CONTENTS
Monday, November 25, 1996
Bill C-300. Motion for second reading 6637
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6642
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 103; Nays, 52 6647
Division on Motion No. 5 deferred 6652
Division on Motion No. 20 deferred 6652
Division on Motion No. 22 deferred 6652
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 6652
Division on Motion No. 25 deferred 6652
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6652
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 6657
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6658
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 6658
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6659
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6659
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6661
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6662
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6662
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6663
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6663
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6664
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 6665
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6668
Bill C-353. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6669
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6669
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6670
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 6670
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6671
Bill C-63. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotion No. 6 6671
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6673
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 6678
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6678
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 6678
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6678
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6680
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6686
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 6689
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 6689
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 6689
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 6690
Motions Nos. 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36 6690
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6692
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 6696
Division on Motion No. 29 deferred 6696
Division on Motion No. 30 deferred 6696
Division on Motion No. 31 deferred 6696
Division on Motion No. 35 deferred 6696
Division on Motion No. 36 deferred 6697
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6697
Division on Motion No. 37 deferred 6697
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 55; Nays, 112 6697
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 30; Nays, 137 6698
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 137; Nays, 30 6699
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 112; Nays, 55 6700
Motion No. 22 negatived on division: Yeas, 29;Nays, 138 6701
Motion No. 23 negatived on division: Yeas, 34;Nays, 133 6702
Motion No. 25 negatived 6703
Motion No. 6 negatived on division: Yeas, 59;Nays, 108 6703
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 25; Nays, 142 6704
Motion No. 8 negatived: Yeas, 55; Nays, 112 6705
Motion No. 11 negatived on division: Yeas, 25;Nays, 142 6706
Motion No. 13 negatived: Yeas, 30; Nays, 137 6706
Motion No. 24 negatived on division: Yeas, 25;Nays, 142 6706
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 55; Nays, 112 6706
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 6706
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 25; Nays, 142 6706
Motions Nos. 31, 35 and 36 negatived on division:Yeas, 25; Nays, 142 6706
Motion No. 37 negatived: Yeas, 59; Nays, 108 6707
Motions for concurrence and second reading 6707
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 112; Nays, 55 6707
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.) 6707
6637
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 25, 1996
The House met at 11.00 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-300, an act respecting the establishment and award of a
Canadian volunteer service medal and clasp for United Nations
peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United Nations
peacekeeping force, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know you are always well prepared and
orderly, but I would just like to point out that one month from today
will be Christmas, in case you had forgotten, sir.
I speak to this bill with a fair amount of trepidation because I
know the track record of private members' bills in the House of
Commons. All members become very enthusiastic and tied up with
their bills but I feel very strongly that this bill is well worthy of
consideration and hopefully of passing this House and the other
place.
Bill C-300 is an act respecting the establishment and award of a
Canadian volunteer service medal and clasp for UN peacekeeping
to Canadians having served with a United Nations peacekeeping
force. The Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping will
be awarded to any Canadian, whether they be military, Royal
Canadian Mounted Police or civilian, who qualifies as a result of
United Nations peacekeeping activity. A clasp, to be worn on the
medal ribbon, awarded to those who served prior to September
1988, will represent the honour they brought to Canada as
recipients of the Nobel peace prize awarded to Canadian
peacekeepers at that time.
Most of us think of peacekeeping in respect of Canadians
starting with the Suez United Nations emergency force mission in
1956. However, Canadian peacekeeping actually started in 1949
with UNMOGIP, the United Nations military observer group in
India and Pakistan which operated until 1979. In fact our first
peacekeeping casualty was Brigadier H.H. Angle, DSO ED, of
UNMOGIP who was killed on July 17, 1950.
The next Canadian peacekeeping commitment was UNCMAC,
the United Nations command military armistice commission for
Korea, which commenced in 1953 and is still in being today.
Between 1953 and 1956, 43 Canadians lost their lives with
UNCMAC.
In 1954 Canadian peacekeepers were committed to UNTSO, the
United Nations truce supervision organization for Egypt, Israel,
Jordan, Lebanon and Syria which is still operating today. This
mission has suffered two killed, the first in 1958 and the second in
1985.
Also in 1954 Canadians became involved in the ICSC, the
international commission for supervision and control in
Indo-China until 1974. This mission cost five Canadian lives
between 1954 and 1965. Three of those lives lost were foreign
service officers from the Department of External Affairs. The
remaining two were Canadian forces servicemen.
Then in 1956 came the Suez crisis and UNEF, the United Nations
emergency force which operated from 1956 until 1967 and cost 31
Canadian lives.
I do not intend to take members through each of the
peacekeeping missions we have participated in, but from the Congo
to Cyprus, the Middle East, Bosnia, Haiti and now Rwanda-Zaire,
they did and do go on and on.
In all, to date 150 Canadians have died as a result of
peacekeeping missions. If there is discrepancy in this number from
the 102 officially recognized by the Canadian government, my
figure comes from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans
Association which includes those peacekeepers who were
committed with UNCMAC, the United Nations military command
armistice commission for Korea, and those who have committed
suicide while on a mission or following a mission. Thus this figure
represents the people who died either as a result of the mission or
on the mission.
The only specific further example I want to give is that of the
nine Canadians who died when their aircraft was shot down in the
Middle East. On August 9, 1974 Canadian Armed Forces Buffalo
aircraft No. 115461 on a routine flight to Damascus had left Beirut
and climbed eastward over the Lebanese highlands. It was being
6638
tracked by Syrian radar. As it neared the village of Diemas,
someone in the surface to air missile site there decided to terminate
its progress. Several surface to air missiles were launched, at least
one being on target.
The Buffalo, commanded by Captain Gary Foster, was blown out
of the sky. Nine Canadians lost their lives in this bizarre incident.
Although it was investigated by the United Nations, the Canadian
forces and the Syrians, no satisfactory public explanation of the
tragedy was ever released. The Syrians claimed that it had been
accident, that the Buffalo had shown up as an Israeli aircraft on an
attack mission in the area and had been mistakenly identified as an
enemy fighter. The outcome was nine Canadians were killed.
(1110)
Because August 9 was the day on which the largest number of
peacekeepers have been killed, the Canadian Peacekeepers
Veterans Association has designated that day as Canadian
Peacekeeping Veterans Day. This is officially recognized by British
Columbia. In 1995 it was also proclaimed by Manitoba, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Alberta.
Peacekeepers voluntarily place themselves in danger. They
endure uncomfortable conditions and long repeated separations
from family and loved ones. They are exposed to horrors of human
atrocities, degradation, inhumanity and suffering. They accept
tremendous stress and live with the lasting impact these memories
cannot help but impose. In so doing they have brought and continue
to bring great honour to Canada.
And how does Canada recognize them? The United Nations
medals, which are awarded to qualified participants in UN
peacekeeping activities, at some time after they are awarded are
accepted into the Canadian honours system. The second
recognition they have is the dramatic and effective peacekeeping
memorial on Sussex Drive which was unveiled on October 8, 1992.
How do other nations recognize their peacekeepers? Belgium,
The Netherlands, Ireland, Ghana, Poland and the United States not
only accept the UN medals but also award a national medal.
Sweden and Finland are at this time in the process of establishing a
national peacekeeping medal and Australia and New Zealand are
considering likewise.
In 1942 Canadian commander General Guy Simmons wrote to
his commander saying: ``The final criterion of a good or bad award
is the reaction of the troops. If the troops feel it is a good award, it
is a good award. If awards are criticized by the troops, they are bad
awards. Before forwarding any recommendation, at each level the
commander should ask himself the question: Would the frontline
soldier, if he knew the facts, consider this well deserved?''
I did not dream this bill up on my own. It results from a
tremendous amount of input from present and former peacekeepers
as well as other Canadians from across our country. Bill C-300 has
been formally endorsed by the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans
Association, by the Canadian Association of Veterans in UN
Peacekeeping and by the Air Force Association of Canada.
The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association has received
letters of support from: the municipality of Annapolis County,
Nova Scotia; the city of Kingston; British Columbia Premier Glen
Clark; former member of Parliament and Prince Edward Island
Premier Catherine Callbeck; our Speaker; the Deputy Prime
Minister; the chief government whip; the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services; the member for Hamilton West; the
member for Regina-Qu'Appelle; the member for Ottawa Centre;
the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce; the member for Winnipeg
Transcona; the member for Shefford; the member for
Hillsborough; and many more.
In the 34th parliament two members proposed similar bills but
unfortunately they were not lucky in the draw. Therefore those bills
never came to the floor of the House of Commons. In 1993 the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
recommended the award of a Canadian volunteer service medal for
peacekeeping but unfortunately Parliament was dissolved before
that could be acted on and put into place. In addition, I personally
have presented petitions from thousands of people from across
Canada in support of a Canadian volunteer service medal for
peacekeeping.
It is the perception of these people that the present Canadian
recognition of peacekeepers is inadequate. I support that
perception.
Our chancellery and the Canadian honours system accept United
Nations peacekeeping medals as Canadian. They claim that only
one honour can be won for any specific act or service, that new
honours cannot duplicate existing honours.
(1115)
Canadians want to maintain respect for our medals. We do not
want to denigrate them or have medals considered as bobbles that
are issued on a whim. It is vitally important that people recognize
they are awarded only for true merit and good service.
Many of Canada's military traditions originate with the United
Kingdom, and the British are often seen as the military example for
Canada's forces to follow. But the British are far more generous
with their medals and awards than are Canadians. For example, the
Royal Air Force Red Arrows aerobatic team leaders quite regularly
receive an air force cross at the completion of each successful tour
of duty.
On the other hand, only one air force cross has been awarded to a
Canadian since the second world war. This occurred for a young
Sabre pilot on a low level mission when he was in collision with a
hawk. The hawk struck the aircraft at the juncture of the
windscreen and the canopy. It took out the entire left side of the
canopy. As a result, the plexiglas from the canopy hit the pilot in
the face. It blinded him in his left eye and caused severe contusions
which led to a lot of blood. In order to see from his good right eye
he had
6639
to turn his head sideways to the left so the blood would be blown
away from that eye.
Fortunately his number two was able to lead him back to the base
at Baden-Soellingen. His landing was so good that the fire truck
and ambulance drivers who had been sent to receive him thought
there was no problem and they started to withdraw. At the end of
the runway on his rollout he collapsed from loss of blood. The
emergency vehicles were quickly recalled and he was extracted
from the aircraft. No one would argue that flying officer Burrows
deserved the air force cross which he was awarded in this instance.
On the other hand, there is an additional precedent to override
the government concept that was set when the Canadian volunteer
service medal for Korea was initiated by parliamentarians,
approved in June 1991, and granted royal assent on July 10, 1991.
There is yet another precedent for additional Korean honours. A
United Nations medal for peacekeeping had been awarded although
it could not really be considered a peacekeeping mission. It was
called a police action but was in fact a full blown war. Another
Canadian medal, which shared a common ribbon with our
Commonwealth partners of Great Britain, Australia and New
Zealand, was also awarded. There were in total three medals
awarded for the Korean action.
While Government House can no longer claim that only one
honour can be awarded for an action, it has thus far been unwilling
to consider submissions that recommend a Canadian volunteer
service medal for peacekeeping and the clasp which would
recognize the honour brought to Canada with the award of the
Nobel peace prize to our peacekeepers in that year.
Moreover, I contend that in any case this is not a duplicate
honour. A Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping and
the clasp to represent the Nobel peace prize award would represent
the first and only Canadian recognition of the death, danger, horror,
deprivation, extended and repeated separation from family and
loved ones that our peacekeepers endure.
I will compare the service of our peacekeeping forces in the
former Yugoslavia with those of the second world war. As the
House is aware, the D-Day invasion took place on June 6, 1944.
Victory in Europe was declared on May 8, 1945. The invasion of
Sicily was on August 10, 1943 and our troops in Italy continued to
fight throughout the war. Our people served for 11 months during
the European invasions on the mainlands of Germany and France
before victory was declared. For the Italian campaigners it was
about 19 months.
During the service in Yugoslavia some of our peacekeepers did
three or four six-month tours. I understand one soldier did five
tours there. That would mean that they were at least as long in a
combat theatre as those who served during the second world war. It
seems to me this fact should be recognized. Thus I think the
Canadian volunteer service medal for peacekeeping would be the
first and only recognition of the honour and esteem our
peacekeepers have gained for Canada.
(1120)
What we are talking about here are a couple of pieces of metal
and some cloth. It is the significance of these pieces of metal and
that cloth that really matters. What it says to those to whom they
are awarded is that Canada recognizes the honour they have
brought to our country and that Canadians recognize that our
peacekeepers have voluntarily placed themselves in danger and
have accepted uncomfortable and sometimes horrid conditions,
along with repeated, extended separations from their families and
loved ones.
This medal, this ribbon and this clasp will say that what our
peacekeepers are and what they have done is respected and
appreciated by Canada and their fellow citizens. It will say:
``Thank you. We are proud of you and you have every right to be
proud of yourself''.
The peacekeeping memorial on Sussex Drive here in Ottawa is
dramatic, effective and very much appreciated by our
peacekeepers. However, many Canadians, indeed many
peacekeepers, will never visit Ottawa and thus will never see it.
Besides that, the memorial does not provide the individual
recognition to be worn personally by those who won that honour.
I hope that the members of the 35th Parliament will take
advantage of this opportunity to award this long overdue
recognition to our Canadian peacekeepers.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-300,
standing in the name of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands. The bill before us is being presented for the most laudable
of reasons, to recognize the men and women of our country who
have served with distinction in many peacekeeping missions.
I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands
of Canadians who have served wherever their country has sent
them. The medals they have received represent our small attempt to
tell them how much their service has meant to all of us. Without
them we would be much diminished.
It is impossible to determine exactly how many Canadians have
received medals. In the first world war over 427,000 Canadian
military personnel were eligible for one or more medals. During
the second world war some 700,000 were eligible to receive one or
more medals. More than 25,000 Canadians served during the
Korean war. To date, almost 100,000 Canadians have earned UN or
other international medals.
6640
In addition to the military, almost 500 UN medals were earned
by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other
Canadian police assigned to these UN missions. As well, the UN
has authorized and Canada has approved the issue of numerals on
UN medals to note subsequent tours in a mission for which a
medal has already been earned.
At the present time the UN has awarded service medals to
personnel who served with some 30 UN missions. These medals
are accepted for wear by Canada.
It is somewhat unfortunate, and likely only an oversight, that the
bill before us refers only to UN veterans. There have also been five
non-UN missions where Canadian peacekeepers played a
significant role. I am sure the hon. member would not wish to
exclude these worthy Canadians. It is in the interests of improving
the discussion that I raise the issue here.
These five missions, two in Indo-China, one in the Sinai and two
in the former Yugoslavia, each had a specific medal associated with
it. These medals, like those of the UN, were also accepted for wear
by Canada, and over 5,500 of these medals were earned by
Canadians, including 52 members of the then department of
external affairs who participated in the second mission in
Indo-China.
(1125)
A special medal was struck and issued for those Canadian
personnel who took part in the gulf war in 1991. Just under 4,500
were awarded.
For those missions which were not recognized by a specific
medal, the Canadian special service medal with peace-paix bar is
available to anyone who has served on such a mission for 180 days
or more. This medal, authorized in 1984, issued for the first time in
1990, is never issued without a bar.
Almost 65,000 Canadian military personnel, retired and serving,
have been awarded this medal for one or more bars for special
service with NATO, Alert, Pakistan and for humanitarian issues.
The peace-paix bar has been awarded to just over 1,000
personnel where the U.N. has not issued a specific medal for a
mission. I am sure the Chair will recall the debate that took place in
this Chamber some two and a half years ago around the motion of
the member for Winnipeg-Transcona concerning his proposal for
a medal for the veterans of the Dieppe raid.
While the original motion was amended, some interesting
thoughts were developed during the debate and I can recommend it
to my hon. colleagues for their information.
There was much goodwill displayed on the part of many during
the debate and many participants went away, I believe, with a new
determination to seek a solution. One was found, one which I know
was welcomed by the valiant men who were a part of that historic
battle and by their survivors.
On July 14, 1994 the Secretary of State for Veterans announced
on behalf of the Government of Canada the awarding of a
distinctive decoration for Canadians who participated in the August
19, 1942 raid on Dieppe, France. The silver bar to be attached to the
ribbon of the Canadian volunteer service medal was designed
featuring the word Dieppe in raised letters on a pebbled
background. Above this the bar bears an anchor surmounted by an
eagle and a Thompson sub-machine gun.
The design was created in consultation with Dieppe veterans and
the Prisoners of War Association and was produced by the Royal
Canadian Mint. Members will know the decoration was a long
awaited, special recognition for a very special group of veterans
who had waited 50 years for this honour.
I hasten to add that I do not raise the Dieppe decoration as a
reason not to award a special recognition to those who have served
us with distinction in many peacekeeping missions since then. I do
raise it to suggest that there are alternatives to the separate medals
proposed by the member opposite.
As I understand it, approximately 80,000 to 90,000 Canadians
would be eligible for a medal such as that proposed by the private
member's bill. I realize that the number is significantly higher than
that mentioned by my colleague opposite and I can only say that we
need to get our experts together so that we can give a very
definitive answer.
This number is a very important reason to consider such a bill
favourable and equally a very important reason why we have to be
sure that it is right the first time.
I also want to take a moment to comment on the announcement
on November 13 by the Minister of National Defence that the
Government of Canada will seek approval from Her Majesty the
Queen for a medal for service in Somalia.
In December 1992, almost 1,400 Canadian forces drawn from
both the regular and reserve forces were deployed to Somalia under
United Nations resolution 794.
As a chapter 7 mission, it is appropriate that a separate Canadian
medal be awarded. During this mission Canadian forces members
restored order, ensured that convoys of badly needed food and
medical supplies reached people in desperate need and assisted in
rebuilding war ravaged communities in Somalia. Now that the
government has given its approval to proceed with the Somalia
medal, an order in council must be established for this new honour.
Once the order in council is signed, the Queen's approval will be
sought through letters patent.
6641
(1130)
While we can wish that all was speedier and the process faster, it
may take between six to twelve months before Canadian forces'
members actually receive their medal. Much attention has been
paid in recent years to certain tragic events that occurred in that
theatre. The government is saying by proceeding with this medal
that it wants to acknowledge the vast majority of courageous and
self-sacrificing individuals who represented us all with pride and
honour. I believe that Canadians have wanted us to take this action,
to speak for them in recognizing those who served.
May I say in conclusion that I will listen very carefully to the
debate on this bill and for the moment urge all members only to
give it their earnest consideration. Perhaps when next we return to
this debate we will find we have come a long way toward finding a
common understanding of how we can achieve this objective.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill C-300, the initiative of a
Reform Party member, which is an act respecting the establishment
and award of a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and Clasp for
United Nations Peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United
Nations peacekeeping force.
Of course, more and more Canadian soldiers are taking part in
peacekeeping missions, given the number of major regional
conflicts throughout the world, particularly in certain areas. Given
the growing role of the United Nations as well, there are more and
more interventions of a military or humanitarian nature, aimed at
securing a lasting peace in regions emerging from a conflict.
At this time, nearly 2,000 Canadian peacekeepers-the number
depending, of course, on how many are sent on the African great
lakes operation-are located in various parts of the world, or may
be by the end of this year.
This is a substantial figure, representing a substantial
contribution by Canada to various missions. As well, we have to
accept that the armed forces, particularly in a country like Canada,
now play a dual role. In addition to providing civil assistance
within the country, they participate in these peacekeeping missions
carried out by the United Nations, or in others which may, while
under the auspices of the United Nations, be commanded by a
specific country.
I must make it clear immediately that we are in agreement with
the bill proposed by the hon. Reform member. It might, however,
be worthwhile to broaden the first point in clause 4 to indicate that
it is a mission authorized by the United Nations, not necessarily an
operation under the command of the United Nations.
This would cover such cases as the operation in Zaire and
Rwanda, not in its present form, but as it was initially going to be.
So in this case, it is not necessarily a mission initiated by the UN
but rather a mission authorized by the UN under Canadian
command.
So these cases as well should be included if we want to extend
the scope of this bill, whose purpose is to recognize by means of a
distinctive medal the contribution of soldiers from Quebec and
Canada who were involved in this type of mission and, who knows,
may be in the future as well.
There are also people who are not parliamentarians who support
this bill, one example being the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans
Association.
(1135)
In 1993, the creation of a similar medal was suggested in a report
by, I believe, the national defence committee or the foreign affairs
committee. I would like to read part of this report, which was
tabled shortly before the election in 1993. Because of the election,
there was no follow-up.
The report said that the government should establish a medal for
volunteer service in peacekeeping operations, to be awarded to
members of the military and non-military employees-I will get
back to this-who are on UN peacekeeping missions. This was in a
report by the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, dated June 1993.
The bill also recognizes the contribution of those who take part
in these missions without necessarily being members of the
military. In certain cases, these people are sent on peacekeeping
missions. They would also be entitled to the medal. So it would be
more than just recognizing the contribution of the military.
At the present time, there is a UN medal, but none offered by the
Canadian government. Other countries do have their own awards.
The bill makes it possible for the Canadian authorities to give
special recognition to those who volunteer for such service,
whether they are members of the military or other people involved
in these operations who served on peacekeeping missions. There
have been many instances of members of police forces or the
RCMP who were sent on such missions. Some people may be
involved in the delivery of medical assistance and other services.
There are also others who make a significant contribution.
I would also like to mention something our constituents often
ask us, and it is whether this kind of assistance, these operations in
which Canada is involved are not too costly. Considering our
relative wealth, we have a duty to contribute to restoring peace. We
have everything to gain by bringing a more lasting peace to all
parts of the world, a world that is rapidly shrinking as a result of the
6642
extraordinary development of communications. I think working
towards a more lasting peace is everybody's business.
The United Nations can intervene, co-operate and bring a more
lasting peace to an area through the presence of peacekeepers. Such
co-operation is particularly significant when it makes it possible to
introduce democratic government. I am sure those taking part have
powerful memories, some of which are no doubt distressing, others
happy ones.
The people in the armed forces have done extraordinary
humanitarian things. Some operations, particularly in recent years,
have not been huge successes. The Somalia inquiry has revealed an
operation that failed on many counts. That said, there is no need to
exaggerate or generalize the fact that some people may have lacked
judgment in certain operations.
Generally, the behaviour of the vast majority of peacekeepers
brings honour to us all. Our international reputation, which is very
important in some respects, enviable even, in certain instances, is
often thanks to those who represent us abroad. These people are
from families we know, sometimes from our own family. Here in
Parliament, there are people who have served in the armed forces.
All have contributed to a positive image of us as Quebecers and
Canadians.
(1140)
This then is an act intended to honour people who often make
significant personal sacrifices during peacekeeping missions.
Generally these missions last six months. During these six months,
they live far from their families in conditions that are not always
easy.
They must be extremely careful at all times, because they are in
zones that most of the time have been in conflict, and so their work
is extremely delicate. They carry out their mission brilliantly. It is
indeed a very good idea to want to honour them with a special
award, and I see no reason why Parliament would not support such
a bill.
The bill also contains provision for a retroactive award in order
to honour participants in earlier peacekeeping missions. Tracing
these people may be a lengthy process, but it should be done where
possible.
The bill's aim as regards future missions is certainly readily
achievable. I have no doubt that it may be done without costing a
whole lot. It is fair compensation for what these people give and the
contribution they make.
I conclude by saying that initiatives such as this are easy to
support. I would like to congratulate the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, for his initiative. He has my support and
that of my colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure and honour to debate Bill C-300, an act respecting the
establishment and award of the Canadian volunteer service medal
and clasp for United Nations peacekeeping to Canadians serving
with the United Nations peacekeeping force. The award as
envisaged by the promoter of the bill does not restrict itself merely
to those who serve in traditional armed forces capacities but also
would include people involved in peacekeeping areas such as
policing, local administration, the delivery of aid, medical
assistance or even election assistance.
I want to speak to this bill because I strongly support it. The bill
is a well thought out initiative that recognizes the realities of the
future. We know that the world is changing. We know we are
entering a new era. Increasingly we see signs that peacekeeping in
the wider sense, not just the traditional sense, will become a more
and more important function of our armed forces and many other
armed forces in the world.
We have traditionally focused our recognition and awards on
traditional combat roles and traditional war theatres. It is time to
update some of the recognition and awards. Domestically we are
prepared to have medals and recognition that are more appropriate
to the future roles that is seen for our armed forces.
In speaking in favour of this bill I would like to pay tribute to the
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands very briefly. He has brought
this bill forward and is one of my colleagues who is retiring at the
end of this Parliament. I want to pay tribute to him for bringing this
bill forward. He was a distinguished member of the armed forces
who has been a great help to us. It has been a pleasure for all of us
on both sides of the House to have him here. He is closing out his
career by participating in the ultimate phoney war back and forth
across the House of Commons and has been willing to act as our
deputy whip, perhaps also to engage in his last peacekeeping
assignment.
The bill has an interesting history, as other members have
pointed out. For some time voices have been calling for this kind of
award.
(1145 )
In the last Parliament this initiative was supported through the
introduction of two private members' bills. The House of
Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs called for the establishment of a Canadian volunteer service
medal for United Nations peacekeeping. That committee was made
up of the Liberal Party, now the present government, the
Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party.
Those were commitments which those parties made in a unanimous
report. Endorsement for this has come from the Canadian
Peacekeeping Veterans Association and the Canadian Association
of the United Nations Peacekeeping Chapter.
6643
Other countries already have similar awards: Belgium, the
Netherlands, Ireland, Ghana and, of course, the United States.
I could go on to mention the various groups that have pressed for
this award: many members of the government, all parties, past and
present, municipalities and petitioners. I will not dwell too much
on that because I have a limited amount of time and I want to speak
about other issues.
Mr. Speaker, I have a base in my riding which is being gradually
relocated to your city. I am sure that is a coincidence on your part.
However, the base is being relocated. During my time as a member
of Parliament, having the military in my riding has given me a
chance to deal with military personnel on a wide range of issues,
including their experiences with peacekeeping assignments.
In my dealings with the military I have always been impressed
with their commitment to their various engagements, including
their peacekeeping engagements. In that context I want to express
my concern about the previous failure to approve this bill. I hope
that this time the government will approve it.
Bill C-258 was a non-votable bill when it was introduced by the
hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands in the last session. As a
non-votable bill the official representatives of the ministry spoke
against it for what I consider to be the flimsiest of reasons.
Basically the excuse was that Government House has a process for
this and that process should be followed, that there is a decorations
committee which has a process and that the United Nations has a
process and we are partly involved in that process. They were all
excuses based on these processes.
It amazes me how fast the government is to send people into
conflict and how slow it is to recognize their contributions, whether
it is in wartime or in peacekeeping missions. Reading over the
debates from this session and from the last session when we
debated Bill C-258, one is really struck by the glacial speed at
which governments make decisions to recognize the contributions
of our military.
Dieppe, Hong Kong, the merchant marine: we are talking about
coming to terms with the full recognition of some of these
activities a full 45 to 50 years after the events. In the case of
Somalia, we have dragged our heels both in recognizing the
contributions our peacekeepers made and also in finding out
exactly what happened during the unfortunate incidents which
occurred there. Of course, in that process the reputation of
everyone who served has been tainted.
We are tremendously slow in dealing with the real contributions
that military people make, yet not only are we quick to send them,
we are quick to mobilize the resources of the state to make sure that
the contributions of a handful of people are always recognized.
The Prime Minister is recognized when he is at the United Nations
or when he calls the President of the United States. He is getting the
best publicity for his contribution. Our diplomats are being fully
recognized. We have had some outstanding generals who have
played particular roles in these missions. We make sure that they
receive their full recognition and honour here in the House or at
Government House or wherever else. However, we have been
consistently slow in recognizing the real contribution of our
military people. These people go into these situations, often risking
their lives. In many cases they are dangerously under-equipped,
assuming not just the risk of the mission but additional risks
imposed on them by the general mismanagement of our armed
forces over the past 20 years.
(1150)
I have always been impressed by the fact that whenever one of
these missions is called or conceived-somebody's brainchild
somewhere-at how quickly the military people are to get their
bags packed, to come out saying publicly from the general right on
down to the private that they are ready to do, they feel confident
and they are looking forward to the challenge.
Everyone who deals with the military knows that most of the
time these people know that there are no clear rules of engagement.
Half the time there is not a clear objective. Almost all the time they
are grossly under-equipped, grossly undermanned and in great
danger. Privately they will tell you about these concerns and they
are always bothered by the fact that these concerns are not taken
seriously, but they are good soldiers.
Good soldiers do not complain publicly, they just do it and this
should be recognized. It is about time we started to recognize these
things. I must admit I am very tired of this attitude, this tendency to
praise people at certain levels and then to not recognize fully the
people who do the work.
We are coming out of an era finally where it seems to be a noble
thing for Liberal politicians to spend other people's money so they
could get credit for presumably fixing problems. I am glad we are
finally starting to come out of that era and to recognize that money
cannot fix everything and furthermore it is not necessarily the
government's money to start with.
I see this attitude still with us in military operations and military
policy. Somehow it is noble for the Prime Minister or for the
government or for others to be willing to put other people's lives at
risk in order to solve or deal with military and humanitarian
situations around the world. Let us not forget whose lives are at risk
and who are making the contributions. It is the men and women on
the ground and their leaders and commanders. That is on what this
bill is focused.
6644
Let me conclude by saying that rather than hear once again in
this debate all about the processes and all about the impediments
to getting this approved, the protocol and the fact that Government
House should be first, let us just get on with doing on the basis
of recognition what we do not hesitate to do whenever the
telephone rings from New York or from the United Nations. Let
us recognize our peacekeepers.
It about time that the government and the ministry got off their
duffs and passed this legislation.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands on his initiative. The member is
well known to us on this side of the House. He has had a very
distinguished career as a jet fighter pilot in the Canadian Armed
Forces. It is a reminder, because of age and other factors, of the
very few members of Parliament who have served in the armed
forces and the special contribution that they make. He is, I think,
for this reason appreciated on matters that go to the core of our
armed forces.
All of us on both sides of the House are concerned about the
reputation of our armed forces. We have great reason to be proud of
their contributions in two world wars and their contributions to UN
operations. It should not be forgotten of course that Canada devised
UN peacekeeping. It was the idea whose time was right, of our then
foreign minister, Lester Pearson. He recognized, at a certain point
in history that when you have combatants who fought themselves
to a stand still that sometimes a third party, offering grace under
fire and interposing themselves can allow both sides to retreat
without intolerable loss of political face.
(1155 )
That was the genius of Mr. Pearson's suggestion for the original
UN peacekeeping force, for which he won a Nobel prize. It is also
the result of the characteristics that Canadians represent-I speak
of our whole country-decency and tolerance of others and
moderation in action. We are always sought by the United Nations'
secretary-general when it is a matter of a peacekeeping operation.
We should pay tribute to the service given by the Canadian
Armed Forces as part of various UN missions. It is right to remind
us, of course, as my hon. colleague from my party said earlier, that
there have been other UN operations to which Canadian forces
have contributed and which are not covered by the term UN
peacekeeping. Therefore, it would be within the spirit if not the
actual wording of the bill as proposed by the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands that any new decoration would be extended
to cover them too.
UN peacekeeping, as we know, is limited to operations under
chapter VI of the United Nations charter. Other operations before
that time, before Mr. Pearson's suggestion adopted in 1956 for the
Suez war and also subsequent operations should also be covered.
Part of the difficulty that our armed forces have been meeting is
due to the confusion, or better still, the blurring of the line of
demarcation between a chapter VI and a chapter VII operation
under the charter. People start off with a mandate and a specific
function but then, operationally, other exigencies emerge and they
are asked to move from one role to another. It is not really fair for
the people taking part because peacekeepers, as such, are trained
for this mission which is 50 per cent to 60 per cent diplomatic and
perhaps only 30 per cent to 40 per cent military in operation with
the peacekeepers involved interposing themselves without
weapons and without the ability to use armed force between
combatants who have privately agreed to separate if somebody will
allow them to do so without loss of face.
Chapter VII operations involve a totally different style of
military engagement and they require special troops. I would add
the further category which some countries have developed, the sort
of SWAT team operation which sometimes is entrusted to civilian
police and sometimes to the military. I suppose its apogée was in
the German venture in Mogadishu a number of years ago which
liberated hostages held by terrorists in a civilian passenger aircraft
and achieved it with minimal loss of life or casualties.
However, it is unfair to the troops to blur these distinctions even
if for high reasons of policy it may be necessary to ask them to
move from one role to the other. A good deal of the problems of
perception of the operation of our Canadian Armed Forces,
encountered in recent months, stems from this fact. I think we have
placed on record our great pride in the achievement of our armed
forces and a great pride in what they have done in UN
peacekeeping. Therefore, the suggestion for a medal to recognize
this is something we all endorse and agree with. It is something we
can all support.
There are some matters and I would simply take the liberty of
suggesting them to the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
because I do not think they are opposed to the spirit of what he is
suggesting. It is perhaps an error to get too many specifics in a bill
of this nature: the coloration, the arrangement one might say of a
medal. These are issues of design which on the whole have been
handled very well by the Canadian and Commonwealth military. I
suppose most of the medals we have are from that. I think that is
probably best left to them.
(1200 )
There could have been more deference given to the role of the
governor general in the awards. It may not be a function that any
governor general has sought, but the source of the medals
historically is from the sovereign, from the king, and the governor
general vestigially holds this office. In the formulation or
concretization of
6645
these proposals the role of the governor general and established
committees could be recognized.
On the main principle, this is a timely gesture. It is something
Canadians would certainly endorse. I believe medals awarded by
the UN properly qualify as Canadian medals. Although I do not
know the exact ruling made by our order of precedence it seems
they would be entitled to precedence in medal ribbon rows ahead of
any foreign or other decorations that might be integrated into the
Canadian system.
There may be an issue of duplication of awards should a UN
medal and a Canadian medal for a UN operation be held
simultaneously. It is understood that Canadian medals are viewed
as area medals. With the specific location I do not see any problem
with duplication.
My compliments to the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands
for a measure that clearly stemmed from the heart in his case. It
reflects the great pride that all members of the House take in the
achievements of our armed forces, in the special contributions the
forces have made since 1956 when Mr. Pearson's idea was adopted
of UN peacekeeping operations.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to talk to the bill. I was a little taken aback by the time
allocation. How much time would I have?
The Deputy Speaker: The member's question is a good one.
Private Members' Business ends at 11.04 a.m., in about three
minutes.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I will see what I can slip in during the
allotted time.
My basic point concerns what the medal is all about. Why should
there be any medal? We can get down to real basics by asking such
questions as what training do members of the Canadian Armed
Forces go through and what does a medal represent in their ethos.
The training the members of our military get prepares them to
give their lives for their country or their unit. This is instilled in
them throughout their training so that when the time comes they
will be prepared. A medal is simply recognition of that among
other things. A medal can be a campaign medal that tells all who
want to look on its bearer that the individual has had service in a
foreign land.
At the same time it tells those who look at that medal or the
medal ribbon, its representation, that individual has put it all on the
line during his training and has said: ``I am prepared to give my life
for my country or my unit, and all I expect in return is the loyalty of
my fellows in the field and of my country toward me, the
representation of which is this medal''.
I will say more at a later date. This is a very worthwhile bill for
this House as an entity to support.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have
approximately seven minutes when the debate resumes next time if
he wishes to use it.
[Translation]
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
I have notice of a point of order from the hon. member for St.
Albert before I recognize anyone on the government side.
* * *
(1205)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order with respect to the notice of time allocation for Bill
C-63 given on Friday, November 22, 1996, pursuant to Standing
Order 78(3)(a). This standing order states:
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at the previous
sitting, has stated that an agreement could not reached under the provisions of
sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order-
It continues. I checked
Hansard, and on page 6628 of Friday,
November 22, 1996 the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, while there are continuing discussions on a number of issues, out of
an abundance of caution I wish to inform the House that an agreement could not be
reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the
report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act and the Referendum Act.
Mr. Speaker, if you review
Hansard you will note that I
immediately stood on a point of order and objected because the
deputy House leader for the government and I were sitting talking
about that particular issue at that very time. To emphasize my
point, the government has resumed negotiations on its own
initiative this very morning.
On Wednesday, November 20, 1996, I rose on a point of order to
complain that documents regarding the royal commission on
aboriginal affairs were not going to be made available to members.
The government whip stood up and challenged my point of order,
claiming it was ``speculation at this time''.
6646
The Deputy Speaker agreed and this point was well taken and
applies to this situation as well. One cannot give notice of a
hypothetical fact based on speculation. Procedurally, pursuant to
Standing Order 78, there is either an agreement or there is not. If
the intent of the standing order was to allow for a condition, it
would say ``in the event of no agreement''. But that would be
another matter.
There was a similar challenge to time allocation notice in August
1988 by the member for Windsor West. The Speaker ruled on
August 16, 1988, page 18381 of Hansard:
Standing Order 117 provides for a minister to act if there is no agreement and, as I
stated on June 6, 1988, the Chair must take a minister's declaration at face value.
The minister's declaration in 1988 was simple: ``An agreement
could not be reached''. The minister's declaration from Friday,
November 22, 1996 does not meet that standard because the
minister stated on record that he has given notice just in case he
cannot reach an agreement.
The standing orders do not allow for a conditional notice. The
proper procedure for notice for the purpose of being cautious is a
procedure set out in Standing Order 57 regarding closure. Standing
Order 57 is not concerned with consultation nor is it concerned
with agreement that might be made, can be made or should be
made.
The minister cannot cut corners and take shortcuts by giving an
ambiguous notice under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3). If
we allow this notice to stand, then a minister could give notice for
every bill based on an anticipated or hypothetical situation. No
longer will consultation be necessary because notice would be
allowed to be given before consultation or any effort to make an
agreement. The notice given on Friday, November 22, 1996 by the
Minister of Industry is out of order because the provisions of
Standing Order 78(3)(a) were not met.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
regard to this point of order, I think it is important for the Chair to
note that at the time the minister gave the notice there was no
agreement on time allocation. In fact, it is accurate to say there is
no agreement now on time allocation. The discussions taking place
were in relation to the substance and not to the time allocation.
I would respectfully submit to the Chair that the notice that was
given is perfectly in order. The notice is related to the fact that there
could not be agreement. There is not an agreement now. The
discussions that have been ongoing, which I acknowledge I have
been part of, are related to the substance but we still have not
reached an agreement. There is no agreement.
(1210)
While I accept what my hon. colleague is trying to put forward,
there is just no agreement. The discussion is on the substance of
this matter, not on time.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rebut the comments
by the deputy House leader of the government.
While the negotiations were concerning a substantive
amendment to the bill, they were in order for us to grant
concurrence and agreement with the time allocation proposed by
the government, thus the substantive negotiations. We were quite
prepared to accept the offer of time allocation by the government
provided we had agreement on these issues. Therefore they were
very much part of an ongoing process that still continues at this
very moment regarding us and the government.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for St. Albert
and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
The member for St. Albert quoted from Speaker Fraser's ruling,
page 18381 in Hansard of August 1988. I would add to his quote
the second part of that paragraph:
-the Chair must take a Minister's declaration at face value and cannot judge the
quality of negotiations or of any proposals that may have been made. In this case I
was not even asked to judge on the quality of the negotiations because there is a
document that indicates the arrangement at least had been entered into with two of
the parties in the House, albeit, not that of the government.
The Speaker, as the member for St. Albert will remember, ruled
that the notice was in order.
There are other judgments which appear to go the same direction
on the same basis. Speaker Fraser on March 29, 1990-
Mr. Williams: On a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: No, there are no further points of order.
The Speaker ruled, at page 9917, that he accepts the minister's
motion as being in order.
The Chair regrets that I do not have time to consider the
precedents and so on and come back with a coherent and hopefully
cogently worded decision, but on the basis of what I have heard
today from the member for St. Albert and the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader, I am satisfied that the
notice was proper and that the negotiations have not completed and
if the minister takes the view that it has not been possible to reach
an agreement, then the notice is acceptable.
6647
6647
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the
Referendum Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the
third reading stage of the said bill and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the
report stage and second reading 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.
(1215)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: 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: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 175)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Zed-103
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
6648
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The House resumed from November 22, 1996, consideration of
Bill C-63, an act to amend the Elections Act and the Referendum
Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the
motions in Group No. 3.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
motions in Group No. 3 concerning Bill C-63, an act to amend the
Elections Act and the Referendum Act, were considered briefly on
Friday.
As agreed, the hon. members for Stormont-Dundas, Calgary
West and Kootenay East had the opportunity to speak at that time to
help set the debate in context.
(1300)
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the debate be adjourned at leisure so we
have a chance to concentrate on the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bellechasse has a
point of order.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, until such time as we can have an
intelligent debate, I suggest the debate be adjourned at leisure.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, could private
conversations please continue outside the House? I thank the hon.
member for bringing this matter to my attention.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but not for reasserting
your authority, because it took less than 15 seconds to show that
you were still in control.
We made progress in the debate last Friday, and the motion of
the hon. member for Beauséjour, which was just agreed to, will
enable us to proceed much faster, perhaps even too fast for our
taste. As I indicated on Friday, there is something basically
reprehensible in rushing through an amendment to the elections
act. The members who will take a second look at this bill will, of
course, have to take into account the circumstances of its passage.
The substance of the bill may be debated and debatable, but its
form is essentially out of bounds because, in my opinion, this
debate has been flawed from the start. I will address this point in
my remarks at third reading.
As for polling stations' hours of operation, last spring, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examined
various scenarios put forward and explained by Elections Canada
before the committee.
Subsequently, this House passed and referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a bill proposed by the
hon. member for Vancouver East and concerning polling hours,
Bill C-307. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for
Stormont-Dundas and the hon. member for Calgary West said
about polling hours. If we look again at Elections Canada's
scenarios in the official report, we can see that this proposal does
not fit in with any of the scenarios in question.
This is a sui generis proposal that the government came up with
and was even forced to amend at report stage, because it was not
given enough thought.
Motion No. 21 proposed by the hon. member for Calgary West
would extend polling hours, particularly in Alberta and British
Columbia. Allowing polling stations to close at 8 p.m. instead of7 p.m. would protect what can be considered the golden hours, that
is, the hours during which those who are allowed to vote can do so.
This is a very important time of the day, a time when election
organizations get people to come out and vote.
Having polling stations close at 7 p.m. in certain regions of the
country seems to me to be extremely early. On Friday, the hon.
member for Kootenay East stated his views in a very objective
fashion on this legislation, which should not be subject to
partisanship in any case. It is only because of the government's
haste if the debate has now become a partisan exercise, although
we, on this side, are trying to remain as objective as possible.
The hon. member for Kootenay East said on Friday that the
problem is essentially a matter of perception, since all votes in
Canada, whether in St. John's, Newfoundland, or in Langley,
British Columbia, carry the same weight. This is true. It is also true
that the feeling of alienation felt by many western Canadians is due
to the fact that when the media can begin broadcasting the results,
the outcome is already decided, regardless of how they vote.
Central Canada, in which 176 ridings will be contested in the next
election, will probably seal the fate of this whole exercise. The fact
remains that all votes are equal, but I can understand the perception
6649
explained by the hon. member for Kootenay East. Therefore, the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary West would
help improve the situation.
(1305)
However, the member for Calgary West goes a lot further. He
proposes that section 160 of the Canada Elections Act be amended
so that the counting of the ballots would start at the same time
everywhere in Canada. Whether in Newfoundland or in British
Columbia, the counting of the ballots would begin at the same time,
which means that people in Newfoundland would have to wait
about an hour and half before starting to count the votes.
In the best of all possible worlds, the proposal by the hon.
member for Calgary West that the count take place at the same time
would of course be extremely interesting. If people did not have to
sleep, eat, go to work the next morning, and so on, having the count
at the same time would be a definite advantage.
However, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. We
live in a world where compromises must be made. One such
compromise could be to adopt Motion No. 21 of the member for
Calgary West, but drop the other motion calling for an amendment
to section 160 of the Elections Act, so that the count could take
place immediately after polling stations officially close in a given
province. This is what the official opposition will be favouring with
respect to hours and count.
The official opposition presented its own amendment, Motion
No. 22, asking that the four-hour period voters now have in which
to vote be maintained. We are essentially proposing that these four
hours be maintained, by saying: ``employers must ensure that
eligible employees are allowed at least four hours''. This would be
better than giving them only three hours.
It must be borne in mind that, under the government bill, polling
stations would close at 7 p.m., Pacific time, and voters would have
only three consecutive hours in which to vote. The four hours that
have been traditional in Canadian history for years would disappear
with this amendment to the Canada Elections Act regarding the
number of consecutive hours required and allowed.
I do not think it is a move in the right direction to shorten the
period allowed by one hour. It is true that if polling stations in
central Canada have to close at 9.30 p.m., it becomes academic
whether three or four hours are allowed. But it is with these two
extremely important factors in mind, that is, the local time at which
polling stations close and the effective period of time people have
in which to vote, that the official opposition has presented Motion
No. 22, so as to ensure that voters from coast to coast have the
benefit of four hours.
This concludes my remarks on the third group of motions.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think anyone really opposes the concept of reducing the
election period from 47 days to 36 days in principle, although I
have some specific examples of problems this can create which I
will get into a little later.
With regard to the Group No. 3 motions, I refer first to Motion
No. 5 proposed by the government which would make it possible
for the chief electoral officer to extend the voting hours from the
current 11 hours to 12 hours. We consider that this extension is
costly and unnecessary and really does not achieve any particular
purpose. We would suggest that the 11 hours currently laid aside
for Canadians to vote is adequate. Therefore this motion is not
required and we will oppose it.
(1310)
With regard to the staggered voting hours across the country, as a
parochial British Columbian representative, I contend that the
change in the voting hours to close the polls on the west coast or in
British Columbia at 7 p.m. does not do justice to the British
Columbian voters and those in the Yukon. A lot of people, because
of their occupations and their location away from their voting
stations on voting day, tend to exercise their vote at the end of the
day. Therefore the rescinding of that last hour from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.
would impact dynamically on the vote.
In my own constituency it is quite common for 87 per cent or
more of the voters to come out to vote. I suspect that if this
particular motion is carried we will see a lower turn out. I do not
think this is what was intended by the electorate.
Alternatives were proposed that would allow for the voting to be
substantially the same as it is now but that would provide for the
avoidance of the perception on the west coast, or in the west for
that matter, that the decisions were already taken and the
government was chosen and formed before it came to voting at that
time. No one to my knowledge has been able to assess the impact
on the western voters of knowledge of what the eastern vote has
been.
Whether people would say that the government has been formed
and they are going to vote against that government or that the
government has been formed and they want to vote for that
government so that there is government representation out there, I
do not know. However, I suspect that it does have an impact and
that this should be avoided.
My own personal preference would be to have the voting hours
remain exactly as they are now but to delay the count of the vote
and have the count occur simultaneously. This might mean starting
the count of the vote the following day. Understandably this might
not sit well with the election committees, campaign workers and
6650
so on because they get all hyped up on the day of the vote and they
want to know what happened.
I submit that the purpose of an election is to select a government.
It is a very important purpose which should be an overriding
concern in the election process. Therefore I think it makes eminent
good sense for the ballots to be taken on one day but to be counted
simultaneously across the country the following day.
As I mentioned earlier, the reduction of the electoral period from
47 to 36 days with its commensurate saving of money and of the
campaigning that people perhaps tire of during the actual election
campaign are pretty good. There is a lot of substantiation for that.
However we do feel that it would impact negatively on byelections.
For instance it is within the power of the government to make a
byelection happen by virtue of promoting a member of Parliament
from this House to the other place. The government would thereby
have an advantage in that it would know when and in which area
that is going to happen. This would leave the opposition parties and
the independents scrambling to try to make up for lost time. That
might not be possible.
(1315 )
I also think that the reduction to a 36-day election period impacts
rather negatively on geographically large ridings. Obviously there
is a lot more territory to cover. The residents are dispersed and for
an individual candidate to get around to visit those areas takes more
time than in a congested urban area.
As an example, there are 14 large northern ridings which would
be so affected. They include Skeena, B.C., Prince George-Peace
River, B.C., Peace River, Alberta, Athabasca, Alberta, Churchill
River, Saskatchewan, Churchill, Saskatchewan, Kenora-Rainy
River, Ontario, Timmins-James Bay, Ontario, Abitibi, Quebec,
Manicouagan, Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland; Yukon, Western
Arctic and Nunavut. All would be dramatically affected by the
reduction of the campaign time from 47 to 36 days.
Perhaps there is some way to overcome this. However, it is
important that this be remembered and taken into consideration
when the election act is being changed.
It is vitally important that we also remember that the government
has rather pushed this thing through. If I was a suspicious
individual I might think there was subterfuge here, a dateline it
wanted to meet in order to call an election. But that may not be the
case.
One thing which was not considered and which should have been
considered in the bill is the idea of a fixed election day. The Prime
Minister in the Canadian Parliament has a tremendous amount of
power in that it is his choice when Canadians go to the polls to
select a new government. He can choose a propitious time for the
polls, choose a time when people are distracted elsewhere. It gives
him tremendous power.
I think that for the good of the country we should consider and
perhaps institute a fixed election date. Of course, Reform would
advocate that these election dates be every four years, on a
specified date so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind when the
next election is going to be.
I personally found it a little questionable in committee when the
matter of allowing inmates to vote was raised. Granted, that is not a
direct concern in this bill, but it was certainly discussed. It is
unacceptable to me that an individual who has broken the law, been
convicted and incarcerated that they should still have all the rights
in elections as a normal, law-abiding citizen. I would think that
anyone who is incarcerated after being convicted should forgo the
privilege and the honour of being able to vote until he or she has
completed that sentence and thereby paid his or her debt to society.
We think it should be mandatory that in the case of a byelection
that the Prime Minister's ability to control the agenda should be
constrained. We suggest that when byelections are called they
should take place within six months of a seat being vacated, rather
than the current time which is pretty well open to the Prime
Minister. This obviously leaves some constituencies without
representation in the House while the seat is vacant. That is neither
right nor appropriate in the democracy in which we live.
Another point which is worthy of consideration is that of
requiring people to prove their identity, either when they register to
vote or when they actually cast their ballot. The permanent list with
which the bill is mainly concerned is made up of things like
drivers' licences, birth certificates and so on. It seems to me that it
would not be inappropriate for an individual to be required to prove
to the registrar or to the voting official when he or she goes to vote,
exactly who he or she is and that he or she has the right to cast a
ballot to elect the next Government of Canada.
(1320 )
The truth is that in the present day electronic world in which we
live there is no way that election results from the east will not get to
the west, if they have been counted, before the polls in the west
close. With E-mail and the Internet there is no question that this
information will be transmitted, either via the United States or
other countries. Therefore, no matter how carefully we control the
vote, if the ballots are counted the results are going to be known
very shortly thereafter.
In conclusion, I would say that Reform is not diametrically
opposed to the concept of a 36-day election campaign as opposed
to 47, but we do question the wisdom of running a separate
enumeration, which is very expensive, outside the normal voting
process. We would advocate that the next election campaign be the
normal 47-day period and that the enumeration list compiled for
the next election comprise the basis for the permanent list with
6651
which this bill deals. We find the idea of having an enumeration in
April unnecessary and expensive. It would be better to put it off to
the normal election call.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: On debate?
Ms. Meredith: On debate? Is it questions or comments?
The Deputy Speaker: There are no questions or comments. The
question has been called. Had the member who wishes to debate
been out of the House?
Ms. Meredith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: We normally extend courtesies to
members. The question had been called. The hon. member,
obviously, would like to speak to the issue. Accordingly, the Chair
will give the hon. member the right to speak.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a slight bit of confusion.
I stood when you were calling for debate. You were looking over to
the side and did not notice me. I appreciate you recognizing me.
I would like to speak on behalf of British Columbians and I do
not necessarily agree with my colleague.
This bill proposes to stagger the times that the polling stations
are open. I do agree with my hon. colleague who just spoke that
staggered times would not be conducive to the voter in British
Columbia if the polls are closed at seven o'clock as opposed to
eight o'clock.
Most of the people who live in the constituency of
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley work in Vancouver. The
commuting time from Vancouver to Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley is anywhere from one hour to an hour and a half. Many
people work in businesses which are open from nine to five.
However, some people work until 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. to miss the
rush hour traffic. They would not have the opportunity to exercise
their right to vote. It would be terribly unfair to the constituents in
my riding who commute to Vancouver. Closing the polls an hour
before the normal time would be an undue hardship to them.
(1325 )
I know some allowance was made in the bill to change the
number of hours, but I believe it was to reduce the number of hours
that an individual could take off from business to make sure they
were back at their place of residence for voting. On that point I
would agree with my hon. colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands.
However, I do not think the object is to count the votes the next day.
It is unfair to Canadians to expect them to vote and then wait for 24
hours before finding out the results of their voting privilege.
I do feel that allowances can be made to stagger the hours, keep
the voting hours in British Columbia with the polls closing at eight,
but perhaps the votes could be counted at a later date. With modern
technology in voting where the votes are actually counted at the
same time as the ballot is deposited, or at least they were in the
municipal election, there is no reason why the results of those votes
taken could not be released at a reasonable time in the evening even
though the polls might close at eight o'clock in British Columbia.
Perhaps opening the polls later in the morning in the maritimes
would not be as a great a hardship to the voters as it would be
closing the polls earlier in British Columbia.
The cost of having an enumeration will be there, whether it is
done in April or laterally when the election call comes. I think it is
important to have a permanent voters' list for convenience sake and
even just for accuracy. This is a very important issue that has to be
addressed.
If the time is taken at enumeration to clarify the people who have
the right to vote and are duly Canadian citizens is followed through
on a permanent list, the end result is that people who have a
legitimate right to vote and who are Canadian citizens and exercise
their vote would probably clarify a lot of confusion come election
day across the country.
In my riding, election day poses numerous problems because of
the large number of new immigrants who are coming to the lower
mainland area. They do not understand that in order to exercise
their right to vote they must be Canadian citizens.
I also believe that having a permanent voters' list will make it
much easier for new immigrants who do take Canadian citizenship
to be added to that voters' list in a manner that is efficient and up to
date. That would certainly solve a lot of the confusion that happens
when we try to rush through citizenships in order to allow people to
have the vote. That process is often looked on with a little bit of
misunderstanding and sometimes suspicion.
If we have a permanent voters' list, one that has been updated in
a routine fashion, those kinds of situations where one brings to
question why things are being done would not be quite so blatant.
The concept of a permanent voters' list is a good one. Staggered
voting hours are reasonable but the times could be put into effect
that would respect the needs of the various regions of the country. I
certainly believe this legislation goes in the right direction but still
could be improved.
6652
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on Motion No. 5 in GroupNo. 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.
(1330)
[English]
The next 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 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 Motion No. 20
stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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: Pursuant to the order adopted, the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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 next vote 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 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.
[English]
We will now move to Group No. 4 for debate.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-63, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 2 with the
following:
``polling day in the case of a general election or the forty- seventh day in the case of a
by-election.''
6653
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on Motion No. 6
which stands in my name. The motion concerns the length of a
campaign for byelections under the new proposed regime.
Let me reiterate what has been said on the length of the election
period. Our party has indicated that we are prepared to support in
principle the shortening of an election campaign. I have said that is
my preference.
The proposal in this bill is that we move to a 36 day election
calendar. That is one of the three main features of Bill C-63. This
has been a longstanding proposal in that for a number of years there
has been some pressure from the public and from political parties
to shorten the election campaign period if possible. In the past,
technical difficulties in terms of the ability of Elections Canada to
implement a shortened electoral period have prevented the
shortening of the period below the current 47 days. Mr. Speaker,
you may recall in your political life that the campaign was longer
than 47 days.
The Lortie commission heard a lot of submissions on this
subject. At that time my party was not particularly supportive of
shortening the campaign period although many who made
submissions to the commission were. The Lortie commission had
suggested it was possible to move to a 40 day election campaign.
(1335 )
What is the origin of the 36 day campaign in this bill? It is the
implementation of the computerized register of electors and the
ability to implement it prior to the next election by virtue of a
pre-election enumeration. Thirty-six days in effect is the shortest
campaign that Elections Canada felt could comfortably be executed
by the people who run the campaign nationally. It is fair to say that
this will cause some problems for some parties. It will certainly be
a new experience for most parties but I suspect that most major
political parties will be able to adjust.
There are some advantages to the new calendar. However even if
one supports a 36 day election campaign there are other problems
that are raised by the way it is implemented in this piece of
legislation. One was addressed by the hon member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, the expense of running an initial
pre-election enumeration to start the register. I will have more to
say about that later in this debate.
The government is going about the implementation of this
shorter period in a way that in our opinion will actually be much
more expensive initially than it needs to be. This is a significant
problem. Another significant problem that we raised repeatedly
before the bill came to committee and in committee has been the
problem of the implementation of a shortened election period for
byelection campaigns. That is what this motion addresses.
There have been two kinds of problems with byelections in the
past. The first is the problem this motion seeks to address and
which we witnessed in this Parliament. That is the sudden calling
of a byelection in a riding that was occupied by a sitting member on
the government side for which there was no expectation
whatsoever of a vacancy but which occurred overnight and then a
snap byelection was called to deal with the situation. These have
always been in ridings that are very favourable to the government.
In the case of this Parliament they have freed up members and
freed up ridings to bring in new people and to move other people on
to greener pastures, be they appointments, Senate seats or
whatever.
There is much to object to in this process. Obviously there is the
unnecessary expense, the patronage angle and a number of things
that are quite infuriating about this particular practice. It is fair to
say that in the case of byelections this does create some
considerable difficulty for the opposition parties even under the
present calendar.
Last winter byelections were unexpectedly called in safe
government ridings. They were also called at a time of the year
when nobody was anticipating campaigning, in the dead of winter
just at the end of the Christmas period. These situations create
serious enough organizational problems as it is without moving to a
36 day campaign.
The other problem with byelections is something the Reform
Party has been concerned about for years. It is the opposite
problem, that byelections are held off indefinitely and ridings are
kept open for extremely long periods of time for other reasons. If
the government thinks it will be defeated in a particular riding it
does not want to have a byelection and therefore the riding
unnecessarily goes unrepresented for months and sometimes for
over a year. In the last Parliament the government deliberately
called byelections for a date so far into the future that it knew there
would be a general election before the byelection ever occurred.
There are snap byelections but this is the opposite problem.
The Reform proposal deals only with the problem of a snap
byelection and deals with it only in the most peripheral way. What
we propose is simply that the new 36 day campaign period would
not apply to byelections. Instead the 47 day campaign would
remain in effect for byelections.
(1340)
I should say that our ideal proposal on this particular problem
would be quite different. Our ideal proposal would give a a
significant period of time between the occurrence of a vacancy and
the calling of a byelection on the one hand and on the other hand it
would set a maximum period of time within which a byelection
must be called.
Frankly the time we have in mind for that would be something in
the order of 60 days between the occurrence of a vacancy and the
actual holding of a byelection and no more than six months
between the occurrence of a vacancy and the holding of a
byelection at the other end. The minimum period would provide the
opposition parties with some assurance that a byelection will not be
6654
called just to surprise the opposition and return a government
supporter. The other provides the reasonable expectation that
voters will be represented in Parliament within a reasonable period
of time.
The reason we have not proposed it in this amendment is that the
actual calling of a byelection as opposed to the campaign period
falls under the Parliament of Canada Act rather than the Canada
Elections Act. That makes it impossible for us to put forward our
ideal proposal in this particular piece of legislation.
It was pointed out during our discussion in committee that
technically speaking, because it is in the Parliament of Canada Act,
our ideal proposal falls outside the scope of this legislation. It does
fall outside the scope of this legislation and the principles of this
legislation, but it certainly does not fall outside the subject matter
of the legislation because this bill affects the process for
byelections in quite an intimate way. However as the legislation is
drafted, this falls outside its scope.
I return to the comment I made on Friday which is that this
House has not approved this bill in principle. It has only approved
it for committee study. The bill went to committee. The purpose of
committee study before second reading is supposed to be to
examine all aspects of the bill including material that while within
the subject matter of the bill may fall outside of its scope.
I am disappointed that this issue was not addressed during the
committee hearings. I still hold out some hope that we will
consider this issue before we complete our deliberations on this bill
here in the House.
I urge the House to support this particular motion which
improves the bill in a very small way. It does not force a byelection
to be held. It does not even force a byelection to be delayed. It
simply says that a byelection campaign should be at least 47 days
in length. I put that to the House for its consideration.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. member for Calgary West for bringing up the
important issue of byelections and especially the period within
which these are supposed to be held.
Generally speaking, when we are looking at a byelection,
especially from the opposition's point of view, we mainly want to
know when it will be called. The government should not wait too
long. But the reverse is also true, as the hon. member for Calgary
West pointed out. The government should not be able to call a snap
election that catches the opposition parties off guard.
We could consider something like a minimum of 90 days after
the vacancy occurs, up to a maximum of 180 days, in other words,
between three and six months. Actually, in committee, because of
the gruelling pace, it was impossible to discuss this aspect. In fact,
it was hardly possible to discuss anything at all.
We will probably have a second opportunity, as I pointed out
earlier, to look at all these questions, now that everyone has
simmered down, and I am referring to voting hours, byelections
and establishing a register of electors. Since today is Monday, the
beginning of the week, perhaps I may explain what the debate is
about, for the benefit of those who were not listening Friday.
(1345)
We are now talking about shortening the electoral period to 36
days, down from 47. Is anyone opposed to this? Not many people.
A few members from large ridings object, but a large majority of
members are in favour.
Earlier, we saw that the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley did not agree with his colleague from
Saanich-Gulf Islands on the subject of voting hours. It would
probably be the same in our own caucus. The issue of voting hours
came up all of sudden, and now we have to take position on the
matter. Perhaps it could be left out of the debate, but there are many
other things that should be left out as well.
If we can have an election within a shorter period of time, it is
only due to a procedural trick. There would be a pre-election
enumeration, probably during the first three weeks of April, so that
as soon as the writs were issued, the chief electoral officer would
have enough information so he would not have to order a second
enumeration but could proceed immediately with revision as
necessary.
We agree with the principle, but as we pointed out on Friday, not
at this stage, not in the last year of the government's term. None of
these last minute changes in the rules of the game. What we would
like is one last election with the current rules, which everyone
knows, with one last census, which would be held during the
election campaign and would be valid for the election of the 37th
Parliament.
I raise the point the hon. member for Calgary West raised earlier.
There are problems in our system, which can be fairly easily fixed
and which cause the powers of the government to be blatantly out
of proportion with those of the opposition. Our preference would
have been elections on a set date, which probably does not require
an amendment either to the Constitution or to the statutes or
ordinary legislation.
The Prime Minister could simply announce from his seat at the
opening of Parliament that the next general election would be held,
say, five years from the last one, unless the government were
overturned in the meantime. The current Prime Minister could have
said, when the House began sitting in January 1994: ``The next
election will be on the third Monday of October 1998''. Everyone
would know the date of the election. Everyone-Liberals,
Reform-
6655
ers, Bloc members and others-could prepare for the third week of
October 1998. This could have been done through a ministerial
statement, without changing provisions of the law and the British
North America Act of 1867 and without taking any powers away
from the Queen by prohibiting her from dissolving Parliament if
she so desires. We all know very well that Her Majesty does not
intervene in this sort of thing, except on the recommendation of the
government.
This constraint could easily be eliminated. A ministerial
statement, rather than a major constitutional change, is all it would
take. We would feel much more involved in the process, not to
mention the fact that, in the last 18 months of a government's
mandate, the opposition keeps wondering when a general election
will be called. If we knew the date, we would all be on an equal
footing, as has been the case for over 200 years in the United
States, where Democrats, Republicans and Reformers all know
that, on the first Tuesday of November, they elect all members of
the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate every two
years, and the president every four years. We could have exactly
the same provisions without amending the Constitution. I believe a
private member's bill to that effect was introduced and will be
reviewed by a committee.
As for the date of a byelection, it goes without saying that there
is a danger in putting it off for too long, as is currently possible.
The government must, in the six months following a vacancy,
announce the date at which a byelection will be held. However, that
date does not have to be within the six-month period. We should
follow the example of some Canadian provinces. I will take the
example of Quebec, since I am more familiar with its legislation. In
Quebec, a byelection must be held in the six months that follow a
vacancy.
(1350)
No one is caught by surprise, since the byelection is held within
a set timeframe. An exception could be made whereby, in the last
year of a government's constitutional mandate, that is to say,
between its fourth and fifth year in office, a byelection would not
have to be held.
Otherwise, given that the whole process requires a number of
months, a member elected in the last year of a mandate might sit
for just a few weeks. In fact, should the House adjourn, that
member could be elected, sign the roll, be sworn in, and never
actually sit in the House.
So, an exception could be made whereby, in the fifth year of a
Parliament, a byelection would not be required if one or more seats
became vacant. In the other four years, a byelection would have to
take place between the 90th and the 190th day following a vacancy.
Therefore, we will support Motion No. 6 in Group No. 4, tabled by
the hon. member for Calgary West.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
motion is rather important one from the point of view of
maintaining balance and democracy. For example, if the chief
government whip were to be appointed ambassador to
Minnesota-well, that is hockey they say-all of a sudden that
would happen in the same way that it happened with our
ambassador to Israel or any number of the other wonderful
appointments the Prime Minister has bestowed on members.
In terms of keeping a balance in democracy, we all recognize
that within any contest, which politics truly is, we want to have a
set of rules that will not create the outcome but will see that the
outcome is fair and balanced and that everyone has an equal chance
to participate.
My colleague from Calgary West was mentioning that there is a
provision under the Parliament of Canada Act for the government
to call an election within six months. However, that does not mean
that it has to be held within the six months.
Again, we address the problem then for the people in the
constituency where the vacancy has occurred as opposed to this
situation of the government whip's going to Minnesota. We have
other situations where things are less controlled, where there is
perhaps illness or even the death of a member of Parliament and
people are simply not represented.
I would like to speak specifically to the issue of a 36 day
campaign period, particularly for the opposition party, where we
have a situation such as the heritage minister's being hounded from
this House on the basis of her GST promises. It is widely reported
that she made that decision after seeing an opinion poll which
showed that she would be re-elected in her own constituency. So
boom, that was it. She was gone.
Other vacancies have occurred. I am thinking primarily of the
vacancy that was created so that the person who now fulfils the role
of minister of immigration could come to this House. Those
vacancies occurred, as it were, at the whim and at the direction of
the Prime Minister.
Everyone in the House will be aware of the fact that every
political party has its own specific set of rules, but there is, after all,
a nomination process. Therefore, we would have the government
members of the day, in this case the Liberals, who will have
absolute control over what is to be going on. They will have all of
their ducks in order. If we need any evidence that in fact the
Liberals did have the ducks in order, on the day the heritage
minister resigned and then was going to be coming back to this
Chamber by way of the vote in Hamilton, all of a sudden she was
appearing at a political rally that evening with all of the signs,
banners and organization, everything completely in place.
6656
I am not speaking to that particular election. I am just pointing
out that clearly she and the government had absolute control over
that situation. With a 47 day campaign that absolute control ends
up being somewhat diluted by virtue of the fact that as the other
parties have to go through a nomination process, a fundraising
process and a team building process, they could have up to 30 of
the 47 days. In other words, they could have virtually a full month
to go through that entire process and then conduct a very
aggressive political campaign in the last 17 days.
(1355)
What would happen if we were to reduce the byelection period to
36 days? If in fact it did take 30 days, and clearly it can very easily
take 30 days to go through the nomination, fundraising and team
building processes, then the other parties would have less than a
week to get themselves organized. There would only be six days
left in the election campaign for those parties to try to affect the
results.
All members of the House are aware of what goes into an
election campaign. Signs must be printed. Offices have to be
organized. Telephones have to be installed. Billboards have to be
organized. Advertising time has to be purchased. All of these
things having to be put in place in a 36 day period clearly puts the
advantage in the hands of the government of the day.
Motion No. 6 calls for a sense of fairness and a sense of balance.
Motion No. 6 must be supported by all members of the House. This
motion will provide fair and balanced political competition for the
important role of member of Parliament.
Many of the proposed amendments to this bill demonstrate
clearly that collectively, with a minimal amount of partisanship, we
are creating rules which are fair, balanced and, above all, equitable.
Democracy will be protected through this process.
_____________________________________________
6656
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of
the untold stories of the University of Manitoba is the existence of
ISIS Canada. Part of the Canadian network of Centres of
Excellence, ISIS Canada technology works to develop solutions to
Canada's infrastructure problems.
Headquartered at the University of Manitoba, the ISIS network
brings together researchers from universities in every province of
Canada who are designing the new composite materials which will
build the smart structures of the future.
Using carbon fibre for reinforcement and optical fibres for
sensing, they are creating structures which are stronger, lighter,
which last longer and which monitor themselves.
Thanks to the ISIS network, Canada leads the world in the
development of this technology, a fact which will allow Canadian
businesses to become leaders in a $900 billion global market.
This is only one of the many stories which can be told about the
University of Manitoba, one of Canada's great universities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
September, I invited the retirees and preretirees in my riding of
Bourassa to attend a meeting to exchange ideas and information on
the old age security system, where the new seniors benefit was
discussed.
I wish to extend my warmest thanks to the 200 participants, and
particularly to the AQDR of Montreal North and the Regroupement
des personnes à la retraite CTM-FTQ. I listened to what my
constituents had to say. They are very concerned and they raised
several points the Minister of Finance would do well to look into,
including preserving the universality of the old age security
system, reviewing the tax system in favour of low income seniors,
and maintaining the retirement age at 65.
I urge the government therefore to take into account the demands
made by retirees and preretirees in reforming the Canada Pension
Plan.
* * *
(1400 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
live on a small island on the coast of British Columbia. In common
with my fellow islanders and hundreds of thousands of other rural
Canadians, I can only receive two or three regular TV channels. We
have no cable TV and no prospect of getting cable, but that is not
our complaint.
Here is the problem. The air around us out there is filled with a
cornucopia of good TV programs and movies but our government
here in Ottawa says we may not receive those programs because it
is illegal.
If a Canadian company were to make this programming
available, my neighbours would be happy to buy Canadian but
there is no such company. Therefore tens of thousands of rural
Canadians
6657
are being made to do without or break the law by receiving
American signals.
It is just as wrong for the Canadian government to deny its
citizens the ability to legally receive TV signals as it is for the
Government of North Korea to dictate to its people what they will
hear and see on radio and TV.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, last March and
May, I raised in the House the question of the usurious interest
rates charged by banks and major department stores on credit card
balances.
I am pleased to note that 84 of my colleagues have decided to
join with the member for Beauce in denouncing this shameful
practice and asking that they reduce by at least half the interest
rates on their credit cards.
If the major banks and department stores do not respond
promptly to this request, I think that the House of Commons should
bring in legislation to resolve the issue. The time is long overdue to
end this scandalous practice, which hurts not just the most
disadvantaged members of our society, but also the middle classes,
who may not be middle for much longer. I implore the government
not to side with the bankers on this issue. Having sounded the
alarm, let us take action.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday evening, November 19, I had the honour of
participating at the official opening of the Campobello Business
Centre on Campobello Island, New Brunswick.
The realization of this infrastructure project was the result of
co-operation and partnership between the sponsor and the federal
and provincial governments. Not only does this new business
centre provide necessary services to the citizens of Campobello
Island, it has also directly provided 14 new jobs for Campobello
Island residents.
The Campobello Business Centre is a textbook example of what
can be accomplished through partnerships when the community
and community groups work together with all levels of
government. The infrastructure program has been and will continue
to be a great success.
I take this opportunity to add the Campobello Business Centre to
the growing list of infrastructure accomplishments from across
Canada.
Congratulations to all of our partners and the citizens of
Campobello Island for a job well done.
* * *
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
members of the Sikh community around the world celebrate the
birth of Guru Nanak, founder of the Sikh religion.
Although historians differ regarding the date of Guru Nanak's
birth, it seems most probable that he was born in 1469. He was born
in Talwandi, now called Nankana Sahib, located in Pakistan about
35 miles southwest of Lahore.
According to various biographers during his infancy he would
become very troubled on seeing misery and when he was able to
walk he would carry articles of food and clothing away from home
and give them to the needy.
To this day members of the Sikh community have a profound
respect for the needs of others and they live their lives according to
this principle. It is this same humanitarian and compassionate
nature that we as Canadians strive for as our country grows and
continues to mature.
I ask members of the House and all citizens of Canada to join me
in celebrating the birth date of Guru Nanak.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to recognize and honour the courage of Allison Sawatzky, a
young woman from the riding of Burlington.
In the spring of 1995 Allison and her family were devastated
when she was diagnosed with necrotizing fasciitis, otherwise
known as flesh-eating disease.
Since surviving the first few weeks against all odds and with the
help of countless doctors and even more prayers, Allison has
endured numerous surgeries, gains and setbacks. She has
demonstrated remarkable determination and indefatigable spirit
and she has been there to help other young Canadians through their
trials.
Allison's courage and triumph were recognized November 21
when she received the Clark Institute of Psychiatry's Courage to
Come Back Award.
Allison Sawatzky is a role model for all Canadians and for each
of us in this House.
(1405 )
Please join me in recognizing Allison's triumph and her
generosity to others. Way to go, Allison.
6658
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
newspapers have been reminding us recently that there is a terrible
hidden side to all wars: the mass rape of women and the
abandonment of thousands of children.
In the village of Gisenyi alone, over 4,000 Rwandan children
were wandering the streets in search of their parents, whom they
may well never find.
At the same time, in the same region, aid workers were
distributing large numbers of ``morning after'' pills to Rwandans
raped in Zaire, so as to avoid a repetition of the births that followed
the rapes of thousands of Rwandan women at the time of the 1994
genocide.
Over the ages, the rape of women has always been a corollary to
war. In a different way, but just as dramatically, children see their
future disappear forever. Our so-called civilized world must do
everything it possibly can to end these horror stories, which are
devastating on a personal and on a social level.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in February 1996 the government signed the Nisga'a
agreement in principle, the first of the modern day treaties in
British Columbia.
I recently asked the people of Prince George-Peace River for
their views on the Nisga'a agreement. While 39 per cent of the
respondents believe the Nisga'a government should have fewer law
making powers than municipal level governments, 56 per cent
believe it should have the same powers but not more; 65 per cent
believe non-Nisga'a living in Nisga'a lands should be allowed to
vote in local elections. But fully 93 per cent want this precedent
setting agreement to go to a provincial referendum so their voices
are heard.
Will this government and the government of B.C. give my
constituents the right to vote on this agreement, an agreement that
will further entrench special rights in the Constitution?
The government constantly talks about the inherent rights of
native Canadians, but what about the inherent right of all
Canadians to equality?
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week we
were honoured by the visit of Chilean President Mr. Eduardo Frei.
As chair of the Canada-Chile Friendship Group, I am proud that
Mr. Frei's first visit to Canada is in tandem with the signing of a
very important bilateral trade agreement.
Chile is a thriving democracy whose similarities with Canada go
beyond geographical beauty. In an era of worldwide trade, our
relations with Chile are a stepping stone to more trade negotiations
with other countries in our hemisphere.
I am certain that the agreement with Chile will benefit Canadians
from coast to coast. This trade agreement will make it much easier
for Chile to one day enter into NAFTA.
I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues by congratulating
the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade for
signing this free trade agreement with the people of Chile.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to address the issue of credit card interest rates.
Unfortunately, it is not the first time and probably will not be the
last time that I speak on this issue.
First, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the
member for Fundy-Royal for taking the initiative to petition the
banks and major retailers to drop their interest rates on credit cards.
In addition, I support the private member's bill introduced by the
member for Davenport which would limit the interest rates and fees
charged on consumer credit cards.
At a time when the prime rate is less than 4 per cent, banks still
insist on charging an average of 17.5 per cent on outstanding credit
and balances. Some major retailers are charging a whopping 28 per
cent. Incredible.
The government is doing its part to put money back into the
pockets of Canadians by bringing interest rates down. Now we are
asking the banks and the department stores to do the same. If they
refuse, the people demand and deserve an explanation. Failing that,
maybe we should boycott them altogether.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
share three success stories from by riding of
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
The government's policies aimed at restoring Canada's
economic health are working. This month the new $160 million
Destec co-generation plant will be supplying energy in both steam
and liquid form to Celanese Canada and electricity to Ontario
Hydro.
In the process, innovative technology is being used and an
estimated 19 jobs are being created. Celanese is another success
story. In October the ribbon was cut on a $192 million expansion.
The financial investment in Ernestown secures 350 jobs that were
6659
at risk in 1992 and provides employment for an additional 60
people.
(1410)
Bombardier employs approximately 500 skilled and talented
people at a neighbouring plant that manufactures rail transit
equipment and provides transportation systems support
domestically and around the world. Currently Bombardier is
working on a contract to supply a system to Malaysia for the
Commonwealth Games in 1998.
Please join me in applauding these companies for creating jobs
locally and for participating in the cutting edge of technology
globally.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our troops have
been twisting in the wind for over a week, waiting for a political
decision to be made on the future of the mission to Rwanda and
Zaire. Unfortunately the Prime Minister is off selling nuclear
reactors to China and the rest of the cabinet is tongue-tied.
I am sure that most Canadians are now wondering just how long
the government is going to stall before making a decision. While
Reform has suggested that military intervention may not be
necessary, the government has ignored our advice. Nonetheless it
must face the facts.
It is becoming increasing clear that the Rwandan government
will not play ball. Either we must accept that it has sovereign
control over its territory and the multinational force is no longer
needed, or the international community under Canadian leadership
is going to override Rwandan sovereignty and send the force in
anyway.
The government cannot have it both ways and the time for
stalling is over. What is it going to be?
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the big six banks are rejoicing over their early Christmas
gift of $6 billion in record profits, but we know that many more
Canadians cannot be part of this celebration.
While bank profits soar, so do bank service charges. On the heels
of celebrating its windfall profits, the CIBC is hiking the fee for
using another bank's cash machine from $1 to $1.25.
While the Bank of Canada prime rate has dropped to 3.25 per
cent, the big banks continue to charge 18.9 per cent on Mastercard
and 16.5 per cent on Visa.
The banks have been quick to lower the interest paid on the
savings accounts of hardworking Canadians, so low that they pay
only one-quarter of 1 per cent per annum on these savings.
I challenge this Liberal government to take legislative action that
will bring debt relief and fair treatment to Canadian consumers,
small business people, seniors and working families. They too
deserve an early Christmas gift.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, November 10, I had the privilege of attending
a session of the sixth Parlement jeunesse des francophones de
l'Ouest in Edmonton.
More than fifty young people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon
spent four days in the seats of the Alberta legislative assembly,
familiarizing themselves with the role of the legislator and the
rules of parliamentary procedure.
Speaker Marco Roy guided the debates with a firm hand.
Premier Christiane Moquin and House Leader Joëlle Leclerc
acquitted themselves of their duties with skill and verve. The
serious approach taken by all of these young people to their
undertaking is eloquent proof that our future is in good hands.
The slight majority of young women participating in this youth
parliament gives us grounds for believing that, on the eve of the
third millennium, we shall be seeing increasing numbers of women
in positions of political responsibility at all levels of government.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend's PQ congress has provided us with the perfect
example of a political party which places its ideology above
everything else: the economy, social and health services, minority
rights and so on.
Thumbing their noses at the results of the two referendums they
themselves organized on the separation of Quebec, PQ members
continue to prepare for the next referendum as if nothing had
happened.
In the close to 2,000 resolutions contained in the delegates' kits,
the PQ members did not see fit to consider, even once, the desire
expressed by a majority of Quebecers to remain within Canada.
The PQ continues in its desire to impose its separatist obsession on
the majority of the Quebec population.
6660
That population has spoken twice on the separation of Quebec.
It is time for the Parti Quebecois, and the Bloc Quebecois, to agree
to respect the democratic will of Quebecers and to move on to
other things: the economy, social services, and the respect of
minority rights.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien
Bouchard urged delegates at the PQ convention last weekend to
endorse his partnership proposal.
(1415)
He reminded militants that partnership proved to be a winning
formula in the last referendum, adding that, with an additional two
months, the yes side would have won.
We do not believe in Lucien Bouchard's partnership project, and
nor do the militants representing Montreal Centre, who said:
``After condemning the excessive number of government and
decision-making levels, we cannot propose another source of
duplication and inefficiency''.
Partnership, as described by the PQ leader, is nothing but a ploy,
a marketing technique and an illusion to give the impression that
separation would be smoother if achieved in conjunction with a
partnership proposal. Lucien the magician strikes again!
_____________________________________________
6660
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the
official languages program and, accordingly, for supporting the
francophone minority outside Quebec in order to prevent its being
assimilated by the anglophone majority.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage fulfil her ministerial
responsibility and protect the two official language minorities,
when she in fact refuses to acknowledge that Canada has a real
problem in the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec, as
Statistics Canada figures prove beyond a doubt?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member really
wants to know what I said, he can read the minutes of the
committee in which I said, following the comments by the minister,
Ms. Beaudouin, that the problem of anglicization exists throughout
the country, including in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has said a lot of things,
so many things that she was awarded the Montreal Gazette's
brickbat of the week. No mean feat.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: I would recall some statistics for her: the rate of
assimilation of francophones in New Brunswick is 8.7 per cent; in
British Columbia, 72 per cent; in western Canada, 55 per cent; in
Ontario, 37 per cent and in the City of Hamilton, her city, 65 per
cent. These are Statistics Canada's figures. And this is why
associations representing francophones in English Canada have
criticized the minister's remarks.
Instead of concealing the problem, by promoting bilingualism,
does the minister not think it is time to recognize the facts, to open
her eyes and to perhaps offer some solutions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is really
interested in the well-being of the francophone community across
Canada, I would ask him to contact his counterpart, the Quebec
minister of education, who has introduced a system that
discriminates against francophones outside Quebec in French
language post-secondary education.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec introduced a system of higher costs for out of
country students, as did Ontario. In Ontario, it is good
management; in Quebec, it is discrimination.
In the case of out of province students, Quebec charges them the
average cost of education in Canada, which means that it costs even
less for an Ontarian than studying in Toronto. Those are the facts. It
is time the minister woke up. If she wants to talk money, we will
talk money.
Does the minister not think that one way to meet her
responsibilities, because she does have responsibilities although
she may not realize it, is to look carefully at the use the other
provinces make of the money intended to go to educating official
language minorities that went to other things, like heating schools
or setting up public washrooms in Kingston?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member,
who, I assume, supports the policy of his colleague, the hon.
member for Québec-Est, who supports a policy of bilingualism
across the country, which we support, whether he is prepared to
acknowledge that the education policy of his counterpart in Quebec
City, Pauline Marois, discriminates against 1,500 students
registered at Laval, the University of Sherbrooke and the
University of Montreal. Most of them are francophones who wish
to continue their studies in their own language.
6661
Why is the Government of Quebec a part of such discrimination
against Canada's francophones?
(1420)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister keeps hammering at Quebec because she cannot do her
own job properly. That is the problem.
Marcel Beaudry, president of the National Capital Commission,
said before the Joint Committee on Official Languages that Ottawa
was, to all intents and purposes, a bilingual city. However, only last
summer the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadienne condemned the national capital's English unilingualism.
Considering that the assimilation rate of francophones within the
federal capital has reached 30 per cent, does the Minister of
Canadian Heritage not think it is high time she reminded Mr.
Beaudry that it is part of the NCC's mandate to actively promote
linguistic duality?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain and
that is that someone who refers to francophones outside Quebec as
paraplegics in wheelchairs is hardly in a position to say anything
about the state of the French language.
That being said, what I said, and what is falsely denied by the
hon. member for Québec-Est is that now, and this was not the case
30 years ago, 99 per cent of francophones outside Quebec who wish
to be educated in their language have that possibility, thanks to
federal policies.
Of course the policies are not perfect. But if the hon. member
wants to victimize francophones in this country, I think he is
barking up the wrong tree.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
challenge the minister to prove that 99 per cent of francophones
outside Quebec have access to education in French, when there are
only 50 per cent. This is a shameless falsehood on the part of the
minister who is supposed to be responsible for this sector.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I suggest it would be more
appropriate to refrain from using words like ``falsely'' or
``falsehood''. I would ask you to be very careful about your choice
of words.
Mr. Marchand: NCC leases provide that tenants who are
businesses or government agencies must advertise and provide
services in both official languages. According to Mr. Beaudry, they
cannot act on these clauses because they have never been enforced.
Are we to conclude that the Official Languages Act is no longer
valid because it has never been properly enforced in Canada,
outside Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will understand my
pleasant astonishment at the spectacle of the Bloc Quebecois'
supporting the use of bilingual signs across the country. We think
that is an important step forward.
If the member for Quebec Est is honest in the comment that he
made the other night to the committee that he supports bilingualism
across the country, in every part of the country, including the
province of Quebec, I would encourage him to intervene with the
minister of education in Quebec who has introduced a two tier
system of tuition which discriminates against francophones outside
Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it looks
like the finance minister's harmonization road show hit a pot hole
last week, then the wheels fell off, then it rolled over and then it
exploded in the ditch.
(1425 )
First, Greenberg stores announced they are closing 5 stores in
New Brunswick and a possible 19 others in Nova Scotia and they
have placed the blame squarely on the harmonized GST.
Then we hear about the 16,000 New Brunswickers who have
signed a petition to dump the tax and then a report comes out
showing how rents in Nova Scotia will go up, hurting the old, the
young and the poor, those least able to absorb a tax hike.
Finally, at the end of the week Ontario's finance minister put a
torch to any possibility of Canada's largest province hitching a ride
on this Hindenburg.
Why will the finance minister not finally admit that his hope for
a nationwide harmonization deal is dead? Will he kill it now in
Atlantic Canada before it kills any more jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
terms of the Greenberg stores, the fact of the matter is the stores,
indeed all retailers in Atlantic Canada, will gain as much if not
more as a result of the introduction of input tax credits than any
other cost.
At the same time, the minister of finance in New Brunswick
stated very clearly that he is prepared to sit down with any of the
retailers in New Brunswick, as indeed are the other ministers of
finance, to make sure tax inclusive pricing is introduced in a way
that will not cause hardship but that will in fact give consumers
what they want.
The issue nonetheless that remains in this House is why the
Reform Party has supported in House of Commons committee and
in fact in its own official program, all 18 versions of its own official
program, tax harmonization. Why is it prepared to support it in
principle but when Atlantic Canada wants to do it in order to
6662
make its small and medium size business more competitive, to give
it an opportunity to get a leg up, the Reform Party in an act of blind
attack against Atlantic Canada refuses to accept that very good
measure?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reformers are standing up for Atlantic Canada. My question is why
do we have all these Atlantic Canadian MPs sitting over here using
up perfectly good oxygen but not standing up for their constituents.
Despite a billion dollars in hush money the facts of this political
deal have started leaking out. Everything is going up in price: new
houses, rents, heating fuel, children's clothing, gasoline. Nova
Scotia's opposition leader says this deal will mean $53 million in
new gas taxes in Nova Scotia. Even Nova Scotia's finance minister
admits that municipal property taxes are going to have to rise
because of this deal.
Why is the finance minister allowing this tax attack on the hard
pressed people of Atlantic Canada when it is clear that it will hurt
the poor and it will kill jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hidden agenda of the Reform Party is very clear. It comes out in
its body language, it comes out in the words it uses.
The hon. member uses the words hush money. Any time money
is transferred to Atlantic Canada it is hush money. It was not hush
money when Ontario received stabilization payments from the
federal government. It was not hush money when western Canadian
grain farmers were given the support for agricultural payments. It
was not hush money for the Reform Party when the Alberta tar
sands were given a very important deal that would create jobs
there.
But transfer a penny to Atlantic Canada and it is hush money and
the reason is the Reform Party refuses to take a pan-Canadian view
of this country. The Reform Party refuses to understand that the
regions of this country support one another.
The problem that exists here is that the Reform Party simply has
given up on Atlantic Canada while the Liberal Party has not. We
believe in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
is the Liberal Party has made a career of creating divisions in this
country, which is why it is not willing to come up with $3 billion
for Ontario and the other provinces.
The devil is in the details. A copy of this deal says a cut in the
provincial portion of this tax requires the unanimous consent of all
provinces involved.
When was the last time we had unanimity on anything in this
country? But a rate increase only needs a simple majority. That is
one of the reasons the finance minister himself opposed
harmonization back when he ran for the Liberal leadership. This
deal entrenches higher taxes forever.
Why has the finance minister compromised his own belief that
harmonization guarantees higher taxes forever and, in doing so,
why did he sell out the people of Atlantic Canada?
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would simply ask the hon. member to go back to the byelection
which took place in Labrador when the Reform Party was prepared
to stand up and speak for Atlantic Canada. Now all of a sudden,
having lost that byelection as well as every other election in
Atlantic Canada, Reform members are taking out their vengeance
on Atlantic Canadians, saying ``we will not allow you to have a
lower tax rate, we will not allow you to have lower consumer costs,
we will not allow you to break away from a cycle of dependence,
toward independence''.
The hon. member asks when was the last time we had unanimity
in this country. I will tell him. It was when Canadians from coast to
coast to coast said ``the Reform Party has had it; it is going down
the drain''. They do not want to have anything more to do with
those vicious policies it stands for.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last Friday, the Toronto Star reported that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage was against sponsorship by tobacco companies,
even at the cost of killing cultural and sporting events like the Du
Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival in Toronto, the International Film
Festival in Vancouver, the Formula One Grand Prix and all summer
festivals in Montreal and elsewhere.
How can the minister say such things when her mandate is to
promote the cultural interests of Canada and Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing as
the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois two
weeks ago.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health announces he will be making a statement, but
then nothing happens; the Minister of Canadian Heritage has it all
wrong. We in the official opposition, in the Bloc, are the ones
saying: ``The priority is health. That is clear''. But at the same
time, the question I am putting to the minister is as follows. There
are cultural and sporting events at stake. She has a duty to look into
finding a solution. What solution, if any, can she offer this House?
6663
If she has one, let us hear it right now. Otherwise, let the people be
the judge.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was following what the
hon. member representing the Bloc Quebecois in this issue was
saying. I was actually following her advice.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada pension plan is in trouble because it is not
backed by investment but only by taxes on future generations.
Today's young face a very bleak prospect. When they have families
of their own, three of them will have to pay the taxes to take care of
one pensioner, half of the six doing so now. Only the full private
investment of CPP premiums can prevent such an unfair burden.
When will the Minister of Finance do the right thing, stop the
unfair burden on future generations and make the CPP a fully
funded system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, when the finance ministers met there was,
by and large, a consensus for the necessity of having a fuller funded
plan and that, in fact, the moneys should be invested at arm's length
from governments by an independent investment group.
To the extent that deals with the member's question, I believe
there is consensus across the country on that particular issue.
Hopefully we will be able to move to consensus right across the
board because I believe that all members of the House would agree
that the Canada pension plan is indeed an essential pillar of the
Canadian retirement system. I would suggest that all provincial
governments, as well as the federal government, deal with this as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, higher job killing premiums are the cornerstone of the
Liberal reform of the Canada pension plan. Lower job creating
premiums for employment insurance are overdue and demanded by
nearly everyone except the Minister of Finance.
Will the minister do the right thing for future generations and
today's workers and commit himself to a package of
simultaneously higher CPP and lower EI premiums, a package
which does not increase job destroying payroll taxes?
(1435 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure the hon. member knows that the employment insurance
plan and the Canada pension plan are quite separate. They are not
linked, as indeed are health levies, education levies and workmen's
compensation, which are all payroll plans in the provinces. For that
reason the Canada pension plan must be dealt with on its own.
I have a little difficulty with the member's question, how it
reconciles with the Taxpayers' Budget brought forward by the
Reform Party which states: ``To ensure that savings from reform of
UI translate into deficit elimination, the Reform Party recommends
the establishment of a permanent reserve fund for the UI. Until the
budget was balanced, funds from this reserve would be applied
against the deficit''.
Has the Reform Party changed its mind or does it still hold to
this statement?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
This morning, a coalition of organizations, including the
Canadian Hemophilia Society, renewed its request for access to the
documents the Krever commission wishes to examine. These
documents, including draft regulations on blood products, go back
to 1984, when the Liberal Party was in power and the current Prime
Minister was Deputy Prime Minister. According to testimony given
by certain senior health officials, the draft regulations were blocked
at the highest level.
How can the minister explain his stubborn refusal not to table
these documents, unless it is because their publication could be
embarrassing to the present government?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a stubborn
refusal, it is a legal requirement.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Evidence Act gives the minister the required authority.
Under the terms of that statute, the minister may ask the President
of the Privy Council to intervene in order to overturn a decision by
the Clerk of the Privy Council to refuse to make these documents
public, and to have them finally turned over to Judge Krever so that
he may get to the bottom of this tragedy.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, section 39 of the Canada
Evidence Act stipulates that cabinet confidences may not be
disclosed for 20 years, meaning that it is unfortunately impossible
for us under the law to meet this demand.
6664
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday in this House the minister of Indian affairs said that he could
not send treaty entitlements directly to grassroots Indian people
who live on reserves. He said that is not the way his government
deals with other levels of government.
Ottawa routinely sends individual entitlements and benefits
directly to other Canadians, including GST rebate cheques, child
benefit cheques, pension cheques and so on.
Why is the minister afraid to give treaty Indians a choice about
how they want to receive their treaty entitlements, either directly
from the government or from the chief in council? Why is he
denying Indians the same rights as every other Canadian?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me explain this to the hon.
member. First, treaty land entitlement is direct to the individuals
through a process.
But under treaty we have not yet scoped out the meaning of
health, the meaning of education, the meaning of economic
development. There are four processes going on in this country that
I hope would have something.
What the hon. member wants me to do-I explained it to her
colleague last week-is pay the money directly to 300,000 or
400,000 aboriginal people. We do not deal that way. We deal
government to government. We do not do that with provinces.
Provinces do not do that with municipalities. They elect people.
They decide on the priorities, whether hospitals, schools or roads.
This is the way they do it.
Certainly the hon. member is not suggesting that the Minister of
Finance take the money he collects and send a cheque to each
Canadian so they can decide what to do with the money. The people
elect us to come to the House of Commons to make decisions.
Aboriginal people elect chiefs in council to make decisions. It is
quite simple.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
an example. The First Nations accountability coalition is
comprised mainly of treaty Indians who receive old age pension
cheques. They are now able to speak out because they are not
totally beholden to the chief and council for their survival. Their
pension cheques have given them a real voice and real power for
the first time in their lives. These people are demanding financial
accountability of their own leaders. I am not asking this, they are
asking.
(1440)
Some of them have been threatened and beaten; some have had
their houses shot at. When they complained, the minister's own
officials in Saskatchewan told the coalition: ``Do not take it
personally; it is happening all over''. This is not good enough.
When will the minister finally give authority to the auditor
general to look into these complaints of financial mismanagement?
When will he make sure that aboriginals are treated fairly and
equally in this country?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably the
last person to be asking that question. These are the same types of
questions which are asked of the Minister of Justice. Reformers
take one isolated case and say because this happened, people
cannot handle their own responsibilities and that we should look at
what is happening.
Reformers refuse to look across the country at the 80 per cent of
First Nations that do a good job of managing. They refused to look
at the B.C. treaty process which was a success and which
Reformers opposed. They refused to look at the Manitoba
dismantling which they opposed and which is a success. They
refused to look at treaty scoping out and they even refused to
support legislation in the Yukon. Yet they come here and ask when
there is going to be fairness for the aboriginal people. They are the
wrong people to be asking that question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
There is seemingly endless pussyfooting around the urgent
action awaited in eastern Zaire and the international community's
hesitation casts some shameful doubts on its willingness to act.
After three days of meetings, the governments represented in
Stuttgart must now assess the options that have been defined.
In the context of an estimated 250,000 refugees still stuck in
eastern Zaire and another 300,000 having gone west, could the
minister give us an update and tell us which option he favours to
resolve the current deadlock?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following weekend talks, we received the
recommendations made by the military groups. As we speak, the
Minister of National Defence is in Washington. I myself am
consulting with several European and African ministers to
determine the best way to implement the recommendations
developed by the military groups in Stuttgart.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
Kigali still opposed to any intervention by a multinational force on
its territory, could the minister tell us how many more meetings
6665
will be needed and how much longer refugees will have to wait
before the international community takes action?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hope is that an agreement among the various coalition
partners can be arrived at within a matter of a day or so.
The meetings which were held last week were very important in
terms of determining the needs. Last week there was a high level of
confusion about how many refugees were left, what their condition
was and where they were located.
That decision was consolidated during the meeting at Stuttgart.
The Minister for International Cooperation held a very good
meeting in Geneva which helped to co-ordinate the assistance plans
for Rwanda. We are presently talking with a number of the
coalition partners to determine exactly what the most appropriate
response would be based on the information arrived at this
weekend.
I share the hon. member's degree of frustration. It is important
that we move as quickly as possible to help, but we cannot move by
ourselves. We must move in partnership with the other coalition
members. That is what we are working on at the present time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend, the Minister for International Cooperation chaired a
meeting held in Geneva to discuss the situation of refugees in
Africa's great lakes region. Canadians would like to know about
the outcome of this meeting and the measures to be taken regarding
this issue.
(1445)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Saturday, over 135 officials from 20 countries met in Geneva, in
addition to organizations representing 15 multilateral groups, to
discuss the humanitarian assistance effort in Rwanda and in eastern
Zaire. Several proposals were put forward.
A follow-up meeting will take place in Kigali, in a few days. I
hope to be able to make an announcement to this effect, perhaps in
the next 24 or 48 hours. Meanwhile, the following measures were
approved: increasing support to professional monitoring of human
rights protection.
Some hon. members: Excluded.
Mr. Boudria: No, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people
do not want this to be excluded.
The list goes on: increasing legal assistance to victims and, third,
providing help to promote peace and reconciliation in Rwanda.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the employees of Canadian Airlines have been very loyal
to their company. They have made sacrifices in the past and are
being called upon to make yet another. That decision is up to them.
I believe that the Minister of Transport's suggestion that he
might remove the domestic fuel tax if they accept the restructuring
plan is offensive. These employees should be able to see the value
of their sacrifice in advance and know that the overall restructuring
plan will work. That means the fuel tax should be removed before
they make their decision.
Will the minister do the honourable thing and remove the
aviation fuel tax in the manner promised with the introduction of
the GST before Canadian's employees have to make their final
decision?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member
that this government is taking the same position that it has taken
now for almost a month. The Minister of Transport did not go to
British Columbia to try to broker a deal between Canadian Airlines
and its union. He went there to listen. The Minister of Transport did
not go to British Columbia to write a cheque. The minister is there
to listen.
To quote the Minister of Transport, there is no role for
government until such time as the company is made essentially
profitable. Government involvement now with money or anything
else will not solve the chronic restructuring problem.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know why the government is listening now; it
never listened before. Reform has been calling for the removal of
the federal fuel tax on aviation gas but the federal tax is only part of
the problem. An international treaty on air transport, agreed to by
184 countries including Canada, prohibits taxation of fuel used for
international air transportation. The federal government has
complied but a number of provincial governments have not.
Given that this provincial aviation fuel tax on international
flights contravenes the treaty signed by Canada and compounds the
competitive problems for Canadian air carriers, what action if any
has the minister taken to have this provincial tax removed? If he is
6666
finally talking to them about that, why did he wait until Canadian
was in such deep financial trouble?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to help the hon. member out.
He is a hardworking member of the transport committee.
Maybe he has not met with his leader for a while but his leader
spoke on CBU AM radio in Vancouver and said: ``In keeping with
our philosophy that government should stay out of the marketplace
and stay out of business, if Canadian is to survive, it will survive
because it is successful in implementing a business plan to make it
profitable''.
In any of the speeches that have been made by his party or by the
government there has been no mention about foreign investment
and nothing about eliminating taxes. It is there in Reform's 1995
blue book: ``Eliminate regional development as a goal of
transportation policy''. There is no mention by the leader of the
third party on tax cuts on fuel. None of that. Where is the member
coming from? Let Canadian do the job of restructuring itself, then
we will listen to the proposals.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
For close to seven years now, a number of stakeholders from the
Quebec City region have been asking the federal government to
amend the Criminal Code to allow cruising ships on the St.
Lawrence River to operate a casino and to be allowed to call at
ports, including the port of Quebec.
(1450)
How can the minister justify his government's slowness to
introduce the required amendments to the Criminal Code, given
that it would result in major economic spinoffs for the whole
Quebec City region?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this idea comes up from time to
time. There are advantages. There are also policy considerations.
If the Government of Quebec has a formal request to make of us
to amend the Criminal Code in this regard, I would hope it would
be forthcoming. So far to my knowledge no such formal request
has been made. If it has a request to make, we will be happy to
consider it and discuss it with the other provincial governments and
other parties that are affected.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister would support a
private member's bill to be tabled to this effect by the Bloc
Quebecois.
Given that a number of jobs would be created, we wonder why
the minister cannot allow cruising ships to close their casino just
one hour before they arrive at the port of Quebec. It is not that
complicated.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue comes under provincial
jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Government of Quebec has adopted a
position regarding it, I would be pleased to be apprised of it.
If I receive a formal request from the Government of Quebec, I
will be pleased to give it proper consideration.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
We are not sure why the minister has not tabled his anti-smoking
legislation. Is it because the minister has no clout at the cabinet
table? Is it because he is fighting with other ministers in the
cabinet? Is it that there are too many high level Liberal lobbyists?
We cannot be sure, but the truth is the legislation is not here.
Maybe the minister has adopted roll your own targets like the
finance minister.
Canadians do not want any more ifs, ands or buts. When will we
see this legislation tabled in the House of Commons?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
soon.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
over the weekend according to Statistics Canada figures, 657 more
young people started smoking and another 219 people died from
smoking related illnesses. We are not talking about soon or some
cute little response here. We are talking about human lives.
Will the minister give us a date as to when we can expect this
legislation? Do not give us this nonsense about crossing your i's
and dotting your t's, or is it crossing your t's and dotting your i's.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, some people do have their i's crossed.
I want to tell the hon. member that what is shameful on the floor
of the House of Commons is the hypocrisy of the Reform Party
when its own critic has said clearly that the resolution of this
problem is not with legislation but with education. Now we have
the hon. member standing in this place wanting to have legislation.
6667
I say to the hon. member that we will have our legislation package
ready to go very soon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
For several months now, we have been hearing that the federal
government was going to get more directly involved in promoting
job creation.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us
what steps he has taken, in co-operation with the government of my
province, the Province of Quebec, in order to stimulate job
creation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, naturally the Government of
Canada and the Government of Quebec both wish to help as many
unemployed people as possible re-enter the job market. One way in
which our governments want to help Quebecers find work is to
facilitate the exchange of information between employers and
workers, by working closely with partners in the private sector.
I would like to give one example of how the governments of
Canada and of Quebec have worked together, in an activity
sponsored by Défi Emploi in the region of Témiscouata. In this
region, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec
have worked with local dailies, which have agreed to advertise jobs
free of charge.
(1455)
You will be pleased to learn that this Défi Emploi project in
Témiscouata has been a success. Of the 557 jobs advertised,
approximately 469 have been filled, a success rate of 84 per cent.
This means that 469 men and women have thus found jobs when
our governments work together.
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The information commissioner, John Grace, recently declared
that a number of government ministers were urging their officials
to break the law on purpose by refusing to make public within 30
days replies to requests for access to information.
What action does the minister intend to take to ensure that his
foot dragging colleagues get serious and observe the provisions of
the Access to Information Act?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that all of my colleagues
make their best efforts in good faith to comply with their
obligations under the law. Sometimes the complexity of a request
or the difficulty in amassing the necessary information is such that
the time limit is not fully respected. However, the record of this
government is clear. We take these responsibilities very seriously
and we make our best efforts to provide whatever information is
required as soon as practical.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, surely the commissioner was not just making idle
comments. There must be a problem.
When will the justice minister propose amendments to the
Access to Information Act for the purpose of strengthening the
coercive authority held by the information commissioner over
officials, political staff or ministers who deliberately take their
time making documents to which we are entitled to have access
under the act public?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these matters are always under
review. We are happy to discuss with interested parties ways in
which the law can be improved. However, we are satisfied that for
the most part the statute works well now. As I say, we make every
effort in good faith to comply with its spirit, its intent, as well as its
letter.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the rule of
law means that everyone in our society, including ministers of
government, premiers, the rich and powerful and ordinary citizens
alike are governed by the same law of the land. Those words were
spoken in the House by the Minister of Justice last September. Yet
last Friday the same minister asked me to overlook niggling
legalisms such as orders in council to permit Madam Justice Louise
Arbour to accept another position, despite the fact that the Judges
Act specifically prohibits judges from accepting other
appointments.
Is the minister now saying that the rule of law does not apply to
this minister when he grants orders in council to powerful people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing has happened since Friday
last to add any legitimacy to the position expressed by the hon.
member. He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
6668
The order in council that was made granted a leave of absence
to Madam Justice Arbour. That is entirely permitted by the Judges
Act. The fact that Madam Justice Arbour is pursuing other duties
is also permitted under the Judges Act.
What is prohibited by the Judges Act is that Madam Justice
Arbour would accept money from sources other than the federal
government. That she has not done and she will not do so until Bill
C-42 becomes law. That legislation is intended to amend the Judges
Act so that Madam Justice Arbour can take up the duties, with pay
from the United Nations, for which she was appointed.
I might say that she was appointed by the United Nations
Security Council in a unanimous vote. This country was honoured
that a judge of the court of appeal for Ontario was appointed to this
position, a position of world leadership in terms of morality: chief
prosecutor of the war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the end
does not justify the means. Regardless of what the minister is
saying today, he did say before the Senate that he had absolutely no
power to grant this order in council as the law currently stands and
he is in violation of section 55 of the Judges Act which prohibits
other employment. It has nothing to do with salary.
Since the minister has granted a special dispensation to Madam
Justice Louise Arbour, will he acknowledge that the appearance of
impartiality by Madam Justice Arbour will be seriously
compromised when she returns to the bench if she is judging cases
that involve the Government of Canada?
(1500)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this concern makes no more sense
when it emanates from the hon. member than it did from some of
those in the Senate who expressed it also. I do not understand it
frankly. I simply do not understand it. It does not make sense.
The United Nations wanted a judge from this country for the role
because with judges it has impartiality. It wanted a Canadian judge
because of our reputation in the world order. It wanted this judge
because of her integrity and her reputation for fairness and
competence. By unanimous vote of the security council it chose her
for this role.
We found that although she is permitted a leave of absence to
take up the duties she cannot be paid by the UN without a change in
the statute. The UN does not want us to pay her because it fears that
will undermine her independence in the World Court. We propose a
change to the statute and all we hear from this member is a bizarre
and, in my view, incorrect interpretation of the statute which might
cause difficulties in having this woman do an important service for
humanity.
Will the hon. member and his party stand down so that we can
get this job done for the world?
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The banks will be announcing another $6 billion profit, a record.
We hear members of the Liberal caucus making progressive noises
in the finance committee about the banks' service charges and
interest rates charged on Visa cards. But the real question is: What
is the government going to do?
Will the Minister of Finance commit his government to putting a
ceiling on interest charges on Visa, Mastercard and the other credit
card companies? Will he act?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know the
NDP has an inside track on bank profits because none of the banks
has announced their profits yet this year.
The government is committed to ensuring that the banks do their
fair share to support the economy. By that I mean paying their fair
share of taxes. These are the highest taxed corporations in the
country. Indeed they pay large corporate taxes. They pay a special
capital tax for large institutions besides their corporate taxes. They
paid a billion dollars in taxes in 1991 and 1993 and more this year.
That is one of the ways we have made sure that the banks play
out their role in the community.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the worst abuser of the unemployment
insurance fund in Canada, the Minister of Finance.
After three years of Liberal government, Canada is experiencing
the longest period of high unemployment we have known since the
thirties. Nevertheless, the Liberal government continues to put a
surtax on employees through the unemployment insurance fund.
I simply want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he thinks it
is legitimate for the government to use the unemployment
insurance fund to reduce its deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that takes the cake. When the Conservative government came to
power in 1984, unemployment insurance premiums were $2.30,
and when we came to power in 1993, they were about to reach
6669
$3.30. We have reduced them annually, but the Conservatives
increased them every year they were in power.
[English]
It is beyond belief. It must be very difficult to be the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party and have to swallow oneself whole
every time he stands up and denies the record of his government in
office. Every single year it was in office unemployment insurance
premiums went up. Every year that we have been in office
unemployment premiums have gone down.
He represents a government that was prepared to impose on the
Canadian people the highest level of taxation that they have ever
had. Yet they also gave them the highest deficit. At least the leader
of the Progressive Conservative Party should have the courage of
the Reform Party and outline from where his tax cuts will come.
Let him admit that he will cut health care-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
(1505 )
The Speaker: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence
in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation of the Parliament of
Bangladesh led by Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta, member of Parliament
and adviser to the Prime Minister on parliamentary affairs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw your attention to the
presence in the gallery of a delegation of chairmen of regional
assemblies from the North West Region of Russia led by Mr.
Vladimir A. Torlopov.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
6669
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-353, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (Internet lotteries).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Criminal Code will
allow the Government of Canada to take advantage of the online
gaming industry which is emerging as a very exciting form of
entertainment around the world. It will provide an opportunity
through proper regulation for Canada to take advantage of the
opportunity to raise billions of dollars that would otherwise not
come into the coffers of Canada.
It will create employment. With all of the new technologies in
terms of security and privacy issues, we will have an Internet
capability which will allow Canada to lead the world. I hope in the
not too distant future we can have this bill before the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by many
constituents throughout the national capital region calling on the
government to remove the 7 per cent GST on books. I understand
the government has taken action in this area, but the people who
signed the petition want it to go further.
(1510 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too have a petition to present
concerning the removal of the GST from reading materials.
I would like to mention to the hon. member as I table my petition
that the government, in fact, has not eliminated the 7 per cent sales
tax from reading materials but has done so for a few special people.
The petitioners call for the complete elimination of the GST on
reading material.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition
signed by several people in Alberta stating that the undersigned
residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House that there be
stricter
6670
penalties for young offenders who commit crimes causing bodily
harm or death.
The petition further states that these individuals should be held
in custody pending their court hearing and that young offenders age
16 and older who take the law into their own hands and cause death
should be charged and treated as adults and tried in adult court
without the consent of judges.
That adds more fully and completely to the small changes that
were made in Bill C-37. Of course, it is not the case that 16 and 17
year olds automatically are tried in adult court, as the petition
suggests.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present today. The first petition is signed by 26 of my
constituents.
They call on Parliament to urge the federal government to join
with the provincial governments to make a national highway
system upgrading possible.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 49 of my constituents.
They request the House of Commons enact legislation or amend
existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for
life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all
others.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition signed by several hundred people in my
constituency.
It urges the government to do what it has done in the recent
announcement of the minister of public works to restrict the
delivery of junk mail to their homes.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present today. The first is with regard to the removal of
the GST.
The petitioners ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's
repeated and unequivocal promise to remove the federal sales tax
from books, magazines and newspapers.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is with respect to our national highways.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government join with provincial governments to make the national
highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition duly certified on
behalf of my constituents of the riding of Hillsborough.
The petitioners ask that the Prime Minister declare that Canada
is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces,
territories and territorial waters may be modified only by: (a) a free
vote of all Canadian citizens and; (b) through the amending
formula stipulated in our Constitution.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present a petition from quite a number of people who are concerned
about the 7 per cent GST on reading materials.
The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate
their support of education and end literacy by eliminating the sales
tax on reading materials. They ask Parliament to zero rate the GST
on books, magazines and newspapers and that the provinces and
Ottawa should consider harmonizing their sales tax regarding
materials which must be zero rated under the provincial sales tax as
well as the GST.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today.
The first comes from Kelowna, B.C. The petitioners would like
to draw to the attention of the House that our police and firefighters
place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency
needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many cases families
are left without sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from Miller Lake, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
6671
(1515)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my duty to present a petition signed by 100 residents of the city of
Calgary. These petitioners believe that the 7 per cent GST on
reading material is unfair and wrong.
They ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST and the proposed harmonized sales tax.
They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated and
unequivocal promise to remove federal sales tax from books,
magazines and newspapers.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to advise you that two months ago, on September 27 to
be more specific, I put on the Order Paper three questions about
family trusts. I have yet to receive a reply, although the 45-day
period provided under the Standing Orders has expired.
This is a matter of considerable interest and concern to both
Quebecers and Canadians. I just got back from a series of
prebudgetary consultations with the finance committee, and many
witnesses raised the issue of family trusts before the committee.
This is a matter of considerable public interest.
I am counting on you, Mr. Speaker, and on the Parliamentary
Secretary to shed some light on a situation that has been with us
since 1972.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague for his intervention. I believe you are referring
to Questions Nos. 87, 88 and 89. I have taken a note of your
representation today. I can only tell you that those matters are being
reviewed at the moment and we hope they will be before the House
soon.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. parliamentary
secretary to please put all his comments through the Chair rather
than directly across the floor. His colleague, the chief whip, will
tell him how hard that is on the morale of the Speaker.
6671
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-63, an act to amend
the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee; and Motion No. 6.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay East who
has four minutes remaining in his intervention.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
concluding portion of my remarks I was referring to the fact that
what we are trying to do here is create an improved bill respecting
elections in Canada and the fact that I believe we have good will in
this House and are attempting to do it in such a way that it be
non-partisan.
However, politics being the partisan effort that it is, I would
draw to the attention of the Liberals the fact that during the last
Parliament it was they who were carrying on in quite a manner
about the fact that the Conservatives would bring in closure. It was
the Liberals who put in their red book appendix an article about
people who would ascend to the position of deputy chair of this
chamber.
In other words, whether we like it or not, the reality is it seems
when people move from this side of the House to the other side of
the House, certainly historically between the Liberals and the
Conservatives, they generally carry on the position of the people on
the government side of the House.
I therefore draw that to their attention because it is important to
realize that when we are trying to craft something here we are
trying to craft a set of rules that we can play a game with; not play a
game in the sense of frivolous but indeed compete in.
Many of us enjoyed watching the Grey Cup yesterday. It was
interesting that the field was of equal width at either end. It was
interesting was that one set of goal posts was not lower or wider.
Both sets of goal posts were exactly the same.
In other words, when we set up the rules of engagement for
whatever the competition may be, whether it be a football game or
a political contest, the rules be tailored in such a way that they are
fair to all participants, that all participants have equal opportunity.
(1520 )
We know as it presently stands the government has the potential
of turning around and doing whatever it will with respect to calling
an election. It actually becomes something of a joke. I note in the
province of Alberta the premier has been saying ``soon, soon''
much the same way the health minister here keeps on saying
``soon, soon'' with respect to tobacco taxes. The point is the
6672
government of the day has the power to do what it will do when it
wants to do it.
With that in mind, it is all the more important therefore that we
make sure that the 36 day campaign be restricted exclusively to a
general election. As stated previously, each party must go through a
nomination process. This is a process where each party goes out of
its way to cast its net as wide as it can to get as highly qualified
candidates as it can. Each party must go through a process of
fundraising, particularly at the constituency level where
byelections are being called. Each party must build a team of
people to help the candidate, help the campaign for that candidate
to become successful.
As I have stated previously, it is for that reason we must have
rules that are fair or as close to fair and equitable as we can so that
each candidate and each party is given the opportunity to have as
much time as is required to get the job done properly.
I recognize that this is a Reform motion and it has been the
history of this government that motions from parties other than the
Liberal Party have received very scant attention. However, in this
particular case, I think it is really important for future byelections
that will be held under this legislation that the members and the
government, because it will be leading its members, take a serious
look at this and recognize that this is the only way that we can keep
the field for the election contest the same and the goal posts at the
same height.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
before us an amendment proposed by the Reform Party to maintain
a slightly longer period for a byelection than one would for a
general election.
I support this type of amendment, and I will explain why. In a
general election, the parties knew it was coming, so they have a
chance to set up their campaign machine, the people who volunteer
their services such as fundraising, an indispensable adjunct to the
democratic process which includes exercising the right to vote and
the election campaign that precedes voting day. Obviously, in a
general election, the parties have had a chance to prepare for the
event.
However, with a byelection that comes out of the blue, the
parties do not get the same advance notice, except of course the
government party which has all the time in the world to decide
when. It is clear that the government party would have an unfair
competitive edge since it sets the date, which gives it plenty of time
to get ready to face the opposition parties in a campaign that will
last for a very limited period.
In that kind of situation, the opposition parties would have to
recruit volunteers very quickly, which is not easy, and get their
grassroots financing. And by the way, those parties that are funded
by multinationals get huge cheques. As you can imagine, that kind
of fundraising is much easier. The other parties, including the Bloc
Quebecois, which raise money from their members and the general
public in the form of small contributions, will have to work much
harder over a much longer period of time.
(1525)
It will therefore be understood that this is necessary in
byelections so that all parties, the government party and the
opposition parties, may act under fair rules and within an extended
period of time. The Reform Party motion is well received in this
connection.
Let me remind you that the government party has not always
acted with-shall I say-all the respect it ought to have shown to
the opposition parties. I refer specifically to the byelections held
last February in three Quebec ridings.
At that very moment, the Bloc Quebecois was involved in a
leadership race. The energies of our activists, our volunteers, were
focussed on that, yet we had at the same time to campaign in three
separate ridings. This shows that the precautions contained in the
Reform motion are not without purpose.
Indeed, the government party, understandably, wants to hold an
election at the time that is best for it and, consequently, the worst
time for the opposition parties. They cannot be faulted for that. It is
to be expected, strategically speaking. Nevertheless, the public
interest must take precedent in such cases. The goal must be, not so
much to give the opposition parties the opportunity to get
organized, but to ensure that the public interest is protected by a
democratically held election.
You will agree that, if the opposition parties lack the time to
prepare themselves, to get organized, to explain what they have to
offer to the population of a riding holding a byelection, the voters
in that riding are being totally deprived of the public debate that
ensures a healthy democracy. The voters in the riding are deprived
of the possibility of making the most informed choice possible.
Because we are in a democracy, we have to respect not only the
underlying principles, but the means. I do not doubt that the
government party has all the necessary respect for the underlying
principles of democracy, but it must also have respect for the
means.
Let us face it, a party in power will one day sit on the opposition
side. Consequently, what I have to say today in support of the
Reform motion is, in reality, also for the benefit of the party in
power at the present time.
You will have understood, of course, that by the time this rule
applies, the Bloc will likely be elsewhere, its mission
accomplished, but on behalf of the democracy which is, and will
remain,
6673
in Canada and in Quebec, I believe that the Reform Party motion
ought to be well received by this House.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a few remarks with respect to the amendment that we
proposed to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
The amendment relates to byelections and the period of time in
which those byelections can take place.
Historically, as all members know, elections campaigns have
been carried out over a 47 day period. A sequence of events took
place during those 47 days which, generally, was acceptable to
Canadians. That 47 day period allowed both government members
and opposition members to adjust.
(1530 )
This piece of legislation shortens the time period for a byelection
from 47 days down to 36 days. In some cases that may be okay. For
example when because of ill health someone passes away a period
of time exists afterward and there is a bit of notice not only to the
government but also the opposition parties in terms of filling that
vacancy. There is some notice.
The major concern is that there are other situations. In this 35th
Parliament there have been a number of situations where someone
resigned on one day immediately after which the Prime Minister
announced the byelection in the respective constituency and all
parties were supposed to be ready. In that kind of a situation the
government party is at an advantage.
Let us take the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister. We
knew that the Deputy Prime Minister should resign and the
opposition, the Reform Party questioned the government day after
day, checking on the integrity and the actions of the government.
We asked that if the Deputy Prime Minister really said that if the
GST was not eliminated, killed, scrapped or done away with, if that
did not happen, that she would resign. It took some days to prove it.
We had to work on that. Knowing that this government had such a
massive majority we were not sure that the Deputy Prime Minister
would stick with that statement, show integrity and resign. The day
came when all of a sudden the Deputy Prime Minister resigned. It
happened. We were not sure when that was going to happen but the
government was.
In the backrooms people like Hosek, Goldenberg and all those
other backroom strategists who pull the strings of this government
and really run the government, who tell the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader and the whip what to do,
had a lead time of two or three weeks to plan the events of the
byelection. They were able to notify the people in Hamilton that
there was going to be a byelection and to get themselves ready,
raise their funds, get their campaign people together, that the
Deputy Prime Minister was going to make an announcement.
Quietly they could do that and I am sure they did.
The plug was pulled. There was a byelection. There were 47
days. We here in the Reform Party scrambled around, got a good
candidate in place, raised funds, got our constituency organization
working, brought people in from a variety of places to campaign,
but we were somewhat at a disadvantage.
The government now wants to say that all of that can be done in
36 days. Who is winning out of that kind of a major amendment in
the legislation? It is all to the advantage of the government.
I commented earlier in some of my statements in committee that
a 36 day campaign for a regular election is not a bad idea. What is
the difference? The difference is that going into a general election,
opposition members, whether they are with one of the recognized
parties or one of those parties that are disappearing into oblivion
like the Progressive Conservative Party, if they have any smarts
and are sitting in this House and making some general
observations, which can be done even here today, they know that by
the spring 1997 there will be a general federal election, or if it is
not in the spring it will be in October 1997.
Those are easy observations. Anybody can do that. As political
parties, just like the government, we should set some target dates in
1996 or 1997. I would think that all parties should have all or at
least 90 per cent of their nominations completed by the end of
March 1997 so they are ready. Then the candidates can work, raise
funds, get their teams together and be prepared for a general
election. There is notification and a 36 day campaign could work
under those circumstances.
(1535 )
The better situation would be if there were fixed dates for
elections so that every four years we would know exactly when we
would vote. That would be a much better situation rather than
allowing the government to play politics in the elections.
The case I made relative to the amendment is that we should
have a longer notice period. In our amendment we have suggested a
30 day freeze period after a member vacates a seat for a variety of
reasons. There are good reasons for that if we look at the examples
here in the House.
David Berger was appointed as the ambassador to Israel at a
salary range of between $88,000 and $103,000. That opened a seat
and subsequently there was a byelection. It could have been called
immediately the day he was appointed as the ambassador to Israel.
Jean Robert Gauthier was appointed as a senator. The day he was
appointed and resigned his seat, a byelection could have been
announced and we would have had only 36 days. That is not
6674
enough time for people to understand what has happened nor for
the opposition parties to prepare.
Andre Ouellet was appointed chairman of Canada Post. His
salary has nicely increased from what it was in the House of
Commons. It is now somewhere between $128,000 and $160,000.
The point I want to make is that the person could have been
appointed one day and the byelection could have been announced at
that time, with only 36 days rather than 47 days to prepare. Some of
the information in terms of salary is relevant in that we can see how
there is such a desire for people to leave the salary or the position
of member of Parliament or minister to go to other Liberal havens
that are created for respective members of Parliament. I am sure
that many have their eyes on such plumbs.
There have been other instances where a byelection was created.
Roy MacLaren went to the position of high commissioner in the
United Kingdom. William Rompkey and Shirley Maheu became
senators. In every one of those situations, along with the example I
gave earlier with regard to the Deputy Prime Minister, the person
could have resigned his or her seat in this assembly and
immediately an announcement of a byelection could have been
made.
Under the legislation which has been brought before us by the
Liberal government, the period of time for a byelection will be 36
days down from 47 days. That could have a major adverse effect on
the democratic process in the preparation for the respective
byelection. It would be unfair to the people who have to select the
next candidate to sit as a member of Parliament.
The government should reconsider its position with regard to no
freeze period of 30 days. If we could possibly reach a compromise,
going back to the 47 days which is currently in the legislation, that
would even be some recognition by the government that the period
of time for a byelection must be longer than the minimum 36 day
period which exists in the legislation being presented to us at this
time.
I hope the government will reconsider its position and look at
something different. Thirty-six days is just not fair in terms of good
preparation for a byelection. A freeze of 30 days would be best but
if we could agree to some kind of compromise at 47 days in an
amendment to the legislation, I think it would meet some of the
concerns we have on this side of the House.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add my voice to that of the other members of this House in
the debate on the amendment proposal by the Reform Party.
The arguments put forward by the member before me are clearly
neither very logical, nor plausible nor of much value to democracy
in Canada or Quebec.
I am, however, surprised at the amount of time spent in this
House-an hour, an hour and one quarter-discussing an
amendment that should be unanimously approved and be
self-evident. The federal Liberal government should be
automatically interested, in my opinion, in such a claim, which
would serve well all Canadians, all political parties and,
consequently, democracy in Canada.
However, I am not surprised by the arrogance of the Liberals, yet
again, in failing to listen to our arguments and to try to find a way
through compromise for all members of Parliament to come up
with a better electoral act, which would serve all political parties
and therefore all Canadians and Quebecers.
I am surprised that they are preparing to reform the electoral act
in disregard of principles established in all western democracies for
the past 50 years. Is it, for example, common practice for the date
of an election to be set at the whim of a Prime Minister? Is that
common practice in a democracy? Is there anywhere in the world
where this behaviour is permitted?
The first reform proposed by the government ought to have been:
``Every four or five years, we will have a vote on the first Monday
or first Sunday of November or October''. The month does not
matter, what counts is a set date for elections. This I think would be
the reform Canadians and Quebecers would appreciate the most.
It is also out of the ordinary for the date to be set, when a seat
becomes vacant through a member's resignation or death, at the
Prime Minister's pleasure and not through a consensus of all
parties reached through consultation or, simply, 60 or 90 days after
the departure or death of a member.
It seems to me that we should have a date, as they have in most
European countries, a predetermined date for the general elections;
and a dateline for byelections after the incumbent's departure,
instead of the Prime Minister having the inside track through
picking and choosing the election date.
As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the century, the
Liberal Party has always acted in its own best interests with regard
to general elections in Canada. This century, it has been in power
for 60 or 70 years out of 90. It has repeatedly refused to pass
legislation in keeping with that of major western democracies,
preferring to hang on to its archaic privileges and to use them
gradually so as to keep the advantage whenever an election is
called.
This fat cat party is completely out of touch with Canadian
reality; it has no regard for democracy in action at election time.
What matters to the Liberal Party is to seize power. What matters is
6675
to stay in power, and anything goes, including handing out plums
to party supporters, ministers handing out discretionary contracts
to whoever best served not society, not the government or citizens
as a whole, but the Liberal Party.
(1545)
When the former Minister of National Defence hands out a
$75,000 discretionary contract for a little survey that was never
conducted and never will be, because it was awarded to a party
treasurer, you get the picture. And this man was one of the heavy
weights on the government's front benches. What did the Prime
Minister do? He applauded the handing out of these discretionary
contracts to friends of the party.
In the meantime the minister's wife was patronage adviser to the
Prime Minister. Imagine the racket this will lead to, to raise funds,
collect election funds, organize the next elections, flout democracy.
And who cares about setting a date? Whenever the polls are
favourable, the government will pick a date and try to rout the
opposition. That has been the typical attitude of the Liberal Party
since the beginning of the century. If anything, this bill shows that
this party intends to maintain democracy in Canada by perpetuating
that attitude.
I mentioned the former defense minister, but let us speak about
the former heritage minister. One month after the election, she
invited 20 persons to a small private cocktail party for $2,000 each,
thus collecting $40,000 for the event. In the following months she
granted a dozen of these people discretionary research contracts the
likes of which we have never seen and will never see again. She
used public funds to reward people who contributed financially to
her political party and to her own election. This is what the minister
did. How did the Prime Minister react? He stood up and applauded.
That is the vision of the Liberal Party for you.
A reform like this one should be discussed among Canadians and
Quebecers, in both our countries, since it has an impact on the
future of democracy in this House, and there should be broader
consultations. But what does the government do? It gags us. It uses
parliamentary procedures to limit debate so it can rush this bill
through and be free to call the next election whenever it pleases.
With a small but important amendment like the one proposed by
the Reform Party, which members of the Bloc support, we are
saying there is at least one amendment we are submitting to prevent
them from repeating what they did in the byelection held six
months ago, which everybody criticized.
That byelection led to the squandering of $100,000 for no reason
at all except that the member wanted to be reconfirmed; it was just
a big show. So, the Deputy Prime Minister used public funds to
look good and, to make sure she would be elected, she limited the
number of days and quickly announced an election to throw the
other political parties off balance.
She should have had a deadline, as proposed by Reform
members. But I would go further than what Reform members are
proposing. Each time there is a byelection, it should be announced
on a fixed date, that is, the day after the resignation. It would
always be the same number of days, whether 60 or 90, so that each
party knows when to expect an election.
But once again, the Liberal Party prefers to hide. The Liberal
Party will try to cheat again. It is used to depend on such schemes
for its survival. This is what the Liberal Party is, a party of
schemers.
We could also say many other things about that party that talks
out of both sides of its mouth. That party says one thing during the
election campaign and another when elected. The members of that
party do not give a damn about the promises they made about the
GST or the Constitution.
I would say the Liberal Party's motto, when campaigning, is:
``We are never too poor not to make promises''. So the Liberals
promise anything and, when in office, they forget their promises,
telling themselves that they will certainly fool the people in the last
six months by giving out grants, thinking that people will not
remember anything.
In a big convention where they will get people together, they will
give them free food and drinks, have a big party and get applauded
for keeping 87 per cent of their promises. They will dare put on
another big media event.
(1550)
We know quite well that the Liberal Party's main promises have
never been kept. The Liberal Party's distinctive feature is indeed to
govern with the objective of remaining in office and-as the old
people back home would say-to grease its friends' palms. This
reform is a very small one. The amendment that is proposed to us
could at least limit the damage.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
important for me to get on the record concerning what is happening
here today and to talk about some of the very reasoned amendments
the Reform Party has put forward. I do not think there is anything
here that is out in left or right field. Very serious ideas have been
put forward by our party to try to improve this bill.
We hope the government is, even at this late hour, considering
some of our proposals that we think would make the elections act
better. They would also help all Canadians believe, understand and
hope that the government is concerned about consensus and
6676
consultation on something as important and non-partisan as the
elections act.
I hope the government will consider and listen both here and in
committee to the proposals we have brought forward. I think they
have a lot of merit to them.
It is disappointing that the government uses time allocation at its
first opportunity to push the bill through very quickly. Since it
seems to be intent on doing that, it is really unfortunate because
this type of legislation should be built on consultation,
co-operation and an all-party consensus.
Therefore, first of all I have to voice my displeasure and concern
that time allocation is being used again in the House. It is almost
like the New York stock market; every day is a new record around
here for the number of times the government has used time
allocation. It has certainly been used far more than it was used
under Mulroney. It is used routinely to put measures through the
House when good planning could have obviated the necessity.
Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, brought forward this
report back in March. It has been available to the House for months
and months. Instead, it is dealing with the legislation at the 11th
hour. It has to be rammed through in two days or else. It has to go to
the Senate and be rammed through there and it has to come back.
The government has had this report from Mr. Kingsley for six or
eight months. That is just poor House management. I do not know
what the deputy House leader has to do with that, but he should
take note that it should not be necessary to routinely use time
allocation in the House.
Just two weeks ago we debated the speech from the throne
because we had nothing else to talk about. Instead of debating
issues of the day and having ample time to do it, we reverted back
to the speech from the throne. Everybody droned on about
something that is eight or ten months old that nobody cared about
and there was no issue at hand, instead of debating important
legislation. That is poor management and a disrespect to the House
and to the work of members of Parliament.
Obviously I cannot restate that again except to say that it is very
disappointing and very discouraging to those of us who thought
that we would have ample time to debate serious subjects like this.
On the particular motion, there is some good logic why there
should be notice given for byelection dates. The hon. member for
Lethbridge, a man with as much experience in parliamentary
affairs as the Prime Minister and with as many years in public
office as anyone in the House, has pointed out the obvious need for
fairness toward opposition and government parties alike.
The proposal is that opposition parties should be given notice of
any byelection that may be coming up. It should not be dropped out
of the blue. The opposition party does not have the inside track that
the government has when it decides to choose its byelection dates.
(1555 )
If the number of days in the writ period are to be shortened and if
someone resigns on the government side-of course this is well
discussed behind the scenes and the government decides on a
date-the members on the opposition side do not know it is
coming. All of a sudden someone has been promoted to heaven, or
the other place, as they like to call it here. They find they have a job
for life and all the perks that go with that. I do not agree with that
but it is another issue for another day.
It is particularly disturbing if it happens to be in a riding where
opposition parties do not see it coming. Suddenly they find
themselves scrambling to make up ground with only a 36-day
period to do so. For example, a candidate may not have been
chosen, or a war chest put together to fight that election.
Sometimes a party's constitution requires several days' notice to
get things up and running. It is very difficult for an opposition party
to mount the campaign it should and which democracy demands. It
should be a fair and unbiased election period.
I hope the government will listen to the amendment. Reform has
put forward a couple of ideas. First, it should be a minimum 30-day
period before the byelection could be held. Obviously that gives
everybody the same writ period but at least everybody gets a little
bit of notice. It has been Reform's longstanding belief that a
byelection should be held a maximum of six months after a seat
becomes vacant.
The way it is right the Prime Minister must call a byelection but
he does not have to call it for six months. He has a year after that to
call it. There could be people without representation in the House
of Commons for 18 months. We have seen it happen before where a
byelection is put off and put off. That is unfortunate for the
democratic process where people are clamouring for a
representative who no longer exists to do something for them in
Parliament and they do not have that person there for them.
To be fair to the political parties there should be a 30-day waiting
period if we are going to have a 36-day writ. A 30-day waiting
period is the least we could ask for. I would hope the government
would consider a six-month maximum so that people in this
country are not without representatives for longer than six months.
Surely six months is enough time to organize a byelection. If it can
be done in 36 days surely it can be done in six months. Let us not
play politics with the people's right to be represented. Let us let
them have a seat here in the House and put a six month maximum
on it.
6677
There is a realm of reforms that could be considered in the
whole elections act. Some are not covered here. Reform of course
made quite a play for fixed election dates. The reason for that was
so the government does not get the inside track, does not have
an advantage that opposition parties do not have available to them.
That includes many things, everything from contributions, to tax
deductibility of the same and so on. There are many things that
could still be and maybe should still be considered by the
government in the months ahead.
On this motion I appeal to its sense of fairness. I hope the
government has been listening to these debates and will look at
what are very cogent arguments. We are trying to be reasonable and
fair. From a majority government's point of view it is very
important that it is fair because obviously it can ram through
anything it wants.
I appeal to the government, its sense of fairness, to come our
way on this one. Give us some of what we are asking in a sense of
fairness. Perhaps then this time allocation pill which has been a
very difficult one to swallow, will be somewhat easier to take if we
see the government is serious about consultation, debate and
compromise.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
essential that we debate today this bill on which, unfortunately,
time allocation has been imposed at the final stage.
For our constituents who may be watching or listening in, a time
allocation motion is a gag motion used by the government to
preclude the opposition and the third party from using the time
normally allocated to them in a parliamentary democracy to
provide the people of Canada with information about the important
issue of election organization, and party financing in particular.
I will address this first group of motions, stressing that, in our
opinion, in byelections, the electoral period should remain 47 days.
I will get right to the point, which is that we need enough time to
raise public funds for byelections. I might add supporting
arguments like the fact that some ridings cover very large areas. It
is true in Quebec and other provinces. In fact, some ridings will be
even larger come January because of the new electoral boundaries
coming into effect. And to run a proper campaign worthy of being
called democratic, more time is needed, given that the parties'
information campaign cannot play the same role in a byelection as
in a general election.
Coming back to the first point on my list, public financing, I can
tell you that, as a matter of general policy, the federal government,
the Liberal government, should have the courage to suggest public
funding of political parties to Canadians. This is a proposal the
Parti Quebecois and the Quebec premier had the courage to make
to Quebecers in 1977-it was in fact the very first act passed by the
PQ government-and one they are still congratulating themselves
for. I might add that even the Quebec Liberal Party was revitalized
by having to go door to door in an effort to raise funds other than
large corporate donations, which is the whole point.
What does public financing of political parties mean? It means
that political parties must not rely on large corporations for which
donations of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 are no big deal,
especially when such donations mean that citizens whose interests
run counter to those of these large corporations systematically find
themselves at a disadvantage.
Indeed, the fact that the federal Liberal government did not
include a clause providing for public funding of political parties
flies in the face of the democratic principle ``one person, one
vote'', each vote carrying the same weight in deciding the results of
the election and giving all citizens the same influence on their
members and their government.
Basically, what the federal government is telling us is that it
plans to continue to seek donations from these major sources of
capital. It plans to remain under their influence. We will continue
to be influenced by these major financial backers.
(1605)
Of course, businesses have interests and these interests are often
jobs. However, their influence is already strong enough without
having political parties totally surrender to these groups, whose
interests are not those of the general public.
The Liberal Party meant to be liberal, in the broad sense of the
term. However, it is rather conservative, if not very conservative,
regarding this issue. What it is doing will tarnish and even
undermine the real efforts made by candidates and by teams in
every riding, when confronted to other teams and candidates who
do not reject such funding.
The Bloc Quebecois is very proud of the fact that it got 54
candidates elected in Quebec, including a record number who got a
majority of the total number of votes. It just so happens that the
Bloc Quebecois unilaterally pledged to fund its campaign based on
the Quebec legislation.
I know that, in other provinces, some candidates would really
like to get elected with the concrete support of ordinary citizens, of
people who contribute $5, $20 or, when they can afford to do so,
$100 to exert their democratic influence. Indeed, I have often had
discussions with members from the other side who would love to
renew the democratic source of their funding. On this issue, no one
from the other side can look at us in the eyes and say: ``We are not
influenced by major financial backers''. No one can do that.
6678
To be sure, we could, if we wanted, find government decisions
that have been influenced not by citizens who voted according to
a democratic process, not by organizations that invested time and
effort in the riding, but by financial backers who went over
everybody's head, who had easy access to ministers, and who were
able to send the necessary signals to make sure their position was
the one that prevailed.
You might wonder why we, the Bloc, wish the Canadian
federation would improve its democracy. I am asking that question
in front of you because the Canadian people deserves to have a
system that works according to democratic rules rather than a
system that pretends to give everyone a vote but that, actually,
creates the conditions to allow a team to get in power and
afterwards to act only according to the interests of major players
who remain hidden while the electoral process goes on.
It is all the more so in the case of a byelection, when we need
time to go about collecting funds. We of the Bloc, in particular, will
continue to do this.
(1610)
We want to have the time to do it. It might be useless for us to
hope so, but we continue to hope that the voices will be so loud and
so numerous on the government side that the government will end
up adopting this practice, which is a minimum in a democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour 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.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-63, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the
following:
``she is domiciled and to vote at the''
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-63 be amended, in Clause 12, by replacing line 41 on page 4 with the
following:
``referred to in subparagraph 71.011(a)(ii) or (iii). The''
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 10 the
following:
``71.011(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall endeavour to conclude agreements
with provinces and territories that maintain permanent lists of electors and the
agreements shall provide for the use of such lists by the Chief Electoral Officer.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where the Chief Electoral
Officer has entered into an agreement under subsection (1) for the use of a
permanent list of electors, the Chief Electoral Officer shall, for the purposes of
holding an election, use any lists obtained under such an agreement.''
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-63 be amended, in Clause 22
(a) by replacing line 32 on page 10 with the following:
``tion,''
(b) by replacing line 3 on page 11 with the following:
``Electors, or''
(c) by adding after line 3 on page 11 the following:
``(iii) contained in an existing permanent voter's Register created according to
provincial legislation and that the Chief Electoral Officer considers adequate
for the purposes of section 71.011;''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 38 on page 11.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition has two motions in Group No. 5, the Reform
Party has three. Our first motion, Motion No. 7, is to replace in the
election legislation the notion of ``résidence ordinaire'' or ``main
residence'' by that of ``domicile''.
We are giving the government the opportunity to flesh out the
proposition it made following the referendum held on October 30,
1995. The government passed in this House a resolution to
recognize in principle the distinctiveness of Quebec with regard to
language, culture and civil law.
With the notion of ``domicile'', we are addressing the third
characteristic of the distinct society of Quebec, since this is a civil
law notion. In Quebec, we usually define ``domicile'' as the place
where the voters have hearth and home, that is where they
ordinarily reside.
(1615)
However, the elections legislation does not use this civil law
notion. It seems to me that we need to be consistent, here. Since the
government took upon itself to recognize the distinctiveness of
6679
Quebec right after the referendum, it could show it in some
concrete way.
Since property and civil rights are defined in the British North
America Act, 1867 as a provincial area of jurisdiction, pursuant to
section 92(13), it would only be reasonable, at least where Quebec
is concerned, since it availed itself of these provisions to develop
its own Civil Code, that the notion of ``domicile'' be used as an
eligibility requirement for voters, along with their age. Otherwise,
we end up with nothing but wishful thinking expressed in
November 1995 without any repercussions.
When drafting a bill for two nations that vote under a unique set
of rules of law with different civil law principles, we must take into
account the Canadian duality between Quebec's civil law and the
common law of the English provinces, where the concept of main
residence is very important.
Why impose concepts of common law to a province, which has
had a civil law tradition since Confederation and even before, since
Quebec's civil code, must I add, was approved by the Parliament of
a united Canada the year before the federation was born in 1867?
Our civil code goes back to 1866. It was amended several times
since, especially concerning matrimonial regimes. There were the
great reforms of 1930-31 following the Dorion Report; the 1964
reforms concerning the community of property, where the husband,
although he is the administrator of the community, had to have the
consent of his spouse to continue administering the community, at
least in general; and the 1970 reform of the matrimonial regimes
provided for in the civil code.
From then on, the partnership of acquests became the legal
regime in the civil code for spouses without a marriage contract.
There were also, in the early 1980s, Bill 89, which was passed by
the National Assembly, and the Loi sur le patrimoine familial,
which was passed in the late 1980s. This new civil code maintains
of course the general principles of French law which has always
applied in Quebec.
So why would the government impose upon us legislation which
is foreign to us under section 92(13)? Why would it force us to
accept terms which have no basis in our legal system? The Fathers
of Confederation recognized, in 1867, that Quebec was really a
distinct society with regard to its civil law. That did not happen in
October of November 1995. This duality in terms of civil law was
recognized in 1867 in the founding legislation. Our electoral law
must respect that.
We do not need an electoral law which uses the same words from
coast to coast for the whole Dominion. The Dominion, in terms of
civil law, is comprised of nine provinces that have a common law
system and one province that has a civil law tradition, each system
having its own merits, of course. We will not debate this any
further. That was the first motion brought forward by the official
opposition.
The second motion is Motion No. 11. It is just a little strange that
we should have had to propose this amendment. This provision
should have been in the bill from the outset. In fact, MotionsNos. 12 and 13 brought forward by the Reform Party, which are in
the same group, essentially call for the same thing, namely that the
Chief Electoral Officer of Canada be allowed to use provincial
lists.
The same taxpayers pay for the lists of electors in the provinces,
where the qualifications of electors are exactly the same, where the
basic notions to have the right to vote are exactly the same, the
notion of universal suffrage being applied everywhere in Canada.
Yet, the bill before us today does not allow the Chief Electoral
Officer of Canada to use provincial lists if the enumeration was
conducted more than 12 months before the date on which such lists
would be used.
(1620)
In other words, in this connection, the bill could have said that
Canada's chief electoral officer is not authorized to use Quebec's
list, because the census used to create it was held in September
1995. The census used to create it will run out next May 1, at which
time the list will be published, and the list will be as good as
possible.
It will therefore be more than 12 months. It is already more than
12 months. The federal government will not be able to use this list,
put together at a cost of several million dollars, because the
legislator does not wish to recognize the quality of the list drawn up
by Quebec's director general of elections. The government does not
wish to assume its responsibilities with respect to this work and to
legislation that is more forward looking than the federal legislation.
They tell us: ``We have not checked the validity of the lists
drawn up by Quebec. Quebec's lists are prepared for different
polling divisions''. These are logistical problems, computer
problems.
If Quebec is able to use its permanent list for municipal elections
in which the polling divisions are completely different, why is it
not possible to use Quebec's provincial list for a federal election in
which polling divisions are larger?
Let the computer experts work it out, but as a declaration of
principle, I think it obvious that, in the interests of harmony, and
also of economy, of the public money for which we are all
accountable to our constituents, the broadest possible use of
provincial lists should be permitted. I am not speaking only of
Quebec's list. It could be Alberta's, or Prince Edward Island's,
drawn up with the assistance of Elections Canada on top of that. It
is rather strange to see electoral lists drawn up by Elections Canada
6680
excluded from use in a federal election under the pretext that more
than 12 months may have gone by.
The correction proposed in Bill C-63 at the committee stage is
only a partial one, not allowing the use of the Quebec list of
electors. In other words, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada will
not be able to use the Quebec list of electors for the election of 75
members of this House.
I respectfully submit that the Bloc Quebecois amendment and
the Reform Party amendment strongly resemble each other. Ours is
more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, in that it
requires him to attempt to conclude an agreement with the Director
General of Elections of Quebec, whereas the Reform amendment
does not go quite as far, requiring the Chief Electoral Officer of
Canada to check that the provincial voter's register is adequate. If it
is found to be adequate, he ought then to make use of it.
I sense that the hon. member for Calgary West is dying to
explain his amendment. I shall therefore yield the floor to him,
with your permission, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising to speak on Group No. 5 of the report stage motions relative
to Bill C-63. As the hon. member for Bellechasse has noted, there
are five motions in this group, three presented by the Reform Party
and two by the Bloc Quebecois. They concern three subject
matters, two of which I was going to address quickly but I think I
will spend a bit of time on the first one, given some of the remarks
by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Motion No. 7 presented by the Bloc Quebecois is a very
interesting one. It simply changes the wording in a particular
section from ``is ordinarily resident'' to ``is domiciled''. As the
member explained very well, this is a switch from terminology
used in common law to terminology used in the Quebec civil code.
At the same time I point to the change away from the terminology
that is generally used in the Canada Elections Act, not just in this
section but in other sections and also in the general
communications of Elections Canada, to terminology more
specific to the Quebec elections organization. It is a very
interesting proposal and one which on the surface seems fairly
trivial. We would tend to oppose it because we believe in keeping
the terminology the way it is.
(1625)
My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois made an interesting
observation and I hope that Liberal members were listening to his
intervention. He said that the change which he is seeking is
consistent with the government's notion of the distinct society
clause which was passed through the House late last year. It is
important because this motion is really the tip of the iceberg. There
are other motions, which I am sure we will have a chance to
discuss today, in which the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that large
sections of elections law and the referendum act in Quebec would
supersede, or give guidance to or even in the case of the one in
question, have veto over federal legislation.
This may well be an accurate interpretation of the wording of the
distinct society motion that this Parliament passed, to which the
Reform Party was very much opposed. It shows the can of worms
that the motion is opening.
Frankly, on a point like this, a reasonable accommodation could
be made. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that where notions are
virtually identical, in the English version of a federal law we could
use common law terminology and in the French version we could
use the civil code terminology. As long as the notions are more or
less the same that would not create a problem.
However the member for Bellechasse, by proposing this motion
and by justifying it the way he has, has raised the broader issue that
is raised by the distinct society clause, that is, the idea that there
would be a comprehensive special status for Quebec and that it
would involve, even on something as important as elections law, a
completely different relationship between the Government of
Quebec and the Quebec elections office and the Government of
Canada and the Canada elections office.
That is instructive because the distinct society clause has
potential problems. The clause as passed by this House was very
broad in application. It was worded very broadly.
The Reform Party-myself and the leader of the Reform
Party-proposed an amendment to that motion which would have
made it clear that this particular motion did not give additional
powers to the Government of Quebec, did not circumscribe charter
rights and did not grant any kind of status to Quebec which would
allow it to claim sovereignty under international law. We proposed
that in an amendment and it was rejected by the government.
Although I oppose this motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse
has made a point which is consistent with the policy of the
government. That is why the government should be rethinking its
policy. I suspect that some day somebody will take these matters to
court to suggest that the distinct society resolution has a wider
impact on federal law than the government was previously willing
to admit.
Those are my comments on Motion No. 7. I will move on to
some of the motions which the Reform Party has proposed.
Motion No. 13 would delete from Bill C-63 the provision which
would provide the voters list annually to sitting members of
Parliament and registered political parties. We do not believe that
is in the interests of voters nor is it necessary. We have said all
along that in creating a register it should only have information
which is either necessary or highly relevant and it should only be
used for the explicit purposes for which it was created. In this case
that is the holding of a federal general election or alternatively, the
holding of other elections in other parts of the country where there
6681
is co-operation with provincial, municipal and school board
elections authorities.
(1630 )
This particular provision in the bill goes entirely against that.
This provision basically says that the purpose of a register is not
just for elections but for the ongoing political use by registered
parties and sitting members of Parliament. It seems to me that is
not appropriate. Certainly under the act there are uses for which
this list is prescribed, but if there is wide circulation of these lists, I
can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they will be used for all kinds of
purposes, both political and non-political.
An additional concern is why should this additional information
be provided to incumbents? In several cases when we had
discussions in committee-and I will not quote members by name
because these were in camera discussions-we repeatedly raised
our concerns with several elements of Bill C-63. A number of
members repeatedly said that as an incumbent this information was
useful to them which seemed to us, in the case of particular MPs
and in the case of the government, to be missing the point.
The point is that the purpose of an elections list is not to provide
proprietary information or give advantages to incumbents. That is
not the purpose. In Reform's view, the provision of a list out of the
register to MPs or to registered political parties every year is
improper. That is not the purpose of the list.
The permanent register should help to provide lists for the
purposes of elections at all levels of government across the country,
not to political parties and not to MPs. Sitting MPs and political
parties already have some of this data from previous elections and
they can get it elsewhere. The purpose of this list is not for their
general political marketing activities. It is important to make that
point.
As the member for Bellechasse mentioned, both he and I have
proposed motions dealing with a very similar subject. Reform
Motions No. 8 and No. 12 and Bloc Motion No. 11 would allow the
chief electoral officer of Canada to use elections lists from other
registers that may exist in the country for the immediate purposes
of avoiding a pre-election enumeration across the country which
would be very costly.
I could go on at some length on this point. The particular
approach in implementing this bill, having a pre-election
enumeration before the next election to implement the shortened
electoral period, is a quick way to start the register but potentially it
is very expensive. The Reform Party has had some concerns about
this. We suggested in committee that the government find ways of
using recent enumerations or other electoral records as a way of
avoiding a coast to coast enumeration.
The government did agree to some amendments in committee
which would require the chief electoral officer to use lists where
the enumeration has been conducted within the last year. In the case
of Alberta and Prince Edward Island we will probably not be
having pre-election enumerations in those provinces. There is an
enumeration under way in Alberta as we speak. That represents a
saving.
However the big provinces that are not captured by that
amendment are Quebec and British Columbia. Quebec and British
Columbia are developing permanent voters registers. The one in
B.C. is in place and the one in Quebec will be in place soon. If they
could be used prior to the next election for the purposes of
assembling the register, it would obviously save an enormous
amount of money. These are the second and third largest provinces.
Together we are talking about roughly one-third of all the ridings in
the country. It would be a very significant adjustment if this could
be made.
All the Reform Party and Bloc amendments would allow would
be for the chief electoral officer to have the option of using those
lists. That option is not provided in the bill now. It is true, as many
on the government side have pointed out, that there are some
technical problems with incorporating these lists. It is also true that
in the time frame the government has given itself, which is the end
of April, it would be impossible to use those lists, certainly in the
case of Quebec.
(1635)
What that tells us is that the government should be rethinking
this approach. It should be looking at an approach which at least
allows these lists to be used in the first place by the chief electoral
officer and then looking at the time line, not bringing this system in
until later in the year in a way that would allow the technical
obstacles to be overcome. The cost saving would be absolutely
enormous.
It would also be far more consistent with the scenarios that were
originally laid out before the procedure and House affairs
committee when draft legislation on this subject was first
reviewed. It is important to point out that when the government
originally came to the Reform Party and to the other opposition
parties with the proposal for a 36 day campaign, the scenarios it
laid out did not foresee the implementation of a 36 day campaign
and a permanent register until at least a year after the legislation
had been adopted.
6682
The scenario presented to us in this bill came about at the last
minute. We only became aware of it after the bill was tabled in
the House. The scenario here is very different from the scenario
we agreed to.
I understand why the government wants to hurry this process.
However, in hurrying this process and with the particular
constraints it has provided for itself, the government has created a
situation where the implementation will actually be significantly
more costly at the outset rather than saving money. We know there
are savings in the long run but we can minimize the initial costs by
proceeding in a way that captures every province that can be
captured. Obviously if we do it in April we will not capture British
Columbia or Quebec. If we do it later, we have that option.
In any case, the bill should be amended so that the chief electoral
officer at least has the option of considering usage of those lists if
circumstances are fortuitous for him.
The Bloc Quebecois amendment differs from our amendment in
one respect which I think was already mentioned by the hon.
member for Bellechasse. The difference is that the Bloc
amendment has a somewhat more constraining tone to it on the
chief electoral officer than ours. I believe that to be true.
We understand the constraints of the chief electoral officer. He
wants to make sure that we pursue implementation of the register
with a minimum of risk to the integrity of the voting process and
the integrity of the compilation process. We understand that is the
case and we support him in that. Therefore, we want to give him a
great deal of latitude on this and the Bloc wants to give a little less.
Our position on this is somewhat more moderate and I would say in
concluding it is because we are such a moderate party at heart.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act and the Referendum Act, at the report stage and more
specifically to Group No. 5 and Motion No. 11 standing in the
name of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
I fully support his motion to the effect that there should be an
endeavour to conclude agreements between the Chief Electoral
Officer of Canada and his provincial counterparts, and especially
with Quebec's director general of elections, on the use of lists of
electors.
I shall, if I may, add some general comments on this bill. This is
my first chance to speak in the debate on Bill C-63.
The bill will make it possible to establish a permanent register of
electors and would set the minimum duration of a federal election
campaign at 36 days. The computerized register of electors will be
established from information collected by means of an
enumeration held outside of an electoral period, probably in the
spring of 1997.
(1640)
A preliminary list will be distributed within five days of issuing
the writ for the next election. The lists will be used in other,
subsequent consultations. The election campaign will therefore last
a minimum of 36 days instead of 47, which is the case today.
Let us take a brief look at the history of the federal electoral
legislation we are about to amend. On October 27, 1964, the federal
government appointed an advisory committee headed by Alphonse
Barbeau, with a mandate to inquire into the limitation and control
of election expenses incurred during federal elections.
In its report, the Barbeau committee recommended as follows:
one, political parties should be legally recognized; two, a degree of
financial equality should be established among candidates and
among political parties; three, an effort should be made to increase
public participation in politics through tax concessions to donors;
four, costs of election campaigns should be reduced, by shortening
the campaign period, by placing limitations on expenditures by
candidates and parties, and by prohibiting the payment of poll
workers on election day; five, public confidence in political
financing should be strengthened, by requiring candidates and
parties to disclose their incomes and expenditures; six, a registry
should be established to audit and publish the financial reports
required, and to enforce the provisions of the proposed ``Election
and Political Finances Act''; seven, miscellaneous amendments to
broadcasting legislation should be enacted to improve the political
communications field.
These recommendations were implemented at the time of the
reform of the electoral act in 1974, which included the following
basic principles: first, a limitation of candidates' expenses; second,
the publication of contributions to and the expenses of all political
parties; third, the encouragement of individuals' participation
through the according of tax credits for political contributions and
government funding of political parties. These fundamental
principles continue to underlie the federal electoral act and remain
in effect.
At the end of the 1980s, the Conservative government set up the
Lortie commission to review the Canada Elections Act. In its 1991
report, the commission refused to go along with the real and truly
democratic funding of political parties.
Current federal regulations do not cover nomination campaigns,
leadership campaigns, candidates' political activities prior to
elections, party trust funds, most riding association activities and
the activities of interest groups during campaigns.
6683
Big business is the major contributor to the traditional political
parties and has the greatest influence on government.
I have here a list of contributions to the Liberal Party of
Canada's campaign fund in 1993. The list of contributors includes
all the major companies and banks in Canada. The Bank of
Montreal, for example, contributed $94,000; the Royal Bank,
$88,000; the Toronto Dominion Bank, $80,000; SCN-Lavalin,
$73,000; Bombardier, $49,994; Labatt, $62,000; Air Canada,
$30,000; Nova Corporation of Alberta, $50,000, and so forth.
(1645)
This really shows the influence of companies on policies of a
government, of a political party. Today, the Liberal Party is funded
in large part by big business, by the major banks, in Canada, and
cannot therefore act in the interests of ordinary people, being too
much influenced already by these political contributions.
Passed in 1977, under Premier René Lévesque, the Quebec
Elections Bill provides that only an individual, not a company, can
make a contribution. This legislation eliminates the political
influence that some vested interest groups could have. Obviously,
the objectives of those vested interest groups are more to change
the thrust of public policy than to allow a political party whose
ideology is close to that of a member of those groups to get into
power, to stay in power.
The Quebec Elections Bill limits contributions to $3,000 per
year, per elector. It is the director general of elections of Quebec
who monitors the election expenses of political parties. Also, the
official representative of each party must file a yearly financial
report with the director general. This report is in the public domain.
Bill C-63 draws on the report of the Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing, that is the Lortie
Commission. This bill also draws on the recommendations of the
chief electoral officer of Canada.
The permanent list of electors will abolish the need for the door
to door census we previously had to do before each election.
Thanks to that list, and the shorter electoral period, the country will
save $30 million on each election.
Finally I would like to say I condemn the government for
resorting to patronage when dealing with the election of the
returning officers. Nearly all the officers have been replaced in
Quebec, even though the chief electoral officer had said some of
the returning officers should stay.
Once again, I suggest that these returning officers should be
appointed by the chief electoral officer, following a competition,
just like public servants. For all those reasons, I have some great
reservations about Bill C-63 and I think I will vote against it.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
most interesting things in coming to this House is taking a look at
the amount of discussion there is over issues that on the surface
would appear to be rather arcane, even bordering on meaningless.
Certainly those who may be watching this on TV would ask why
members are going on and on about the elections act and all of its
details.
In fact this bill is possibly one of the most important bills that the
House will consider. After all, we live in a democracy. The
democratic process is one in which the people of any country have
the opportunity to choose those who are going to be representing
them, their views and their wishes, in a Chamber such as this where
the laws the land will be enacted and some will be repealed. This
place should reflect the values of Canada. That is what this
Chamber is all about.
If we do not take great care and if we do not have great precision
in the way we construct the way in which members of this Chamber
will be elected to represent the people of Canada, then we end up
with things out of balance. We then end up with things in our
society that simply cannot be changed because there is a higher
power than this Chamber. And indeed there should never be.
(1650)
In parenthesis I think of the situation in Belarus at this moment,
where it is my understanding that the president of that country who
was elected two years ago, has been requesting, demanding in fact,
and is holding a referendum on whether he should be given more
and more autocratic power which of course is the exact opposite of
what a democracy is all about.
We took time, care and precision on coming to this bill. I have
been encouraged by the reports I have received from the member
for Calgary North who is very capably representing the point of
view of our party in this debate. I have been encouraged by him to
understand that there are provisions which we have proposed in
goodwill to the government and that the government, as we speak,
is giving serious consideration to supporting those amendments
that would improve the bill.
In a previous intervention I said that we spend a lot of time in the
House and sometimes end up in very aggressive partisan positions.
The bill should reflect less partisanship and what we consider to be
the best interests of the people of Canada.
Reform Motion No. 13 would delete the part of Bill C-63 that
provides for the annual provision of voters' lists to MPs and
parties. The Reform Party do not believe this is in the best interests
of or for the benefit of the voters.
6684
I draw the attention of the House to this because it seems to
me that the purpose of and the use of voters' lists are very
restricted. To step outside of those prescribed uses is an illegal
act. Unless someone is going to break the law and step outside
the prescribed purposes of the list, what would the value of the
lists be?
I am not looking at it so much from the point of view of the cost
of the preparation and distribution of the lists, which would
probably be in the millions of dollars and is an important issue. I
am more concerned about the actual value of those lists. If they are
going to be provided to MPs and their parties, what is the actual
value of the lists if they are not going to be used to the advantage of
the incumbents, or at the very least, as a marketing tool for the
political parties? I ask what is the relevance of these lists?
I have said that I do not want to be partisan, but again I am going
to step away from that for a second. Being the heritage critic I am
familiar with what is presently going on in the distribution of the
flags under the encouragement of the heritage minister. It has been
particularly interesting the number of people who have contacted
my office knowing that my party is concerned about the fact that
there will be approximately $23 million spent on the distribution of
these flags all across Canada. People have recognized that it is a
touchy, feel good thing by the heritage minister that will not
accomplish anything. However, some things have been happening
that have given me cause for concern.
When the heritage minister was trying to authenticate the
reasons why the Reforms members who had helped their
constituents get flags was doing an awful thing, she would stand in
the House and recite on a riding by riding basis how many flags
went to a given riding. If the heritage department can prepare lists
on a riding by riding basis, surely that list in turn can give the name
and address of where a flag was shipped.
(1655 )
If that information can appear in the heritage minister's hands, it
could undoubtedly appear on the desk of any member of
Parliament. Presumably the people who would be most interested
in this initiative would be Liberal MPs. That gives us an idea of
how quickly this information could potentially be misused when
the government of the day uses the Canadian flag as a tool to get a
list of people. The documents going out to those people are signed
by members of Parliament. Of course, the individuals who ordered
the flags have never or seldom been in contact with those members
of Parliament.
With respect to motion No. 13 I ask the question of Liberal
members: Although we know that the provisions of the bill
purposely restrict the use of the names and the information on the
list and although we know that the breaking of those restrictions is
an illegal act, would we not be safe in assuming that someone
somewhere would end up using that list for purposes that are
outside the prescribed uses of the list?
I ask the people of Canada to think about this. If that list is going
to be circulated to incumbent members of Parliament and to parties
between elections and, supposedly, those people are not supposed
to be using the list, then why are we doing it? What is the purpose
of doing it in the first place?
Motion No. 12 would permit the use of existing permanent
voters' lists in B.C. and Quebec. Again we look at the timeframe
issue which the hon. member for Calgary West mentioned.
The government, for reasons best known to itself, has decided to
accelerate this process. It allowed only two weeks for this bill to be
in committee. The House was not sitting during one of those weeks.
That gives us the idea that maybe there is an agenda.
If we permit the use of existing voters' lists in B.C. and Quebec,
which would reflect, as my colleague has said, one-third of the
electors of the country, even if we could not meet the arbitrary
deadline that has been established by the Liberals to rush Bill C-63
through, with the acceptance of motion No. 12 the expanded
timeframe would give Elections Canada the opportunity to become
involved in saving a tremendous amount of money by merging the
two lists. It only makes sense to merge the lists, not only at the
federal level but also at the provincial, municipal and regional
district levels.
Motion No. 11 was proposed by the Bloc. That motion is very
similar to our motion No. 12 which I just described. The difference
is that it would call for the mandatory use of these lists. We are
proposing that there be more discretion permitted on the part of the
federal electoral officer.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to make these
interventions. For the people who are interested in this debate, I
hope they realize that as we grind our way through, this is a very
important bill which has to do with the very foundation of our
democratic process in Canada.
(1700)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before I start, I would like to congratulate the Bloc
Quebecois member, the member for Bellechasse, for his excellent
job on the committee that reviewed the bill.
I think the member for Bellechasse did his very best to improve
the bill, to bring it up to par with the elections bill we have had in
Quebec for several years now, which provides for a fairer and level
playing field when election time comes around.
The member for Bellechasse attempted to show that the time had
come for the government to modernize this act. The time had come
to have a less costly act, an act putting a limit on the political
6685
influence some pressure groups have on the government. The time
had come-I would like everyone to listen because this is very
important-for the government to put a ceiling on contributions.
The time had come to demand more transparency. Unfortunately,
we see none of that in the bill.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government opposite made no change
whatsoever. As always, it has hung on to its bad old habits. This
means that corporations will still be allowed to contribute
thousands of dollars. Pressure groups will also be allowed to
contribute money. After the elections, they will have their hands
tied, as is usually the case in these parts.
There is this old saying the Bloc Quebecois likes to quote: ``Tell
me who is funding you and I will tell you who you work for''.
Unfortunately when a company contributes, as mentioned
earlier-the member for Bourassa listed the companies that
contributed $50,000 and $60,000 to the Liberal government
opposite-obviously it expects something in return. This might be
why, from time to time, we end up with policies which make no
sense whatsoever.
This might be why the government adopts policies benefitting
pressure groups, as was clearly the case with the Pearson deal.
Regularly, in this place, we ask ourselves the following question:
``What does it mean when the government proposes such things?''
Perhaps we should check to see if a stockholder or a person who
holds some position in the lobby group has given or is still giving
large amounts of money to the Liberal government so that it can
govern the way that group wishes. This is rather appalling in a
democratic system.
The government had an opportunity to bring about some changes
in this regard, to put more transparency in this. But no, it failed
again. The government had an opportunity to give some meaning to
a certain motion on distinct society that was passed in this House,
and, in that piece of legislation, to give Quebec some additional
powers.
I know that, in the group of motions we are now examining,
there is the whole issue of ``residence'' and ``domicile''. For the
information of the Speaker and our viewers, I will read the motion
that was tabled on November 29, 1995 by the Prime Minister
himself. We are about to celebrate the first anniversary of that
motion. It will not be a celebration for us, Quebecers, but only a
date to forget as quickly as possible. I want you to be aware that,
since that date, November 29, 1995, nothing has changed. The
Liberal government is not even able to draft a piece of legislation
that would be quite easy to prepare to give more power to Quebec,
in connection with the motion that was passed.
That motion read as follows:
Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of
Quebec's distinct society;
(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;
(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its
French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;
This is extremely important for what I will be saying now.
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches
of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct
accordingly.
(1705)
This means that in a piece of legislation similar to the one before
us, this motion was worth something. If the government motion
tabled on November 29, 1995, meant anything, some of its key
elements should be reflected in Bill C-63 we are now debating.
Most importantly, if Quebec's distinct status was indeed
recognized, it would have been recognized in this bill by providing,
among other things, for a minimum 25 per cent representation for
Quebec, but there is no such thing in there.
As for the specific group of motions we are considering, its
effect on the bill would be to explicitly recognize the fact that, in
civil law, the concept of residence has no meaning. The bill would
state that, in Quebec, the place of residence would be referred to as
suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse in his proposed
amendment. The words ``she is ordinarily resident'' could be
replaced with ``she is domiciled and to vote at the'' local polling
station. I think this would be a minor change, a very small thing
really.
If the government stood by its own position and the motion to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society meant anything, the official
opposition, represented by a Bloc member, would not have had to
impress this upon the government. The government would have
automatically acted in accordance with civil law, as clearly stated
in the motion, which insists that organizations act this way.
But instead, a very important aspect of Quebec's civil law, the
concept of domicile or place of residence, is ignored. I hope the
government understands. I hope they will have second thoughts
about this amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, although
this seldom happens in the House, and eventually decide to vote for
the amendment so that the word ``domicile'' can be used, making
this the main point to consider in clause 6 of Bill C-63 amending
section 53 of the Canada Elections Act.
I could argue on and on about this. I will limit my comments to
the group of motions before us, Group No. 5. Another major point
is the permanent voters list. To effect savings, why not provide in
the bill some mechanism allowing the use of the permanent list
6686
maintained by Quebec and other provinces, as proposed by the hon.
member for Bellechasse in Motion No. 11?
Why have federal officials create a whole new list when Quebec
already has one. Quebec has paid for this work to be done. I do not
accept that it is not up to date. If my information is correct, it will
be on May 1. In any case, the federal government will not start
work on its own list before April. We could wait for the permanent
list from Quebec and other provinces where such a mechanism
exists.
Just think of the money we would save. The Minister of Finance
is trying to save billions in welfare and unemployment costs. This
is an ideal way to save money by capitalizing on work already
done, and excellently done as far as Quebec's director general of
elections is concerned.
(1710)
Why not accommodate this request from the official opposition?
It is very simple, there are only two minor amendments. If the
government wanted to be sincere in its sincere approach, and to
give effect to certain things it has already passed, it would give in
and approve the amendments moved by my colleague from
Bellechasse.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank
you for the opportunity to speak again on amendments to the
Canada Elections Act.
In this group of amendments there are two basic principles that
we are talking about; first, the principle of utilizing voters lists at
the provincial level and permanent lists which are available to us so
that we can better identify the constituents who would be on the
federal list. The idea here is certainly the cost savings that would
come about because of that.
The second principle we are looking at is the matter of whether
we should provide voters lists to constituencies on an annual basis.
We ask why we should do that.
The Reform Party has moved an amendment saying that there
does not seem to be a good purpose and therefore we should
eliminate this provision in the act as suggested by the government
for annual distribution of updated voters lists to the registered
political parties.
In terms of the B.C. and Quebec voters lists that could be
available and may be available so that they can be used as the
federal list, we should think first of all of the savings that could
occur. If we look at the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia,
Alberta and Prince Edward Island, just those four lists, some 45 per
cent of Canadian voters would be on a voters list if we used the
current lists that are available at the provincial level.
The committee that studied this, and this comes as well from the
electoral officer, said that if we had a permanent voters list in
Canada we would save something like $14 million. So we are
looking at the subsequent election, the one after the one in the
spring of 1997, to save $14 million.
If we could use the lists from the provinces of British Columbia,
Quebec, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, about 45 per cent of the
population of Canada, we could save 45 per cent of $14 million in
the upcoming election, in the 1997 election.
We have said a number of times in this House that is most likely
when the government is going to call the election. It should tell us
about that rather than keep hiding it. It should tell us that in the
spring of 1997 there will be an election and then we would all be
able to prepare accordingly. There could be a saving over $10
million if those four lists were used.
After a presentation by my colleague from Calgary, the
government has agreed to use the lists from Alberta and Prince
Edward Island. Now we are saying let us add two more, from
British Columbia and Quebec, and do everything we can to make
sure those are added to the permanent voters list of Canada. Look at
the savings. I think that in itself would merit the support of the
House of Commons for the amendment as suggested.
I think that is the strongest argument. The information is
available. Why not use it accordingly?
If we look at the other amendment before us in terms of the
voters list being distributed annually, I in my greatest imagination
cannot understand why the government would want to facilitate the
distribution of a voters list annually to all the constituencies in
Canada and as well to every registered political party across this
nation. What good use is there for that list in the years between one
election and the next? Its primary purpose is to list people who are
eligible to vote in an election.
(1715)
We all know that during an election period candidates use the list
for campaign purposes. That is legitimate. It is used in a variety of
creative ways to communicate with voters encouraging them to
support one party and not to support the other parties in the race.
That is what it is all about.
Candidates have to communicate with the voters in some format.
Some candidates have the facility and the time to phone thousands
through the voters' lists. During that period the candidate is able to
make the calls that are necessary and communicate their attitudes
and their ideas. That is for a good and reasonable purpose.
What about in between an election date and the dropping of the
subsequent writ? What could happen during that period of time? It
is true we could have these election lists available to all political
parties. The Reform, Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive
Conservatives, if they have adequate people to do this, could do
mail outs from the lists.
6687
What is the purpose and why would this list be provided at
thousands and thousands of dollars in cost? I know from practical
experience over the years most of the lists would sit on the shelf
and never be used at all. Out of the some 301 seats that will exist
in Parliament after the next election, I am sure if one constituency
out of the 301 uses the lists in between elections in any practical
way or any way that is of value to the constituents that would be
a miracle in itself. I do not see that at all.
If a constituency could come up with a good reason to use the list
between the election date and the dropping of the next writ then I
suggest that rather than produce these lists in a mass way that we
should look at an option. The option is that a member, having some
desire to use the list annually to communicate with his or her
constituents, put money up front and pay the basic cost for the
production of that list.
If it costs the Elections Canada office $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 or
whatever the cost to produce the list, it should be done at cost.
Elections Canada should not make a profit. Then that member
should send a cheque to Elections Canada and say why and for what
purpose that member would like a list of electors. The member
could enclose a cheque for $1,000 or $5,000, whatever is
established by Elections Canada. Elections Canada could transfer
either the list or software to the member of Parliament at that point.
I believe that would be adequate and look after some special need
that I cannot think of at the present time. That would certainly
serve the purpose.
Failing to amend the legislation in that light, if the government
just leaves it as it is at the present where it says every year we turn
the crank and an updated list is sent to every constituency in
Canada, to me that is not good enough. I would have to vote against
that kind of provision in the act. We should deal with the issue now.
We should amend it so that no lists are provided between the date
of the election and the dropping of the next writ, or we should make
a provision in the act whereby a constituency, if necessary, can cite
a good reason and purchase the list at cost from Elections Canada.
That would satisfy the need of those kinds of persons.
(1720)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have been listening with great interest to certain aspects of this
debate. It might be helpful to put a few of my points of view on the
record, particularly to let my colleagues in the opposition know
that there is still some interest in some of the issues they have
raised.
Things are not cast in stone. They obviously are not black and
white. We are trying to develop a consensus. We continue to
welcome the interventions of both opposition parties, particularly
by the members who participated in the debate at the committee
stage.
In principle I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view
expressed by my colleague from Calgary West relating to the
byelection campaign period. There may be some way to make
some accommodation on that matter as the days progress. I note
that byelections are covered by the Parliament of Canada Act, not
this act as my hon. colleague knows. That act is not being debated
at the moment.
The motion in the name of my colleague from Bellechasse in this
group talks about the concept of domicile. As my hon. colleague
knows, the concept of domicile is not found in the Canada
Elections Act. The entitlement to vote in a federal election is in part
based on the fact of being ordinarily resident in a polling division.
The term ordinary resident is fully defined in sections 56 to 62 of
the Canada Elections Act.
I was pleased to hear several members opposite say that in
principle they supported the establishment of a register. All parties
have had a consensus that a register makes a lot of sense for a
modern Canadian democracy that is evolving. It is a much more
efficient way and a cost effective way. I hope over the course of
several electoral events that dozens or tens of millions of dollars
will be saved by the establishment of a registry.
I listened with great interest to the comments made by the House
leader for the Reform Party. It is important for the record to show
that the reason the Alberta and Prince Edward Island lists were
considered to be more consistent with this legislation was based on
the freshness of information that was coming from both of those
electoral districts.
It is important to remember that while the British Columbia and
Quebec lists may very well work, unfortunately due to the time
frame of when this bill would come into force, presuming it
receives approval in the other place, the information that would be
on the British Columbia and Quebec lists would not be as fresh.
The best information when the officials were at the procedure and
House affairs committee was that the quality of the information
would be less than perfect.
(1725 )
It was for that reason the government felt that the Alberta list and
the Prince Edward Island list would be appropriate. It is not
inconsistent to establish a federal registry by using provincial lists.
I have agreed with that point of view all along. There can be some
significant cost savings at the provincial level and even at the
municipal level, depending on which region of the country is able
to use the federal registry.
We want to build the first federal register with the most current
voter information. This is why we will only use provincial lists that
have been completed through a door to door enumeration within
the last 12 months of the date of the last federal enumeration.
6688
Therefore, while I understand the points of view that have been
raised by my hon. colleagues, for the record I wanted to draw that
to everyone's attention.
Motion No. 9, moved my hon. colleague from Bellechasse,
makes it mandatory for incarcerated electors to provide their
names, sex and date of birth. It is important to acknowledge that in
Canada we have a system of voluntary registration. Bill C-63 is
based on the principle that electors voluntarily would provide that
information. Therefore, there is no mandatory obligation to provide
that in the bill. I want to offer that comment to the motion of my
hon. colleague.
Motion No. 10 is moved by the hon. member for Calgary West.
Once again I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the
privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed
the procedure and House affairs committee that gender information
is useful as an administrative identifier for electors who have
names that are common to both sexes. Obviously in French and
English we can all think of names that may be somewhat confusing
from a gender point of view.
It is also important to mention that the privacy commissioner did
not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a
significant issue as it relates to gender and did not recommend it.
My hon. colleague from Kootenay East has made a very strong
case for that. Again, at this point in the day, I want to acknowledge
the points of view that he has raised, particularly as it relates to the
security and privacy of women. No one would argue with the
member for Kootenay East due to his size or his sex, but other
people may feel a little intimidated. However, I want to tell my
hon. colleague that we have been listening very carefully and if
there are ways that we can consider some accommodation we are
still open to it at this point.
The maintenance of the federal registry is something that I
believe is also contained in Motions Nos. 12 and 13. The use of the
federal list is also contained there. I want to once again remind my
hon. colleagues that what we are trying to do with this legislation is
to ensure that Canadians have the most modern and most current
information before them. The best information, as it has been
presented by the officials at Elections Canada, is information that is
brought forward on a 12-month basis.
Therefore, it is not to try to prejudice any particular group in the
country. I notice that both British Columbia and Quebec would find
their lists not as current as Alberta and Prince Edward Island. It was
for that reason that the government moved in that direction.
(1730)
I believe that sums up some of the comments I wish to contribute
to the debate. I thank my hon. colleagues and ask for their patience
as the days move forward on this important matter, amendments to
Bill C-63.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, unless
I am mistaken, the list in question will not be used for the next
election, but for the following one, which is a number of years
away, probably seven or so.
The feeling of urgency expressed by the member opposite makes
me wonder somewhat. It is as though he wants to justify the fact
that election lists made by the provinces, including the state of
Quebec, are not being used. The member sounds like he wants to
eliminate or avoid the use of these lists when he says that they will
not be ready for the next election. However, this is not the issue.
This is not the object of the legislation before us. We are talking
seven years down the road.
In all fairness, the hon. member opposite should consider using
provincial lists to ensure a better use of public moneys. We keep
talking about avoiding duplication. Here is an excellent
opportunity to do things right, because we have the time to do so.
We have several years ahead of us to set up a fair system.
You will agree with me that this is not a list that Quebec will be
able to use in the context of a federal election, given that, seven
years from now, our province will likely have become a sovereign
state. Still, the arguments raised by Reform Party members make
sense. Indeed, whether we are talking about the Canada of today or
the Canada of tomorrow, it makes sense to make better use of
public moneys. Therefore, we should immediately start planning to
use provincial lists.
This brings me to make a comment. You will recall that, in
Quebec, we experienced certain problems. For example, on a
number of occasions, residents from another province voted in
Quebec by using their secondary residence, a cottage or what have
you, or some other scheme.
If there was only one list and only one source of data within each
province, this kind of double residency status that allows a person
to vote in two different jurisdictions would no longer exist. I
imagine that if these things happen in Quebec with out of the
province residents, they must also occur in other provinces.
So, while the issue of a single list is first and foremost a matter
of making good use of public moneys, it also ensures having
reliable information. With two lists and two sets of data,
consistency will be a challenge. But if we have only one list and
specified, well identified data sources, a higher level of integrity
will be possible, and it will be that much easier to monitor and
maintain that integrity in our list.
It is a better solution from all points of view. Not only costs will
reduced, but we will also have a better quality list. The process the
government party is suggesting has two flaws.
6689
(1735)
Expenses will be duplicated. Surely, we cannot afford to spend
money we do not have, especially if expenses are duplicated.
Furthermore we will end up with lists whose integrity will never be
assured. In fact we are quite certain their integrity will not be
adequate. Comparisons will be made between both lists and
inconsistencies will remain.
In this House today, we have an opportunity to implement a
smarter process that will save taxpayer dollars. The Canadian list
will be made up from provincial lists, and the level of integrity will
be extremely high.
I repeat that Quebec will probably never have to use such a list,
but I think that, at this time, this is what should be done out of
respect for taxpayers who pay for government operations. This is a
golden opportunity to use cautiously taxpayer dollars, reduce costs,
and in the process, get more for our money. Opposition parties are
fully playing their role of looking after the public interest.
I cannot understand why the government party seems to think or
rather insists that provincial guarantees are inadequate. It is
deliberately ignoring better solutions, and refusing co-operation
and a better use of taxpayer dollars.
I cannot understand why. It is really strange. You will pardon my
persistence, but I will ask once more the government party to
reconsider. This list will be used seven years from now. It seems to
me we have all the time we need to do things correctly, and I cannot
understand why we should not do it. In conclusion, I hope the
wisdom that prevails in opposition parties will also prevail in the
government party.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 7, group 5. 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 proposed motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 8. All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 12.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1740)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
6690
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.
We will now proceed to Group No. 6.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 33 the following new
Clause:
``64. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 301:
301.1 Chapter II of Title III of the Quebec Election Act applies to this Act, with
such modifications as the circumstances require.''
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 38 the following new
Clause:
``86.1. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 331:
331. (1) Before an amendment to this Act is passed, the Governor in Council shall
table a draft Bill in the House of Commons.
(2) Within sixty days after the draft Bill is tabled, the Governor in Council shall
consult the recognized political parties in the House of Commons.''
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-63, in Clause 87, be amended by deleting lines 5 and 6 on page 39.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-63, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 40
with the following:
``88. Section 4 of the Referendum Act is replaced by the following:
4. No proclamation may be issued
(a) when the House of Commons stands dissolved; or
(b) before, or more than forty-five days after, the text of the referendum question has
been approved under section 5 or 5.1.
89. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act are repealed.''
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-63, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 40
with the following:
``89. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:
5.1 (1) A referendum question shall be approved by a majority of the provinces
that includes
(a) Ontario;
(b) Quebec;
(c) British Columbia;
(d) two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have, according to the then latest
general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of
all the Atlantic provinces; and
(e) two or more of the Prairie provinces that have, according to the then latest
general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of
all the Prairie provinces.
(2) In this section,
``Atlantic provinces'' means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;
``Prairie provinces'' means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta.''
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 40 the following new
Clause:
``91. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 16:
16.1(1) Chapter II of Title III of the Quebec Election Act (financing of political
parties) applies to this Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a reference to ``party'' in the Quebec Election Act
shall be read as a reference to ``referendum committee''.''
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-63, in Clause 92, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 40 with the
following:
``before it are replaced by the following:
39. (1) The Government of Canada shall not give effect to a vote on a referendum
question or take any action whatsoever with respect to that vote unless a majority of
the legislatures of the provinces have first given their consent, and this majority shall
include
(a) Ontario;
(b) Quebec;
(c) British Columbia;
(d) two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have, according to the then latest
general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of
all the Atlantic provinces; and
(e) two or more of the Prairie provinces that have, according to the then latest general
census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the
Prairie provinces.
(2) In this section,
``Atlantic provinces'' means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island and Newfoundland;
``Prairie provinces'' means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.''
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following new
Clause:
``93. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 39:
6691
39.1(1) The provisions of an Act of a legislature respecting a referendum or
referendums prevail over any inconsistent provisions in this Act.
(2) Where the result of a referendum held under an Act of a legislature respecting
a referendum or referendums differs from the result of a referendum held under this
Act, the result obtained under the Act of the legislature shall prevail.''
He said: Madam Speaker, since there are eight motions in this
group, I will call upon the generosity of my colleagues to speak on
items that I will certainly overlook. A little earlier, my colleague
from Calgary West gave an interesting and intelligent speech on the
concept of distinct society.
If there is one thing we can be sure of when the hon. member for
Calgary West addresses a problem, it is that he will ask the real
question. There were no false pretence or political dodging when
he spoke on the concept of distinct society and on what it could
represent.
The first intrinsic notion we refer to when we speak of a distinct
society is the one outlined in the 1987 Meech Lake agreement.
What was this notion of distinct society? It was a clause that would
have been entrenched in the Canadian Constitution affirming the
distinct nature of Quebec. This clause in the Constitution would
have had precedence over the distribution of powers between the
federal government and the provinces. Any interpretation of the
Constitution would have taken into account the notion that Quebec
is a distinct society.
This has nothing to do with the unfortunate motion mentioned
earlier by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm and passed by
a majority in this House on November 29, 1995, as part of an
exercise in wishful thinking on the recognition of distinct society.
We see today that even the bill now before us does not reflect the
civil law concept of domicile. We must take these things into
account.
(1745)
But the concept of distinct society is everywhere in this group of
motions. What do we want to do? First, we want the Canada
Elections Act to contain provisions similar to those in the Quebec
Elections Act on the financing of political parties to be sure that, at
the federal level as in Quebec, only eligible voters can fund
political parties. We want to ensure that large and small
corporations, unions, and lobby groups can no longer legally fund
political parties.
The chief electoral officer of Quebec, Pierre F. Côté, when he
appeared before the House Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, had given a clear answer to the hon. member for
Calgary West. What is important in Quebec's election bill is to
define properly what we want. Shall it be one person one vote, or
one buck one vote?
In Quebec, in the last 20 years-it will be 20 years next
year-all governments have respected a principle now well
established in Quebec's political custom, a principle according
which no corporation, union or pressure group can provide funding
for a political party. Only an eligible voter can do it, to a maximum
of $3,000, according to Quebec's laws.
It took some courage for a newly elected government to
undertyake such a reform, in 1977, because it is not easy to
organize funding by the population, to go and visit your
constituents week after week, to ask them how they judge your
performance, to ask them also to support you financially.
The recall procedure, for the Bloc Quebecois as well as other
Quebec political parties, is a year-long process because you sound
out your constituents quite well when you ask them one by one to
contribute $20, $50 or $100, and not $60,000, like the hon. member
for Bourassa mentioned earlier.
You would need 600 constituents contributing $100 each to
equal a big $60,000 cheque donated by a company. It is much
easier. But then debts can be called in. It is a lot more difficult for a
political party to say no to someone who donated heavily to its
campaign fund than to someone who made more modest
contributions. This is the purpose of one of our amendments.
We have moved that amendment to avoid the sort of hurried
debates we are having today, where the only consultations there
were were made at the last minute and where everyone is running
about every which way to see if it would not possible to obtain an
eleventh hour concession that could make the bill acceptable and
save a few clauses with cosmetic changes, when in fact the whole
process was flawed from the start and Elections Canada and the
government ventured dangerously close to conflict of interest, if
they did not actually have one.
If the amendment we are proposing today had been adopted, the
House would get advance notice when the government wants to
amend the Elections Act. Political parties should be consulted
before the introduction of a bill on election legislation. As I will
repeat tomorrow at third reading of Bill C-63, neither the official
opposition nor the Reform Party were consulted. It is a partisan bill
that will lead to a partisan decision.
We will also propose to amend the referendum legislation, Bill
C-110, which gives a veto to almost everybody and which at the
time I called a big fat chicken with legs for everybody, so that the
veto clearly applies to referendums.
This is to say that before calling a federal referendum, the
federal government will have to have the approval of the regions
and the provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia,
two western provinces representing 50 per cent of the population
and two Atlantic provinces representing 50 per cent of the popula-
6692
tion. As for the question to be asked, the approval of the provinces
will be required.
Second, there will have to be agreement regarding the results.
The federal government will not be able to give effect to a vote on a
referendum question if any of the groups I mentioned has objected
to the question.
(1750)
Finally, we propose that, if the result of a referendum held under
provincial legislation differs from the result of a referendum held
under federal legislation, the one held under provincial legislation
will prevail, thus demonstrating that it is the provinces that created
the federal government and not the reverse, in case this has been
forgotten.
My grandfather would puff on his clay pipe and tell me to
remember that confederation was the creation of the provinces, that
the federal government was not responsible for our existence.
Almost everyone in Canada has heard once in his life that the
federal government was a creation of the provinces.
We have created a monster of such proportions that it now thinks
it created everything, when the reverse is in fact true. It was the
provinces that gave birth not to Canada but to the constitutional
government that we know today. Contrary to a certain widely held
philosophy, Canada was not created in 1867. It existed before that.
It existed when your Acadian ancestors, Madam Speaker, were
there, long before the constitutional order of 1867 existed, long
before the Europeans arrived. The First Nations were here when
Canada came to be. To think that Canada has been in existence only
since 1867 or that it will fall apart because of a constitutional
reform is to misjudge tradition, the history that forged the soul of
this people. It will withstand another constitutional reform.
My colleagues can add to what I have said. I have tried to deal
with the eight motions in Group No. 6, which cover the Bloc
Quebecois's major amendments. I would again like to congratulate
the member for Calgary West for his solid understanding of the
problem I am raising concerning distinct society. He is not in
agreement with me, and I am not in agreement with him. But at
least he is asking the real questions and giving a genuine response,
as he sees it, unlike the people across the way, who pretend not to
understand the problems. They sidestep the issue, because they are
too afraid of what lies beneath the surface.
It is true that distinct society is a term that gives Quebec greater
powers, that makes it possible to interpret the Canadian
Constitution so that the division of powers provided in sections 91
and 92 of the present Constitution would be set aside and
precedence given to an interpretive clause of this sort. In this
regard, the hon. member for Calgary West is right.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am rising to speak on the Group No. 6 amendments to Bill C-63.
All eight of these motions have been proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois.
As the hon. member for Bellechasse has indicated, these motions
cover a wide range of subject matter and are obviously of major
significance. I would share his concerns about the entire process
here. It does seem to be unfortunate that in reviewing elections
legislation we are essentially restricted to discussing matters of this
scope and importance in only a few minutes before we move on to
voting on the bill on a timetable imposed by the Liberal
government.
I am very concerned about the partisanship in this. It is
something we had hoped to address. As I have said repeatedly in
this debate, we had hoped to be able to support this legislation but
we are still not in a position where we can do that.
Having said that I do have grave reservations about most of these
amendments, the one motion which I believe my party can support
is Motion No. 29. Motion No. 29 goes to the heart of this concern
about partisanship. This particular motion by the Bloc Quebecois
would require the government to consult the House and specifically
the opposition parties for future amendments to this act. That has
been a practice in the past and I think it is a practice we should
continue and in a serious way get back to.
I will reiterate what the member for Bellechasse said on Friday. I
think it is ridiculous in a mature and democratic country that
elections legislation would be imposed at the end of a Parliament.
The rules of the game change by only one player, presumably for
its own benefit. That is not the way elections law works in an
advanced democratic society.
Nevertheless, I do want to take some time to address some of
these other motions. These other motions have to do with a range of
subjects but generally speaking, what they attempt to do in my
opinion is to impose much of Quebec's electoral legislation and
Quebec's election practices on the federal government. This is a
much more radical view of federalism than either I or my party
would subscribe to.
(1755)
In this House there are three very different views of
Confederation which come out over and over again.
One is the view of the Bloc Quebecois which on a certain level
has been not just the view of two founding nations, but a view that
this is very much a confederal arrangement and everything that
goes on federally is really a creature of the provinces. In effect the
6693
federal government really should only communicate with citizens
through the provinces. That is one of the extreme positions.
The other extreme position is the historic position of the Liberal
Party which is very much a centralist position. I know in Quebec
the Liberals refer to themselves as federalists. This often makes the
debate confusing because in fact they are not really federalists. The
Liberal Party historically has been a centralist party which views
the provinces as little more than units of administration, but not as
entities that have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction,
which in fact we would maintain is the case under the Constitution.
The Reform Party view is of a federal state where both the
provinces and the federal government are entities with clear powers
in their own jurisdictions. Both have rights to communicate with
their citizens directly.
I will deal with these amendments randomly because I want the
House to understand how radical some of them are. For example,
Motion No. 32 would amend the referendum act so that the regions
would have a veto over a referendum question posed by the federal
government. The formula laid out here is the five region formula
that was in the government's bill on constitutional referendums,
Bill C-110, at the end of the last session.
This goes much further than that. Bill C-110 was a formula for
the approval of constitutional amendments. This is not a formula
for the approval of a referendum question. We all realize the
referendum act at the federal level, as in Quebec, is merely a
consultative device. This is an approval process for a question to be
asked of the people of Canada by the federal government. I do think
this is an extreme position by the Bloc Quebecois. My Bill C-341
challenges the belief that the Government of Quebec can ask a
binding question that concerns the future not just of Quebec but of
all of Canada in Quebec only and on its own terms.
Yet this particular motion tries to put in the elections act and the
referendum act a motion which would proscribe the ability of the
federal government to ask a question of Canadians without the
prior approval of the Quebec government. I cannot think of a
motion that someone could put in here that is more unacceptable to
Canadians outside of Quebec. In fact it is unacceptable not just in
the case of Quebec; to me, the idea that the Government of Ontario
or the Government of British Columbia could veto the wording of a
referendum question across the country is absolutely outrageous.
The federal government has referred some of the Quebec
government's constitutional agenda to the supreme court. There is
a need in the opinion of the Reform Party for the federal
government to be able to pose direct questions to the people of
Quebec on the issue of sovereignty and separation if we are looking
at another referendum down the road.
In the past, the Government of Quebec has not only posed
questions which we believe have been fundamentally misleading,
but also it has posed questions and has an agenda behind those
questions which is clearly illegal and unconstitutional under
Canadian law. It is more than appropriate, in fact it is essential in
our view, that the federal government not only retain but also
exercise its right to consult the people of Quebec directly on their
real opinions on things like the issue of separation and on notions
like a unilateral declaration of independence. I cannot imagine a
proposed amendment to this bill that would be more unacceptable
than this one.
Motion No. 35 is similar to Motion No. 32. Motion No. 33, like
Motion No. 24, is a motion of wide application. It would
effectively impose wide sections of Quebec electoral law upon the
federal government, specifically those sections dealing with party
financing. It would apply the financing provisions of Quebec's
electoral law not just to federal elections but to federal referendums
as well.
(1800 )
Let me go over some of the provisions. A lot of them concern
matters which are already covered in federal elections law such as
the role of auditors and party agents in making financial reports.
Some of these rules have broad sweeping content. For example,
these are the rules that restrict fundraising to individuals. Corporate
bodies, unions and organizations cannot contribute to political
parties. It provides for public financing of political parties directly,
based on percentage of vote, and deems what kind of non-financial
contributions count as political contributions. It restricts the ability
of people to contribute to political parties to no more than $3,000 in
a single year.
Some of these notions I could support. I have never had a
problem with the concept that only voters should contribute to
political parties. However, these amendments are of a wide and
sweeping nature and we do not have time to debate them. Suffice it
to say there would not be anywhere near consensus in the House on
some of these restrictions.
The chief electoral officer of Quebec explained to the committee
that there is a history behind the development of some of the
electoral practices in Quebec. They were designed to clean up the
corruption which we saw, particularly prior to the quiet revolution.
There have been great advances made in Quebec, but the fact of the
matter is that in our view some of these proposals have problems of
their own and would be regressive if applied to the rest of the
country. We would be very resistant to some of these ideas,
certainly if there were not an opportunity for further discussion.
There is a great deal of material here and further Reform
speakers will have a chance to address it.
6694
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this group of motions to amend Bill C-63, an act
to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act. This
group of motions deals particularly with political party funding.
However, I would like to say a few words on other aspects of the
bill before dealing with the ones now before us.
First of all, it is a good thing to shorten the campaign. Means of
communications are a lot more advanced than they used to be. This
shortening should make it possible for everybody to have a bit of
energy left at the end of the campaign and to be ready to get down
to work the next day.
That having been said, there are still things that could be
improved in this bill. A lot of amendments were brought forward.
For example, in Quebec, we have a permanent register of electors.
Now the federal government wants its own list when it could have
used the existing lists. People have been enumerated on several
occasions in recent years, particularly in Quebec. Enumeration has
almost become an annual event. On top of that, Statistics Canada
conducted its regular census last spring.
A lot of money has been wasted over the last few years. It may
have been a lack of vision on our part not to move faster towards
the establishment of a permanent computerized list. We are now
moving in that direction. However, that has already been done in
Quebec. It would simply be a matter of making the necessary
adjustments for the list to reflect federal ridings instead of
provincial ridings. With today's technology, there is no reason not
to proceed with these adjustments, which would save us a lot of
money.
There is an amendment that would have been desirable and even
important, one that has been moved and discussed on many
occasions by the Bloc Quebecois. It is the issue of political party
funding. It is a rule that we already comply with.
(1805)
The law in Quebec limits the financing of political parties by
ensuring that only individuals can contribute limited amounts. This
is a way to avoid becoming the victims or lapdogs of large
corporations which have the means to make financial
contributions. Every year a list of financial donations, some of
which amount to $100,000 or more, is published, not to mention
the donations which do not appear on the list or are divided among
different branches, subsidiaries and the like.
So we could have seized this opportunity to make a valuable
contribution to the legislation by adding provisions on the
financing of political parties. I say we could have done so and there
will be opportunities to do so with the amendments proposed, but
there does not seem to be much will on the government side to
proceed in this way. It is not the first time that Parliament has had
an opportunity, since the last general election, to vote on a much
more democratic act regarding the financing of political parties.
What is the reason for this? We have to understand the dynamics
of this issue and I believe it is worth explaining to the public why it
is preferable to have political parties financed solely by
individuals.
Generally speaking, people who give money to political parties
do so because they believe in the goals they pursue. In the case of
the Bloc Quebecois, a goodly number of sovereignists actively
support the idea of a party in Ottawa which defends sovereignty
and defends the interests of Quebec. There is a reason why they
contribute and campaign. They are entitled to be active within the
party, to take part in meetings, and so on, while at the same time
financing the party. They therefore have a vested interest. They
give money, contribute, buy memberships, because of that interest.
This allows them to express support of a cause, a commitment to
specific policies defended by a political party.
And what about those who contribute $50,000. $75,000 or
$80,000 to a political party? Are we to believe it is out of altruism,
out of charity, that they give so much? I doubt it. Most people,
when they look at that, also wonder just what axe they have to
grind. These are often very active people, with their own lobbyists,
people that pressure the government, the cabinet, individual
ministers. Then they get the changes that they want, ones that bring
them results. They practically do a cost-effectiveness study-I
contribute $50,000 and then I get a bit more than that back, often a
lot more.
Is this how we want political parties to be funded within a
democratic system? Absolutely not. As long as they are able to
receive these contributions, this is certainly how it will be. The
parties will be at the mercy of lobbyists, of organizations that are
far better organized financially. One needs only look at the present
situation, where for instance there will be a debate next year on the
Bank Act, while we are living through a great many economic
difficulties around job creation or maintaining a decent social
security safety net. Meanwhile, we see some institutions that are in
better shape than ever before, making more profits than they ever
did.
We saw this during the past few weeks. Anyone who is a bit
more familiar with the stock market will know that people are still
investing massively in the banking sector because it is very
profitable. There may be a problem at some point, but they can
afford it. If you look at the contributions to the government party
and add up this column of figures, it is also very profitable for the
Liberal Party to be on good terms with these people.
Of course it is a lot harder when you have to do your fundraising
with donations of $10 and $15, $20 and $5. It takes a long time. To
collect $100,000 this way takes time, energy and a good
organization. But it does force members to be closer to the
grassroots and realize that they have to defend the interests of Mr.
and Mrs.
6695
Average, as opposed to a business which makes a lot of money,
donates only a very small fraction of its profits to a political party
but certainly expects something in return.
The system can never be perfect because these people will
always try, in a roundabout way, to exercise pressure and to lobby.
We cannot avoid that. However, to legislate against it would put on
a lot of pressure. Those who do not comply with the legislation will
be liable to severe penalties and have to pay the political price for
failing to comply with the legislation governing political parties.
(1810)
I have no doubt that in the end, adopting such amendments
would ensure that political parties, especially the big parties we
know such as the Liberal Party, or those we used to know, I should
have said, like the Conservative Party and others, have to get closer
to the grassroots which does not give as much but would require a
better organized and more permanent political organization.
This would prevent situations of the kind that arose at the last
convention of the Liberal Party which I had a chance to attend,
where people slapped each other on the back and said we are the
best and everything is fine, while out in the street, many citizens
are experiencing problems and wondering why the federal
government refuses to make any commitments and set objectives
to improve the economy and the employment situation. And yet
they say everything is fine.
Of course, when we get people who are more connected to
reality and did not pay $500 to register for this convention, they
will tell us something entirely different from what we might want
to hear, but that is normal, that is healthy, it stimulates discussion
and makes politicians do more and have a greater concern for the
redistribution of wealth and for other areas by which people are
affected.
The question we might ask, because it seems clear that it is a
better system, is how is it that no one in this party-or, in any case
as we will see shortly, perhaps a few-why are there not more
people, particularly among those in authority, supporting the idea?
Obviously, because it would cut off major sources of revenue for
their party, and they know very well how it works. It is easy. It
provides a network and it also allows future party candidates to
establish a network to eventually reach the position of Prime
Minister.
So they look for funding everywhere, and in significant amounts.
This is no longer appropriate. We are coming up to the year 2000,
and we must modernize our political institutions. One way to do
so, clearly, is to ensure political parties are funded democratically.
We limit ourselves to public funding. It is not always easy, as
those who work in our political organizations can testify. The
funding campaigns we wage year in and year out put us in
permanent contact with people who comment on the government's
action and on our own, when we come to call.
This is what it means to build a democratic system where people
have a little more influence than merely a vote every four or five
years. There is ongoing contact between the voter and the political
parties and this encourages people to participate in democracy, that
is, to follow what is going on, to be aware, and enables us to
maintain contact and thus have a broader base. It promotes a
healthier democracy.
I urge those whose mind is not already set to draw the necessary
conclusions and make a move they can think back on with pride
when they have retired from politics. Admittedly, it is often
frustrating for government members not to be able to influence the
course of things as much as they would like, because the power is
concentrated in the hands of the cabinet, of those who cash the
cheques and get the money. Today, they can ensure they will be
able to say that they helped pass a bill of historic significance, by
changing how political parties are financed.
At some future date, they will be able to say: ``I was there when
this bill was passed'', instead of having to say: ``I was in hiding'' or
admitting to voting as they were told so as not to cause
embarrassment to their party. I can see there are many members on
the other side, including members from Quebec. I am looking
forward to seeing how they will vote, because, in Quebec, political
parties have to comply.
By members from Quebec, I mean the few Liberal members
remaining in Quebec. I am curious to see how they will vote and
how they will explain to their voters that they did not want to
submit to a democratic financing system, when this is the norm we
set for ourselves in Quebec a long time ago.
This issue was settled through legislation passed by the
Lévesque government. Of course, here, things move more slowly.
We sovereignists would be quite proud to make it our legacy,
before leaving this Parliament, to help modernize democracy,
through public financing. I am pleased to see some members
nodding. Perhaps all it would take is ten or fifteen minutes more to
turn a few of them around.
(1815)
I will conclude by urging those few progressive Liberals
opposite to support the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois
to put in place a democratic public financing system. I think that
they would be quite proud of themselves for doing so when they go
to bed tonight.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report
stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
6696
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. The recorded division will
also apply to Motion No. 33.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. 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.
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (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.
The next question is on Motion No. 31. 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. The recorded division will
also apply to Motion No. 32.
The next vote will be on Motion No. 35. 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.
The next vote will be on Motion No. 36. 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.
6697
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.
(1820)
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 37 in Group No. 7.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-63, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 43 with the
following:
``and 52 of this Act come into force on August 1,''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
(1840)
[Translation]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 1.
The vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 9,
15 and 18. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the need
for a vote on Motions Nos. 2, 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28.
A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires a vote on MotionNo. 2. The vote on Motion No. 2 will also apply to Motions Nos. 4,
10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 176)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Duceppe
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-55
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
6698
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-112
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
(1845)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore, I also declare Motions Nos. 3, 9, 15
and 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. The vote on Motion No. 2
will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 2.
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 nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote against the motion.
(1850 )
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 177)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-30
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
6699
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-137
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 2 lost. Consequently, Motions Nos. 4, 10, 14, 16, 17,
19, 26, 27 and 28 are also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
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.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 178)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
6700
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-137
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-30
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 5 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 20. If Motion No. 20 carries,
it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 21. If Motion No. 20
is lost, Motion No. 21 will have to be put to the House.
[English]
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 yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 179)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-112
6701
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Duceppe
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-55
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 20 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
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 no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
(1855)
Mr. Blaikie Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 180)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-29
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
6702
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-138
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 22 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
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 no.
[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 be voting yes unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on
the following division):
(Division No. 181)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-34
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
6703
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-133
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 23 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you asked, I believe you would
find that there unanimous consent to apply the result of the
previous vote to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 181.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 25 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
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 no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 182)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Duceppe
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
6704
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-59
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-108
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 6 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
(1900)
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you will find that there is
unanimous consent to have members who voted on the preceding
motion recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, Bloc members will be
voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 183)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Duceppe
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Marchand
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-25
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
6705
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-142
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 7 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 8. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motion No. 12.
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 no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official
opposition will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will vote yes, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 176.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 8 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 12 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 11.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the results of the vote on Motion No. 7, which was also
moved by the member for Bellechasse, be applied to Motion No. 11
now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
6706
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived
on the following division):
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 11 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 13.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would find
unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the vote
taken on Motion No. 2, which also stands in the name of the
member for Calgary West, to Motion No. 13.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 177.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 13 defeated.
(1905 )
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 24. The vote on this motion
will also apply to Motion No. 33.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 7
to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on
the following division):
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 24 lost. Therefore, I also declare Motion No. 33 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 29.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe there would be
unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 8
to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on
the following division.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 176.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 29 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 30.
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 no.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Madam Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the New Democrats vote no on
this motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 30 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 31. The vote on this motion
will also apply to Motion No. 32.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion to Motion
No. 31 now before the House, and to Motions Nos. 35 and 36 which
also stand in the name of the member for Bellechasse.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 31 which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 35 which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 36 which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 31 lost. As a result, I also declare Motions Nos. 32, 35
and 36 lost.
6707
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 37.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you might seek
unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 6
to the motion presently before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 182.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 37 defeated.
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, when the votes were announced on
Motion No. 8, we had no sound. I would appreciate having the
numbers announced, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The count on
Motion No. 8 was yeas, 55; nays, 112.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-63 be concurred in at the report stage with
further amendments and read the second time.
[English]
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 nay, Madam Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present
will be voting no unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being7.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)