Montreal.
As you know the sponsoring industry is one that plans ahead. We
are not talking about short term planning, a few weeks ahead of
time. To give you an idea of the order of magnitude we are talking
about, the tobacco industry sponsors a number of sports and
cultural events to the tune of close to $60 million.
If the government had been serious, if it had behaved
professionally, if it had been consistent in its objectives-there
might well exist a link between smoking and advertising on the site
of sports events, but what we are saying is that, at the moment, it
has not been rigorously proven. This link has not been
scientifically established. Although we might suspect there is one.
Just imagine if, as legislators, we were to pass legislation on the
basis of approximations, speculations, without sufficient data to
support the measures. We are now presented with a bill which,
ultimately, could put several sports and cultural events at risk. Why
are we concerned? I am concerned first of all as a Montrealer. I
think it bears reminding that there are some institutional partners
who usually do not dabble in politics. As we speak, there is great
effervescence in Montreal. People are in the streets. Not only are
they marching, they have the support of several extremely
important partners. I am thinking for example of the Convention
and Tourism Bureau of Greater Montreal.
(1230)
The convention and tourism bureau's mandate is to promote
tourist activities, not public health. It is not an agency operating in
Parliament. Why did it find it appropriate to break silence and join
the people who, a few minutes ago, decided to close their
businesses and take to the streets of Montreal? It decided to keep
silent, but at the same time, to speak volumes down in the street,
because this bill is unreasonable.
It is not unreasonable from a public health perspective. Of
course we are in favour of any measure aimed at reducing tobacco
use. However, for a democrat, the end never justifies the means. It
is not true that in order to fight against smoking we have to threaten
whole areas of our cultural industry.
Why did the government not provide for a transition period?
Why did it not propose some financial compensation? It is too easy
to ban, to prohibit without guaranteeing that it will not have a
major financial impact.
The jazz festival is an international event. People from all
corners of the world come to Montreal to listen to jazz music
because that festival's reputation is well established. Out of the
festival's total budget of $9.5 million, approximately $2 million
come from tobacco sponsorships.
Parliament is not the only place there are fireworks you know;
the Benson and Hedges international fireworks competition draws
an international jury. I think the parliamentary secretary is well
aware of that reality. There is a budget of $1.4 million for the
fireworks, of which $1 million comes from sponsorship.
Then there is the Just for Laughs festival, of which Les
parlementeries are obviously the finest example; a number of hon.
members in this House should stand for election to that bogus
parliament: they would surely win.
Mr. Dubé: More so the people opposite.
Mr. Ménard: As the hon. member for Lévis said, more so the
people opposite. The Just for Laughs festival has a budget of $10
million, of which $1 million is provided by sponsorship. The
summer festival in Quebec City has a budget of $4.5 million, of
which $500,000 comes from sponsorship. Is there a nicer area than
the capital of Quebec to spend your summer? Every summer, I
make a point of spending a few days there, meeting different
people and enjoying varied activities.
8571
We must set the record straight. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I
want to tell the parliamentary secretary, who is here in the House,
that we support any measure that will reduce smoking.
I have never smoked and I have tried to convince my close
relatives to stop smoking. Let me thank my mother and father who
stopped smoking two years ago. It is not easy to stop smoking,
because there is a dependency involved. The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot stopped smoking four years ago. In our
environment, we know of individuals who have succeeded, and
they are to be cited as examples.
We know that nicotine creates a dependency. The hon. member
for Rimouski-Témiscouata reminded us that manufacturers,
producers have played on this dependency; this clearly shows that
it is not easy to stop smoking. Smoking is a plague that causes
intoxication.
It is all fine and well to be concerned about it in terms of health,
but for goodness sake we should not try to solve a problem by
creating another one. The minister will find the official opposition
supportive, in matters of public health needs, but we ask him to
provide for transition mechanisms and to help the industry by
making available to it some other mechanism whereby the
activities can continue. I think this is reasonable.
If this bill is passed, Montreal will go through another economic
crisis, and we have a duty to deny our support to anything that
could lead to that.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the bill. I would like to
raise a few important notices.
(1235)
Three years ago the government had an ideal opportunity to do
something about the horrendous smoking situation. We were faced
with the terrible situation of smuggling occurring primarily in
Quebec.
The government, however, chose to take a path that
compromised the lives of Canadian children at the expense of
political gain and of political courage. It chose to lower the taxation
and cost of cigarettes in an effort to address the smuggling issue.
In terms of decreasing the smuggling of tobacco, that issue was
addressed because it decreased. However the cost was the increase
in consumption and the increase in the number of young people
smoking by the amount of a quarter of million every single year.
Over the last three years the government by lowering the price of
cigarettes introduced a quarter of a million new children to
cigarette smoking every single year, or 750,000 children over the
last three years, half of whom will die prematurely and virtually all
of whom will suffer diseases, mortality and morbidity at a rate
much higher than Canadians who do not smoke.
The smuggling issue is an interesting one. Smuggling not only
involves tobacco. It also involves guns, drugs, people, alcohol and
cigarettes. The amount of cigarettes smuggled was all that was
decreased. The conduits of smuggling existed as they do today. The
solution we proposed three years ago would have effectively
decreased the consumption of cigarettes and would have addressed
the smuggling issue.
Our proposal was to bring the export tax to where it was in 1992.
The Conservative government of the day brought in an export tax
of $8 per carton. In six weeks smuggling of cigarettes plummeted
almost 70 per cent. The tobacco companies, fearful of a decrease in
their profits, said if the government of the day did not remove that
export tax they would leave the country.
What happened? The Conservative government of the day
buckled under pressure of the tobacco companies, removed the
export tax, and consumption went right back up. The smuggling
issue was not addressed. If we put on a tobacco export tax
smuggling will go down.
Also the law should be enforced. No one speaks about the people
who live in these areas, many of whom are on aboriginal reserves
on the Quebec-U.S. border. No one speaks about law-abiding
innocent individuals living on these reserves who have to put up
with thugs engaged in the movement and trafficking of illicit
cigarettes as well as alcohol, weapons and drugs. Much of this is
tied into criminal gangs in the United States. It is not run by
law-abiding people. It is run by thugs and crooks.
The single most important thing we could do is decrease
consumption. I do not care about the issues of sponsorship or
education. Education is important but unless people have been
living in a cave for the last 30 years they know smoking is bad for
their health. Smoking is addictive and smoking kills. It is not a
problem of education. Cost is the single most important
determining factor in consumption, particularly in children. There
is ample scientific evidence showing that the supply and demand
curve for consumption is very elastic in price.
To decrease consumption tobacco taxes should be what they
were before January 1994. In that way consumption will decrease.
Revenues to the government will increase and health care costs will
go down. It is unlike any other tax. We are a party firmly in favour
of decreasing taxation.
Tobacco presents a different situation. If tobacco taxes can be
what they were as of January 1994, consumption will go down.
Costs to the taxpayer will go down in terms of health care costs. By
lowering the taxation rate government revenues have gone down
and the costs to the taxpayer have escalated dramatically in terms
of health care.
(1240)
With respect to the sponsorship issue the members of the Bloc
Quebecois like to trumpet, let us call a spade a spade. I do not think
anyone in the House has been deluded into thinking for one
moment that tobacco companies are sponsoring the Grand Prix and
8572
the Players International Tennis Championship out of the goodness
of their hearts.
The tobacco companies sponsor events like the Montreal Jazz
Festival, the Players International Tennis Championship and the
Grand Prix so that children will take up cigarette smoking. The
only reason any company invests in advertising is so that people
will buy their product. The product in this case is a cancer causing,
debilitating, addictive substance called tobacco.
There is ample evidence to show in countries such as New
Zealand, Great Britain and France tobacco sponsorship has been
banned from sports and arts and cultural festivals. The festivals did
not decline or go away. Rather they thrived because they found
sponsors in other areas.
There is no reason to believe that cultural and sporting events
would leave Canada. Where would they go? Would they go to the
United States? I think not. The United States is in the process of
banning tobacco advertising in sponsorship and cultural events.
Will they move to Europe? Of course not because it is banned in
most countries there. Where will they go?
It is a false promise trumpeted by the tobacco companies that
cultural and sporting events will leave Canada because tobacco
companies are not allowed to sponsor them. They will not leave
Canada.
The government can propose some alternative solutions to
ensure cultural events survive quite nicely, perhaps by using some
interim funding from tobacco taxes. By increasing the taxes we
would decrease consumption, particularly among children.
Education about tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana and other drugs
including solvents is very important. Money from tobacco taxes
could be applied to early childhood education to educate children
in Kindergarten that smoking, drinking, solvents, cocaine, pot and
heroin are all very bad and can ruin their lives.
If the government proposed that along with its provincial
counterparts a co-operative and productive situation would result.
There would be a decrease in consumption of tobacco without
compromising the lives of Canadians and without compromising
our sports and cultural events. We are sensitive to that and believe
the proposals put forward in the past will ensure cultural events
continue and the consumption of tobacco decreases.
In closing, three years ago the government had an opportunity to
address the smoking epidemic in our midst. Instead of making the
situation better it made it worse by making cigarettes more
affordable for the children of our great nation. It is a terrible legacy
to leave Canadians. It is the single worst piece of legislation
affecting the health of Canadians I can remember in the last 35 to
40 years. I cannot think of a piece of legislation that has been more
damaging to the health and welfare of Canadians than what the
government did back in February 1994.
Amendments can be made today in the House. However the
government needs to have the courage to stand up to the smoking
lobbyists and tobacco companies and say ``We are not going to take
it anymore. We are going to address this health epidemic. We are
going to do it for the betterment of all Canadians''.
(1245)
The proposals are out there. We and other Canadians have
proposed them. Now take it and use it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I usually rise to say I am pleased to participate in the
debate on whatever bill is before us at the time but, in this case, I
must say I am not so pleased to speak on a bill that is a direct attack
on and which threatens the very existence of cultural and sports
events, particularly in Quebec.
This is a bill befitting fundamentalists. All this time, we thought
the rise of fundamentalism was centred in the Muslim world; we
must recognize that we need not look any further than this place to
find fundamental fundamentalism. The minister who introduced
this bill that may well kill cultural events like the Montreal Jazz
Festival and sports events like the Montreal Grand Prix car race is
the same minister who, a little over one year ago, had the brilliant
idea of legislating to prevent us from eating and producing raw
milk cheese in Canada. There is a limit.
One would think this minister turned into the ayatollah of the
House of Commons: he wants to run our lives, preventing us from
doing this, that and the other. What kind of society will this make?
Where are the ministers and members from Quebec when they see
a minister from Atlantic Canada jeopardizing an important part of
Montreal's economy? Where are they? Where is the Minister of
Finance and member for LaSalle-Émard? He has been absent
since the start of our debate on this issue and, every time it is
raised, he runs away and hides in the back.
Where is the Minister of Labour and hon. member for
Saint-Léonard, our great defender of parmesan cheese? When his
parmesan cheese was attacked, he was outraged. Where is he today,
while the Jazz Festival, the Just for Laughs Festival, the Montreal
Grand Prix and the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix are being put on the
line? Where is the great upholder of civil liberties? He is probably
eating spaghetti sprinkled with parmesan cheese. He has traded
away all the major cultural and sporting events held in
Montreal-$30
8573
million out of the $60 million spent by Canadian sponsors-, all
that for a spoonful of parmesan cheese.
Where is the hon. member for Outremont and Secretary of State
in charge of the Federal Office of Regional Development for
Quebec? We do not hear him anymore. Where is the great defender
of Montreal's economy? He is also in hiding. He has been brought
to heel.
This is unacceptable. During the second mandate of the Trudeau
government, there were 74 Liberal nitwits in the House and today
we have a bunch of nitwits, Liberals again, who are afraid to get up
and defend those who voted for them.
This is no small affair. They are jeopardizing events such as the
Just for Laughs Festival, the Montreal Grand Prix, the
Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, of which my colleague, the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières, is an ardent supporter, the Montreal
and Toronto film festivals, the Montreal and Vancouver jazz
festivals, the Benson & Hedges International, the Players Tennis
International, and many other cultural and sporting events which
are held in Quebec and in Canada.
In Montreal alone, cultural events represent 2,000 jobs. Given
the unemployment rate in Montreal right now, this is disgraceful.
Quebec's Liberal members across the way, the 1996-97 crop,
should be ashamed of themselves for not speaking up against this
bill, for not asking the Atlantic Ayatollah to withdraw such an
fundamentalist bill. Soon, Quebecers and Canadians will have to
ask permission just to walk.
How could they introduce such a bill?
(1250)
It reminds me of the measures taken during the prohibition. It is
a return to a terrible ultra-conservatism that must be rejected. This
government behaves like a dictatorship. It tells us what to eat, what
to drink and what to listen to. Canadians have had enough of these
absurd measures. This bill is totally and utterly ridiculous.
For the public to mobilize so quickly, as we saw yesterday and as
we will see today in Montreal and in Toronto, this legislation has to
be utterly ridiculous.
We are not talking about peanuts here. For the Montreal jazz
festival, a $1.5 million sponsorship is at stake, at a time when the
government is making deep cuts in the budgets for the poor and the
unemployed. Now, it will put 2,000 people out of work in
Montreal, just like that. This really takes the cake.
The same goes for the fireworks festival, which stands to lose a
$1 million sponsorship. Where will organizers find the money? It
will be the end of this event in Montreal. The Just for Laughs
festival will also lose $1 million in sponsorships. And we all know
that money does not grow on trees.
Through such a senseless bill, the government is cutting off
funding for major events which generate up to $200 million in
direct and indirect benefits. In the Montreal area alone, about $200
million a year and 2,000 jobs are at stake.
This is a second-rate fundamentalist government. Soon, because
of the government's actions, Montreal's unemployment rate will
continue to grow instead of decreasing. This is unacceptable.
Where is the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who makes it a point of
honour to rise and supposedly stand up for Quebec? Where is when
we are discussing this bill?
Our favourite constitutionalist minister-
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): He is with Guy Bertrand.
Mr. Loubier: -where is the hon. member for
Saint-Laurent-Cartierville now? Where is this great champion of
Quebec and of territorial integrity? Where is he? He is not
speaking. And our Minister of Labour, where is he?
The economy of Montreal and the economy of a large part of
Quebec are being devastated by this government. This bill is totally
unacceptable. My colleagues and I are ready to go all the way
because we cannot understand how the government could introduce
this bill, how it could deliberately jeopardize all cultural and sports
events sponsored by tobacco companies.
We will never accept this bill and we are ready to fight to the
bitter end to defend the interests of Quebec and those of its
workers. That is why it is so important for the population to
continue to mobilize against it and to let this fundamentalist
government know of their opposition. It takes a ridiculous
government, with such ridiculous ministers as the health minister,
to introduce such ridiculous bills as this one. How could the
government agree to implement this bill?
You can count on us. Quebecers, and especially the 2,000
workers who depend on the many cultural and sports events held in
the Montreal area, can count on the Bloc Quebecois. We will stand
up for them with all our energy.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
like my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has just said, this is
one of the rare occasions when I am not pleased to take the floor to
deal with a bill. This bill will be really detrimental to the economic
health of Quebec, and to the well-being of an important part of the
Canadian economy, the Montreal area, more particularly during the
summer tourist season.
Like my colleague for Rimouski-Témiscouata, I think it is very
important to stress, as a first point in any speech, that the Bloc
Quebecois supports part of Bill C-71, and indeed most of it.
8574
(1255)
Like all Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois takes to heart the health
of Canadians and Quebecers and would like to protect the young
from smoking and being hooked on cigarettes.
The Bloc Quebecois has supported the principle of this bill
because it thought wise amendments would be made and tangible
improvements would make the bill more palatable for
communities. But that was not to be. The intent of Bill C-71 should
have been to prevent the promotion of smoking among our kids.
What kind of prevention does this bill provide? The bill could have
proposed a partial ban on cultural and sports sponsorships instead
of a total ban.
I would really like to see the government party tabling a study in
this House showing how many young Canadians started to smoke
after watching the fireworks from the Jacques-Cartier bridge. Or
how many youngsters took up smoking after watching a tennis
match at the new Du Maurier stadium or at the old Jarry park?
Nobody was ever able to prove young people started smoking after
attending such events and noboby ever will.
I would also like to know what the Liberal Party's objectives are,
with such a bill, in terms of a decrease in the number of young
smokers 3, 4 or 5 years down the road. If, at this point in time,
10,000 young people take up smoking every month, and this is a
figure I just made up, what impact will the new bill have on the
number of young people who will stop smoking in the years to
come because of the ban? Will we have 2,000 or 3,000 fewer
smokers than we have now? They will not tell us, because, first of
all, they do not know, and second, there will not be any decrease.
Instead of focusing on prevention, education and awareness, the
bill neglects these issues in favour of a type of coercion that is
totally off the mark. They are not targeting the people who take up
smoking, but rather hitting on those who benefit from the
sponsorship.
The sponsors have a very important 1 per cent share of the
market. The Bloc Quebecois and I believe that tobacco companies
use their ads to target those who have a favourite brand. If you
smoke a specific brand of cigarettes and you attend a sponsored
event, you may be tempted to switch brands, and in my view that is
why tobacco companies sponsor these events. But will people be
tempted to take up smoking, that is another matter. Thus, those we
want to target are the tobacco companies and sports and cultural
events, not young people as originally intended.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-71 at third reading simply
because the primary objective-to prevent smoking among young
Quebecers and young Canadians-will not be achieved. But there
is more. Our Liberal colleagues probably did not watch television
this afternoon and see the success of the protest in Montreal. All
retailers and stakeholders in the Greater Montreal area were asked
to let business come to a symbolic stop between twelve noon and
12.15 p.m. to show what Montreal could look like after the act
comes into force.
The operation was a tremendous success. These people are not
sovereignists or wicked separatists. They are restaurant owners,
hotel operators, taxi drivers, people from all walks of life who
benefit from these sponsorships, from the economic benefits
generated by tourist attractions and events like the Grand Prix and
the fireworks.
The demonstration was a great success. People with very
different interests got together to try and make the government
understand that its bill does not make any sense, especially for the
people in Montreal but also for those in Toronto and Vancouver.
(1300)
Moreover, they are saying: ``It is nothing by a smoke screen. The
Montreal Grand Prix will stay in Montreal and it will only change
names. It will not be called the Players Grand Prix anymore''.
Again this morning, we heard the Grand Prix promoter say on
television that, contrary to what the Liberals are saying, it is not
true that the Grand Prix will simply change names and major
sponsors. Perhaps it will be called the Cottonelle Grand Prix. But it
remains to be seen whether this company will agree to sponsor the
Grand Prix.
If, for example, milk producers-who now sponsor the Tour de
l'île-decided to sponsor another event that lost the sponsorship of
a tobacco company, the subsequent shift in sponsorships would
indirectly affect the cultural and sporting events currently
benefiting from the current arrangements. The affected events will
either disappear or lose money to other events and activities. There
will be an indirect impact on sporting and cultural events.
Therefore, I believe that the Bloc Quebecois has clearly showed
that Bill C-71 does not achieve its main purpose, which is to
prevent young people from starting to smoke. The reason we will
be voting against this bill is simply that, unlike the Liberals, we
care about the health of Canadians and that the Liberals are missing
the mark with this bill. It is not because we are not concerned about
or interested in health. We were told that this bill was mainly about
health. This is not the case, but it will have an impact on the
economic health of sports and cultural events.
I began by asking how many children started smoking after
watching the Benson & Hedges fireworks. I think that there are not
many and the Liberal Party could not introduce them to us. Let us
see who the other sponsors could be. The major banks were
mentioned. They already sponsor some events. They do not
sponsor the events we are talking about here because they do not
have a direct interest in them. The pool of potential sponsors is
8575
already spread thin. The government wants us to believe that there
will be other sponsors, but it could not prove it.
Demonstrators gathered very quickly, and the Bloc Quebecois
has noticed that, in spite of its agreement in principle to protect the
health of Canadians, the government does not have the will to
protect it at the present time. For all these reasons, the Bloc
Quebecois and all the people of Montreal have until Thursday-we
have been gagged because the government does not want to let us
speak-to express their opposition and try to knock some sense
into the government members across the way and the ministers
from the Montreal area, who will have to justify their decision in
the next election.
When people see the unemployment rate go up and when
students lose their summer jobs because the events no longer exist,
we will go to the ridings of the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Immigration, we will go to the
riding of Outremont, which is represented by the hon.
cigar-smoking minister who tried to express his opposition but was
rebuffed by the majority of his colleagues, to explain to the people
why Montreal went downhill after this bill was passed.
It is still time because we have 48 hours left to make the Liberal
members understand that their bill, in its present form, does
nothing for the health of Canadians, but is detrimental to the
economic health of Montreal. That is why we will vote against this
bill.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great interest and passion that I want to side with my friend
and colleague, the member for Lévis, who has made a superhuman
effort this week to bring the present government to change its mind
in spite of the firm commitment made by the health minister, who
invited Canadians to vote against his party if he did not succeed in
having Bill C-71 adopted before the next elections.
(1305)
I must pay tribute to the member for Lévis because, once again,
this government is picking on Quebec when things are going well.
Quebecers have adopted a philosophy that this government seems
to be doing everything it can to destroy.
The best example of that was ten month ago, when the same
health minister wanted to ban the importation and production of
raw milk cheese in Canada, knowing that Quebec accounted for 90
per cent of raw milk cheese consumption and production.
The labour minister, the member for Saint-Léonard who is of
Italian origin, realized from his seat in the House that his friend, the
health minister, wanted to deprive him of his parmesan cheese
imported from Italy. The government changed its mind on that
issue and it will do the same on Bill C-71 because at this very
moment, in Montreal, all the people who count have joined forces
to save their cultural, sports and artistic events.
I made a list of ten or so events that are threatened by this bill
and I would like to read them to you: the Montreal Grand Prix, the
Benson and Hedges fireworks, the jazz festival, the Trois-Rivières
Grand Prix, the Festival Just for Laughs, the Valleyfield and
Ville-Marie regatta, the Quebec summer festival and the
international tennis championships in Montreal. Do you know that
tobacco companies invest some $60 million a year to support these
kinds of events which, without such sponsorship, could not exist?
Of these $60 million, $30 million are spent in Quebec.
Is it just a coincidence that this Liberal government is picking on
Quebec once again? I doubt it. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said
in the House that it was to save lives in Canada, because 40,000
people die every year from smoking, and increasing numbers of
young people are taking up smoking at a very early age.
Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask the Prime Minister, and I look
him in the eye as I ask the question, if he really wants to help our
young people, why does he not make sure that his own regulations
are enforced in his country? Cigarettes must be sold to adults only,
to people 18 years of age and older. Do you know how many
inspectors there are to enforce this law in Canada? There are 40.
Since Quebec represents one quarter of the population, it should
have 10 of these inspectors, if it is not unfortunate. Ten inspectors
to check whether cigarettes are being sold to those under 18 years
of age.
Yesterday, I asked how many establishments had been found
breaking the law in the last five years. Government members were
unable to tell me. They were probably ashamed to give me the
figure. There are regulations that are not even being enforced, and
they want to introduce other legislation, other regulations that will
privatize, I was going to say deprive Quebec of major events and,
to top it all, that will eliminate several thousand jobs, jobs that are
often held by students.
(1310)
In 1993, along with the promise to scrap the GST, did the
government not have as one of its slogans ``jobs, jobs, jobs''? The
unemployment rate has been hovering around 10 per cent for over
40 months now. Month after month, since this government took
office, unemployment remained at the same level. It is really the
first time since the economic depression of the 1930s that
unemployment has reached 10 per cent, with 1.5 million
unemployed. Bill C-71 will probably cause 2,000 more
unemployed workers, although everybody agrees that the fact
Jacques Villeneuve has a cigarette logo on his clothes will not
induce youngsters to smoke.
Indeed, our good old Prime Minister was proud to have his
picture taken with Jacques Villeneuve under a Players sign. He was
hoping this picture would go around Canada. He was not reluctant
8576
to be photographed just in front of an ad for Players. This shows his
double standards.
The member for Brome-Missisquoi, in the Eastern Townships,
said he tried to convince the banks to take over from the tobacco
companies. We checked, and he made only one call to one Ottawa
office. This is really not serious. Today, the banks told us that this
was definitely out of the question, because they are not active in
this field.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot who spoke before me
referred to the fact that there used to be 74 nitwits from the Liberal
Party, and now there are 20 such nitwits from Quebec, not one of
whom will rise in defence of Quebec's interests, but fortunately,
since she does not have to answer to the Prime Minister, Senator
Céline Hervieux-Payette is getting ready to oppose Bill C-71 in the
Senate, and has asked her colleagues not to support this bill. We
hope that the Prime Minister will backtrack or that this bill will die
on the Order Paper, because of the coming general election.
The Minister of Health made a commitment three months ago,
saying that if he could not get that bill passed, he invited all
Canadians to vote against the Liberal Party of Canada. I am going
to top that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I invite all Canadians,
especially Quebecers, to teach a lesson to this political party, which
almost reflects badly on Quebec. The little guy from Shawinigan is
saying that he will go and take the pulse of his riding in the taverns
and the shopping centers. I invite him to go to Shawinigan this
weekend and, if he has the time, to stop off in Trois-Rivières on the
way to find out what people think of him now, how people rate him.
I think his popularity is at its lowest point.
I therefore invite the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister
to backtrack. Admitting they made a mistake, as they did in the
case of the raw milk cheese, will improve their public image.
(1315)
I just need another ten seconds to conclude. During a press
conference in Montreal last Sunday, the Minister of Labour said
they were going to solve the tobacco problem, then the liquor
problem. His colleague, the hon. member from right across the
river, the President of the Treasury Board, did not agree. He told his
distinguished colleague not to overdo it on the liquor issue, that
they were going to lose too many votes. They are going to deal first
with the tobacco problem. This just goes to show how they are
running the country now. They are just coasting along, which is
nothing for Canadians to be proud of.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker,I would like to point out that we are at the report stage of
Bill C-71. Bills have a first reading and a second reading-and let
us keep in mind that, with Bill C-71, the government saw to it that
there was no debate on second reading; it was referred directly to
committee. Now they are trying the same thing on for size at report
stage, putting a gag on us. We will have a time limit for discussing
this vital matter.
In the streets of Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City,
people are questioning the government's desire to put an end to
virtually all of the major cultural and sporting events with tobacco
company sponsorship. It is important not to use this issue as fodder
for stirring people up. It must be kept in mind that the Bloc
Quebecois voted in favour of the principle of this bill at second
reading. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he no longer
understood Bloc members, that we should be more openminded.
When a bill is debated on second reading, it must be realized that it
is the principle that is being addressed.
True, we believe measures to protect the health of Quebecers and
Canadians are important. Perhaps 80 per cent of the bill concerns
things we consider important, particularly measures relating to the
power to regulate tobacco products, measures relating to access to
products, packaging and promotion. There are a number of
measures the Bloc Quebecois supports, but there are some which
need more work by members who should do some original thinking
on the subject and perhaps go back to committee to look at some
solutions to the sponsorship question. It is not true that there is a
straightforward solution such as the one contained in the bill.
For instance, the jazz festival, with a total budget of $9.5
million, receives $1.5 million in sponsorship fees, which is 15 per
cent of its budget. Today, 15 per cent often means the difference
between cancelling an event or not, or guaranteeing that it offers
quality programming and can attract a satisfactory audience. In the
case of the fireworks, sponsorship fees represent $1 million out of a
budget of $1.4 million. Clearly, without that sponsorship the event
could be in serious trouble. The Festival Just for Laughs has $1
million in sponsorship fees out of a budget of $10 million. The
Festival d'été de Québec gets $500,000 out of a budget of $4.5
million.
In each case, banning sponsorship or imposing conditions that
will scare away sponsors will have the same result. So we are
certainly not saying that we are against the health of Quebecers and
Canadians and that we do not care about our children's health. Of
course we want everyone to be healthy, and we realize that it is
important for our quality of life. It is also important in economic
terms, because prevention saves a lot of money in the long run.
Today, however, at the report stage we must consider
amendments or proposals that would make this bill a piece of
viable legislation, something sound that would pass the test of time
but not at the expense of the people who have the jobs that would
8577
disappear as a result of this decision. There are other aspects in the
bill that deserve far more attention than they are getting right now,
and there certainly should be no time limitation in this respect, and
I am referring, for instance, to the matter of regulatory powers.
We should learn from the legislation passed during the past 15,
20 or 30 years, where the government basically tried to make up
our minds for us, to regulate everything so people would no longer
have to make up their own minds. I think people have realized there
is no future in this approach, that there are no answers. We need an
approach that emphasizes educating the public so that people can
consider the various options and are free to do what they think is
best.
(1320)
Sometimes, reversing the onus of proof is not necessarily a wise
decision. Some more fine tuning is necessary in that respect.
Why is the government putting a gag on this debate? It is now
early March. There will be three weeks of debate between now and
Easter, so we would have enough time to do a thorough job and end
up with a bill everyone can be proud of. Let us not forget that,
during debate at second reading, there was a fairly extensive
agreement in principle, but there are problems that have yet to be
resolved, that are still on the table. I would not like anyone to say
that we are voting against the bill because we oppose the fact that
the government wants to improve the health of Quebecers and
Canadians. That is not the issue at all.
The issue is how to go about creating a law that improves the
health of Canadians or is likely to, without doing so to the
detriment of events that create jobs and provide people with
reasonable situations? We cannot take away with one hand what we
are giving with the other. There has to be a balance, and the bill is
not satisfactory in this regard.
How can we go about finding other solutions in the area of
sponsorship? Are there other forms of sponsorship we could
consider, which would be attractive and sure of a market for the
future? Could a support fund be set up and used? Could there be an
extension so that businesses had the time to adapt and make
adjustments? Could the $20 million used over the past year in the
flag campaign not be set aside for this purpose? If this money were
put in a fund to lessen the impact on sponsors so events could be
held, would this not be a solution?
We may not have all the solutions right now, but one of them is
not rushing this bill through, without examining things carefully
and seeing how to go about protecting sporting and cultural events,
especially those in Quebec. You may know that out of the $60
million invested in sponsoring this kind of event in Canada $30
million go to Quebec.
Is it chance, is it an unfortunate result, or is it a lack of sensitivity
to Quebec's concerns, a lack of caring on the part of the present
government? In any case, the result is that these cultural and sports
events with economic spinoffs mostly in Quebec will be affected
by this bill, which in turn will have a very negative impact on jobs.
Montreal is a city rich in cultural events and tourist attractions
throughout the summer. They are held one after the other, creating
non-stop economic spinoffs. The measures provided by this bill
will result in adjustments of such magnitude that some events
might have to be cancelled. We are not trying to stir up trouble
when we say that we must give it more thought. We must review
the situation and try to find solutions.
The Bloc Quebecois has asked the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to offer financial measures in
compensation and to act as politicians responsible for their actions,
but we have had no response from the health minister, who has
been stonewalling all the demands from the Bloc and other
witnesses with similar requests.
What is the reason for such pigheadedness? Why is it so urgent
to find a short term solution to this problem? This we cannot
ascertain for the moment, but to conclude I will invite the
government to think about the political impact of the steps it is
taking now. Today it saw in the streets of Montreal and elsewhere
the ire directed at its bill. I believe this is an argument it will listen
to even if it does not want to listen to other more economic ones.
For all these reasons, I urge the government to think twice about
this, to change its position and offer solutions that will allow sports
and cultural events to survive and have an adequate economic
impact in the years to come.
(1325)
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act.
This gives me the opportunity to explain to constituents in the
riding of Châteauguay where my party and I stand on this bill.
Concerning the principle of this bill, as we have said many
times, we voted for it at second reading. Indeed, I feel it is
important to inform and educate people and eliminate the
subliminal propaganda aimed at children. We know that tobacco
use has an impact on the health of Quebecers and Canadians. That
is why the Bloc Quebecois gave its approval in principle at second
reading, as long as changes were made to the way the products
could be displayed in the stores, that the regulations were tabled
immediately and that more leeway was given for sponsorships, but
this is not the case.
8578
We intend to vote against this bill at third reading. While we
support the principle of regulating the use of tobacco, we do not
agree with the measures associated with signs, particularly with
regard to sponsor identification. We also have a problem with the
future regulations, because they give the minister too much leeway
in the implementation of this bill and the way the products are
to be displayed in the stores does not meet our demands.
As I was saying, the negative impact of tobacco use on the health
of Quebecers and Canadians has been proven and demonstrated.
This Liberal government is mistaken if it thinks that banning
sponsorships is the solution. Moreover, we know that many Liberal
members, and also senators, have their doubts about the bill this
government is getting ready to pass. However, they do not have
enough backbone to defend Quebec.
The government must be really out of touch to think that
smokers will give up their habits if Benson & Hedges stops funding
the fireworks. How can it imagine that non-smokers will start
smoking simply because events such as the Grand Prix in Montreal
are sponsored by tobacco companies? We do not need advanced
courses in marketing to understand that sponsorships are an extra
advertising tool for the brand, and not for the decision to start
smoking.
Would it be dreaming in technicolour to think, as the labour
minister told Liberals gathered in Quebec City last weekend, that
other sponsors could take over from the tobacco companies? That
will not happen and, contrary to what the minister said, it is not
blackmail on the part of tobacco companies. We, in the Bloc
Quebecois, believe that several international events are threatened.
I would like to give us more food for thought in debating this
bill. Little has been said about the therapeutic aspect of the various
cultural and sports events sponsored by tobacco companies. Has
consideration been given to how beneficial these events bringing
the people of Quebec together can be? These are excellent
opportunities for communities from various backgrounds to meet
at one given place to share each in their own way experiences that
are often quite meaningful.
(1330)
Often, families and other groups that make up Quebec's society
get together for such events. There is no doubt that all these events
provide a break from routine, rest and entertainment. It would be
most unfortunate that such festive reunions would be killed in the
name of ensuring the well-being of Quebec's society. The Minister
of Health should be sensitive to this reality, because it affects the
mental health of an entire community.
Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we will be able to
undo the harm done after losing the only Formula I Grand Prix race
in North America. Bear in mind that, in stubbornly rushing this bill
through, the Liberals are forgetting their promise for jobs, jobs,
jobs. I agree with my hon. colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata, who suggested that the Minister of
Health was out of touch with the reality and economy in Quebec
and that the Prime Minister should get involved.
Is there anyone in this government who takes Quebec's interests
to heart? I hope to see Liberal members from Quebec rise for the
first time to oppose this bill that will seriously affect Quebec's
economy.
Do not tell us that this bill has the support of the people of
Quebec. It is not true. For example, a SOM-Le Soleil poll
conducted last December showed that close to three quarters of the
adult population in the Quebec City region were opposed to the
provisions contained in this bill. Moreover, at noon today,
merchants from downtown Montreal held a protest against this bill,
which will adversely affect the restaurant, tourism and business
industries. The Montreal Chamber of Commerce stated its
opposition to the Liberal government's bill by calling it a
fundamentalist measure.
We must say it loud and clear to Quebecers: this bill goes beyond
the laudable goal of fighting tobacco consumption. It will directly
affect Montreal's sports and cultural events. It will make them
disappear, thus eliminating a whole industry in the city's economy.
This is a sad record for a government that is about to call a
general election. Chances are the upcoming polls will be very
revealing for the Bloc, which really looks after the interests of
Quebecers. The bill also reflects a favourite tactic of this Liberal
government. I am referring to the postponement, until after the
general election, of certain irritants such as the implementation of
clauses 24(2) and 24(3) on sponsorship. This is a tactic frequently
used by the Minister of Finance, and it most certainly inspired his
colleague, the Minister of Health.
Even though some measures are being postponed, international
events such as the Montreal Grand Prix will be in jeopardy as early
as this year, because of certain clauses of the bill dealing with
issues such as broadcasting and communication media.
For all these reasons, I will oppose the bill at third reading, and I
urge all members to do likewise. We will vote against this bill at
third reading.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Macleod
wishes to speak to group 2. The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
8579
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
(1335 )
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
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 Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions
Nos. 26 and 29.
We will now go to Group No. 2.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 4 the following:
``8.1 No young person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a tobacco product in a
public place or in a place to which the public reasonably has access.''
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Health, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-71, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 43 and 44 on page 4
and lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following:
``where the device is in
(a) a place to which the public does not reasonably have access; or
(b) a bar, tavern or beverage room and has a prescribed security mechanism.''
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-71, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 5 with the
following:
``that is activated before each transaction or that is in a place to which young
persons are not permitted by law to have access.''
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 17 the following:
``45.1 Every young person who contravenes section 8.1 is guilty of an offence
and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $75.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that this bill is not perfect.
Reformers strongly object to time allocation. There is no way that
anti-democratic action should take place in this House.
I have a couple of other objections for the record. The
regulations that will follow this bill will not be subject to
parliamentary scrutiny. I object to that. I also object to the fact that
there was a way to make cigarettes a drug delivery system and to
have nicotine restricted in that vein.
My third objection is reflected by my amendments. The law
states that it is illegal to sell tobacco to youths, and so it should be.
The fines are substantial. However, the onus is all on the
shopkeepers. They must check for identification. They take all the
flack. They must police our kids for us. Who actually intends to
break the law? The shopkeepers in this situation are innocent.
The youth who comes into the store and who looks 17 does not
get very much time from the shopkeeper, but the youth who comes
in and who looks 22 but is actually 17 puts the shopkeeper in
jeopardy. I believe, as do most shopkeepers, that there should be
some onus placed on the youths who break the law. They are the
individuals who come to the shops to break the law.
It is done with alcohol. The underage youth comes in to buy a
beer. Do we charge the vendor? Of course not. We charge the youth
for doing something illegal. The youth gets charged with illegal
8580
possession, and we certainly do not go after the individual who
sold the beer to the youth.
This amendment recognizes that a youth under 18 purchasing
tobacco is the culprit in the equation and suggests a small fine for
the youth breaking the law. Obtaining and attempting to obtain
should be discouraged by a penalty. Those are the amendments I
put before the House.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to
address this motion. Maybe I can address a few issues that have
been raised so far in the debate. I draw members' attention to the
motions before the House which I will comment on briefly.
Motion No. 2, moved by the member for Macleod, suggests that
it become a criminal offence for young persons to possess or
attempt to possess a tobacco product in a public place. Creating
such an offence of possession would be contrary to the
government's policy approach. As the member indicated, the onus
is on the vendor.
(1340)
We are trying to focus control into the commercial activities of
retailers so the onus would rest and vest with the retailer. I suggest
that making it illegal for young people to possess tobacco products
would subject hundreds of thousands of young people to potential
criminal prosecution. That may be the intended objective of some
members, but at this stage we want to focus on the commercial
relationship that is initiated by the retailer offering this product for
sale.
Motion No. 4 has been proposed by the Minister of Health to
clarify an amendment put forward in committee. Clause 12 was
originally amended in committee to allow the use of vending
machines with locking devices to be continued. The amendment
now before us clarifies that vending machines with locking devices
will be permitted only in a bar, tavern or a beverage room.
Cigarette vending machines have been restricted to these locations
since the coming into force of the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons
Act in 1994 and we want to continue that practice.
The reference to a prescribed security mechanism is preferred to
the phrase that is currently proposed ``that is activated before each
transaction'' as expressed in the amendment adopted by the
Standing Committee on Health. In this way the government can
determine through consultation the most appropriate types of
security mechanisms with a view to advancing the objective of
limiting youth access.
Motion No. 5, moved by the member for Lévis, would also
amend clause 12. The member suggests that vending machines be
allowed to remain in places where youth do not have access, which
is one of the venues where prescribed tobacco advertising and
sponsorship promotions will be permitted. This amendment should
be rejected on the grounds that on occasion youth do gain access to
places where they are not permitted to be by law. Obviously the
availability of tobacco products through unsupervised transactions
poses a more immediate peril than does the appearance of tobacco
promotions.
Finally, Motion No. 30 is proposed by the member for Macleod.
It would set a maximum fine for young people who are acting as
retailers and selling cigarettes illegally to other youth. The
member's concern that young persons not be subjected to harsh
penalties is addressed by Bill C-71. The bill sets maximums rather
than minimum fines. Furthermore, a young offender between the
ages of 12 and 18 years of age would be dealt with according to the
Young Offenders Act, which provides for the use of alternative
measures such as community service.
Mr. Speaker, in my remaining time I would like to address some
of the comments made by members opposite on Friday, February
21, during the first part of report stage debate on the bill. On that
date the member for Lévis stated that the Bloc shares the objectives
of the Minister of Health on the issue. However, both he and his
colleagues made statements which point to an opposite position.
By the way, it is a position which was raised again earlier this
morning in debate.
I believe I am quoting the member for Lévis correctly when he
said ``that the government shows no compassion, no willingness
whatsoever to deal with the issue of sponsorships''. The
government has proposed an implementation period, so clearly this
is incorrect. He said that without the regulations nothing in Bill
C-71 can be implemented. This too is clearly wrong and, in fact,
false.
The House will be surprised to learn that the member for
Drummond is the health critic. She talked about the economic
benefits of cultural and sports organizations. She is correct, there
are benefits. She forgets that the government has not banned
tobacco sponsorship. She overlooks that the government has
proposed an implementation period. But more seriously, she and
others on her side of the House have ignored the fact that there are
12,000 tobacco related deaths in Quebec each year.
(1345)
They ignore that there are 38 per cent of Quebecers who are
smokers. That average is higher than anywhere else in the country.
Members on this side of the House would like to hear those
members' justifications for ignoring that there are 76,000 Quebec
youth who take up smoking each and every year. They urge us to do
nothing about that statistic.
8581
There is a cost. Members will appreciate this in its appropriate
context. There is a cost of some $530 million to the Quebec health
care system each year because of tobacco related illnesses. How
do members opposite from the Bloc justify their opposition to Bill
C-71 in the face of these facts?
On Friday, February 21 the member for Trois-Rivières tried to
convince himself that sponsorship promotion does not affect
attitudes toward smoking. Obviously he did not consult with the
minister for health in Quebec because he has an entirely different
view.
He and his colleagues ignore an extensive and growing body of
international evidence confirming that young people are aware of
and susceptible to promotional practices. It also confirms that it is
not possible to promote the brand of cigarette without
simultaneously promoting tobacco products and their use.
Members will know that 85 per cent of smokers and 83 per cent
of non-smokers in the 10 to 19-year old age group see sponsorship
promotion as a way of advertising cigarettes. This is the age group
in Quebec starting to smoke at a higher rate than in any other
province in the country. Furthermore, sponsorship promotion has
been the predominant form of tobacco products promotion in
Canada since the advertising ban in 1988.
On February 21 the member from Timiskaming criticized the
provisions of Bill C-71 which limit the access of youth to
cigarettes. The Bloc must now answer regarding whether or not it is
advocating the sale of tobacco products to youth. Let us address
that issue.
The member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies stood in this
House on February 21 and said that everybody recognizes that
smoking is not healthy. Great. He said that we must do all that we
can to prevent our young people from starting to smoke, but not
this.
The member for Berthier-Montcalm said that Quebecers will
suffer most from this bill. Quebecers are already suffering the
most. If they accept the figures that I have given, in terms of the
health component, they should answer their own rhetorical
question.
Quebecers smoke more and are dying faster than people in any
other region of the country as a result of tobacco induced illnesses.
Right now in Quebec there are up to a million citizens who will
eventually die of tobacco related causes. The members opposite
want to defend a continuation of the status quo. That same member
said that cigarettes are good because they put $3.5 billion into the
government's treasury but he did not appreciate that they take out
some $15 billion in direct and indirect costs.
The member for Argenteuil-Papineau said that the government
did not take into account the testimony heard before the health
committee. How false a misrepresentation that would be.
The committee recommended that the Minister of Health
consider an implementation period for the sponsorship promotion
restriction. That is before this House today.
The same member reminded the House on February 21 that the
Bloc voted for the bill on second reading because it recognized the
validity of the government's objectives.
(1350)
If it did, are the principles of Bill C-71 today less valid than they
were in December of last year? Are there fewer Canadians being
affected by tobacco than there were last-
The Deputy Speaker: I regret the hon. member's time has
expired. The hon. member for Lévis.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have to
acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary is quite brave. He at
least has the decency to show up in this House. On the Liberal side,
he is among the very few who stand up for this bill, or at least try to
do so. He is having quite a hard time, because even though we
support the objectives aimed at in the 80 per cent of the bill that is
justifiable, including the fight against smoking among young
people, there are some provisions that are unacceptable and not
applicable.
I realize that it is still useful to speak up in this House. The
parliamentary secretary did not like certain things the official
opposition, Bloc members, said and he is giving us a piece of his
mind, and I appreciate this debate we are having. However, I would
like for more of his colleagues to show the same courage.
We are dealing with Group No. 2. What is the purpose of these
motions? Let me focus more specifically on the amendment we put
forward. It is Motion No. 5 concerning clause 12. What does clause
12 say? It deals with vending machines that have a security
mechanism.
In the clause by clause consideration of this bill, we managed to
convince the parliamentary secretary to approve an amendment and
to recognize the fact that, in some public places, a security
mechanism with a remote control could be used. It was accepted by
the Department of Health, but everything has changed all of a
sudden. A wind of change has been blowing on the Department of
Health since the arrival of the new minister. They want to regulate
everything and they no longer accept what used to be accepted.
In this case as in many others, Quebecers showed some
ingenuity, as they often do. They thought of using the same kind of
remote control mechanism that is used for a television set. Those
who use these remote control mechanisms are called zappers. The
same principle was applied to vending machines. An employee
could block access to a vending machine and, using this remote
control,
8582
could allow the client to buy cigarettes himself by inserting the
right amount of money in the machine.
What was the purpose of the bill initially? It was designed to
have these vending machines kept in a place to which the public
does not have access. Maybe this would not have been a problem in
a large restaurant or in a large bar, but imagine what the situation
would be in a small country bar with only one employee.
According to this bill, if a client asked for cigarettes, the waiter
would have had to leave the restaurant or the bar unattended to get
cigarettes from a place to which the public does not have access.
That is what the bill was designed to do initially.
By putting forward arguments and explaining our point of view,
we finally succeeded in making the parliamentary secretary
understand that an amendment was necessary. Of course, it seems
very difficult for the Liberal Party to accept an amendment
proposed by the opposition. They do not think the opposition can
be right sometimes. And on the rare occasions where they have to
agree with us, they cannot admit that we are completely right. That
is why we are raising this issue again in the House at report stage,
in front of the television cameras, to say that we may have won on
the principle of security by remote control, but let us look, for
example, at the situation in a bar where liquor is sold, but it cannot
be sold to people under 18 years of age.
(1355)
The purpose of the bill is to make access to tobacco products
more difficult for young people under 18 years of age. Since only
people 18 years of age and older are allowed into establishments
restricted to adults, why would there be any need to activate the
safety mechanism on a vending machine?
In a restaurant, this would be understandable, because young
people may go there, accompanied by their parents. But if they
have some money tucked away and their parents momentarily lose
sight of them, they could buy cigarettes. So, it is understandable in
a restaurant, but in a bar where it is prohibited anyway by law, by
regulations, by fines or whatever, for a young person under the age
of 18 to enter and consume alcoholic drinks, there is therefore less
of a need, in our view, for this provision to be included because,
ultimately, it departs from the purpose.
We have tried to make the government, the parliamentary
secretary, understand this, without success.
When the parliamentary secretary broadened the discussion to
include other provisions, reacting to comments from Bloc
Quebecois members in particular, it is annoying, because we
realize we were right. Members will recall that the government
wanted to rush this bill through before the holidays. It put off
consideration of the bill for months and then, just before
Christmas, a couple of weeks before Christmas, it wanted to ram
the bill through.
The Reform members went along with it. They even gave the bill
their approval before it was printed, before they had read it.
Imagine. After a member from each party had spoken, the member
who had introduced the amendment rose to speak for 30 seconds,
after asking that the House pass the bill quickly, before the
holidays, with no study or debate.
We in the official opposition suggested that some witnesses be
heard by the committee, with the result that the bill was not passed
before the holidays. What happened? There was a debate and
public pressure made itself felt, with the result that the minister felt
obliged to table certain amendments that are an improvement, that
spread out the effect, but that shifted the problem. We are used to
seeing this government dump things onto the provinces, but now it
is dumping-
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you are entitled to two more
minutes for your speech, if you wish to use them after oral question
period.
It being 2 p.m., we will proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
8582
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my
constituent, Jim Packet of Estevan, Saskatchewan, for winning the
Saskatchewan Pool Tankard Men's Curling Championship on
February 9, 1997, with a 7-6 extra end victory over his opponent.
Mr. Packet, along with third Jeff Mosley, second Dallas Duce
and lead Ken Loeffler won the Saskatchewan tankard with a
dramatic finish in a thrilling extra end. This means that Packet and
his team will be competing at the Labatt Brier in Calgary on March
8, 1997.
I know I speak for all my constituents as well as all the people
from the province of Saskatchewan when I wish Jim Packet, Jeff
Mosley, Dallas Duce and Ken Loeffler the best of luck at the
upcoming brier competition.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
small and medium size businesses are creating the majority of new
full time jobs in Canada. The Liberal government acknowledges
that this is true.
Small and medium sized businesses in a recent survey say the
conditions necessary for them to hire more people are increased
consumer demand and lower taxes. Lower payroll taxes were cited
8583
by over 40 per cent as a necessary condition for them to hire more
workers.
Why then did the finance minister not listen to these views with
respect to payroll taxes? He not only failed to reduce payroll taxes.
He increased them. A whopping 73 per cent increase in CPP
premiums will overwhelm the minuscule reduction in EI
premiums. In 1998, for example, CPP premium increases will take
three times as much out of the pockets of small business and
workers as EI cuts will leave there.
This was a bad budget decision by the Liberals, bad news for job
creators and bad news for the unemployed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the more one looks at the Liberal government's tobacco
bill, the more one realizes the perverse effects of a piece of
legislation which will obviously not attain the intended objective,
unless that objective is to damage the Quebec economy.
On top of the millions of dollars Montreal will lose as a result of
this hypocritical legislation, there is the domino effect of the
Canadian health ayatollah's policy, which will impact upon all
regions of Quebec, including Berthier-Montcalm, unfortunately.
During the Montreal Grand Prix weekend, tourists from Japan,
Europe and the southern United States come to visit the Gilles
Villeneuve museum in Berthierville. The museum, and the local
economy, will lose those thousands of tourists from other
countries, for if there is no Grand Prix sponsorship, there will be no
Grand Prix, no high-profile drivers, no foreign visitors.
Who could possibly believe that there could be any beneficial
effects for Montreal and other areas of Quebec when they lose
thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic
benefits?
This minister needs to be put back on the right track, for he most
certainly is not on it at present.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the United
States has served notice that it will invoke section 20, the national
security clause of the World Trade Organization, to keep the
regulatory body from adjudicating a European Union challenge to
the controversial Helms-Burton law.
The Americans argue they fear a Cuban invasion and that their
national security is threatened. Therefore they will boycott a World
Trade Organization dispute settlement panel struck to examine the
trade legitimacy of the Helms-Burton legislation.
If the Americans can use section 20, why does Canada not
invoke section 20 to maintain a secure supply of food as a national
security issue? Why not invoke section 20 to keep an American
attack on our cultural industries at bay, or to ward off an attack on
our generic pharmaceuticals, or perhaps most important to protect
the eventual invasion by the United States to direct our water from
our rivers and lakes into the United States mid and southwest?
If Americans can use section 20 of the World Trade Organization
to protect the most powerful military nation on earth from a Cuban
invasion, surely we can use the same argument to protect our
cultural industries, our food supply, our Canadian-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to act as honorary chair of the 1997
Sky's the Limit Snow Challenge a few weeks ago at Crabbe
Mountain near Fredericton. The snow challenge was a huge success
with 44 teams of eight taking part in a day of activities that ranged
from snow golf to inner tube races.
While the fresh air, exercise and camaraderie were all
wonderful, the best part of the snow challenge was that it raised
more than $50,000 for the New Brunswick Association for
Community Living.
The New Brunswick Association for Community Living is a
voluntary organization dedicated to advocacy around the interest of
persons living with an intellectual disability. It provides training
and information and works to change policies and programs to
better meet the needs of a range of individuals.
I extend congratulations to all team members, volunteers and
organizers for such a successful challenge. It was well done.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the year 1887 saw the arrival of the first Armenian
immigrants in Canada at Port Hope, Ontario. It is an honour to rise
in the House today to recognize the 110th anniversary of the
Armenian community in Canada.
Canadians of Armenian origin continue to contribute to the life
and vitality of this great nation. Congratulations go to all
Armenians on 110 years of building their future in Canada.
8584
My ancestral homeland, Armenia, was a victim of a horrible
earthquake in 1988. I trust Canadians will rise to the occasion
today as they did then in response to the tragic loss of innocent
lives and the horrible destruction caused by the recent earthquakes
in Iran and Pakistan.
Canadians from all walks of life are witness to the pain and
sorrow of the victims of this horrible tragedy and wish them a rapid
recovery.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, March 1, I had the pleasure of attending the official
opening of the new civic hall and library in the town of Hanover.
The new civic centre and library was made possible through the
Canada infrastructure works program which is driven by local
priorities and involves all three levels of government.
We have extended the program adding $425 million to the $175
million to be spent in 1997, for a total of $600 million this year.
For those few who question the program may I suggest they
examine the quality of life in those countries and communities that
have ignored infrastructure. It is not a pleasant sight.
Infrastructure is more than a program to create jobs in the short
run. It is an investment in the fixed assets of a country for its long
term economic viability. Infrastructure is a bridge to the future.
I congratulate the town of Hanover for its forward looking vision
and its commitment to enhancing the quality of life for its citizens.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every
year thousands of tourists flock to the Témiscamingue region for
the Ville-Marie international regatta, and of course to visit our
magnificent region at the same time.
This event has a major economic impact on our region, not to
mention the redistribution of profit among local organizations in
order to improve the quality of life there.
Alas, the Liberal government is going at it hammer and tongs,
threatening the survival of events of this type with its Bill C-71.
This bill, in doing away with tobacco company sponsorships, will
deprive the international regatta circuit of a major financial partner.
And what lies behind such a decision? A desire to encourage young
people to smoke less, or a desire to get at Quebec's sporting and
cultural events, the focus of 50 per cent of the tobacco companies'
sponsorships?
This is, in fact, just window-dressing, a measure by a
government which wants to give the impression that it is concerned
about the health of Canadians, and to make people forget the
billions of dollars in cuts to health care funding.
I wish to make it clear to the people of Témiscamingue that the
Bloc Quebecois will continue its battle against this bill and will
keep on demanding that the Liberals explain themselves to all parts
of Quebec when the next election is held.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
When Liberals sat in the opposition bench
They fought both day and night
To keep the dreaded free trade bill
From ever seeing light
They also wanted cheaper drugs
While in their opposition role
And so they howled that patent drugs
Should be under tight control
What a shock the public got
When the drug review came up
To find new spin since NAFTA's in
That drug patents can't be touched
Liberals believe we don't notice
But voters think a lot
There is one thing they won't forgive
And that's the old flip flop!
The public are fed up with this
There really is no doubt
And when it come election time
They'll throw these rascals out.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise in recognition of A Toonie for Canada, a student
driven unity initiative in my riding of Burlington.
On February 14 of this year the Hon. Jane Stewart, the Minister
of National Revenue, and member for Halton-Peel, Julian Reed,
joined with me to celebrate and officially launch this project.
With Burlington resident, Tom Dykes, the staff and students of
Notre Dame Secondary School have developed an innovative
approach to educating and exciting other young Canadians from
coast to coast to coast about national unity.
The Chrétien government has placed a great deal of importance
on demonstrating our confidence in Canada and in Canadians,
especially young Canadians.
Clearly the students of Notre Dame Secondary School have
given us every reason to be confident that young Canadians are
more willing than ever to take an active role in reshaping Canada's
future.
8585
I ask colleagues to join with me in congratulating these fine
young Canadians on their dedication to our wonderful country.
The Speaker: I remind members not to use the names of any
member of Parliament. While I am on my feet, I might mention
that the word ayatollah in certain contexts might not be too
favourable.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to salute Mr. Gerry Donoghue, a veteran of Hill TV
journalism who is in the gallery today.
Mr. Donoghue is no stranger to these halls. He has been a
cameraman on Parliament Hill for 37 years and has had an
admirable career with several news companies.
Having worked in this place since 1959 he has observed the work
of eight Prime Ministers and has watched history unfold. He
represents the men and women who work with the press in this
country. They are the eyes and ears of Canadians in our political
institutions and a pillar of our democracy.
Well done, Gerry Donoghue.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the
1993 elections, we campaigned on a number of issues and concerns
of particular interest for women.
In our red book, we made a commitment to women's health, and
I quote: ``A Liberal government will add a Centre of Excellence for
Women's Health, aimed at effective and equal treatment of
women's health issues in the Canadian health care system''.
On June 25, our government announced the establishment of five
centres of excellence for women's health. These centres are being
set up to remedy the grave failures of our research efforts with
regard to women's health and of a health care system which does
not pay enough attention to the particular needs of women across
Canada.
This is only one of our government's many achievements in
favour of Canadian women.
* * *
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of citizens in Trois-Rivières have shown their opposition
to the bill aimed at regulating tobacco sponsorship, and attempted
once again to bring to its senses this Liberal government which is
jeopardizing the very existence of the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix.
SIDAC members, stores and businesses, suspended their
activities for 15 minutes in a show of solidarity because the
Saint-Maurice area cannot allow this government to cause the loss
of $10 million in economic spinoffs, of hundreds of jobs, and the
loss of international exposure due to the broadcasting of the
Trois-Rivières Grand Prix in 141 countries.
Under the guise of public health, a concept it abuses, this
government is making a mockery of the freedom of expression and
showing its intolerance and shortsightedness by leading people to
believe that the disappearance of tobacco sponsorship will be
synonymous with an improvement in public health.
This is the reason why people in greater Trois-Rivières are once
again condemning the stubbornness of the Prime Minister,
although he is from our area, and the fundamentalism of the Liberal
government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a man
sexually assaulted his stepdaughter for 12 years beginning when
she was a child. An impaired driver caused an accident that killed
his friend. A British Columbia man was convicted of abducting and
sodomizing a single mother. None of these criminals are serving
time in jail, courtesy of the Liberal government's Bill C-41 which
has resulted in case after case of criminals walking free.
Now the Liberal's sentencing law is on trial in three provinces.
In Alberta nine cases involving conditional sentences have been
brought to the top court on both crown and defence appeals; crown
prosecutors in B.C. are considering an appeal; and the Attorney
General of Ontario has asked for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada, all on matters dealing with conditional sentences.
Had the justice minister accepted the advice of the Canadian
Police Association, Victims of Violence, the attorneys general and
the Reform Party to clearly limit conditional sentencing, he would
not once again find his legislation in court.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tobacco companies are using sponsorship of cultural and
sports events to blackmail us in order to prevent the passage of our
tobacco legislation.
8586
However, this tactic did not stop more than 300 artists from
getting together to form the ACST, which stands for Artistes pour
les commandites sans tabac, or artists for tobacco-free
sponsorships. The purpose of the group is twofold: first, while the
tobacco industry would have everyone believe that the entire
artistic community opposes the bill, they are there to prove it
wrong. Second, they want to draw attention to the utilitarian side
of tobacco sponsorships. Their records show they have much more
far-reaching implications. Sponsorships actually sell cigarettes.
These artists realize that, as far as public health is concerned,
sponsorships will never take precedence over the health of our
young people.
* * *
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if anyone knew about the day to day concerns and
hardships of farm women, Adelaide Hoodless did. She was born on
a farm near Brantford, Ontario, in 1857, one of 12 children.
Throughout her life she maintained her close connection with the
Farmers' Institute. In 1897, at a meeting in Stoney Creek, Ms.
Hoodless proposed the organization of a sister group to the
Farmers' Institute and a few days later formed the first Women's
Institute. The idea spread rapidly and by the early 1900s there were
many chapters right across Canada.
(1415 )
The designated day for the celebration of the 100th anniversary
of the Women's Institute in Ontario was February 19, the day Ms.
Hoodless was made honorary president 100 years ago in Stoney
Creek.
Women's Institutes in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex and in
the rest of Canada should be very proud of their achievements. I
take this opportunity to extend my heartiest congratulations.
_____________________________________________
8586
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today in Montreal thousands of people are demonstrating
their disagreement with the federal government, which is getting
ready to wipe out major sports and cultural events with the
anti-advertising provisions contained in the bill.
Although everyone shares the same anti-smoking objectives, it
must realize that many people, restaurant owners, hotel operators,
taxi drivers, are convinced they will lose a large part of their
earnings if Quebec's cultural and sports events are attacked.
Is the Prime Minister aware that in Montreal alone, I hope the
ministers from Quebec across the way are listening closely, $240
million in spinoffs will disappear because the government is
refusing to listen to reason concerning tobacco company
sponsorships?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member opposite for his question. The fact of the
matter remains that over the last number of months we have been
very reasonable and very comprehensive in the legislation we are
putting forward.
As I am sure the hon. member knows and knows only too well,
there is no banning of sponsorships. There is no banning of
sponsorship promotion. In point of fact it was his party and this
leader who stood in their places and supported the principles on
second reading which included the restrictions on sponsorships.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to remind the minister, as I did yesterday,
that our political party shares the objective of reducing smoking.
What we do not agree with is their desire to kill events in Montreal.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: I would like to tell the health minister, through
you, Mr. Speaker, that Quebecers will never accept a decision that
interferes with the entire range of sports and cultural development,
particularly that of Montreal and of Quebec. We will not accept it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Did the health minister not hold discussions with
his colleagues from Quebec? Did nobody in this government point
out to him that, if over 50 per cent of sponsorships go to Quebec,
the repercussions of his plan on Quebec will be extremely negative
in the short term?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of all political parties in the House have to listen quite
carefully to what the Leader of the Official Opposition says on the
subject matter.
So that we have all the facts I will share with my hon. colleague
opposite that 36 of the medical associations in la belle province de
Québec are in support of the legislation; 24 public health networks
in the province of Quebec support the legislation; 140 hospitals in
the province of Quebec support the legislation; and 27 anti-tobacco
groups in the province of Quebec support the legislation.
8587
When the hon. member stands in his place let him remember
that in the province of Quebec in excess of 200 municipal units
support the provisions of Bill C-71.
(1420)
The Speaker: At this point I judge the questions to be in order
today because they never made mention of the bill which we are
debating in the House. I would ask also that in the responses from
the government no mention of the bill be brought up.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister can talk all he wants about support but the
fact remains that, if he were more aware of what was going in
Quebec, he would know that on all the radio stations today,
everywhere, Quebecers are protesting against certain provisions of
his bill. They would like to get him to listen to reason.
I heard the Minister of Labour say on television: ``We will see.
Perhaps it will be the end of the world; we will wait and see''. Is the
government going to run the risk of waiting and seeing Quebec's
sports and cultural events destroyed before reacting? Are we once
again going to be the victim of a bad decision made by Ottawa
much too far away from where we live?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank my colleagues opposite for that round of applause. I
think the tone has been hit by the Leader of the Opposition when he
talks about reasonableness.
The fact is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health
heard all the various groups make representation. It was a result of
their recommendation, which his party was a part of, that this
government had heeded the suggestion of the hon. member, giving
him an implementation period.
I want the hon. opposite to reflect on this: ``My name is Eric
Carsley. My wife, my companion, my best friend for 23 years, died
two years ago at the age of 45 from lung cancer that was caused by
her smoking''. That man is from the province of Quebec. This
government stands solidly behind children and people across the
country to fight tobacco consumption in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a letter addressed to Hon. Senator Colin Kenny, Senator
Céline Hervieux-Payette, who is not a Bloc Quebecois member-
An hon. member: No, she is Liberal.
An hon. member: Not yet.
Mr. Duceppe: -who is Liberal, writes the following: ``If
Quebec's sports and cultural activities are to be the guinea pigs of a
policy that will not produce its intended effects, I want no part of
it''. This comment is from Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, the
vice-president of the Liberal election campaign. She definitely did
not make it for political expediency.
If the minister will not listen to the official opposition, will he at
least listen to a Liberal senator, to the vice-president of the election
campaign of a party seeking to win seats outside Quebec, but which
seems to have let Quebec and its members down, since 68 per cent
of Quebecers are against the Liberals?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was precisely for the reasons which were given at the Standing
Committee on Health, where all members of different political
parties were represented and recommendations came forward in
order to provide some reasonableness for an implementation period
for arts and cultural groups, that we have followed up on that
suggestion.
Furthermore, I think it has to be understood that notwithstanding
the date, October 1998, thereafter there is no banning of
sponsorships. There is no banning of sponsorship promotion. In
point of fact, our bill, as the leader of the opposition has indicated,
is indeed very reasonable.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the party in office rejected all the amendments we
proposed. It did not want to hear promoters of cultural and sports
events-
An hon. member: None.
Mr. Duceppe: -and had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois,
these people would not have been heard. Ask them-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am listening very carefully to
the questions as they are posed. It is true that today we are debating
a certain bill. It is also true that before the question is posed, and I
do not know what the question is, if members take me too far down
the road in the preamble it would be my intention to intervene.
However, with respect to all members who are raising their
voices in question period, I have judged to this point for these
questions which are posed to be of a general enough nature that
they are acceptable. I am going to permit these questions,
providing they do not refer specifically to the bill under discussion
today.
8588
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I am quoting the Hon. Senator, who said: ``Give me your
support to keep Montreal, which is already plagued by
unemployment, from being the big loser regarding this policy''.
Did the minister hear the people from Trois-Rivières today,
those from Montreal, the cab drivers, the restaurant and hotel
owners, the promoters of major cultural and sports events, who said
it does not make sense to destroy Montreal's cultural and sports
life, to eliminate its cultural and sports events, adding that the
government should educate young people about the dangers of
tobacco use, instead of going after Montreal's economy and the
city's cultural and sports events? Will the minister listen to these
people once and for all?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was precisely for those reasons that many individuals came
before the standing committee. That was the rationale we had for
the purposes of the implementation period, so that people have the
opportunity to adjust to the new regime.
It is quite false for individuals to suggest or to imply that this
legislation in any way bans sponsorship or sponsorship
promotions. What is being done is that restrictions are being placed
on four essential items: the price, the place, the product and the
promotion.
I am appalled that a candidate for the leadership of a party would
stand in his place and dismiss $3.5 billion in costs to our health
care system and 40,000 lives each and every year. Shame on the
Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 32
years ago today John Kroeker was fired from the federal civil
service for daring to criticize the Pearson government's newly
created Canada pension plan.
Mr. Kroeker rightly predicted that the CPP was unsustainable
and for that he lost his job. For that he was blackballed by the
federal government and labelled a kook. Mr. Kroeker said that the
CPP would be broke by the year 2000 without constant and large
infusions of cash from Canadian taxpayers.
Will the Prime Minister, who was part of that Pearson
government decades ago, admit that Mr. Kroeker was right in 1965
and that his own Liberal government was wrong?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is wrong is that
the Reform Party is wrong about the CPP. We have changed the
rules of the CPP.
I have to remind the Reform Party that the CPP is a
federal-provincial policy.
(1430)
It is not just a federal program. To change the CPP requires
two-thirds majority of the provinces with two-thirds of the
population. We have gone out as a government and got that
two-thirds majority. We have the support of the majority of the
provinces.
In the Reform Party's proposal for reform, does it have the
support of any of the provinces? It has the support of none of the
provinces, let alone a two-thirds majority. It does not have the
support of any.
We have, also, the support of the Canadian people. The Canadian
people want a secure, publicly funded pension program and we
have the support of the Canadian people.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that this junior minister talks about having the support
of all the provinces on it.
In 1965 Mr. Kroeker stated that the Pearson government simply
lured the provinces into the CPP by offering them loans from the
fund at amazingly low bargain basement interest rates. No wonder
they are keen on the project.
Thirty years later in the 1990s this government is doing exactly
the same thing with the provincial governments. Using the CPP as
a cash cow for governments was a lousy idea in 1965 and it is a
lousy idea now, 30 years later.
Why did the Prime Minister and those in charge of dealing with
the provinces right now on this deal lure the provinces into a
sweetheart deal at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers who will
have to belly up and pay that cash?
The Liberals learned nothing since 1965. Which way will it be,
sweetheart deals for the provinces or the best deal for Canadian
taxpayers in their retirement?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have in the
CPP now is the best deal for the Canadian people.
Compared with the Reform Party's absolutely ridiculous
proposal with rates of return that are absolutely beyond belief, our
proposal is a reasonable proposal. It is a proposal backed by the
Canadian people and it is backed by the provinces. It is not a
proposal that any of the provinces do not want. It is a proposal that
the Canadian people want.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian young people want to know that there will be a
sustainable
8589
plan for them. They would like to earn three times as much through
privately funding their own RRSP rather than any CPP plan.
Thirty-two years ago these Liberal politicians called John
Kroeker crazy for predicting that CPP was unsustainable without
constant payroll tax increases.
In the next 6 years from now alone, premiums will have gone up
over 70 per cent and Canadians will be paying a full 10 per cent of
their paycheques toward a pension plan that still is not sustainable.
The minister thinks people in the galleries here and across the
country are really pleased about this plan of mismanagement of
their own money.
Is it not true that the government is hiding the fact that premiums
will have to go up again before the Canadian public gets any
benefit which these people have promised?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said
that younger Canadians want to know there is a secure pension
plan. This Canada pension plan is that secure pension plan.
What would the Reform Party offer instead? The Reform Party's
finance critic said about their own proposals on pension: ``I'm kind
of reluctant to get into the numbers''. Why would he be reluctant to
get into the numbers? It is because their numbers do not add up.
Why do they not add up? What would their contribution rate be?
Would it be 10 per cent? Would it be 15 per cent? They do not say.
How would they honour the commitment to today's seniors, $18
billion a year and growing? Would they honour those
commitments?
If they are going to honour those commitments, where would
they find the money? Would they simply renege on those
commitments? What do they plan for Canadians who have
contributed?
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
To explain why his government is going to such lengths to
unreasonably restrict the sponsorship activities of the tobacco
industry, the Prime Minister keeps referring to the health issue.
There are other more efficient ways to protect the health of the
public. What the Bloc Quebecois is against is a ban on
sponsorships, because it will be irretrievably detrimental to various
sports and cultural events.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the official opposition has
supported 80 per cent of the bill, that the Bloc has even moved
more proactive measures to fight smoking among young people
and that if the Prime Minister were to agree to sit down with the
opposition and event organizers, a solution could be found? Is he
aware of that?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is precisely for the reasons that the hon. member has referred to
that we on this side of the House have accepted the very reasoned
amendment which has been put forward by the chair of the
Standing Committee on Health, that we have a period of time for
the purposes of implementation keeping in mind, as I said
previously, that in no way are we at the present time banning
sponsorship or banning sponsorship promotion. After the
implementation period is over there will still be the opportunity to
promote one's product. So we are just restricting the promotion as
well as the sponsorship.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister acknowledge that by trying so hard to save his head before
the next election, he is not helping to improve the health of our
fellow citizens, but is contributing to the demise of the tourist
industry in Montreal, which will only make the people in Montreal
and throughout the province of Quebec even poorer?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): I have great
respect for the honourable member opposite and I want to share
with you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member the words of a
prominent Quebecer: ``Sponsorship is subliminal publicity. People
associate cultural products to tobacco brands. It is a very powerful
way to push consumption of the product, in particular among
youth''.
I know the hon. member does not wish to believe me, but
perhaps the hon. member will believe the minister of health of the
province of Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first the unsustainability of CPP was blamed on too many
baby-boomers, then not enough people having children, then full
indexing and disability benefits. Next it will be an act of God.
Now they want to simply continue the status quo, only with
double the tax revenue.
The minister says that our numbers do not add up, but what does
not add up is Canadians paying $3,200 a year for a $9,000 pension
30 years from now. That does not add up. Canadians deserve better
than paying more to get less.
8590
Why will the government not dispel the fears of Canadians that
CPP will not be there for them and offer individualized tax
sheltered accounts for their mandatory CPP tax deductions?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CPP will be there
for Canadians.
Why do Reformers not tell Canadians what their rates will be if
they put their plan forth? Why do they not tell Canadians that the
pension plan will not be there for the 50 year-olds and over and the
present pensioners with their plan? Why do they not tell Canadians
that it is going to cost them twice as much for their plan than it is
for CPP and it will not secure their future for them?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians of all age groups want and need to know that
they can count on a decent standard of living upon retirement.
There is no question of that. However, Canadians have been
deceived in the past by successive Liberal-Tory governments about
the sustainability of the CPP.
(1440)
First the rate was 3.6 per cent. Now it is 5.6 per cent. Soon it will
be 9.9 per cent. The minister talks about rates. Where is it going to
stop? No one seems to know.
The government has proven that it cannot be trusted on the GST
promise. What would lead Canadians to believe that it can keep a
promise on the CPP?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, was there a question?
The Reform Party misses the point. This reform of the CPP is
supported by a majority of the provinces. This is a
federal-provincial initiative. The Reform Party has no province
supporting its suggestions whatsoever. We are going to secure a
firm public pension plan for lower and middle income Canadians,
for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
When the official opposition comes to the defence of
sponsorship of sports and cultural events, when it defends the
importance of keeping the thousands of jobs that depend on it, the
only remark the Prime Minister can muster is that the official
opposition is being politically opportunistic.
If the Prime Minister defines opportunism as an attempt to save
sporting and cultural events, how does he describe the behaviour of
his own government, which continues to pocket billions of dollars
in taxes on tobacco? Is that is not what one would call
opportunism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the
member did not reveal how much smoking costs the Quebec
economy. In 1991, taxpayers paid $4 billion because of smoking.
This is in addition to the costs involved for all those who die of
smoking related cancer or heart conditions.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would it not be
opportunism to talk about improving health on the one hand and to
protect the revenues Canada Post makes from continuing to allow
the tobacco companies to advertise by mail on the other?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about
productivity. We are talking about jobs. Every year, 12,000 people
die in Quebec, unfortunately, from smoking. We are taking action
because we agree with Louise Beaudouin, the Quebec minister of
culture, who said, and I quote: ``I agree that Quebecers' health
comes first and foremost'' in Le Soleil last year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy.
After slashing health care funding to the provinces by 40 per cent,
the Prime Minister is meddling in Ontario's affairs when that
province is closing a hospital. It is like a business partner that pulls
out of the business and still wants to run the thing.
Will the Prime Minister stop interfering in the personal affairs of
Ontario when he is directly responsible for the crisis?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is rather obvious that the Reform Party does not wish to stand in
its place and support francophones outside the province of Quebec.
I want to tell the House and the hon. member that the Prime
Minister of Canada has every right as a Canadian citizen to voice
his opinion, whether in this House or outside. When it comes to
defending francophones there is none better than the right hon.
Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is interesting
because I went to the hospital this morning and asked the chief
executive officer what he thought of the Liberal government's cuts.
His comment to me: ``If there weren't Liberal government cuts we
wouldn't be in the position we are in today''.
(1445)
Where does the problem lie? Listen to this. The government
gives $221,500 to the Society for Canoe Championships. It then
8591
gives $734,766 to the Majestic Fur Association. Reform would
give that money to health care.
Why does the government look after its buddies rather than
looking after health care and the hospitals?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a great day. We have a representative of the Reform Party
standing in the House in an unholy alliance with Michael Harris,
the premier of the province of Ontario.
Canadians will not swallow this unholy alliance with the
Conservatives in the province of Ontario. The Mike Harris tax
break is going to cost in excess of $5 billion on an annual basis.
That is what the province of Ontario is doing with the money.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Last weekend, his own supporters drew the labour minister's
attention to the catastrophic effects this quasi-ban on tobacco
sponsorships will have on Montreal's economy. Content with
blindly defending his government's position on the matter, he
added insult to injury by stating that, once they were through with
tobacco, the Minister of Health would probably address alcohol.
Are we to understand from the irresponsible remarks made by
the minister that his government is set to take the absurdity of its
policies one step further by threatening to ban beer sponsorship of
sports events? Does the minister mean to say that someone,
somewhere in the federal government is preparing to shut down the
Molson Centre or to prevent Labatts from sponsoring the Expos?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the opposition would have us believe the apocalypse is
upon us.
More seriously, I would like to quote someone who, we must
agree, is an authority on the organization of the Montreal Grand
Prix, Jacques Duval. He sent me a letter by fax yesterday, in which
he states clearly the following: ``Contrary to what you may think of
someone who has been involved with auto racing for many years, I
fully support the government policy on the tobacco control
legislation.
He concludes by saying: ``Media attitude in this issue is
deplorable, and the remarks of some journalists are far from
objective. I urge you not to yield to a campaign that is starting to
look more and more like intimidation''.
I think there is no lack of support for the government's action,
and we are here to-
Some hon. members: Oh!
An hon. member: Answer.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Dodging questions is an art, Mr. Speaker.
We will recall that, when the Minister of Health was considering
banning raw milk cheese a few months ago, the Minister of Labour
rose in the name of common sense. In the name of Montreal's
economic health, will a Liberal from Quebec rise in this House
today and speak up in its defence?
Will the Minister of Labour dare, once again, to rise and oppose
this breach of common sense that will cost Montreal millions of
dollars and thousands of jobs?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has made many
representations. It is because of that kind of quality representation
that we have been able to provide an implementation period which
will allow a variety of different groups to become accustomed to
the new regime.
As I have said before, we are not banning sponsorships and we
are not banning sponsorship promotion. Furthermore, if my
colleague wishes to make representations to me with regard to
banning beer at the Molson Centre I will take it under advisement.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a few short weeks ago in a hospital at which I used to
work, a 60 year-old gentleman was having heart pain and, indeed, a
heart attack. He had to be transferred to St. Paul's Hospital. He
waited three days because there was not enough money to open the
intensive care unit beds in that hospital. This man died.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Is that his version of
the government allowing the provinces to absorb $7 billion in
transfer payment cuts to health care? Does he want the patients to
absorb that with their lives?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know the hon. member opposite is an individual who likes to keep
the House fully informed of all the facts. It would not be for me to
suggest that there is any form of negligence being exercised here
today.
As the hon. member knows, the reduction of interest rates alone
has saved the treasuries of the provinces in excess of $1.8 billion.
Approximately $8.6 billion is being provided through the auspices
of equalization.
8592
The provinces asked something of the Government of Canada.
They asked for predictable funding with a cash floor. Not only
did we provide them with a cash floor, but we provided them with
predictable funding not for three years, as they had requested, but
for a five-year period with an escalation clause.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been accused of being a slash and burn party. We
want to put $4 billion into the health care of Canadians.
How can the Minister of Health tell the provinces what stable
funding is? Is stable funding the removal of $7 billion in transfer
payments to health and education? That is slash and burn health
care in Canada.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is not often that I get the opportunity to stand on the floor in the
House of Commons to concur with the preamble of the hon.
member's question when he refers to his party as the slash and burn
party of the Parliament of Canada.
The hon. member opposite should discover all of the facts and
not some of the selected facts that he and the leader of his party are
trying to portray to the Canadian people. The reality, as exhibited
by the National Forum on Health, is that Canada has the second
most expensive health care system in the OECD countries. It is not
an issue of funding. It is an issue of management.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last month, prior to the budget, the minister attended meetings
with his financial counterparts from the G-7 nations. Based on
budget projections, can the minister advise the House how Canada
compares to the other G-7 industrialized nations of the world in
economic growth and jobs and in bringing our financial house to
order?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister
was very well received by his G-7 counterparts, largely because of
the efforts Canada has made in deficit reduction.
Canadian federal borrowing requirements, which are the way
most countries measure their deficits, have fallen sharply and will
be eliminated in 1998-99. This will be well below any other G-7
country. The total government deficit, both federal and provincial,
relative to the GDP has also improved dramatically. It was three
percentage points above the G-7. It is now well below the G-7.
(1455 )
Furthermore, both the IMF and the OECD predict that Canada
will have the fastest employment growth of the G-7 countries in
1997.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister will be aware that the United States has indicated
that it would ignore any World Trade Organization ruling having to
do with the Helms-Burton act.
Would the Minister for International Trade consider, in the name
of Canadian identity, if not security, adopting a similar stance
toward WTO rulings which prevent Canada from defending itself
with respect to culture and our health care system, vis-à-vis the
price of drugs, things which are as important to Canadians as
security surely is to Americans.
Would Canada consider that policy?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we believe that international obligations should
be respected and we intend to respect them, whether they are with
the WTO or with the NAFTA.
We have, in fact, secured provisions that are relevant to the
protection of the health care system and relevant to the protection
of culture as well.
We intend to continue to follow those rules. We expect the
United States to also meet its obligations with respect to the WTO.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On February 23, at a rally held to maintain Mirabel airport,
Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette spoke on behalf of the
government and sought to reassure the public by saying that the
Liberal government would finally break the deadlock that it had
created. The senator even added that a committee made up of two
members of Parliament and three senators, all Liberal, was
reviewing the issue and might propose the building of a high-speed
train between Mirabel and Montreal's downtown.
Since the Standing Committee on Transport agreed today with
the Bloc Quebecois' arguments and decided to hold, in the near
future, a day of public consultation on the Montreal airports issue,
will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that her government will
dismantle the recently set up partisan committee made up of
Liberal colleagues of hers, most of whom are not elected members
of Parliament?
8593
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member
that each and every committee of the House is the master of its own
destiny.
If the hon. member would like to bring his suggestions to the
transport committee, I am sure its chair, the hon. member for
Winnipeg South, would be more than happy to entertain them and
possibly have a day on the very issues about which the member is
speaking.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the justice minister on the Airbus matter.
We know now that the letter that was eventually accepted by the
Swiss authorities on the Airbus scandal went far beyond the
evidence supplied by the RCMP. According to court documents,
seven drafts of the letter were prepared by justice officials.
How many drafts of the letter were rejected by the Swiss
authorities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it may be that the hon. member is
not familiar with international protocol in such matters, which was
established some years ago by the previous government.
The letter that was sent to the Swiss authorities, the only letter
that was sent in final form, was acted on by the authorities in
keeping with international practice.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Peterborough has been hard hit by the reorganization of HRD in
Ontario. A disability unit has been disbanded and other jobs have
been moved. This affects services over a wide region.
I would ask the minister what he can do to assure quality human
resources services in our community.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for us as a
government to ensure the future of our social safety net. It is
important also that we use the technologies which are available
today to run the most efficient operations we can.
(1500)
Canadians will continue to be very well served through the
reorganization of the local human resources department. We will
have personnel help in over 300 offices across the country that will
actually be delivering it. We will have 6,000 automated kiosks that
were not available before to serve Canadian citizens.
The office in Peterborough is a very important centre for us as a
government. It will continue to serve clients and senior citizens of
Peterborough for a long time to come.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Ross Ginn, Deputy President of
the Legislative Council of Tasmania, and Mr. Anthony John
Benneworth, Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly of
Tasmania.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I received a letter from the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie regarding a question of privilege. I will
listen to the hon. member and then I will hear the points of order
raised by other members.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today we saw in Quebec's major newspapers an
advertisement in which Health Canada refers to ``the act'', and I
mean the government's anti-tobacco ``act''.
First, this advertisement is false and affects the privileges of this
House. Indeed, the ad suggests that the House has passed Bill C-71.
The fact is that, while the government did its utmost to gag the
opposition regarding this issue, the act has yet to be passed.
The Speaker of the House made an interesting ruling on October
10, 1989, regarding a similar situation concerning a GST ad, when
the legislation had not yet been passed. The Speaker ruled, and I am
quoting page 4461 of the Hansard:
-if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be
as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I-remind
everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a
so-called executive democracy-
In 1989, when the Liberals formed the opposition, they had
welcomed the ruling made by the Speaker of the time. Therefore, I
am asking the Minister of Health to apologize in this House, on
behalf of his department, for the false advertisement which he
authorized and paid for with taxpayers' money.
Moreover, I believe I can get the support of the House in asking
the Minister of Health to pay back to taxpayers the costs of his false
advertising. The minister should use the taxpayers' money to make
young people aware of the harmful effects of tobacco.
8594
Mr. Speaker, I thank you. If you deem that the issue raised is
indeed a question of privilege, I am prepared to table the usual
motion. But first I will listen to what you have to say.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we certainly did not have, or at least I did not have, notice of the
particular question of privilege that has just been raised. I certainly
have not had a chance to check with my colleague, the Minister of
Health, or any other relevant minister on the substance of the
allegations made by the hon. member.
(1505)
I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we could have your permission
to have this question of privilege stood for a day or two while the
allegations are checked into. This would make it easier to argue the
point and ask you to make the most appropriate ruling.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is a
man of experience who surely does not need 24 or 48 hours to
recognize something that is quite obvious. I therefore ask for leave
to table a copy of that advertisement.
I am prepared to hand it over to him right now, and I suppose the
House leader will understand it as soon as he reads it, since he was
in this House in 1989. At the time, he advocated a reprimand, to
ensure that taxpayers' money cannot be used deceitfully in advance
under a false pretenses.
Thus, I table this document and ask that it be passed on to my
colleague. With his experience, he will understand at once.
[English]
The Speaker: For any member of the opposition to table any
document we need unanimous consent of the House. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Colleagues, when there is a question of privilege
in this House, I usually reserve judgment for a few hours.
[English]
I am sure the hon. member for Laurier-Saint Marie would want
to see the document. I did not see the document the Minister of
Health handed over. I would like to see the document also.
With the agreement of the House I will wait until the Minister of
Health or a spokesperson of the government has a chance to give us
some information. At that time I will review all the documentation
and if it is necessary I will get back to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I respect your decision, unless the
government House leader has come to the same conclusion as I did
after reading the document I just sent him. If you ask him, maybe
he has come to the same conclusion. This is obvious to me.
[English]
The Speaker: As I understood the hon. government House
leader, he had not been apprised. This is my interpretation. He has
said he does not want to answer in the name of the Minister of
Health.
At this point on this question of privilege I will wait until I have
more information.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as you
know the House rules are set by precedent. Earlier today during
question period you referred to some questions that would appear
to come close to encroaching on the orders of the day. I think you
also indicated that you would intervene if you believed that the
questions encroached on the orders of the day.
Beauchesne's citation 428 (v) says a question must not
``anticipate an order of the day or other matters'' and (r) says a
question shall not ``refer to debate or answers to questions of the
current session''.
Citation 428 of Beauchesne's refers to written questions. I am
asking you to advise the House on any guidelines you feel are
appropriate that would give direction to the opposition parties that
formulate questions, so that we can abide by the rules and know
exactly what the rules are when we formulate questions in so far as
they may or may not encroach upon the orders of the day.
There does appear to be a different interpretation by the Reform
Party compared to the Bloc Quebecois on what is and is not
allowable and our assumption of what you would or would not
allow as far as questions are concerned.
(1510)
Therefore, since there is nothing specific in Beauchesne's or in
the standing orders that would give us specific direction regarding
oral questions, I ask that you come back to the House to give us
guidance.
The Speaker: The request of the hon. member is a reasonable
one in the sense that although the Chair can surely give an opinion
8595
on the general direction of questions, I want to give colleagues
every latitude in answering questions. When the questions were
posed today I listened very attentively that they did not encroach
on or refer to the specific bill.
The preambles give me a great deal of difficulty. I have appealed
to the House before that if your preambles could be quite concise
and then you get into the questions, I am better able to respond. I
try as much as possible to listen as you get down to the question or
at least to know the direction in which a member is leading. If I feel
that a preamble is taking us irrevocably toward a specific section of
a specific bill I will intervene.
I would hope on days such as today where Bill C-71 is being
debated all day that hon. members would consider perhaps a
different line of questioning. I always leave that to members. In my
view if a question is of a general nature and not hitting on the bill
directly I would tend to allow the question as I have today.
However the point is well taken. I commit myself to reviewing
all the questions asked today in question period to satisfy myself
and perhaps satisfy the House that the questions were indeed in
order. If I find upon reflection that I perhaps was a bit too lenient I
will come back to the House and give that direction.
I prefer to give a general direction to members because you
know what want to ask and I try to give you as much room as I can.
I commit to coming back to the House if it is necessary.
_____________________________________________
8595
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-71, an act to regulate
the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco
products, to make consequential amendments to another act and to
repeal certain acts, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 30.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
second group of motions, Group No. 2, the Bloc Quebecois had
Motion No. 5. This part concerns access to tobacco products. This
part maintains the ban on selling tobacco products to persons under
18 years of age. What is new in this second part of the bill is that
retailers will now have to ask for an identity card with a
photograph.
On many occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has criticized the fact
that the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act was not enforced.
According to certain investigations carried out in the year just
ended, 50 per cent of convenience stores did not enforce the
legislation and cigarettes were still being sold to young persons
under 18 years of age. Worse yet, cigarettes were still being sold
individually. This new provision requiring an identity card with a
photograph is very laudable.
(1515)
It is a measure welcomed by the Bloc Quebecois, because it can
truly be effective. We have some questions, however, about how
this measure will be enforced. Right now, there are only about 40
public servants throughout the country inspecting convenience
store owners, merchants and retailers selling tobacco products. So
how can we enforce this measure, although, I repeat, the Bloc
Quebecois is in agreement with it? Who is going to report those
who have no social conscience and who, for financial gain, will
continue to sell cigarettes to those under 18 years of age?
This clause mentions regulations that will follow. It is like
signing a blank cheque. We do not know how they will proceed.
They are still working out the regulations not mentioned in this bill
that, following the master plan tabled by the former health
minister, took one year to reach first reading in the House. We have
not yet seen the regulations to follow. This is all very laudable and
we applaud this measure. We hope that it will be introduced, but we
also want this legislation to be enforced.
This part also contains a ban on selling a tobacco product by
means of a display that permits a person to handle the tobacco
product before paying for it. Goodbye to self-service displays. We
also applaud this measure.
The ban on furnishing a tobacco product by means of a
dispensing device. It must be understood here that the prohibition
concerns access to the products sold by vending machine, not the
vending machine itself. This means, more or less, that the
machines will have to be kept behind the counter in a restaurant, for
example, and the staff will have to go and get the products.
It will also be prohibited to cause a tobacco product to be
delivered from one province to another, or to be sent by mail, for a
consideration. The obligation for retailers to post signs prohibiting
sales to persons under the age of 18 years will be retained, as will
the prohibition of sales of packages containing fewer than 20
cigarettes. But that was already in place.
How can it be that there are still corner stores and other
businesses where unscrupulous merchants will sell tobacco to
young people? According to the statistics and surveys, moreover,
these children are often between the ages of 8 and 11. This is how
our young people get hooked on nicotine and the taste of cigarettes,
and are unable to quit afterward, and the reason why we are so
concerned.
The applications or measures they want to put in place are
actually quite laudable, as I have said, but there are already
measures in place which are not being enforced. There are no
inspections, no one making sure the laws are being adhered to.
How can we then believe there will be a decrease in smoking by
young people? How can we believe that the government has the
will to do it? It has the will to put effective measures down on
8596
paper, but when the time comes to enforce them, there is nobody
around to do it. That is what we are finding fault with.
(1520)
The bill contains other measures regulating labelling.
Essentially, manufacturers are forbidden to sell a tobacco product
if it does not bear a message on emissions and on health risks.
Since the recent Supreme Court judgment, however, the message
may be attributed to a body or individual determined by regulation.
Thus, manufacturers will be able to attribute health-related
messages to Health Canada, which they could not under the old
legislation.
In short, Bill C-71 contains measures which could have a
positive impact on tobacco use in Quebec and in Canada. This is
worthy of applause, but as I was saying, only if these measures, this
legislation, are enforced and not left up in the air, or set out in a bill
which does not have the manpower to back it up, the inspectors to
enforce it. One wonders how some forty inspectors are going to be
able to look after all of Canada and all of the convenience stores
across Canada. That is where the ridiculous part of the whole thing
lies.
What is of interest to us in Group No. 2 is the Bloc Quebecois
Motion No. 5, which refers to amending clause 12, so that vending
devices, even without security mechanisms, are allowed in places
to which young persons are denied access. The clause as amended
would read as follows: ``No person shall furnish or permit the
furnishing of a tobacco product by means of a device that dispenses
tobacco products except where the device is in a place to which the
public does not reasonably have access or where that device has a
security mechanism that is activated before each transaction or that
is in a place to which young persons are not permitted by law to
have access''.
This is just a matter of common sense. The purpose of this clause
is to prevent young people from buying their own cigarettes. We
quite agree with this measure and with all other measures aimed at
restricting access by minors to tobacco products.
If the vending machine is in a place to which young people do
not have access, a bar, for instance, obviously they would not be
able to use it. You cannot get anything at all from a vending
machine unless you are in front of it, whether it is chocolate, gum
or cigarettes.
If our laws are enforced, young people under the age of 18
should not be in bars and certainly not have access to cigarette
vending machines.
The Bloc Quebecois received a memo from an association of
operators of automatic cigarette vending machines. Its members
are all small businesses that create jobs, and they informed us that
in its present form, clause 12 in Bill C-71 would cause them to
close, because these businesses would no longer be profitable.
They said that the bill was unfair to operators of cigarette vending
machines and, as such, discriminatory. ``Our members are retailers
as defined in clause 2 of the bill, and as such we ask, no more and
no less, to be treated like other tobacco retailers, in other words, on
the same level as corner stores, drug stores, grocery stores, and so
forth''.
I would draw your attention to what this group finds so illogical.
Time already!
The Speaker: Yes, time flies. Only ten minutes this time.
(1525)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we are debating a societal value here. We are
talking about the difference between short and long term.
What should we do in our society about smoking? What action
should we take? Whenever a law involves tobacco, be it in the
House of Commons or in the provincial legislatures, there is
always a huge outcry and a great discussion. I know, because in
1986, when I was the Quebec minister of the environment, we
introduced the first legislation to protect non smokers, Bill 84.
At that point in Quebec, people smoked in hospitals, in clinics,
in restaurants and in classrooms. Today, things have improved
considerably, I must say, but a lot remains to be done. That was the
first step. However, when we introduced Bill 84, there was a whole
discussion. The entire tobacco industry opposed the very
introduction of the bill.
A debate was held in parliamentary committee. The subject was
then discussed in the newspapers. It will go on so long as an
attempt is made to reduce the effect of smoking, because the
tobacco companies know very well that every country that signs on
to fight smoking further restricts the market.
The statistics are alarming: 256,000 new smokers in Canada,
with 30 per cent of them in Quebec; 14 is the average age of new
smokers; 40,000 deaths in Canada, with the highest
proportion-11,841-in Quebec; and $536 million in health care
costs in Quebec. If we add on all the economic costs such as
absenteeism from work, all the economic costs of smoking, we
reach a figure of $4 billion in negative costs.
I heard our colleagues in opposition say: ``Young people do not
smoke. If they do, it is not because of a poster or advertising on a
car or the like''. And if it were? Why then put so much importance
on this advertising? Why do the tobacco companies put so much
importance on having their brand name appear on a car, a tennis
court or at a festival, like the Montreal fireworks festival?
If there is no element of cause and effect, if it is not true that
young people are attracted by this subliminal advertising, why then
are the tobacco companies so opposed to this bill? Do we believe
for one single minute that the tobacco companies would invest if
they were not expecting profits at the end of the line? Do the
tobacco companies not invest precisely because they know full
8597
well that young people are influenced by subliminal advertising?
Otherwise, why would they do it?
If there is not an element of cause and effect in sponsorship, why
are the tobacco companies fighting so hard against legislation like
Bill C-71? If there is no link whatsoever, how do we explain that
France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Australia,
Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, and in 1998 the United States
all passed legislation to either ban or restrict sponsorship?
To those who say that the Montreal Grand Prix is going to
disappear I would read an article published in December 1992 in
the daily Le Monde. It says that the IAF, International Automobile
Association, is announcing the withdrawal of the French Grand
Prix because of the restrictions imposed on sponsorship. And yet
today, four years later, the French Grand Prix is alive and well.
I remember when Air Canada started its smoke free flights. It
created an uproar: ``Air Canada is going to lose a lot of
passengers''. Not only did the number of passengers on Air Canada
not decrease, it actually increased.
(1530)
I remember the uproar when Bill 84 was introduced in Quebec,
when representatives of the bus company Voyageur came before a
parliamentary committee to tell us that they would lose all their
clientele if we banned smoking on buses. We gave them a few
years' extension to gradually introduce the change.
In the end, the management of Voyageur told me that it was the
best decision that could have been taken, that it was a lot cheaper
nowadays to maintain buses, that passengers were now used to a
non-smoking environment. There is no longer any argument, any
discussion on the issue.
The tobacco companies and their allies are engaging in this
heated debate because so much at stake, for them. Of course there
is something at stake. Profits, clients, younger clients who get
addicted to tobacco.
They say it has nothing to do with health. If it is not a question of
health, then what is it? If advertising does not promote smoking,
why do tobacco companies insist on using it?
There are so many examples where tobacco companies were
replaced by others as main sponsors of international events. There
was the Virginia Slims women's tennis tournament. Virginia Slims
was replaced by Corel. There was an outcry in the United States,
people were asking how a tennis tournament could be sponsored by
a tobacco company. The Australian tennis tournament formerly
sponsored by Marlborough cigarettes is now sponsored by Ford.
In 1988, when we tried to convince the managers of the
Canadian Open Golf Championship not to accept du Maurier as
their sponsor anymore, they told us that without du Maurier the
Canadian Open could no longer exist. It is doing fine thank you.
This year it will be held in Montreal and will be sponsored by Bell
Canada.
Mr. Dubé: And by du Maurier.
Mr. Lincoln: It is sponsored by Bell Canada; you will have the
opportunity to speak later on. What is happening today is that
people want to use petty politics to make political hay before the
election, they want to make a big issue of this, they say it is not a
question of health, that advertisements have no impact on people,
that they do not encourage young people to smoke.
However, Minister Rochon himself said there is a direct link and
he should know because he is a medical doctor and Quebec's health
minister. In November 1996, he proposed even tougher legislation
than Bill C-71 which is now before us. In November 1996, he said
to the media in Quebec that he wanted that legislation passed. And
now we are being told that it is the federal Liberals who are trying
to push this.
All these festivals and events that have benefited from these
sponsors must be given some room to manoeuvre. That is why the
minister has agreed today to extend the period until October 1st,
1998. This will give event organizers two full years to find new
sponsors.
My colleague, the president of the Liberal caucus in Quebec, has
appealed to the Canadian bankers association. It says that it does
not have enough money, that it already gives a lot to charities. The
chartered banks have made $6 billion in profits on the backs of
Canadians. It would be nothing for them to give some to the Jazz
festival in Montreal, the Montreal Grand Prix or the tennis open. It
would be nothing for them. They have made $6 billion in profits on
the backs of all Canadians. I appeal to their corporate spirit, to their
corporate conscience, so they will replace these millions that may
be lost from tobacco sponsorships.
As the minister has pointed out, nothing prevents a tobacco
company from sponsoring an event in the future, but there certainly
will be restrictions on advertising. I support the minister's bill
entirely. If choices have to be made, human lives are a lot more
important than advertising by the tobacco companies.
(1535)
I support the minister entirely, because I think we do everything
we can to reduce the use of tobacco in our society, whether it is in
Quebec or elsewhere.
8598
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the motions in GroupNo. 2 that were put forward by my colleague from Macleod. We are
faced with a difficult dilemma.
The dilemma in this bill is how we address decreasing
consumption, particularly among youth and dealing with the
purchase of cigarettes in shops. Is it fair to criminalize those
individuals who unknowingly sell cigarettes to minors or is it fairer
to put the responsibility on the individual who goes into the store
with the knowledge they are committing an illegal act? My
colleague from Macleod and I feel it is more important to put the
responsibility and the onus on the child who buys cigarettes and
who knows full well he is committing an illegal act.
That is why the motions in Group No. 2 were put forward by my
colleague, putting a $75 dollar summary conviction fine on
underage children who buy cigarettes.
We have heard a lot today on the issue of sponsorship. The
ultimate goal of this bill should be to decrease tobacco
consumption with all Canadians, particularly youth. We know we
can have the greatest effect in decreasing consumption in youth.
Tobacco consumption and the addiction to tobacco products occurs
when somebody is a child, particularly around the ages of 11 to 14.
The consumption of as little as one pack of cigarettes or sometimes
even less can ensure that a child is addicted for life.
Over the term of this government, the statistics have been very
interesting in a number of areas. One area is the decrease in cost
this government effected when it decreased tobacco taxes in
February 1994, a move we vehemently opposed. We opposed this
because decreasing the tobacco tax was the single most important
negative health move that any government in the past 50 years has
made.
The negative effect of this move cannot be underestimated.
Lowering the cost of cigarettes has introduced 250,000 children to
cigarettes each year. They will be addicted for life. Half of them
will ultimately die an early death. A great percentage will suffer
morbidity from a wide variety of diseases, from chronic
obstructive lung disease to angina to a number of other
malignancies, which there is not enough time to speak of today.
This is the fate that awaits those children in the future and that is
the legacy this government has given to the Canadian people. This
is what it has done for their health.
This government was warned by Health Canada. A Health
Canada study was conducted by Drs. Morrison, Mao, Wigle and
Villeneuve entitled ``The Impact of Cigarette Price Rollback on the
Future Health of Canadian Adolescents''. I will quote from the
summary:
Government tobacco control in Canada has had three main components: health
promotion campaigns, high tobacco taxes and restrictive policies on public smoking.
Even the temporary abandonment of high cigarette taxes will likely lead to a large
number of teenagers becoming and/or remaining smokers. The health consequences
of the recent tax decrease will continue for decades.
That study, which was given to the minister in 1995, illustrated
very clearly, succinctly and scientifically that the impact of a
tobacco tax rollback would be utterly devastating to the health and
welfare of Canadians, but in particular to the health and welfare of
Canadian children. The government has also been inactive in the
area of advertising.
(1540 )
The Supreme Court in its wisdom, and I use that very
sarcastically because I cannot think of a greater affront to
Canadians and a greater lack of responsibility than the Supreme
Court has demonstrated through twisting the charter of rights and
freedoms, turned down the advertising ban on smoking advertising.
What has been the effect of that? Let us take a look.
The data of the last year show in 1996 alone that the lack of a ban
on tobacco advertising has been enough to support 250,000 new
smokers in this country. The per capita increase has been anywhere
from 3 to 4 per cent in this country as a result of not allowing the
ban on tobacco advertising itself.
To colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I ask them to take a look
at this very clearly and it will demonstrate without a shadow of a
doubt that the ban on advertising that has been removed has caused
an increase in consumption. They should be more concerned than
anybody else because the children in Quebec take up smoking
earlier and smoke more than children in any other province in this
country. Those are the facts.
We have to do something in this House. We have to deal with the
epidemic of smoking. The tobacco sponsorship provisions in the
bill are okay. We are holding our noses and supporting the bill only
because nothing has been done on the tobacco issue in this country
for three years. For three years while a quarter of a million kids
pick up the habit the government has been diddling around doing
nothing.
The health minister would rather deal with banning certain types
of soft cheeses than with a health epidemic that claims 40,000 lives
every year. What does that say about the commitment of this
government to the health of Canadians? If I were them I would be
truly embarrassed.
Certainly back in 1994 we had a smuggling epidemic but here is
another problem that the government failed to deal with properly.
Instead of dealing with the smuggling issue which actually occurs
unfortunately on many aboriginal reserves in Quebec, instead of
dealing with the smuggling conduits which deal not only with
tobacco but also deal with guns, with alcohol, with drugs and with
tobacco and people, the government has chosen to put its head in
the sand and not address the criminals and the thugs who are
8599
engaging in this and who are associated closely with the gangs in
the United States.
Instead of dealing with the thugs, the government has chosen to
compromise the health and welfare of all Canadians and in
particular the children of this country by rolling back the tobacco
taxes. The government has put its tail between its legs and said ``we
are not going to enforce the law, we are going to compromise the
health of Canadians and make it look like we are doing
something''.
A plan for the health of Canadians and a plan to decrease
consumption and a plan to address the smuggling was there and it is
as follows. One, bring the tobacco taxes back where they were in
January 1994. Two, put forth an export tax which would decrease
the smuggling of tobacco. Three, enforce the law to address and
arrest those individuals who are committing crimes and who are
smuggling all across this country.
The government fails to recognize the law-abiding aboriginal
people who live on these reserves who have to put up with thugs in
their midst who are engaging in these illicit, illegal practices. No
one talks about the culture of fear that many of those people live in.
It is an abrogation of the responsibility of this government to not
address that problem. It is an abrogation of the responsibility of
this government to put its own political fortunes ahead of the health
of Canadians.
The government should be ashamed of itself and the Canadian
people should understand what is going on here. The plan was there
but the government chose to ignore it.
I hope that our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will unite
with our colleagues in the Reform Party and I hope some members
of the Liberal Party to put forth a better solution to address the
smuggling issue, decrease consumption of cigarette smoking in
this country and enable us to all live in a healthier and happier
environment, if not for ourselves then in particular for the health
and welfare of our children.
(1545 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the report stage motions in Group No. 2 of Bill
C-71.
I was a member of the standing committee on health of the
House of Commons in 1994 and this was an issue that was before
the committee on a number of occasions for a number of reasons. I
recall when the committee held public hearings with regard to the
issue of plain packaging for tobacco products. We also, as members
know, had hearings with regard to the proposed legislation, Bill
C-71.
There was a common element in both about which I want to
advise the House. I do not think many people realize what
happened. The tobacco companies did not, and I stress that, appear
before the standing committee on health on either occasion. They
demonstrated what we must all accept as one of the most brilliant
strategies in terms of an economic strategy for a failing business.
Tobacco companies had to do something to deal with the fact
that the health care industry: doctors and nurses, medical officers
of health, the communities in which we live, the social agencies
that have to deal with the aftermath of problems associated with
tobacco consumption and addiction, the Addiction Research
Foundation, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, were saying
very clearly: ``Tobacco hurts Canadians and we have to do
something about it''.
The tobacco companies had virtually everybody against them.
There was absolutely no future for the tobacco industry in Canada.
There was no place for them to go. They had to find some way to
continue to be in business but they had to insulate themselves from
the real people of Canada.
They used their influence to manipulate people. That was their
brilliant strategy. They took a position with their resources, with
their money. They bought people. Everybody has a price, so they
say.
Who appeared before the committee? Cultural groups, recreation
groups, sports groups, all came to say: ``This is terrible. If you do
this, we are going to lose our tobacco sponsorship and we are going
to lose these events''. That is the brilliance of the strategy. The
tobacco companies said to the groups that they were sponsoring:
``Let's go-''
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I can understand the hon. member's flash of anger, but I think
stating in this House that witnesses were bought by tobacco
companies is a bit excessive. I sat on the committee, I saw
individuals earnestly make their point, and it seems to me that to
say they let themselves be bought is excessive.
The Speaker: My colleague, it is very likely that these words
are excessive, and I would ask our hon. colleague not to use such
words in this debate. The hon. member for Mississauga South.
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the groups that came before the health
committee were a number of cultural groups, recreational groups,
sporting associations, and they said: ``This is what the impact will
be on our organizations and on our events if tobacco advertising is
banned''.
8600
We knew exactly what was happening. These organizations were
approached. Their sponsors, the tobacco companies said: ``Let's go
and fight the tobacco bill in front of the health committee. By the
way, if I do not show up, you start without me''. That is exactly
what happened.
The tobacco companies did not appear during the hearings on the
plain packaging issue, even though we found out subsequently the
CEO of RJR-MacDonald was actually sitting there. He refused to
come and sit at the table to answer questions or to address the
issues before the committee. They did buy the consulting services
of certain people to speak on their behalf. They came before the
committee. One witness was a gentleman from the U.S. with a
Ph.D. He came before the committee to talk about the impact of
advertising on children. He basically concluded on behalf of the
tobacco companies that advertising has no impact on children.
(1550)
I asked him quite explicitly if he thought that the figure of Joe
Camel on Camel cigarettes, because of its cartoon character nature,
had any influence on children. He said: ``Who is Joe Camel?'' This
is a consultant, an expert witness, speaking on behalf of the tobacco
companies and he admitted before the committee he did not know
who Joe Camel was. Then he was asked a rhetorical question: Did
he know who Mickey Mouse was? He said: ``No, who is Mickey
Mouse?'' It is clear you can get anybody to say anything if he is
working on your behalf.
We saw the same thing before the committee with Bill C-71 and
the sponsorship issue. All the groups that we know have a vested
interested in seeing events continue appeared. They all found
themselves in bed with the tobacco companies, totally addicted to
tobacco money. They were relying on blood money and it really
was a problem because we had no way of knowing what the real
issues were for these people. We asked them if the government
made up the additional funding they needed for sponsorship would
they support the bill? They said: ``No question, it is a good bill''.
I would like to remind the House of the kinds of things that
tobacco companies have done in the past to support their events.
They have advertised in comic books for children. They have held
rock concerts where the admission fee was two empty packages of
cigarettes. They have had scantily clad women go to high schools
to hand out individual cigarettes. These are the kinds of tactics they
use. It is all about attracting young people to their products, the
250,000 young people a year who are becoming addicted.
The facts are clear. If you do not start smoking by age 19 it is
very unlikely that you will be a smoker in your lifetime. The
tobacco companies know it, the health industry knows it. The
targets of the tobacco companies are the young people of Canada
and of the world.
Other members and the Bloc would say this is awful. We are
going to lose all these sponsorships. We are going to lose the races.
We are going to lose Just for Laughs. Where are they going? There
is no ban. They can still advertise, they can still promote, they will
still have exclusivity. What are the options?
They cannot move the automobile race to the United States. The
Americans are going much further than Canada. They are going for
a full ban.
It is absolute hypocrisy to argue the benefits of commercialism
over the health benefits to Canadians. The consequences of tobacco
products cost Canadians $15 billion a year. I remind members of
the Bloc that the right thing to do-and that is why we are here-is
to care for the health of Canadians, not for the health of the
commercial sector.
In conclusion, I believe that many groups unwittingly have come
to members of Parliament: constituents, retailers and all of those
who benefit in some small way from the tobacco money, and have
unwittingly been put between the health of Canadians and the
needs or the demands of the tobacco companies.
The history is clear. The tobacco companies are not prepared to
come face to face with the House of Commons. Therefore, we have
to do the right thing and protect the health of Canadians because
that is why we are here.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. members that we are now
at report stage. Yet, the speeches I heard before I rose myself
sounded identical to those I had heard one, two or three years ago,
in the debate on the principle of the bill. This issue of the principle
of the bill has been resolved, and the principle agreed upon, at
second reading.
At this stage, we must ensure the bill is viable and contains
realistic and adequate provisions. The Bloc voted for this bill.
(1555)
And having come this far, they would have us throw out the baby
with the bath water, in the sense that we are being gagged for
making constructive remarks to improve on the bill. We are being
told that we will not be allowed to debate the bill later than5:15 p.m. and third reading will be on Thursday; we are prevented
from debating the bill fully the same way we were at second
reading.
There is an amendment put forward by Bloc Quebecois in the
group under consideration. Let me explain briefly, to show you it is
a matter of plain common sense.
The bill provides for a security mechanism to ensure those under
age cannot use cigarette vending machines in restaurants or other
public places. The bill provides that the same type of security
8601
mechanism will have to be used in bars, where minors are not
allowed in any case.
This is like wearing both a belt and suspenders. In any case, it
lacks logic. It looks like overkill. In small communities where one
person mans the bar, this will be an additional obstacle that will
adversely affect business. It is not true that a 10, 12, 14 or 15-year
old can go into a bar to buy cigarettes. In any case that person does
not have the right to go into a bar.
This is the type of amendment we feel is important at this stage,
to avoid impossible situations. You will see the kind of details the
government should be concerned with, and the type of amendments
that should be made, so as to not unduly bother people in their
everyday activities.
This is important, because we are trying to see why the
government is so intent on ramming this legislation through. It is
true that this bill is based on the four pillars of marketing: the
ability to influence the price, the product, the promotion and the
advertising. This is an approach that can make sense. However, one
must see if each of the measures based on these four elements is
appropriate. Above all, we must avoid giving way to demagoguery.
The government tells us that sponsors will have until 1998 to
adjust, but it does not tell us that they will have no leeway as
regards the broadcasting of events outside the country. On the one
hand, something is given, but on the other hand, we prevent the
sponsorship from having its expected impact. This amounts to
prohibiting the event, as the members opposite are well aware.
Then, we are told that the tobacco companies did not appear
before the committee. It is not up to me to defend the tobacco
companies, but the House should not be misled in this way.
Representations were made by the Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council to the committee. So, representations were
made.
Finally, some more or less realistic comments are made, which
have nothing to do with the stage we are at now. We are trying to
improve this bill as much as possible. For instance, the Bloc
Quebecois is not against the amendments providing for a photo ID
card, but we would like to know how this will be implemented in
real life.
This bill gives a lot of regulatory authority to the minister. With
this kind of legislation, it would have been very useful to find out
what the regulations will be and how they will work. But there is no
mention of that in the bill.
We also agree with the principle that consumers should not have
direct access before paying, as long as it is workable.
Representations were made by a coalition of cigarette vending
machine owners. These people agree with the measures to further
restrict access to tobacco products for young people, but they fear
the government might go too far and bring about the demise of
their businesses, and I referred earlier to the concerns of bar
owners.
I would ask the government to take into consideration the
amendments put forward, especially those of the Bloc Quebecois
which appear in this group, and to also take whatever time is
needed to discuss the issue so that we can end up with an
interesting bill and not have to completely overhaul the regulations
and the bill just a few years down the road.
(1600)
[English]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the
motion defeated.
I therefore declare Motion No. 30 defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, which motion was just negatived? I am
sorry, but I have a problem with my earphones.
The Speaker: Motion No. 2 in Group No. 2, and the recorded
division also applies to Motion No. 30. Agreed?
Mr. Dubé: No. 30. Agreed.
The Speaker: The question is now on Motion No. 4.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
8602
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, Motion No. 5 was
not read.
The Speaker: We cannot vote on Motion No. 5 before the
deferred division on Motion No. 4 takes place.
[English]
We will now proceed to Group No. 3.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for Minister of Health, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-71, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 7
with the following:
``(c) a promotion by a tobacco grower or a manufacturer that is directed at
tobacco growers, manufacturers, persons who distribute tobacco products or
retailers but not, either directly or indirectly, at consumers.''
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-71, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 9
with the following:
``readership of not less than eighty-five per cent;''
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding, after line 23 on page 22, the following:
``Coming into Force
66. Subsections 24(2) and (3) come into force one year after the day this Act is
assented to.''
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-71, in Clause 19, be amended by
(a) replacing line 21 on page 7 with the following:
``19. (1) No person shall promote a tobacco''
(b) adding after line 24 on page 7 the following:
``(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who uses a tobacco product or a
tobacco product-related brand element in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship
of a person, entity, event, activity or permanent facility or used in the promotion of
the sponsorship.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-71, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 8 with
the following:
``(3) This section does not apply to
(a) a trade-mark that appeared on a tobacco product for sale in Canada on December
2, 1996; or
(b) a tobacco product that is used in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a
person, entity, event, activity or permanent facility or in the promotion of the
sponsorship.''
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-71, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 8 the
following:
``(5) This section does not apply to a person who promotes a tobacco product by
means of an advertisement described in subsection (1) where the person does so in a
promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or
permanent facility or in the promotion of the sponsorship.''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-71, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 42 on page 9
with the following:
24. (1) No one shall promote a sponsorship by means of a tobacco product-related
brand element unless
(a) the primary purpose of the sponsorship promotion is to promote an event,
activity, person or entity;
(b) the event, activity, person or entity is not primarily associated with young
persons;
(c) the promotional material does not depict a tobacco product or its package;
(d) the tobacco product-related brand element does not account for more than 15
percent of the promotional material or is not larger than the name of the event,
activity, person or entity;
(e) the promotional material does not appear in any publication that has an adult
readership of less than 75 percent or is not broadcast by a radio or television station
that, during the broadcast, has an adult audience of less than 75 percent;
(f) the promotional material is not displayed within an area that is less than 200
meters from any elementary or secondary school;
(g) the sponsorship promotion does not use professional models under twenty-five
years of age; and
(h) the promotional material is not displayed outdoors for more than three months
prior to the commencement of the event or activity or more than one month after the
end of the event or activity.
(2) The definitions in this section apply in this Part.
``international event or activity'' means an event or activity that is
(a) primarily presented in Canada by
(i) an entity whose headquarters or principal place of business is situated
outside Canada, or
(ii) a foreign government;
(b) part of a series of events or activities the majority of which are presented outside
Canada;
(c) one in which
(i) at least half the artists, competitors or other participants are not residents of
Canada; or
(ii) at least half the persons registered for the competition are not residents of
Canada; or
(d) recognized by the Canadian Tourism Commission as an international tourist
attraction.
8603
``promotional material'' means any object, printed matter, publicity, broadcast,
poster banner or merchandise that primarily promotes an event, activity, person or
entity that is part of the sponsorship and excludes, for the purposes of paragraph
(1)(d), where the sponsorship is promoted as part of an international event or
activity,
(a) posters and banners displayed at the site of the international event or activity; and
(b) the clothing and equipment of the participants, artists or competitors in the
international event or activity.''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-71, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 19 on page 12.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding, after line 23 on page 22, the following:
``Coming into Force
66. Subsections 24(2) and (3) come into force on October 1, 1998 or on such
earlier day the Governor in Council may fix by order.''
(1605 )
The Speaker: On Motions Nos. 14, 16, 18 and 19, Mr. Robinson
is not here to propose these motions and therefore they will be
deleted.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, thus this is
Group No. 3, that is, mainly the whole chapter on sponsorship, or
clause 24. I remind you that, at second reading, the official
opposition voted for the principle of the bill because we agree with
80 per cent of the bill and with all clauses aimed at reducing
smoking, especially among young people, but also among all
Canadians, although this is obviously more of a voluntary decision
for adults.
Concerning sponsorship, though, there are important economic
issues at stake for Quebec and for Canada also, since sponsorship
accounts for some $60 million that are distributed by the tobacco
companies for sporting and cultural events. Of those $60 million,
some $30 million go to sporting and cultural events in Quebec. You
will understand, therefore, that the Bloc Quebecois, which forms
the official opposition and has Quebec's interests at heart, wants to
preserve these funds that ensure the survival and even the
development of cultural activities, and thus are good for the
economy, especially in the tourism industry.
(1610)
In terms of added value, events such as the Montreal Jazz
festival, the Montreal Grand Prix and other international events are
important because they attract many visitors to the Montreal area,
as do events such as the summer festival in Quebec City, which
also attracts many visitors. In fact, all events of this calibre attract a
lot of visitors and that is why their economic impact is so great.
But there is also the issue of visibility. Events such as the
Montreal Grand Prix, the Du Maurier tennis tournament or the golf
open give sports fans an opportunity to see, on television, what
goes on all over the world. It is a window on the world, an
opportunity to promote extraordinary sporting and cultural events
that give each region and each country the visibility they need.
Let us talk about the Montreal Grand Prix. The Grand Prix in
Formula 1 racing comes in third place among sporting events, after
the Olympic Games and the World Cup in soccer, in terms of
coverage and in terms of viewership. It is the third most important
event. There are no such races in the United States or anywhere else
in North America. But there is one in Montreal.
We could lose all that because, even if the minister has accepted,
through an amendment, to stagger the application of section 24
concerning certain restrictions on the sponsorship of sporting and
cultural events, there is still section 31-and I see that the
chairman of the health committee, who, like me, has studied this
bill clause by clause, knows full well what I am talking
about-which will prohibit retransmission as soon as this bill
becomes law. So it will be this year, if the bill is adopted in the next
few weeks as planned by the government and if the other House
gives its consent. This means that the Montreal Grand Prix is
threatened, and we see in the newspapers that China, which is badly
in need of visibility, is very interested in taking over the Montreal
Grand Prix and would be most happy to do so. You can certainly
understand why we want to defend ourselves in these
circumstances.
There is always the same argument that something similar
happened with the French Grand Prix. But in France it is not the
same situation because, in the context of the automotive industry,
in connection with Formula 1 cars, several companies are
represented. The same is true for England, Italy and Germany.
There are enough sponsorships from racing car manufacturers that
they can do without tobacco sponsorships.
But this is not the case in other countries. It is not the case in
Australia. They wanted to ban it, but they were forced to adopt a
legislative measure allowing an exception. So, there are a number
of countries with the same situation, notably Japan, because it was
not possible to attract automobile manufacturers, Formula 1 teams
sponsored by tobacco companies, not just by companies we are
familiar with but by foreign companies.
Imagine this strange situation: in order for a car sponsored by a
tobacco company to be allowed on television, if clause 31 were
allowed to stand, the brand on the car would have to be purposely
blurred, somewhat like the procedure used when interviewing a
criminal or an informer who wishes to remain anonymous. This is
commonly seen on television, but in this case, the car is travelling
over 200 kilometres an hour. You can imagine the skill required if
ever the leading car were sponsored by a tobacco company. There
are a number of things like that.
8604
The official opposition presented many amendments to clause
24 so as to reduce the impact, so that the situation could continue.
Most of the amendments consist of compromises. Most of the
amendments we have presented here at report stage were
suggested by people who benefit from these sponsorships, not by
tobacco products, and not by companies.
(1615)
I do not wish to come to the defence of tobacco companies. I do
not smoke, but sports and cultural events are very important to the
cultural and economic life of Quebec. That is what we are fighting
for.
The main issue is this: Is there a connection between displaying
a tobacco company brand in a place of entertainment or somewhere
else and the increase in smoking among young people? I
systematically asked this question, as the chairman of the health
committee knows. I asked each witness whether he had a scientific
study demonstrating a link. Each time, people replied that they did
not, that they had a number of studies, but none on that specifically.
A very articulate representative of the Canadian Cancer Society,
to whom I had directed the question, even answered me: ``No, there
is no study''.
Finally, these people have the impression that sponsorship is a
way of improving the image of tobacco companies, but nobody
could show in a scientific way that it helps increase tobacco use. As
an advocate of non-smoking, I am pursuing the goal of improving
health. I will recall very briefly that I was a recreation professional
when I was younger, before I became a member of Parliament. I
might not look like it, but I used to take part in 10 kilometre runs. I
realized soon enough that it did not agree with smoking. In another
speech, I pointed out that Céline Dion surely does not smoke in
order to protect her voice.
So, we should do promotion in a positive fashion. We should
spend more money on programs to prevent smoking. The
government is collecting $4.5 billion in taxes on the sale of tobacco
products. It should take some of that money to try to reach its goals.
Instead of announcing a piece of legislation that has yet to be
adopted, it should have launched a program to encourage people to
stop smoking by showing them the benefits of quitting, how
pleasant it is to be in shape, to take deep breaths, to go play outside,
as Kino-Québec used to say, to play sports, and by demonstrating,
if necessary with the help of athletes or famous singers, how great
it is to be in good health and a non-smoker. This would have a very
positive impact on our young people.
I know that some other colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will
speak later on. My hon. colleague for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead will probably rise and speak with
enthusiasm as he puts forward other arguments that will convince
you, Madam Speaker, or the chairman of the health committee, to
postpone the implementation of this provision of Bill C-71.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. As the chair of
the health committee that dealt with Bill C-71 I and my colleagues
from Lévis, Drummond and others have had a fair amount of
exposure to the bill. We have had a good opportuntiy to say what
we want about it. My words today will be few and quite pointed.
They will be largely related to the amendment which stands in my
name in the group before us.
In general terms I believe very strongly in the provisions of Bill
C-71. I believe very strongly in its objectives. The bill goes a long
way to seeing that its objectives are met, namely the objective to
reduce tobacco consumption particularly by young people.
Our hearings were extensive. I am proud to say on behalf of the
committee that we were able to hear all who wanted to be heard
over three or four days. The hearings last fall were televised which
gave a large body of people, apart from those in the hearing room,
an opportunity to participate, to see how the matter was dealt with
and to hear the arguments on both sides of the issue. The overall
process was served very well. We were able to hear in committee
the real concerns that people had with the bill.
(1620)
At the end of the three or four days of hearings I was rather
impressed by the case that had been made by the representatives of
sponsored events, those events which have heretofore been
sponsored by the tobacco companies. I thought their argument
made a fair amount of sense and ought to be examined.
As a result, once the bill had passed clause by clause in
committee I as a member of the committee said to my colleagues
that we ought to look at some transition period. Instead of bringing
in the provision which would limit sponsorship when the bill came
into effect, I felt we could allow some lead time for a couple of
reasons.
It would give those people involved in sponsored events time to
adjust to the new reality. I was cognizant that many events had been
planned for this summer and even for next summer. We needed to
give those people some lead time to adjust to the new reality.
Equally important was to remove from the tobacco companies a
potential weapon, namely the possibility that the tobacco
companies would rush out on the excuse of this legislation and
cancel forthwith sponsorship funds they had already subscribed to
events. I wanted to remove from the tobacco companies that
particular excuse. I wanted to take that weapon away from them.
The lead time proposed in my amendment has the effect of doing
that. If the tobacco companies want in the next year or so to
continue
8605
sponsorship, nothing legislatively prevents those companies from
doing so.
It would give the organizations running the events time to look
around for alternate funding without the threat of having their
events collapse because of the immediate loss of the funding upon
which they have come to depend over the years.
With these thoughts in mind I made a suggestion to the
committee. The committee put forth a resolution to the House a day
or so after the bill was reported. It is in that spirit my amendment
before the House has been made.
It is not intended to water down or detract from the measures in
the bill. My own view on sponsorship was different from what is in
the bill. I felt we should have wiped out sponsorship altogether
from day one. That was my view. I felt that we ought to have
provided alternate funding for a period of three, four or five years.
That was my position on that issue.
That view did not prevail. What we have in the bill, I understand
for constitutional and other reasons, is a limited sponsorship. That
is my second position. I would have preferred to have no
sponsorship by the tobacco companies at all. A good argument can
be made for that, but that is yesterday's battle so I will not get into
it.
The amendment I have proposed will give some assistance to the
groups whose concerns we heard in committee. The transition
period will give them the extra time they need to find other
sponsors. However they also need the certainty of knowing the
precise date when the restrictions on sponsorship promotion will
come into effect. We do not know exactly when the bill will receive
royal assent. It is fair to assume it may well be some time this
spring. Events are already en train for this summer. I thought we
ought to give them this summer and next to make the adjustments.
With that in mind, and the importance of having a definite date,
my motion indicates that we would have the sponsorship
provisions in the bill take effect as of October of the following year.
This would be a welcome measure for those who are looking for as
much time as possible to make the adjustments.
As I have said before, I do not think it in any way detracts from
the health principles of the bill. It does not in any way dilute the
principles of the measures in the bill.
(1625)
In closing, let us remind ourselves that this is first and foremost
a health bill. Anything it does ought to have as its mandate the
improvement of the health of Canadians. The bill goes a long way
in that direction.
I hope my amendment is not seen as a diversion but rather as a
practical way of accommodating what is a problem created by the
bill but not intended. The people who sponsor these events are not
the culprits. If we as legislators can avoid making them victims, we
ought to do so. The spirit behind the amendment is to give them
that little extra time.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to take
part for the second time in the debate and more specifically to
speak about sponsorship.
About ten days ago, during my last speech on Bill C-71, I
concluded by saying that we were having a false debate. The
arguments put forth by the Liberal members, particularly the
Minister of Health, prove more clearly every day that we are
having a false debate.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's, who is the chairman of the committee on health, and his
statements prove once again that I am right. He told the House that
he himself moved an amendment allowing the Minister of Health
and the Liberal members to rise in this House and declare one after
the other that they had not abolished sponsorship of sports and
cultural events by tobacco companies.
How can they say that? By deferring the decision by one year. In
the original bill, sponsorship of major sports and cultural events by
tobacco companies would have been prohibited as of December
1997. The very generous-I would even say
munificent-amendment moved by the hon. member for
Burin-St. George's defers the decision by one year.
The Liberals are so keen on stifling the economy of Quebec,
particularly that of Montreal and of other cities such as
Trois-Rivières and Quebec City that have great sporting and
cultural events, they so like to hamper what is working well, to
stifle the promotion of important events, that they decided to have
more fun.
Six months was not enough. They would have had six months to
enjoy watching important events simply disappear because of a
lack of funds, but six months was not enough for them. Therefore,
they decided to have one more year of fun. They gave themselves
until December 1998 to have their fun so they could say to the
people of Quebec: ``You see what a good government we are. We
want to stifle your economy, and we will take all the time needed to
do so''. That is the result of the process, and that is why I am saying
that this is a false debate.
Moreover, the health minister, in response to questions in and
outside the House yesterday, repeated that his bill had only one
objective: to improve the health of Canadians and Quebecers alike,
particularly that of young people. It was its sole objective. He said
that his bill had nothing to do with sport or culture, and that is why
he could afford to ban tobacco advertising at these events.
8606
(1630)
Along the same lines, the Minister of Health says that he
understands that there may be problems for the organizers of
cultural or sports events, but all they will need to do is to approach
the banks instead. Sure, all the organizers of cultural or sports
events will need to do is to approach the banks, but they will not be
the only ones; dozens of restaurant and hotel owners will also have
to approach the banks, but to file bankruptcy. They will be out of
business, just as in the example given by my colleague from
Trois-Rivières.
I am sure he will quote this example again this afternoon. In the
Trois-Rivières area, during the Grand Prix, all motels and hotels
display no-vacancy signs as all available rooms within about 50
kilometres are booked. As a result of the decision being made by
the Liberal government concerning sponsorships, this will no
longer be the case.
The Bloc Quebecois will object within the limits allowed by
parliamentary procedure to prevent this bill from coming into
effect. And if, unfortunately, it did come into effect, we will see to
it that people, especially in Quebec-since we will be the hardest
hit by this decision-know what is going on, who is responsible for
this disastrous Bill C-71. We are going to blow the whistle and we
will keep on blowing it.
I am convinced that, when an election is called in a few weeks,
or a few months, at most, Quebecers who, in 1993, gave their
support to the Bloc Quebecois in an overwhelming majority will
think of its general record when they are faced with the decision.
They will wonder if it has been worth it to have voted for the Bloc
in 1993.
When they realize the role the Bloc Quebecois assumed in this
House, and now with Bill C-71, Quebecers will think: ``Thanks to
the Bloc, some men and women stood up for the interests of
Quebec''. In fact, not one member opposite, among the Liberals,
discussed that matter, on the contrary. The Secretary of State for
the Federal Office of Regional Development referred to it a few
times, but he was told very quickly that if he wanted to keep his
job, he had better to keep his mouth shut.
Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois was there to fight for Quebec's
interests. Otherwise, we would never have known this bill's
disastrous consequences for the economy of Montreal,
Trois-Rivières, Quebec City and other towns in Quebec.
I will conclude by saying that we are indeed in a false debate. If
the Minister of Health cares so much about the health of
Quebecers, about the health of Canadians, he should speak up in
Cabinet, plead with the Minister of Finance who has repeatedly cut
unemployment insurance.
I contend that poverty does a lot more damage than tobacco, not
only among children, but also among the general population.
Everybody agrees that smoking is bad for your health, but this
debate should be at the provincial level, especially in Quebec. We
will have this debate. We will decide on the scope of the legislation
we pass to protect our children, our women and our men. We do not
need the federal government to tell us what to do in this regard.
What we want to avoid most of all is a decision which threatens
thousands of jobs in Quebec, and that is something that Quebec
men and women will remember during the next election.
(1635 )
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 3.
The previous speaker just spent some time talking about the
impact of tobacco advertising on Quebec and that it is a good thing
that the Bloc is here. Canadians know it is not a good thing that the
Bloc is here and I think Quebecers know it as well.
In the last reported period the cost of smoking in Quebec totalled
$4.1 billion. That puts in context what the alternative is. Members
of the Bloc are now saying that this is going to cost jobs at events
such as car races, and cultural events are going to disappear and all
the economic benefit will be lost.
What does that say about the value of the lives of Canadians to
members of the Bloc Quebecois? I am not going to dwell on that. I
think members of the Bloc have made their position clear. They
hold the value of commerce much higher than the value of the
citizens of our country.
I want to speak very briefly about the issue of sponsorship.
Earlier in the debate I raised the fact that the representatives of
tobacco companies did not choose to appear before the Standing
Committee on Health to represent their interests. In fact, they sent
cultural and sporting groups and organizations whose events they
sponsor.
Although the representatives of tobacco companies did not
appear before the committee, they were quite active before the
hearings of the Standing Committee on Health took place. They
made representations by sending letters to citizens, members of
Parliament. They had advertisements in newspapers and made
television appearances. They did not come before the House of
Commons committee, face to face, to be questioned and to provide
facts. They were telling it their way, on their terms, and in a way
which did not provide all the facts.
I want to refer to one of the ads from a newspaper. They claim
that the restrictions under Bill C-71 make the sponsorship of any
event commercially untenable.
8607
The tobacco companies continue to use the words ``ban
advertising and promotion''. The fact is that tobacco companies
will not be banned from advertising and promoting events. Some
would argue that advertising should be banned, as I am told it will
be in the United States, a total ban. In Canada there will be
restrictions, not a ban. It means that the tobacco companies will
still be able to advertise fully in magazines, direct mail solicitation
for support and sponsorship of their events. They will still be able
to occupy 10 per cent of a poster size even where they can be seen
by children.
However, there will be some restrictions. No longer will an
entire venue be totally coloured and plastered with the name of a
cigarette brand. The exclusive sponsor of an event will still be able
to be identified. They will continue to have that right.
I makes me wonder exactly where these events are going to go.
The tobacco companies want to advertise. Obviously they are
advertising because they feel there is some benefit to it. In letters
we have received, some have said they do not know anyone who
has gone to a tennis match, came out and said: ``I want to start
smoking because I was at that tennis match''.
It is not that easy. The promotion of any product involves a
multiplicity of approaches. It involves colours, sounds and
different venues, different medias.
We have some examples. In 1992 the French government banned
tobacco sponsorship and promotion. Throughout the debate, just as
we are having here, the opposition to the government said that
events, such as the Grand Prix, would be gone as a result of the ban.
The Grand Prix circuit would withdraw. In fact, the organizers went
so far as to announce that the French Grand Prix would be pulled
from the 1993 circuit if the legislation went through.
(1640 )
What are the facts? The legislation did go through, the 1993
French Grand Prix did go ahead as scheduled as did the 1994, 1995
and 1996 Grand Prix. That is just one example. There are many
other examples of where threats, directly or indirectly, by the
tobacco companies are simply a bunch of smoke. They have
absolutely no relevance to what really will happen. In fact, some
have characterized it as a cliché of Chicken Little, ``the sky is
falling''. Everything is going to fall apart.
Most members of Parliament have received letters from the
Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom. It represents itself as an
alliance of concerned organizations and sponsors of arts, sports,
fashion and entertainment events in Canada. Let us look at these
poor organizations who, on behalf of the tobacco companies, are
saying: ``The sky is falling and our events are going to be cancelled
if you do this''.
Here is just an indication of what are the real facts with respect
to how much somebody gets through tobacco sponsorship. People
are talking about Just for Laughs, which is a Quebec based cultural
event, and about how terrible it is going to be for Canadians
because Just for Laughs will be gone. The fact is that Just for
Laughs only receives 10 per cent of its budget from tobacco money.
Are the Bloc Quebecois going to convince Canadians that Just for
Laughs is going to disappear because it loses 10 per cent of its
sponsorship funding? Nonsense.
Members of the Neptune Theatre in Halifax also speak on behalf
of this alliance. How much does the Neptune Theatre receive? This
is for the people who said it was awful about tobacco sponsorship
being restricted. The Neptune Theatre only receives one-half of 1
per cent of its revenue from tobacco money. Is the Neptune Theatre
going to go out of business because it loses one-half of 1 per cent of
its revenue? Nonsense.
Representations of Players Grand Prix de Canada also speak on
behalf of the the Alliance for Sponsorship Freedom. The Grand
Prix de Canada receives only one-fifth of its revenues from tobacco
money. Again I must ask the question: Is the Grand Prix de Canada
going to disappear simply because of the loss of one-fifth of its
revenues from tobacco money?
Finally, a 1995 Canadian Conference of the Arts study of 78 arts
groups across Canada found that 60 per cent of the surveyed groups
received less than 1 per cent of their revenues from tobacco money.
In fact, 86 per cent received less than 5 per cent of the revenues
from tobacco.
It is very clear from the examples I have given that the tobacco
companies have come across a brilliant, superior strategy to deal
with a fatal situation in their business. They are going out of
business and we know that. We cannot find a place to smoke legally
any more in municipal and public buildings in Canada. The
Canadian people are making it very clear that the importance is not
the commercial benefit of businesses like the tobacco companies. It
is the health and welfare of Canadians. It is what the government
has brought forward in Bill C-71. It is what the Minister of Health,
day after day, has been fighting for in this place. Notwithstanding
the Bloc Quebecois and others saying how terrible it is, it is the
right thing to do.
As legislators, we are elected to do the right thing and the health
of Canadians must come before the profits of the tobacco
companies.
I just want to repeat the impact of tobacco on Canada: some $3.5
billion in direct health care costs and about $15 billion in
comprehensive costs, whether it be social program costs,
productivity costs, et cetera, and 40,000 lives lost every year.
We know from research statistics that if a person does not start
smoking by the age of 19, it is very likely that person will not
become a smoker. It is also clear to the tobacco companies that that
is the case. It is clear from their strategies that their target audience
is young people. This Minister of Health has been defending Bill
C-71 on behalf of the youth of Canada. I am proud to support it and
8608
I know this House will support the excellent legislation and the
health of Canadians as represented in Bill C-71.
(1645)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak in this
debate, and I will be making use of several documents which I feel
to be of great importance.
I have here a letter signed by the Prime Minister himself, Jean
Chrétien, dating from 1995, which says the following:
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to extend a welcome to all of you
attending this concert presented by Du Maurier Arts.
This event, part of a prestigious six-concert series in six Canadian cities, is
evidence of a long and faithful tradition of promoting and encouraging our Canadian
artists. Since its inception, Du Maurier Arts Ltd. has been a major supporter of the
arts, and has provided many outstanding talents with the opportunity to develop their
careers and to bring honour to our country.
I congratulate this organization for its outstanding contribution to the expansion
of the arts, and I hope that each and every one of you will have a most entertaining
evening.
So there you have six cultural events in six major cities that will
no longer be able to take place, thanks to Bill C-71.
This morning we also received a letter from the Montreal
Symphony Orchestra, telling us that they had been involved in the
Du Maurier matinees for 25 years, and now these matinee
performances are in danger of going up in smoke-no pun
intended-because the government has decided to pass a bill, some
of the clauses of which are anything but sensible.
For the benefit of those of our hon. colleagues who are with us
today, I would repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports at least 85
or 90 per cent of this bill, but that we have been given responses
this afternoon which have come very close to verging on the
opposite of truthfulness.
Clause 31 states, and I quote:
31.(1) No person shall, on behalf of another person, with or without
consideration, publish, broadcast or otherwise disseminate any promotion that is
prohibited by this Part.
[-]
(3) No person in Canada shall, by means of a publication that is published outside
Canada or a broadcast that originates outside Canada or any communication other
than a publication or broadcast that originates outside Canada,-
This is clear as mud, and the Supreme Court is going to have fun
trying to interpret all this.
-promote any product the promotion of which is regulated under this Part, or
disseminate promotional material that contains a tobacco product-related brand
element in a way that is contrary to this Part.
At noon, they explained to us on television what all this meant. It
means that the Australian Grand Prix on Sunday might not be
televised, although the hon. member opposite insisted that anything
goes and that nothing is prohibited in this bill; although the
minister said during question period this afternoon that he had
nothing against promotions and sponsorship and that it was still
allowed; and although they told us the present situation might
continue until October 1998.
They would have us believe that it will go on until 1998, just
enough time to have an election in between. People are not easily
fooled. They realize that the Bloc Quebecois, while it disagrees
with this bill, supports a healthy life style. No one would be against
that. We are all for health, but we do not think this is the way to
keep people healthy.
When you do not give people the jobs they need, when you cut
their unemployment insurance and when all they have left is
welfare, you should at least have the decency to let them have a
smoke with their feet up on the wood stove. Taking away their right
to smoke would be the last straw.
(1650)
The government is about to regulate people's private lives,
telling them what they can do, who they can talk to and what they
can watch. This is absurd.
There is also the Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac
which issues press releases that are entirely misleading and refers
to us as a party that caves in to pressure groups. As if they were not
a pressure group! What is this coalition? A pressure group, pure
and simple. It is just applying pressure in the opposite direction.
That is the only difference.
We represent the interests of Quebec. We promised Quebecers
that we would go the limit to defend the interests of Quebec and
that is what we are doing now. We want to tell this government,
which is insensitive and is even deaf to the demands of its own
supporters, we say to this government that it makes no sense at all
to paint yourself into a corner the way it has done. How they can
back out? By saying that they will add an extra year or a fourth or a
fifth? That does not change anything. It just postpones dealing with
the problem.
We want this government to deal with the problem right away
and to make the right decisions. I spent 35 years of my life teaching
young children, and I can tell you that preventing young people
from watching the Grand Prix and their idol Jacques Villeneuve is
not going to deal with the problem of smoking in Quebec.
8609
Just let them try to make us believe that one. Earlier, I was
listening to a young driver, who was totally shattered this
afternoon to hear the minister lay the guilt on him for the death
of 40,000 people, because he races cars, and tobacco companies
sponsor car races.
He was totally shattered at the attempt to link these two things.
Are we now going to be prevented from smoking in our own cars,
because it could be dangerous and could cause accidents? Smoking
has already been prohibited in aircraft, because the people in front
were sending their smoke to the back or the other way around,
according to how the air circulated.
We are on the point of being regulated everywhere, and that does
not make a lot of sense. What does the coalition have to say?
The Bloc is acting as if the question of tobacco sponsorship concerned only
economic interests and had nothing to do with tobacco and its effects on health, that
is, the 12,000 deaths annually in Quebec. Do we have to again repeat what we have
said so many times? This bill is first and foremost a matter of public health.
In 80 per cent of the cases, we agree that it pertains to public
health.
I met Dr. Vanasse in my riding, who is in charge of public health
in the region. Even though he came to my riding office to lobby for
my support of the bill, he said that it avoided the heart of the issue
by not controlling the product. So, the government is not dealing
with the essential, but with the secondary and is preventing people
from having access to cultural and sporting events.
Do you know what is important for a people? It is to develop
culturally, and sports are an integral part of the cultural life of a
people. I would like to thank the Liberal Party officially. I would
like it to be noted in Hansard that I am thanking the Liberal Party,
because what happened in Montreal at noon is totally amazing.
The city shut down between 11.30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m., taxi
drivers and everything. Because of a bill that has a number of
stupid clauses, you enabled us to make a few political points. The
next time we will win even more ridings in Quebec, and it will be
one more reason to leave this country, which wants to prevent us
from fulfilling ourselves.
(1655)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): It is with great
pleasure that I rise again to speak to Bill C-71, which deals with
tobacco in general, as well as its consumption, promotion,
labelling, sale, and manufacture.
To start with, I would like to salute two of my colleagues who
have done a tremendous amount of work on this issue, namely my
colleague from Drummond and my colleague from Lévis, who
often had to face difficult circumstances due to the underhanded
way the government has dealt with this issue of utmost importance
for thousands and thousands of Quebecers and Canadians. It tried
to work behind closed doors, at the end of a session and at night,
issuing position papers and press releases. It made sure the official
opposition had to work under the most difficult conditions. It
refused to work in committee, only to yield to pressure from the
opposition. Therefore, I want to pay tribute to both my colleagues
because without them, this debate would probably not have taken
place.
I would also like to pay tribute to people who today rose to the
occasion in Montreal of course, but also in Trois-Rivières, in my
riding, in my home town. Restaurant owners, shopkeepers, taxi
drivers, hotel managers and employees marched in the streets to
show their unmitigated displeasure and disagreement with this
particular provision of the bill and not with the spirit of the bill
itself. These are significant nuances that the government in its
carelessness seems unable to grasp.
As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and leader of the opposition
said during question period, we agree with 80 per cent of this bill.
We, however, totally disagree with one of its major aspects, which
is the focus of the present debate, and that is the advertising, the
sponsorships. That is why I rose today. We can see how the
government is acting in bad faith. The more the government speaks
on this issue, the more we can see its bad faith; it wants to convince
the public and this House that eliminating sponsorships, billboards
and tobacco company logos will have a positive impact on people's
health. This would require a great leap of logic that is outrageous.
The government is refusing to budge, even though it is a matter
of economic development as thousands of jobs, including some 100
in Trois-Rivières, 3,000 in Montreal and 5,000 in Canada, are at
stake. There are also some international repercussions. People in
141 countries can watch the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix on
television. I discovered that this morning. This is no small feat!
The Grand Prix is not a spontaneous event. If it can be held at all
this year, it will be for the 28th year, thanks to the work and energy
of the many volunteers involved.
My colleague, the member for Lévis, mentioned earlier that the
Montreal Grand Prix was the third sporting event in importance
after the Olympics and the World Cup in soccer. We are talking
about huge events here. These are significant events which create
an interest, they put Montreal on the map, they attract tourists and
they make them want to come back.
The government is not being transparent, it is acting with
shortsightedness and incompetence and in bad faith; it is trying to
ram this bill through the House by muzzling the opposition as
much as possible. We know that, at first reading, only one
representative of the Bloc Quebecois, my colleague from Lévis,
was able to speak. At second reading, the government also acted
very quickly. It announced that closure would be imposed today
8610
and that third reading would take place Thursday, so as to restrict
debate as much as possible.
(1700)
I would like to draw your attention to this government's attitude,
which may be interpreted in various ways. Earlier the chairman of
the health committee moved Motion No. 34 with great pride,
saying-as the Prime Minister repeated later-that the bill would
not come into effect until October 1, 1998. They were very proud of
that announcement.
But, if this product is lethal, as I heard on the radio at home this
morning, how can they brag about delaying the implementation of
this bill as much as possible? Either this is an extremely harmful
product or we are able to deal with it. However, if it is extremely
harmful, as the bill is suggesting, let us try to act as soon as
possible, and certainly not brag about it. Let us not amend this bill
only to implement it on October 1.
Therefore, we see that the government is inconsistent and does
not care about the public interest, about the best interests of the
people. Either it is urgent or it is not. If it is urgent, let us act. If the
bill is not so urgent, if it is not so serious, it should never be
enforced. The government's current position is remarkably
inconsistent, and this is something I wanted to underline.
In this respect, we must also point to the very deplorable
behaviour of someone from La Mauricie who, given his influence,
his power, his origins, is quite aware of what is going on and of the
terrible, catastrophic impact this bill will have on the Quebec
economy. You will have recognized the Prime Minister and
member for Saint-Maurice, whose behaviour and carelessness I
condemn. He does not listen and springs to the defence of this bill.
Reference was made earlier to the great public rallies in
Montreal and Trois-Rivières, where people have taken to the streets
today. Opposition to the bill is mounting. I would be very pleased
to read a release I just received at 3.23 p.m., stating the position of
the Montreal Exchange on this issue, not that of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Very briefly, it reads: ``The Montreal Exchange supports the
various Montreal communities that are protesting the adoption of
Bill C-71. According to its President and Chief Executive Officer,
Gérald A. Lacoste, the loss of international events, due to the
passing of the law as presented, would be disastrous for Montreal.
The Montreal Exchange has frequently used these large-scale
events, such as the Canadian Grand Prix and the Du Maurier Open,
to promote the dynamism of Montreal and its marketplace among
the international financial community''.
This is a fine illustration of the consensus developing in a wide
segment of the population, which is a stakeholder for one part and
an observer for the other, and which realizes that this government
simply lost its bearings and, in this case, can appropriately and
colloquially be said to have lost it.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-71
respecting the tobacco act.
If enacted one of the amendments would oblige the Minister of
Health to lay before the House of Commons any proposed
regulations under sections 7, 14, 17, 33 or 42 of the act. At that
time an appropriate committee would be struck to conduct
inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation
and report its findings to the House.
At the end of the 30 sitting days following the day on which the
proposed regulation was laid before the House, the governor in
council could make a regulation under any of the aforementioned
sections only if the House of Commons has not concurred in any
report from a committee respecting the proposed regulation, in
which case the regulation may be made in the form laid, or the
House of Commons has concurred in a report from a committee
approving the proposed regulation or an amended version of it, in
which case the governor in council may only make the regulation in
the form concurred in.
(1705)
As members will know, regulations are subordinate laws made
pursuant to the authority of statutory provisions called enabling
powers. The authority to make regulations is usually delegated to
the governor in council, cabinet, but it may also be delegated to one
or more individuals or to an independent agency. Ideally these
powers are used to make the detailed rules that support the
statutory provisions.
While there are a few particular cases in which parliamentary
review of regulations before they are made is provided for, this
process is a relatively rare exception to the general rule. In general
the normal legislative process gives Parliament the role of setting
out the principles of law in detailed provisions appropriate for
inclusion in the statute and determining the scope and nature of the
enabling power which authorizes an elaboration of these provisions
by even more detailed supporting rules.
The making of this subordinate law is then left to government
ideally in consultation with the primary stakeholders and with
some input from the general public. What then are the exceptions
to the general regulation making process?
The best example is section 116(2) of the Criminal Code which
has required since 1992 that all regulations made pursuant to
enabling power under part III of the code, the gun control laws, be
8611
laid before Parliament for a review by committee prior to their
enactment. A requirement that all regulations made pursuant to
this enabling power undergo such a review is a precondition to
exercise of the power to make the subordinate laws. Thus we see in
section 118 of the Firearms Act a procedure for parliamentary
review of proposed regulations before they are made.
Opportunity should be given to the House of Commons to
scrutinize and amend, if deemed necessary, any regulations
proposed by the minister under the said section.
While I acknowledge the general necessity and appropriateness
of executive regulation making in the great majority of cases, I
would argue that there are very good reasons regulation making
powers in Bill C-71 must be subject to full democratic
accountability which is only possible through Parliament.
We must first examine the context in which Bill C-71 was
drafted. Essentially the bill represents a response by the Minister of
Health to the last year's decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
in RJR-MacDonald versus the Attorney General of Canada.
Members will recall that in the September 21, 1995 decision a
majority of the court ruled the government had failed to
demonstrate that the restraints in the Tobacco Products Control Act
regarding advertising, promotion and labelling were reasonable,
justified restrictions on the freedom of expression and
consequently struck down most of the provisions of the act.
In its ruling the Supreme Court has also been helpful through its
suggestions of a number of options which the federal government
might use in future legislation. In particular, the court mentioned
such options as a partial ban on advertising which would allow
information and brand preference advertising, a ban on lifestyle
advertising, measures to prohibit advertising aimed at children and
adolescence, and health labelling requirements with the source of
the labelling.
All these options have been incorporated in Bill C-71. Bill C-71
represents a conscientious attempt to respond to the guidance
offered by the Supreme Court of Canada. At the same time we must
remember that tobacco continues to be a legal product. The
producers and retailers of this legal product continue to enjoy the
rights and freedoms afforded to them by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Should we not then take advantage of every opportunity
available to us as parliamentarians to ensure that any regulations
proposed under the bill are scrutinized in detail and in public by a
committee which would presumably invite all stakeholders to state
their case pro or con on any proposed regulations? I certainly think
so.
A public process would go a long way toward legitimizing any
proposed regulations precisely because it would allow stakeholders
the opportunity to propose in public improvements to the
regulations. This public scrutiny of proposed regulations could
very well lessen the possibility of court challenges against
legislation.
Let us not forget the Tobacco Products Control Act was
challenged in court almost as soon as it was proclaimed into law in
1988, taking another seven years before the case finally ended up in
the Supreme Court of Canada. Do we really want a repeat of this
process, especially when we consider that a number of tobacco
companies have already been making threatening noises about
further court action against the proposed legislation?
It seems to me we have a golden opportunity to correct flaws
which existed not only in the substance of the previous
legislation-and here I am referring to both the Tobacco Products
Control Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act-but in
the process as well.
(1710 )
No member of the House would welcome more court challenges
to Canada's tobacco legislation. We want it to work. By inviting all
stakeholders to participate in the regulation making process, I am
convinced we will have created a forum whereby regulations will
be made through negotiation rather than intimidation.
I will now say a few words about the actual scope of the enabling
power of Bill C-71. In so doing I will argue that taken together they
expand regulation making powers far beyond what may be believed
as their legitimate scope and must therefore be subject to full
democratic accountability, which is possible in Parliament.
The five sections I have mentioned provide for the enabling
power to make regulations in the first five parts of the bill which
deal with tobacco product standards: access to tobacco products,
labelling, promotion and enforcement. Each section begins with
the phrase ``the governor in council may make regulations'',
followed by a number of relatively detailed subsections that
enumerate the specific areas in which regulations can be made. So
far so good.
Each of these subsections is detailed enough to satisfy the
principle that regulations should only be made in areas that have
been sufficiently defined. However-and here is where alarm bells
go off in the minds of all members of the House-each of these
sections concludes with the subsection ``the governor in council
may make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes of
this part''.
8612
In and of itself this catch-all phrase represents sufficient reason
to demand that all regulations proposed under the bill be brought
under the scrutiny of the parliamentary committee. When we
consider that the purpose of the first five parts of Bill C-71 is to
introduce a number of restrictions in areas of product content,
access, labelling, promotion and enforcement, surely all types of
regulations to be made in these invasive periods should be spelled
out clearly in enabling power. Unfortunately they are not and the
reason is simply that each of these sections contains a subsection
which gives the governor in council a virtual carte blanche to
propose any regulation at all.
How does one define the phrase ``generally for carrying out the
purpose of this part''? No one can because the options are
practically endless. If few people today seriously dispute the
legitimacy of executive law making, concerns linger over the
extent of these law making powers in the manner of their exercise.
The perception is that the regulation making process is not fully
compatible with the values of democratic and open government.
Whereas statutes are enacted by elected representatives in a public
forum, regulations will be characterized as the handiwork of
appointed officials who remain unaccountable to Parliament or to
the public.
I point out this final observation to my colleagues. Since
regulations have the force of law, the process by which they are
made must be one that maximizes opportunities for the citizens to
participate in their making. Since the legislation which preceded
Bill C-71 has been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as
a transgression against the freedom of expression, the least we can
do as legislators is to ensure that reasonable constraints be put in
place to check any potential abuse within the regulation making
process of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank you
for giving me the floor, even though I will not have enough time to
finish my 10-minute speech. Still, I want to mention certain
principles and parameters on which I will elaborate on Thursday,
when we resume this debate.
I remind this House and all our viewers that the Bloc Quebecois
is not opposed to health and is not trying to fight a bill which, on
the surface, seeks to protect people's health. As we said, we all
want to do the right thing. We voted in favour of this bill at first and
second reading, but we can no longer support it at report stage,
because the government is trying to force solutions on us that do
not address the real problems.
What is the problem? The problem is that some people smoke
too much and become susceptible to problems such as heart
attacks, lung cancer, asthma, etc. This is the problem. The
government wants to reduce tobacco use and, to that end, it has
decided to eliminate sponsorships. This is like telling someone
who eats too much that we will cut his fingers off. Instead of
teaching the person not to consume the product that is harmful to
his health, we cut that person's fingers off. We are opposed to the
solution that the government wants to apply. We have to look at the
link between the remedy being proposed and the objective pursued.
I feel the government is trying to administer medication whose
side effects have once again not been properly evaluated. It is a
good thing to look for measures to restrict and reduce tobacco use,
but there are various ways of achieving this. The best one is
education.
Unfortunately, I must stop now. I will have good examples to
provide on Thursday. I believe I will have at least nine minutes left.
Thank you for allowing me to begin my speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.15
p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary
to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (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.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion agreed to on division.
(Motion No. 6 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (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 that five members having risen:
8613
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred. The results of the recorded
division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 12 and 13.
The next question is on Motion No. 25. 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 that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. 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.
I declare the motion lost.
(Motion No. 33 negatived.)
(1720)
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 34. 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on Motion No. 34 stands deferred.
[Translation]
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 4
Since Mr. Robinson is not in the House, we cannot deal with
Motions Nos. 10 and 11.
We will go to Motion No. 20.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 20.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (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): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
Since Mr. Robinson is not present, we cannot deal with Motions
Nos. 22 and 23.
We will now go to Motions Nos. 23 and 24.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-71, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line
31 on page 10 with the following:
``ry, or used with a service, if the non-tobacco''
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-71, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 11 with the
following:
``(c) furnish an accessory that bears a tobacco product-related brand element
without monetary''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8614
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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
(1725)
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 17 the following new
Clause:
``42.1 (1) The Governor in Council may not make a regulation under section 7,
14, 17, 33 or 42 unless the Minister has first laid the proposed regulation before the
House of Commons.
(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before the House of Commons is deemed to
be automatically referred to the appropriate committee of the House, as determined
by the rules of the House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public
hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to the House.
(3) The Governor in Council may make a regulation under section 7, 14, 17, 33 or
42 only if
(a) the House of Commons has not concurred in any report from a committee
respecting the proposed regulation within the thirty sitting days following the day on
which the proposed regulation was laid before the House, in which case the
regulation may only be made in the form laid; or
(b) the House of Commons has concurred in a report from a committee approving
the proposed regulation or an amended version of it, in which case the Governor
in Council may only make the regulation in the form concurred in.
(4) For the purpose of this section, ``sitting day'' means a day on which the House
of Commons sits.''
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 17 the following:
``42.1 (1) The Minister shall table in the House of Commons every regulation
made under this Act within three sitting days after the day on which it is made.
(2) The regulation comes into force on the 10th sitting day after the day on which
it is tabled, or on any later day specified in the regulation, unless a motion to repeal
it, signed by not fewer than thirty members of the House of Commons, is filed with
the Speaker of the House of Commons before the 10th sitting day.
(3) If a motion to repeal the regulation is filed with the Speaker of the House of
Commons in accordance with subsection (2), it shall be taken up and considered by
the House of Commons within five sitting days after the day on which it is filed.
(4) The motion shall be taken up after the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, for
a period of not more than four hours, and at the end of the debate the Speaker of the
House of Commons shall, without delay or further debate or amendment, put every
question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(5) If the motion is adopted, the regulation is repealed, and if the motion is
defeated, the regulation comes into force on the day after the day on which the
motion is defeated or on any later day specified in the regulation.
(6) The regulation is repealed if Parliament is prorogued or dissolved before the
motion is disposed of or, if no motion has been filed, before the end of the period
mentioned in subsection (2).
(7) For the purpose of this section, ``sitting day'' means a day on which the House
of Commons is sitting.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The vote is on
Motion No. 27. 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 yeas have it.
I therefore declare the motion carried.
8615
(Motion No. 27 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Motion No. 27
having been agreed to, there will be no vote on Motion No. 28.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-71 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 21, the following:
``59.1 Notwithstanding anything in section 7, 14, 17, 33 or 42, no regulation may
be made under any of those sections except with the approval of every province.''
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 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): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
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 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:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill
C-71 now before the House. The first question is on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(1750)
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 232)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
8616
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-201
NAYS
Members
-0
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
(1800)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could the
member for Beauce indicate how he is voting? The clerk was
unable to take it down.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): For the fourth time, the member for the
Republic of Beauce will be voting with the government.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 232.]
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 1 agreed to.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like to
have my vote recorded.
An hon. member: Madam Speaker, they missed him the first
time he stood up.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find consent
to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage Motions
Nos. 8, 23 and 24.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed to
apply the results?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I think the way we are voting is
fine. The member for Burin-St. George's has left the Chamber so
we cannot apply his vote to the Liberal count.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Agreed and
taken into consideration.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was agreed to on the
following division):
(Division No. 234)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
8617
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-201
NAYS
Members
-0
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 234.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 234.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motions carried. Therefore, Motions No. 26 and 29 are carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, just to reassure the House, the vote
was on Motions Nos. 8, 23 and 24 at report stage.
(1805)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): To clarify the
situation, Motions Nos. 26 and 29 are consequential to MotionNo. 8.
Mr. Kilger: May I ask the Chair for clarification? Were the
motions you mentioned moved by the New Democratic Party or
not?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): MotionsNos. 26 and 29 are in the name of the hon. Minister of Health and,
in accordance with the Speaker's ruling, the result of the vote on
Motion No. 8 applies to them. Consequently, when Motion No. 8
was agreed to, we agreed to Motions Nos. 26 and 29. Those are the
three motions moved by the Minister of Health.
[English]
We now move to Motion No. 3.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that
you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will vote nay, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party
caucus members present this evening will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, to be consistent, I will
vote yea.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 233)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
8618
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-159
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-42
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 3 carried.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find consent
to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 4 and 17.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the
House agree on the application of the vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 233.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Therefore,
Motions Nos. 4 and 17 are carried.
The next vote will deal with Motion No. 7. The vote on Motion
No. 7 will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 12 and 13. If Motion No. 7
is agreed to, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 15. If
Motion No. 7 is negatived, we will then have to vote on MotionNo. 15.
(1810)
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 235)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
8619
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hart
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-44
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-158
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 7 lost. I would therefore declare Motions Nos. 9, 12
and 13 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 236)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-43
8620
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-159
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
(1825)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 15 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.
(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 237)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hart
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-44
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
8621
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-157
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
(1835 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 25 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionsNos. 20 and 32.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the previous vote can apply unless
members of our caucus would like to stand to indicate otherwise.
Mr. Hart: Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion.
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, I would like to go on record as
opposing Motions Nos. 20 and 32.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party
members in the House vote no on these motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I will vote the same
way as the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer.
[English]
(The House divided on the Motion No. 20, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 239)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-42
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
8622
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-159
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 20. I therefore declare Motion No. 32 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 34.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find that there is
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members having voted yes.
(1840)
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, NDP members present in the
House today vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yes, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I must point out to the
Chair that the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe was called away
for this vote.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was agreed to on
division:)
(Division No. 238)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
8623
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-159
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-41
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 34 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find that there is
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members having voted no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes. The hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe is back; he will vote with his party.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, could you clarify precisely what
motion this is, please?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is Motion
No. 31.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, New Democrat members in the
House vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, as my allegiance is to
Beauce, I vote with the government.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 240)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
8624
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-73
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-128
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 31 negatived.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Health) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea with the
exception of the member for Hillsborough who is absent for this
vote and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk who will be voting
in the negative.
(1845)
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, could you
please inform the House on which motion we are voting. You did
not finish your sentence and I did not get the number from the whip
because he never said the number. I would appreciate it if you
would tell us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are voting
on report stage concurrence.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote nay.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Hart: Madam Speaker, I vote against the bill.
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, my constituents have advised
me to vote against this bill.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote yes.
8625
Mr. Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Madam Speaker, I will vote like
the member for Outremont.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 241)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-156
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Speller
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-44
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall
this bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from March 3, 1997, consideration of Bill
C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report
stage of Bill C-66.
8626
The question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent to say that members who voted on the previous motion,
with the addition of the hon. member for Hillsborough, be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: There are problems mustering the
troops, Madam Speaker. The Bloc Quebecois votes yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no. It should be noted that the member for Calgary Centre
is no longer here.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party
members in the House this evening vote yes on this motion.
(1850)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I would like to point
out that the hon. members for Roberval and
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, as well as the hon. member
for Beauce, will be absent for the votes to follow.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 242)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-150
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
8627
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 2 negatived.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
you will consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following. Before I list them, I would ask you to withdraw the
following members from the government side: Mr. Dingwall, Mr.
Bélair and Mr. Volpe.
We would apply the previous vote with those exceptions to
report stage Motions Nos. 3, 9, 50, 13, 36, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 34,
27, 38, 40, 46, 48 and 52.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the
House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bélair: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Nature
called. I am back. I would like to be registered for this vote.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 243)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
8628
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 3 negatived. By unanimous consent, I also declare
Motions Nos. 9, 50, 13, 36, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 34, 27, 38, 40, 46, 48
and 52 negatived.
Consequently, Motions Nos. 16, 17, 23, 39, 44 and 53 are also
negatived.
(1855 )
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, the
hon. member for Cochrane-Superior being added to the list and
the hon. members for St. Boniface and
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke being removed from the list.
Liberal members will vote no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform members present will vote
yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, New Democrat members
present vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 244)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-70
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-123
8629
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party caucus will vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
division:)
(Division No. 245)
YEAS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-30
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-163
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
8630
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 6 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 45, 49, 11,
24, 28, 29, 26, 31, 42, 47 and 37.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We agree.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, did the government whip say
Motion No. 47 or 37?
(1905 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Both motions.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is the fault of the
government whip but a mistake was made. The application of the
vote to Motion No. 37 is correct. The application to Motion No. 47
is not correct for the Reform Party. All the others are right.
Mr. Kilger: I agree, Madam Speaker. The vote applies to
Motion No. 37 but not to Motion No. 47.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 245.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): MotionsNos. 45, 49, 11, 24, 28, 29, 26, 31, 42 and 37 are lost. Consequently
Motions Nos. 41, 51, 25 and 43 are also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would
find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion, except for the hon. members for Hamilton West and
London East, be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official
opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, New Democratic Party
members present will vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 246)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-40
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
8631
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-151
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 7 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No. 47.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 246.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 47 lost.
(1910 )
The next question is on Motion No. 54.
Mr. Kilger; Madam Speaker, I propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with
Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members
of the official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes except for the member for Skeena who has left the
Chamber.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, New Democrat members
present will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was agreed to on
the following division: )
(Division No. 247)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guay
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
8632
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-190
NAYS
Members
-0
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 54 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 33.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No. 33.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 247.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I therefore
declare Motion No. 33 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote yea, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, NDP members present will vote
no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was agreed to on
the following division: )
(Division No. 248)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mitchell
8633
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-154
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 12 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would
find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote yea, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, New Democrats present this
evening will vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Madam Speaker, I will be voting with the
government on this motion.
(1915 )
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 249)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-76
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
8634
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-115
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 14 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 19.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that
you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion, and please add the member for
Eglinton-Lawrence, be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote nay, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, NDP members present vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 250)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
8635
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-152
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-40
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 19 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 35.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would
find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote nay, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, NDP members present will vote
no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 35, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 251)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
8636
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 35 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 32.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that
you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote yes, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party will vote yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 252)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
8637
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-163
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -29
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
(1920)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 32 carried.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that
you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded has having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote no, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party present will vote yes on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 253)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed-123
NAYS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
8638
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-69
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bonin
Clancy
Daviault
Deshaies
Hickey
Lalonde
Langlois
Lefebvre
Phinney
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, the motion we will be considering
during private members' hour stands in the name of the member for
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. All parties have been consulted
and have agreed that we will proceed with private members' hour,
although we are passed the hour of seven o'clock.
The agreement encompasses the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup who would be given the courtesy,
and that was agreed to by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, that he speak first during private
members' hour. That is the agreement we came to. I hope it will
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent for that agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 7.25
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
8638
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should renew its commitment
to British pensioners living in Canada and vigorously pursue an agreement with the
government of the United Kingdom to provide them with pensions fully indexed to
the cost of living.
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the hon. member's
motion concerning the government's commitment to British
pensioners living in Canada.
I agree there is something entirely unacceptable in the present
situation. As a result, pensioners are receiving and will receive in
the future, if the situation does not change, the same amount they
have received since the very beginning. Of course there was no
indexation at the time, and now we have a situation that has
become absurd, where pensioners who earned the right to a pension
are in fact deprived of that right since the amount is not really
significant. It is too bad the motion is not votable, but perhaps it
could be examined in committee and we will see what can be
achieved by going this route.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a similar
situation that existed with respect to American pensions. Last year,
a very unfortunate decision was made by the Government of
Canada and the Government of the United States when the tax
treaty between these two countries was renewed. Formerly, people
receiving American pensions received the full amount and declared
half of the amount on their income tax return. In other words,
someone who received $10,000 in pension payments in one year
would declare $5,000, and as result of various tax deductions, low
income people were not too severely penalized.
However, under the new tax treaty signed by the Government of
Canada, and the Minister of Finance himself admitted it was unfair,
pensioners are now taxed at source by the American government
and have no way of recovering the amounts they are due. This is
totally unacceptable. It leads to situations that make no sense at all.
For instance, someone in my riding is now faced with the
following problem: formerly she received $400 per month, which
by the end of the year added up to only $4,800. This person is 62
and it is the only income that person has. As result of the deduction
at source, this person gets $290 per month instead of $400. It
means $110 deducted per month. When your income only amounts
to a few thousand dollars, this $110 per month is often needed to
pay for rent and food. This is totally unacceptable. The minister
8639
admitted it was unfair, but unfortunately, there has been no
concrete action by the government in recent months to deal with
the situation.
(1930)
As you know, negotiations are under way with the U.S.
government aimed at modifying the tax agreement. I have made
representations to the minister and the senior officials responsible
for trying to move this matter along, and according to their best
case scenario, the tax agreement will perhaps be changed in 1998,
if everything goes well, and if there is rapid progress.
During that time, those who are being penalized will continue to
be penalized, and the government has proposed no stop-gap
measures whatsoever to remedy the situation, none whatsoever.
The latest budget contained not a single one. Yet the Minister of
Finance's budget would have offered a fine opportunity to make
some corrections, to improve these pensioners' situation. But
nothing doing.
I find this absolutely deplorable, since there are 70,000 people
across Canada who are affected by this situation. Of these, 10,000
are in Quebec, 1,643 in the lower St. Lawrence region alone. These
are all people who went to the U.S. to earn their living, often in
New England just across the border in Maine, but also all along the
border. Now they are coming back to Canada and finding
themselves in an absolutely horrible situation.
To repeat the example I gave just a while ago: when a person is
entitled to about $10,000 from that pension, the Americans hold
back $2,500, which means he or she is left with $7,500. Then when
the person files income tax, he has to declare the whole $10,000 as
income, even though the $2,500 has been lost sight of forever, with
no way of ever getting it back.
Here is what is being suggested as an interim measure: in
calculations for the guaranteed income supplement, for example,
the actual amount received by the person could be used, and this
would give him a better chance of being eligible for a sizeable
portion of the income supplement.
It is hard to understand why the minister has not heeded these
requests and why there have been no proposals made. It is not
because no one has spoken of them to him, for there have already
been important meetings in various parts of Canada, and it is
known that 70,000 people are affected by this.
In my riding alone, at least 200 people have written to the
minister in recent months. Hundreds of people have signed
petitions to get this matter corrected, and we are still unable to
rouse the sympathies of the minister to get him to correct the
situation for low income earners.
There are some strange situations. For example, in the case of
someone with a substantial pension of say $40,000 a year, $10,000
would go to the American government. In the past, this person was
taxed on 50 per cent of the amount he or she received, that is
$20,000.
Under the new convention, people earning a lot pay less income
tax, and people earning little now receive less. This situation must
be corrected. It is not a partisan situation, it is a situation that calls
for concrete action by the government. In the same way as the
member called for fair treatment of British retirees in Canada, I
think our own people, Canadian citizens, who worked hard in the
United States for a period of time, must enjoy the same treatment.
A number of people in my riding have often worked for logging
companies as lumberjacks, cooks and in other capacities, where
they have worked very hard. Today they choose to retire in their
corner of the land of their birth, and the current situation is
untenable.
I think we have reached the stage where more vigorous public
action has to be taken to get the government to decide on this
matter. At the end of March, I intend to hold a meeting of
pensioners from Témiscouata and the whole Lower St. Lawrence
region. I also invite all those who could be affected by this situation
so that it is made clear that what they are going through is
unacceptable for people whose income is only a few thousand
dollars annually.
For example, there are women between the ages of 55 and 65
who are still not entitled to a pension and who wait a few years
until their income is a little bit more respectable. Their American
pension is all they get. They were used to receiving a cheque and
making it last, but since January 1996 it has been a nightmare.
They are forced to borrow money, to turn to their families, to find
other ways of making ends meet. We are not talking about high
income earners. These are people for whom this is truly the
minimum amount they can manage on.
(1935)
These are amounts that they have earned and that they have no
possibility of recovering from the American government. It is
completely impossible right now for a Canadian citizen to apply to
the American government for this $2,000 or $3,000 to which he
was entitled in the past.
Because the tax rules are different in the two countries, when a
person declared his income in Canada, because of the salary
protection measures we introduced that are not available in the
American system, he was not as heavily penalized. He could cash
the cheque. While he was receiving it, he could spend it as required
and only paid taxes the following year. This is very different from
the present situation where the amount is deducted at source and
can never be recovered.
8640
So if we have compassion for British pensioners living in
Canada, I think we should show the same compassion for
Canadian citizens living in Canada who earned a pension in the
United States. I hope the government will take action in the short
term because, if not, there will definitely be a lot of questions
asked during the next election campaign, because people who are
being deprived of the income necessary to their survival will
certainly not be content with promises of future action.
A public servant told me they were doing everything possible to
negotiate a change to the tax convention and that it will take place
in 1998. He can say that to me, but for the person living with this
every day, it is unacceptable, and it is vital that a temporary
measure be worked out as soon as possible. I hope that the
government will work something out in the coming months, so that
equity for citizens of Quebec and of Canada in receipt of American
pensions can be restored.
For these reasons, I am well aware of the importance of the
member's motion concerning British pensioners and I hope that we
can study it, that the member can take it to committee so that a
concrete solution can be found, and that similarly, with respect to
American pensions, a temporary, concrete solution can be found in
the short term to correct the inequity that has been acknowledged
by the minister.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, today I am very proud to sponsor and debate
private members' motion M-53 which supports the cause of British
pensioners living in Canada. As I will outline in my remarks today,
these people have been unfairly treated and deserve our support in
every way we can provide it.
This is certainly not a new issue. It has been around for a long
time and I am pleased to say that, informally, the Government of
Canada has been supportive of British pensioners living in Canada.
It is time that the government became a little more formal in its
requests of the British government and that is the reason for my
motion today.
When I say that we have been supportive informally, let me
quote from a recent letter that I received signed by Canada's former
Minister of Human Resources Development, the present Minister
of National Defence.
The minister said: ``The Government of Canada has been very
active for many years in trying to persuade the United Kingdom to
conclude a social security agreement that would provide for the
indexing of British pensions.
``Prime Minister Chrétien has raised the issue of frozen British
pensions on several occasions with Prime Minister John Major.
``These included his visits to London in June, 1994, for the
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-Day and his visit
marking the 50th anniversary of V-E Day.
``These occasions were especially appropriate, given that so
many of the British pensioners in Canada are either themselves
veterans of the second world war, or the widows of veterans.
``Canada's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom has also
been very active on the issue of frozen British pensions.
``The high commissioner and his staff have had numerous
meetings with United Kingdom cabinet ministers and with both
government and opposition members of Parliament.
``It is clear from these meetings that the U.K. is not about to
consider unfreezing its pensions in Canada. However, I can assure
you that the Government of Canada will continue to do everything
we can to try to persuade the British government to change its
position''.
That was a letter that I recently received from the former
Minister of Human Resources Development. Obviously, the
government is committed to the substance contained in the motion
in front of us today.
(1940 )
I have also been told that the current minister, the hon. member
for Papineau-Saint-Michel, was in London in mid-January, just a
short five weeks ago. At that time he raised the frozen pension
issue again with his counterpart.
The government is on side with this motion. I hope it will say so
again today in this debate. Support in the House of Commons, in
public debate, is worth so much more than comments made in
private meetings. The word of the minister is one thing, but the
voice of Parliament is another. By supporting the motion today,
members of the House can help to add the voice of Parliament to
the voice of the minister in support of these very deserving people.
For the members of the House who do not yet know why this is
important, let me take a minute to outline the issue.
Pensions for elderly British expatriates resident in Canada are
frozen at the level paid on the first date of payment or at the date
when the individual took up residence in Canada. The same
situation exists for almost 425,000 elderly expatriate residents in
137 other countries throughout the world. Yet, at the same time,
some 325,000 British expatriate pensioners residing in some 37
other countries enjoy the same annual upgrading enjoyed by the
equivalent pensioner beneficiaries living in the United Kingdom.
All of these pensioners, regardless of where they live, accrued
their credits toward a state pension on the same basis. During their
working life in the United Kingdom, they all paid into the fund in
8641
the same way and reasonably assumed that they would all benefit
on an equal basis when it came time to draw their pensions.
Successive British governments have failed to correct this
completely unfair and discriminatory situation. The British old age
security pension is indexed, in part, to the British retail price index
and is subject to being upgraded in April of each year. Since 1965
the value of the pension for pensioners residing in Britain and the
37 other non-frozen countries has increased over 15 times its 1965
value.
The Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners gives this example
of how unfair the pension plan is. A 65-year-old man living in
Britain who became eligible for a full British pension in 1974 is
now receiving a pension of £61.15 per week. If that same
individual, on retirement, had elected to move to Canada to be
close to his children or other members of his family or for any other
reason, he would still be eligible for a pension, but only for the
same level of pension paid to him when he left the country,
possibly around £10 per week. The amount of the pension would
never have changed over the period from 1974 to today. That is
clearly discriminatory.
The matter has hit the floor of the House of Commons in Britain
and numerous MPs there want to see changes brought about. In
July 1994, for example, Winston S. Churchill, MP, said with regard
to a particular case being debated:
That lady and others like her are being cheated-there is no other word for it-by
the government of £53.60 per week of the pension to which she contributed.
If we were talking about a private personal pension or a life insurance policy, and
the directors of the company tried to restrict the territorial area of payment, I am sure
that my hon. friend, the minister, would have a shrewd idea of where those directors
would be languishing now.
They would be in jail, and rightly so.
In my constituency there is a Dr. Derek and his wife Kathy
Brown who now live near Big River, Saskatchewan. On their
retirement they came to Canada to get away from the crowds of
Britain and were told when they left that their pension would be
payable worldwide. Derek Brown was a doctor in Britain for most
of his working life and his pension was a full one when he claimed
it 10 years ago. Now, because he lives in Canada and because his
pension is not indexed, his £42.50 per week is nearly £20 a week
less than he would get if he were to move back to Britain.
(1945 )
Dr. Brown says:
The thing that annoys us is that they say they cannot afford to do it for us.
But they index the pensions paid in the United States, but not for us in Canada.
It is this discrimination that we are so fed up with.
Dr. Brown has also written to me to say that he thinks the motion
before us today should be somewhat amended to replaced the word
indexed with the word prorated since the pensions in Britain are not
exactly indexed to the cost of living. This would be quite
acceptable and I would propose this change be made should the
motion be sent to committee.
During the past few weeks since the motion was drawn for
debate I have received many letters from British pensioners in
support of the motion. I will quote one letter in particular written
by Miss Elaine Dawn of Vancouver, British Columbia. She writes:
I am writing to request that you please support the current plight of British
pensioners who live in Canada who, due to no fault of their own have, had their
pensions frozen at the rate at which they first entered this country.
I am sure you will agree that this is very unfair considering just south of the
border in the United States, British pensioners can enjoy the same indexing of
pensions as if they had continued to live in England.
It certainly seems very unfair to me that certain countries support British
pensioners while others, like Australia and Canada, have frozen the pensions of
British subjects at the same level at which they entered their country.
I am sure you will agree that this has meant a great deal of hardship to many
people.
Miss Dawn's letter says what many others said to me in similar
letters received during the past four or five weeks.
While I was preparing for this debate today, Mr. Doug Ross,
president of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, wrote to
me to let me know that in Britain the House of Commons select
committee for social security had tabled its report on pension
benefits for expatriates living in countries like Canada.
He told me that hearings had been held in London during
December 1996, following which the committee issued a report
that admitted the design of the current policies of pensions to
expatriates was a mess. It also acknowledged that Britain was alone
among OECD countries in failing to pay up ratings, as they call
them, equally to all the beneficiaries of state contributory pension
plans regardless of where they live.
However the committee disappointed many. It fell short of
accepting the requests of the pensioner groups which asked them to
recommend to the government that it should end the discriminatory
practice of using country of residence as a factor in the
determination of pension benefits. Instead the committee simply
turned the problem over to the government by taking the unusual
stand for a committee in Britain of recommending a free vote in the
British Parliament to allow members of the British House to
express their opinions.
Britain is about due for an election. There is no opportunity or
time for this vote to be called. If an election is held and a new
house is created with new members of Parliament, the report of the
committee will no longer be valid. The next government will not be
8642
required, as the motion puts it, to present any motion to the house
for members to vote on. Therefore this pass on of responsibility is a
great disappointment to those who appeared before the committee.
Mr. Ross and the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners in
particular have informed me of how disappointed they are the issue
is not yet resolved. They have told me they appreciate the efforts of
the Canadian government in support of their campaign to end
pension discrimination, but at the same time they feel strongly
Canada and other Commonwealth countries must take a much more
aggressive stance in their bilateral dealings to step up the pressure
on Westminster to end the disgraceful practice of freezing the
pensions of some expatriates.
Mr. Ross writes that there are 718,000 British expatriates
resident in Canada. Some 137,000 of them have some level of
current frozen U.K. state pensions earned during the period they
lived, worked and served in the United Kingdom. An end to
pension freezing by Britain would ease the plight of thousands of
cash strapped pensioners living in Canada and would directly inject
$150 million in the first year into the Canadian economy.
(1950)
It is time our Parliament supported the cause of the British
expatriate pensioners. This motion which costs the government
nothing serves to enhance the position already taken by the
government in bilateral international discussions. It adds the voice
of Parliament to the voice of the government to the voice of the
minister speaking in Britain.
I expect to receive unanimous support of the members speaking
in this debate. Therefore I serve notice that it is my intention to rise
at the end of the debate to request unanimous consent to move the
appropriate motion which would allow us to send the matter to
committee for further action. I look forward to the support and
comments of other members of the Chamber.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his
motion.
The British pensions paid to some 130,000 persons in Canada are
frozen. In other words, they are not increased from year to year to
compensate for rises in the cost of living. The same situation exists
in many other countries around the world including Australia, New
Zealand and South Africa.
This is not the case everywhere in the world. Under the European
Union's regulations on social security, for example, the United
Kingdom indexes annually the pensions it pays to persons who
have retired in the Costa del Sol, the French Riviera or elsewhere in
the EU.
Under social security agreements the United Kingdom has
concluded with many other countries around the world British
pensions are also indexed in these countries. They include, to name
a few, Bosnia, Croatia, Cyprus, Israel, Turkey and the United
States.
For 20 years the Government of Canada has been trying to
persuade the United Kingdom to conclude a social security
agreement that would lead to the annual indexing of the British
pensions paid in Canada. The United Kingdom has repeatedly
refused because of the costs it would incur.
The issue of frozen British pensions has been raised at every
level. The Prime Minister has personally discussed it twice with
Prime Minister John Major. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
discussed the unfreezing issue at his first bilateral meeting with the
British Foreign Secretary.
Most recently, in January of this year, the Minister of Human
Resources Development went to London and personally discussed
the issue with his British counterpart, the Secretary of State for
Social Security. I regret to say the British reply is always the same:
the United Kingdom cannot afford to index its pensions in Canada.
The Government of Canada believes the fundamental issue at the
heart of the unfreezing issue is fairness. The persons who are
receiving frozen pensions contributed to the British national
insurance scheme during their working years in the United
Kingdom. They made these contributions in the expectation they
would eventually receive a pension in retirement irrespective of
where they might choose to live.
Now, however, depending on which country they decide to spend
their retirement years in their British pension may or may not be
frozen. The unfairness is compounded by the fact that most of
today's British pensioners in Canada served the United Kingdom
during World War II or are the widows of British veterans. This
point was emphatically made by the Prime Minister when he met
with Prime Minister Major on the occasion of the commemoration
of the 50th anniversaries of D-Day and V-E Day.
There is also a humanitarian consideration. Many of the British
pensioners in Canada came to our country so that they could spend
their retirement years with their children and grandchildren who
immigrated here. Their frozen British pensions make them more
financially dependent on their families. For many this can mean a
loss of dignity.
There are undoubtedly also some pensioners in Britain who
would like to join their families in Canada but have not done so
because their British pensions will be frozen.
8643
On February 5 the social security committee of the British
House of Commons released a report on the issue of frozen British
pensions. The report unfortunately did not call directly on the U.K.
government to change its position on unfreezing. However it
pointed out the illogic of the current British policy of indexing
its pensions in some countries and not in others. In the words of
the report:
Surely no one would have deliberately designed a policy of paying pensions to
people living abroad intending to end up in the position we are in today-It is
impossible to discern any pattern behind the selection of countries with whom
bilateral agreements have been made providing for unfreezing.
(1955)
The committee's report goes on to recommend a free vote in the
British House of Commons:
-to allow members to express their opinion on the principle of whether the
government should pay upgradings to some or all of those pensioners living in
countries where upgradings are not paid at present.
The Government of Canada views this as a positive suggestion.
We hope it will be adopted by the United Kingdom.
I urge all members of the House to support the motion put
forward by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
The government is already strongly committed to vigorously
pursuing an agreement with the United Kingdom that provides for
the indexing of British pensions.
Unanimous adoption of the motion will clearly demonstrate the
commitment of all parties in the House and of all Canadians to the
resolution of this long outstanding problem.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I wonder if you seek unanimous consent of the
House to delete Motion No. 259 in the name of the member for
Calgary Southwest from the Order Paper and replace the name of
the hon. member for Calgary West with the name of the member
for Calgary Southwest as the sponsor of Private Members' Bill
C-341 on the Order Paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, since other members are interested in speaking to the
motion I will keep my comments brief.
When I was asked to speak to the motion my first reaction was
what business was it of ours. This is a pension problem for some
Canadian citizens but it is the responsibility of the British
government to be make these payments. If the shoe were on the
other foot, how would I feel if the government in Westminster were
making decisions or passing resolutions that had to do with how
Canada treated its expatriate citizens as far as pensions were
concerned?
When I looked into it I wondered why on earth a pensioner who
lives in Canada would be treated any different from the way the
same person living in the United States would be treated. It just did
not make any sense to me.
I quite cheerfully take up the cudgel on behalf expatriated
Britons living in Canada who are scattered fairly evenly across the
country. There are perhaps proportionately a few more living in the
maritimes than in the rest of the country.
For the interest of members of Parliament present and those at
home fixed to the television watching this debate, it is of particular
interest that Britain does not index the pensions paid to expatriated
Britons living in Commonwealth or former Commonwealth
countries. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and
Zimbabwe are the countries where Britain does not index pensions.
Yet it does in Germany, France and other countries in the Economic
Union.
In 1996 the stated British government reason for the
discrimination was that the other countries had entered into
agreements with the British government. Alternatively indexation
is a requirement of the European Economic Community. Britain
has entered into an agreement to index the pensions in the
European Economic Community but not with Canadians.
(2000)
It is interesting to note that if a pensioner lived in, as one
example, Bosnia, they would be collecting a fully indexed pension.
However, because they live in a former Commonwealth country or
Canada they do not.
On behalf of the Reform Party and on behalf of those British
ex-patriot citizens resident in Canada and who have come to us and
other members of Parliament to ask that we take up their case, I am
happy to do so.
I know the member opposite, who will soon be on her feet, will
be taking up the cudgel on behalf of the British ex-patriots living in
Canada as well.
There are 208,000 British pensioners living in Canada right now.
Fifty-two thousand live in British Columbia. If the pensions to
ex-patriot British pensioners living in Canada were fully indexed
and were paid it would mean an additional $200 million annually to
the budget at Westminster. There are many ex-patriot Canadians
resident in Britain. Those ex-patriot Canadians resident in Britain
benefit from the fact that we pay their indexed pensions. Does it not
seem reasonable that Britain should also index the pensions to
ex-patriots from Britain living in Canada? It seems to me that it
would make good sense to do that.
I will terminate my comments on this subject by once again
reiterating the fact that on behalf of the Reform Party we support
8644
this motion. I understand that the member for
Battlefords-Meadowlake has served notice that he will be asking
for this motion to be made votable. We would certainly support
that.
Seeing the member opposite ready to rise to her feet, I will
terminate my comments.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague who is a
gentleman always.
It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this motion
which calls upon the Government of Canada to seek an agreement
with the British government that would require the British
government to begin paying costs of living increases to British
pensioners living in Canada.
I thank the hon. member for the Battlefords-Meadowlake for
raising this issue. I am also grateful to my constituents who have
written to me to raise my awareness to their concerns.
The United Kingdom is the country of origin of the largest
number of immigrants to Canada since the second world war. Many
have made significant contributions to the prosperity of Canada. As
members know, Guelph is called the royal city. We are proud of our
heritage which is tied to Great Britain.
It is therefore troubling that in spite of the efforts of the
Government of Canada over the last 20 years there is still no social
security agreement in place between our two countries to protect
the pension rights of British pensioners in Canada. We are
discussing pension rights of a significant number of people,
estimated at around 130,000. These people are being hurt because
the British government refuses to provide them with the same
protection against inflation that is enjoyed by British pensioners
living in the United Kingdom, the European Union and a number of
other countries with which the United Kingdom has social security
agreements.
I believe that the policy of the current British government is
illogical. All the people we are talking about have contributed to
the British pension plan and believed when they did that they
would be paid a pension to which they were entitled and that
everyone would be treated fairly and in the same way. This is not
the case.
(2005)
The current policy of the British government therefore treats
some of its citizens more equally than others. The situation exists
where many British pensioners living in Canada, including those
living in Guelph-Wellington, who wrote to me only recently
received considerably less than those in Great Britain who made
exactly the same contributions but who reside in the United
Kingdom or in countries with which the United Kingdom has social
security agreements.
Is this unfair? Of course it is. This has resulted in a significant
loss of income for some pensioners living in Canada. Many of
these people moved to this country to be closer to their children and
their grandchildren and the reduction in their pension income has
been very difficult.
I am told that in some cases these pensioners who worked all of
their lives and contributed to the British pension plan are now
dependent on their families. This has resulted in a loss of dignity.
For people who spent their lives hoping and contributing for a
decent pension plan, this must be quite a blow. Interestingly, the
inconsistency of this policy has been recognized by members of
Parliament in Britain.
A recent British parliamentary committee studying this issue
noted that there seems to be no pattern to this system, which
provides indexing for some but not for others.
In addition, the report went on to observe that no one would have
deliberately set out to design such a system. However, this is the
situation faced by thousands of people living in Canada. Something
obviously has to be done if this double standard is to be eliminated.
It is time for the British government to act.
I was saddened to learn that the current British government
seemed no more willing to correct this situation now than it has
been for the past 20 years. The reason appears to be that the cost of
fixing this injustice is estimated to be about $16.8 million in the
first year and this figure is growing over time to about $150 million
per year.
As a supporter of fiscal restraint and deficit reduction, I
appreciate the difficulties that this means for the British
government. However, we must insist that the British treat its
pensioners living in Canada in exactly the same way as those living
in the United Kingdom and other country by providing them with
the same indexation of benefits enjoyed by pensioners living
elsewhere.
The Canadian government has tried to make its position clear.
For instance, the Prime Minister spoke to British Prime Minister
Major about this when they met during the 50th anniversary of
D-Day and the 50th anniversary of V-E Day.
As well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue with his
British counterpart at their first bilateral meeting. More recently,
the Minister of Human Resources Development discussed this with
the British secretary of state and with various spokespersons of the
opposition during his visit to London in January.
He emphasized then how strongly the Government of Canada
feels about this issue. These are concrete examples that show the
determination of this government to see this matter through to a
8645
successful conclusion. I remain hopeful that the British
government will change its attitude on this issue.
Last October, I shared with this House my motion calling for a
seniors bill of rights. At that time I spoke about the people in my
community who deserve our respect and support. They are, of
course, seniors who gave so much and ask for so little.
I spoke then, as I do now, about their one main request, to be
treated with the dignity they deserve. I spoke about the many
organizations, associations and senior complexes, like the Elliott
under the leadership of David Hicks, who support our seniors.
The injustice that is experienced by the thousands of British
pensioners living in Canada is another example that we must
always be vigilant and watchful to protect those most vulnerable
and to help those who help them.
This motion has my support and I urge all members to support it
as well. By supporting this motion, members of Parliament will
demonstrate the resolve of all Canadians to see this matter to a
successful conclusion, thus ensuring that justice is done for these
130,000 people living in Canada.
The royal city says yes to this motion and so do I.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it does appear
that all members wishing to speak on this motion tonight have risen
and spoken. As the mover of the motion, I want to thank them very
much for the dedication and concern they showed for British
pensioners during their remarks tonight. I thank them very much
for that.
I noticed that all members who spoke today from all the parties
represented in the House were supportive of the motion, including
the two government members.
Therefore I think it would be appropriate to ask if there was
unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable motion and
send it to committee so that there could be full House support for
the government's position.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
member have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not
unanimous consent.
There being no further members rising for debate and the motion
not being designated a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 8.11 p.m, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.11 p.m.)