36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 222
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 5, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL FITNESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| PENTICTON AIRPORT
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| BRIDGEVIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| JOB CREATION PROGRAMS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1405
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| BERNARD VOYER
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| INTERCEDE DIVERSION PROGRAM
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| ONTARIO BUDGET
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| MEMBER FOR QUÉBEC EAST
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1410
| THE LATE TERRY RIORDON
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| MARYSE COZIOL-LAVOIE
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| NATIONAL YOUTH WEEK
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ECONOMIC MISSIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| KOSOVO
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1430
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ECONOMIC MISSIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-68
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| LÉVIS SHIPYARD
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1450
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1455
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| PORTS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1500
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-507. Introduction and first reading
|
| HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH ACT
|
| Bill C-508. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1510
| MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
| Bill C-509. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Penticton Regional Airport
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Medicare
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1515
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Report stage
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1520
1525
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1530
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1535
1540
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1545
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Report stage
|
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
1550
| Divisions deferred
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-68. Second reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1610
1615
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1620
1625
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1630
1635
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1640
1645
| Mr. Randy White |
1650
1655
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1700
1705
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1710
1715
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1720
1725
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1730
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Shipbuilding
|
| Motion
|
1800
(Division 391)
| Amendment negatived
|
1810
(Division 392)
| Motion negatived
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-71. Report stage
|
(Division 393)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1815
(Division 394)
| Motion agreed to
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Report stage
|
(Division 395)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 396)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
(Division 397)
| Motion No. 4 defeated
|
(Division 399)
| Motion No. 6 defeated
|
(Division 408)
| Motion No. 24 defeated
|
(Division 398)
| Motion No. 5 negatived
|
1820
(Division 400)
| Motion No. 7 negatived
|
(Division 410)
| Motion No. 11 negatived
|
(Division 411)
| Motion No. 12 negatived
|
(Division 416)
| Motion No. 33 negatived
|
(Division 418)
| Motion No. 36 negatived
|
(Division 401)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
(Division 402)
| Motion No. 10 negatived
|
(Division 403)
| Motion No. 14 negatived
|
(Division 407)
| Motion No. 22 negatived
|
(Division 415)
| Motion No. 32 negatived
|
1825
(Division 404)
| Motion No. 16 negatived
|
(Division 405)
| Motion No. 17 negatived
|
(Division 409)
| Motion No. 35 negatived
|
(Division 406)
| Motion No. 20 negatived
|
(Division 417)
| Motion No. 34 negatived
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
1830
(Division 412)
| Motion No. 25 negatived
|
(Division 413)
| Motion No. 30 negatived
|
(Division 414)
| Motion No. 31 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1835
(Division 419)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-454. Second reading
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1840
1845
1850
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1855
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1900
1905
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1910
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1915
1920
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1925
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1930
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Justice
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1935
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1940
| Transport
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 222
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 5, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Kelowna.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL FITNESS MONTH
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
May is National Fitness Month.
May is a special month, the month of flowers, the month of good
weather and the month in which we celebrate Mother's Day. Yet,
there are some among us who are seen as unreachable or as someone
else's child. They are the sexually exploited youth who exist in
a world of shadows invisible. The voice of these sexually
exploited children and youth must be heard and strategies must be
devised to meet their specific needs.
A special program “Out from the shadows and into the light”
was brought to my attention today. That special program is using
a community development approach beginning with the youth
themselves, the youth who tell their stories and the youth who
make recommendations.
I encourage all of my colleagues, as the Minister of Foreign
Affairs has said, to express support for this program and to
combat the sexual exploitation of children.
* * *
PENTICTON AIRPORT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla who are
concerned about the future of the Penticton airport. Negotiations
for the transfer of the airport to the city of Penticton have
been ongoing since 1996. Here we are three years later and the
process has been halted for the eighth time.
The Penticton airport injects over $12 million into the economy
of the south Okanagan. The airport manages over 44,000 air
movements per year. To lose this important link in
transportation infrastructure would be economically devastating.
The people of the south Okanagan are taking direct action to
keep the airport open by signing a petition demanding that the
federal government appoint a mediator to bring the parties back
to the negotiating table.
The closure of the Penticton Regional Airport will clearly be
the responsibility of the Liberal transport minister who has
mismanaged this file from the beginning. What will it take for
the Liberal government to appoint a mediator to finalize this
vital agreement?
* * *
BRIDGEVIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Saturday, May 1, students and teachers, present and former,
gathered to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Bridgeview Public
School in the village of Point Edward in my riding.
Hundreds of people from as far away as British Columbia and
Florida gathered to renew friendships and reminisce over times
past.
Despite school board centralization and closures, Bridgeview
school has forged its identity as the heart of the community.
After all, communities are built on institutions which are open
to all and Bridgeview school is certainly a place that welcomes
students, parents and indeed everyone from the community.
For 50 years students have been educated within its four walls
and for 50 years the community of Point Edward has been
strengthened by the friendships formed within the school. Clearly
schools are essential to our future but schools are equally
important to our community identity.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, being a member of parliament for the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and having Canadian forces base
Petawawa in my riding, I believe I know what kind of men and
women wear the Canadian forces uniform. Their duty is to defend,
protect and, if necessary, engage in the field of battle.
They are proud of this distinction and have never ever failed to
follow that path. They have set high standards in the field of
battle and have set high standards in conducting peacekeeping
duties. They show tenacity and determination in defence just as
they are intrepid in attack.
Above all else, their success is attributed to that superlative
spirit found in every fibre and fabric of their being. Courage
is the human quality which guarantees above all others. All
Canadians must be proud of our courageous custodians of freedom,
our military men and women, especially as the world watches
events continue to unfold in Kosovo.
* * *
[Translation]
JOB CREATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the request of the people of Quebec and of Abitibi, the
Government of Canada transferred several of its Canadian job
creation, training and internship programs to the Government of
Quebec in 1998.
Since that transfer, the staff of the Emploi-Québec centre at Val
d'Or have been doing an excellent job of finding solutions for
users of these employment programs.
At this point in time, the Val d'Or Emploi-Québec office is
already short of money to meet the needs of the people of the
Val D'Or region. It is already $2 million short.
Why such a lack of budget planning by the government of Lucien
Bouchard, at the very beginning of the 1999 budget year?
Program recipients in Abitibi are waiting for an answer from you
today, Mr. Bouchard.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
taxodus continues. Last week the CEO of Nortel told the
government that high taxes were driving Canadian talent south.
Over the weekend the industry minister agreed with him, but the
tax minister does not think we have high taxes and he does not
believe that Canada is experiencing a brain drain.
Allow me to give the government a very real example. Dr. Kurt
Ellenberger, a constituent of mine and a respected musician and
university professor, just accepted a position at Michigan
University. He told me that he is leaving because he is tired of
seeing the lion's share of his wage “arrogantly gobbled up by
this government's increasingly voracious appetite for the money
it did not earn”.
1405
He is tired of his pay raises being rendered virtually
meaningless as CPP premiums skyrocket. He is leaving because
Canada no longer is, in his words, “the land of opportunity”.
Because of this government's high tax policies, Canada has lost a
talented citizen.
When I asked Kurt if I could use his quotes, he wrote:
Dear Rick: Thanks for this opportunity—it is a delight to know
that (Prime Minister) and his cronies will have to listen to me
for a change...
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate all parties of the Nisga'a final
agreement signed yesterday by the Government of Canada.
After decades of negotiation, the Nisga'a will finally be able
to participate in society, to speak their language, to teach
their traditions and to govern themselves.
Non-aboriginal British Columbians will also benefit from this
settlement. The infusion of new funds will provide a boost to
the economy surrounding Nisga'a lands and business will be able
to invest in the region with confidence.
This is a fair and honourable agreement which balances the
interests of all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
BERNARD VOYER
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois salutes the courage, determination and perseverance of
Quebec adventurer Bernard Voyer, a member of the first team to
reach the summit of Mt. Everest this year.
This long climb, undertaken with two Americans, two Swedes and
nine Sherpas, was completed last night. One can well imagine
the great feeling of accomplishment being experienced by Bernard
Voyer at this time.
Mr. Voyer is the second Quebecer to have accomplished this
exploit, which serves as a reminder that fidelity to one's
objectives allows one to attain the loftiest of summits, and
that tenacity, constancy and energy can overcome all obstacles
and make all things possible.
Reaching the roof of the world is an accomplishment few others
can equal. Mr. Voyer, we are proud of you and hope you can now
enjoy a well-deserved rest.
* * *
[English]
INTERCEDE DIVERSION PROGRAM
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone says it is an exceptional program, but it is fighting a
daily battle to stay alive.
It is called the Intercede Diversion Program and its goal is to
break the cycle of crime that young people get pulled into. The
program works.
A pilot project that led to intercede, an alternative to the
court system, shows fewer than 9% of participants have gone on to
re-offend, much lower than statistics coming from the court
process.
It also saves the taxpayers a substantial amount of money. The
average cost of putting a young person through intercede is $500
as compared to $2,500 to send them through court.
Intercede serves my riding and the entire region of Durham and
has the support of nine provincial court judges in the area.
Intercede reinforces the idea that every act has a consequence.
It is a very valuable program and deserves our support.
I encourage my government to work with the provincial government
in a expeditious manner so as to guarantee the future of
intercede and similar programs across Canada.
* * *
ONTARIO BUDGET
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a great day for the taxpayers of Ontario.
Yesterday provincial finance minister Ernie Eves unveiled the
last instalment in a tax cutting, job creating economic miracle
of the Mike Harris common sense revolution.
Yesterday's budget completed the remarkable turnaround
experience by a province which suffered a lost decade of economic
decline under the tax and spend mania of the Liberal and NDP
governments.
Mike Harris has kept his word to Ontarian voters by cutting
taxes for working families by 30%, eliminating the huge
provincial deficit by next year, creating over 850,000 new jobs
and introducing a taxpayer protection act with teeth, all while
increasing health care spending and absorbing the huge transfer
cuts of this Liberal government.
Now the Harris team is set to keep Ontario's economy in high
gear by delivering a further 20% cut in both property and income
taxes.
Even Liberals are joining the common sense bandwagon, with
Liberal MPP Annamaria Castrilli crossing the floor to join the
Harris team today.
She understands what these Liberals never will: real tax relief
leads to hope, growth and opportunity. Four more years of tax
cutting government in Ontario, that is what is going to happen in
this election.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR QUÉBEC EAST
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there comes a
point in life when it is time to fight injustice and vicious
attacks. Our role is to knowledgeably inform and serve the
public.
I could have remained insensitive to this rubbish. With the
Bloc, as with the Parti Quebecois, we have become used to
personal attacks. Their flawed arguments and especially their
constant crises over their identity force them to haul out all
sorts of tricks and gimmickry.
1410
How should we react when a member of the House of Commons asks a
service he is entitled to use, doubtless, for information,
paying for it, I would point out, with our taxes, and when the
information attacks individuals et certain members of
parliament.
We can debate the continued existence or the abolition of a
House. We can use a tool put at our disposal to attack certain
ideas, but we cannot viciously and wrongly attack certain
members of parliament.
Insults are for the weak. I would ask the member for Québec
East to offer a public apology, withdraw his publication on the
Senate and rectify the facts.
I would remind the House—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon.
member for Dartmouth.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE TERRY RIORDON
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Terry
Riordon, 45, former marathon runner, dedicated husband, father of
two and a Canadian veteran of the gulf war, died in his sleep on
April 29.
I met Terry last May in Halifax, his body and mind wracked with
pain as he tried to put forward his case for fair compensation
for his condition, which he believes was caused by vaccines
administered to troops and chemical exposures during the 1991
war.
Terry had no idea that his battle for a disability pension,
assistive devices and appropriate housing would take up the rest
of his life on earth.
His wife, Susan, a fierce fighter for justice for our enlisted
soldiers, has said “What this country must learn from this is to
take care of those who care for them”.
Or, as the president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans
Association said “Terry's passing is another failing grade to a
country that asks its service personnel to give all but gives
little in return”.
May Terry Riordon rest in peace and may we never forget the
sacrifice that Terry and all of our peacekeepers make to this
country.
* * *
[Translation]
MARYSE COZIOL-LAVOIE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to welcome to Parliament Hill the member for a
day from Longueuil, Maryse Coziol-Lavoie, the grand prize winner
of the first “member for a day“ competition in the riding of
Longueuil and a fourth year high school student at
Jacques-Rousseau. Maryse was the best of 45 students in the
national history course taking part in the competition.
I must say the choice was not easy, because the 11 finalists I
had the pleasure of meeting all had fine qualities. I would
like to congratulate the 10 other finalists on their excellent
performance and all the students taking part in the competition.
During her visit to Ottawa, Maryse, who is here with her mother,
Suzanne Coziol, will have a chance to see what members of
parliament do.
With this competition, I wanted to get young people interested
in and familiar with the world of politics, because they are
tomorrow's decision makers.
Maryse, on behalf of my colleagues, I welcome you and hope you
have a good time here.
* * *
[English]
HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to focus everyone's attention on a terrible disease that preys
upon unsuspecting individuals, attacking their nervous system and
robbing its victims of their ability to control their own bodies.
Of course, I am talking about Huntington's disease. This disease
is an inherited and fatal brain disorder that strikes individuals
in the prime of life. It is inherent among 50% of the children
of victims of this deadly disease and, as of today, there is
still no cure in sight.
The month of May is being observed as Huntington's Disease
Awareness Month in communities across Canada. The Huntington
Society of Canada has initiated and supported research into the
cause and nature of this fatal disease. The work of the society
has brought new hope to the people with Huntington's disease and
families who bear the burden of this affliction.
On behalf of the Huntington Society of Canada and all those
suffering from this terrible disease, I encourage everyone to
lend their support to this most worthy cause so that we may
finally find a cure for this deadly disease.
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the MS Society is the foremost voluntary agency in Canada that
provides services to people with MS and their families, and
supports an extensive research program.
Progress in the treatment of multiple sclerosis continues to
expand with new drugs which modify the course of the disease and
allow better management of the symptoms. Two recently approved
treatments reduce the frequency and severity of MS attacks. The
search for better treatment continues.
During the month of May, volunteers across the country will be
taking part in fundraising and awareness campaigns. Please join
me in urging all Canadians to join in this effort.
* * *
NATIONAL YOUTH WEEK
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
first week of May is National Youth Week.
Youth across the country will be celebrating through various
events and activities.
This initiative was launched by youth organizations in British
Columbia. Canadians from coast to coast are welcome to join in.
The festivities include art festivals, multicultural events,
youth dances and educational workshops.
1415
I would like to congratulate cities like Burnaby for taking the
lead on this issue. I call on parliament to recognize the first
week of every May as National Youth Week starting this year,
starting this week, starting this day.
Our youths have every reason to take charge of their future
making it full, happy and productive.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Indian affairs minister signed a treaty,
which “constitutes the full and final settlement in respect to
the aboriginal rights including aboriginal title in Canada of the
Nisga'a nation.” This was done without a debate in parliament,
without a vote in parliament, without the approval of parliament.
When the minister was asked why she proceeded in this way, all
she could say was “That is how we have done it in the past”, as
if enough wrongs in the past make a right.
Does the Prime Minister not see that proceeding in this
undemocratic way undermines potential support for this treaty and
the treaty making process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, absolutely not. Anybody knows there have been many
treaties signed by governments that were not ratified by the
different parliaments of the world. I know of many of them
myself. One is well known, the Jay treaty. It was signed
between Canada and the United States more than 100 years ago and
has not been ratified by the Parliament of Canada. It is common
practice in treaties to sign the treaty and after that parliament
can say yes or no.
There will be a bill here and members will be invited to vote
for or against fulfilling the obligation of the crown vis-à-vis
the first citizens of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is fundamentally different. If parliament is ever
asked to surrender its authority over any subject matter to
another level of government, surely this parliament ought to be
consulted first and asked its opinion on that surrender.
The Nisga'a treaty contains a provision that in the event of an
inconsistency between Nisga'a law and federal or provincial law,
the Nisga'a law prevails. That provision applies to 14 specific
subject areas of constitutional interest to this parliament.
If the Prime Minister really believes in the role and authority
of parliament, why would he even think of signing this treaty
before getting parliament's approval?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a bill in the House. There will be first,
second and third reading. There will be committee work. There
could be amendments proposed. There will be a vote. All the
privileges of parliament are being protected, but we have an
obligation under the royal proclamation of 1763 to meet our
obligations to the first citizens of the land. It is an
obligation that has been vested on parliament, not by a
francophone, by the king of England.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not come clean on the real
reasons why the government will not bring the treaty to
parliament. We know that fisheries and oceans has a
fundamentally different view on how to interpret the fishery
provisions of this treaty from that of the department of Indian
affairs. Finance has been unable to satisfy the auditor general's
requirement that the government specify how much these treaties
cost before they are signed, not after.
Is not the real reason the government delayed bringing this
treaty to parliament that the federal departments themselves are
not agreed on what it means, how to implement it, or what it
costs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this was negotiated between the natives of that area of
British Columbia and the provincial government and the federal
government. It was agreed that the bill was to be introduced
first into the provincial parliament and it was voted on not long
ago. Now we have signed a treaty. When we want to have a debate
in the House we will introduce the bill. We will give plenty of
time for the members to look into it, but there will be a day
where parliament will have to decide and face the obligations
that have been vested on us.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister knows that the Nisga'a treaty is a back door
way of amending the Constitution. What is even more distressing
is it creates a state within a state. In 14 areas Nisga'a are
going to have supremacy of law over the Government of Canada and
the province of British Columbia.
The Prime Minister is opposed to sovereignty association for
Quebec. How can he possibly support the Nisga'a treaty when it
is nothing more than sovereignty association for the Nisga'a
people?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, long before I arrived it was decided that we had to sign
treaties. The treaties were signed in Canada by the king or
queen of England long before there was this government or other
governments.
The government and myself personally have been dealing with the
Nisga'a. I visited them to discuss that in August 1969, 30 years
ago. It is about time to do something about it.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said in response to an earlier question that there can
be amendments to the Nisga'a treaty. Yesterday we heard from the
government and from the leader of the Nisga'a nation that there
can be no amendments. I am going to ask the Prime Minister to
clarify for the House right here and now. Can there be
amendments to this treaty once it gets to the floor of this
House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the treaty is not in force if there is no enabling
legislation. Amendments can be introduced and the House will
decide. The enabling legislation will be here. I repeat, I have
been talking with the Nisga'a. I have probably visited them more
often than the member who represents the Nisga'a in this House.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC MISSIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Premier of Quebec will be leading a business delegation to
Mexico a few days from now.
He would have liked to meet with President Zedillo. He
therefore requested the help of the federal government in
organizing such a meeting.
Could the Prime Minister tell us why the federal government
refused to provide any help to the Premier of Quebec, with the
result that he will be unable to meet with the President of
Mexico?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's ambassador to Mexico is completely at the disposal of
Quebec's officials and has worked with them to prepare for Mr.
Bouchard's visit.
Mr. Bouchard asked to meet with the President of Mexico. The
latter does not need and is not obliged to meet with all the
provincial premiers who visit Mexico. Having met with the Prime
Minister of Canada a few weeks ago, he decided that it was
perhaps not necessary to meet with the Premier of Quebec next
week.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
help of the federal government was not what the Prime Minister
said, as he knows very well.
In the past, premiers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Members must choose their words
very carefully.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, other premiers, such as Mr.
Harris, Mr. Klein, Mr. Clark, and the late Mr. Bourassa, have
met with the President of Mexico.
The U.S. government encourages such meetings between governors
of American states and the President of Mexico.
Does the Prime Minister realize that not only has the federal
government hurt the Government of Quebec, which pleases him, I
should think, but all the members of the business community who
will be accompanying the premier? This is petty politics just
to serve his cause.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the party across the way is always going on about duplication in
Canada.
Now, they are opening embassies all over the place and the
Premier of Quebec would like to be the head of an independent
state. If that is his goal, let him run for the office of Prime
Minister of Canada. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we fail
to see why the federal government will not agree to allow the
Premier of Quebec to lead an economic mission to Mexico and meet
with President Zedillo there. Such a meeting is legitimate and
desirable.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the federal
government not still taking a hard line when it refuses to
provide all necessary assistance to the Premier of Quebec and
prevents him from meeting with President Zedillo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are not preventing anyone from doing anything.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: There is something very important that
Quebecers, like Canadians, do not like to see, and that is
Canadian disputes taken to capitals all over the world, as the
Parti Quebecois is constantly trying to do.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government always says that political meetings are
necessary to the success of Team Canada missions.
In the case before us, the hard line taken by the federal
government confers an economic advantage on our foreign
competitors, since President Zedillo has agreed to meet with the
governor of New Jersey, as well as with the President of
Catalonia.
How can the Prime Minister justify his short-sighted policy,
which is damaging to the interests of Quebec and the efforts of
its government and businesses?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister of Canada does not arrange the schedule of
the President of Mexico.
The latter decided not to receive the Premier of Quebec. We
helped to organize the business people's visit and to ensure
that the Premier of Quebec could meet with a very large number
of ministers. He is not meeting with the president, which is
unfortunate. I did, and I think that I represented Quebec's
interests very well in our talks.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The purpose of military
intervention was to allow Kosovars to return and remain home
under the protection of an effective peacekeeping force.
President Clinton has now voiced support for a pause in the
bombing if Milosevic will begin troop withdrawals, not complete
but begin troop withdrawals. We have called for an immediate
suspension of the bombing. At the very least, will the Prime
Minister agree with the U.S. president on a possible pause in the
bombing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the United States made it very clear
that the five conditions agreed upon by all 19 leaders of NATO
have to be respected by President Milosevic. Of course, he wants
to make sure that we have an international force to ensure that
the cleansing, the murdering and the raping stops. The timing
for the stopping of the bombing and the movement of troops is
probably something that can be negotiated. We have to make sure
that the cleansing and everything else stops, but he has been
very clever in gaining time to carry out his job which is
unacceptable to civilized countries such as Canada.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Winston
Churchill once said “to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war”. The
release of both the American and Serbian soldiers has now been
successfully—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, momentum is clearly
building for a diplomatic solution. Why is the Prime Minister
refusing to recognize that an offer of a pause in the bombing
will add to the diplomatic resolution?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had a debate on this. We agreed that it was right
for NATO to intervene in this. No later than a few days ago
President Václav Havel said “No person of sound judgment can
deny one thing: This is probably the first war ever fought that
is not being fought in the name of interests but in the name of
certain principles and values. If it is possible to say about a
war that it is ethical, or that it is fought for ethical reasons,
it is true of this war”. I think that was true last week and it
is true today.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
chaotic, confused cabinet continues to confound Canadians. The
Prime Minister says no to tax cuts. The industry minister says
yes to tax cuts. The finance minister says “Maybe we should cut
taxes, maybe we should not, but not right now”. Yesterday the
trade minister said—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We cannot hear the question. The
hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is
saying no to tax cuts.
The industry minister is saying yes to tax cuts. The finance
minister is saying “Maybe we should cut taxes, maybe we should
not”. Yesterday the trade minister told us that, yes, Canada
needs lower taxes. So much for cabinet solidarity.
1430
If entrepreneurs are having difficulty building their businesses
in Canada because of high taxes, as the trade minister said
yesterday, what taxes would he cut first to make sure that
Canadian entrepreneurs can prosper here in Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member
was not at the trade committee because there was and still is no
contradiction.
Let me quote to the hon. member exactly what I said: “I think
it is clear that the tax base between the United States and
Canada needs to continue to be closed”. Clearly the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance have stated repeatedly that
we have started that work and that work will continue.
The Speaker: It is our tradition that we do not make
comment as to whether a member is in this House and I would
extend that to the committees.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
is the same trade minister who when he was in opposition was one
of the most vocal opponents of the free trade agreement.
The gap in taxes between Canada and the U.S. is growing almost
as wide as the split in cabinet. The gap in taxes between Canada
and the U.S. continues to hinder growth in Canada.
Canadians are united. Despite the split in cabinet, Canadians
are united in their belief that we need lower taxes. The
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, the industry minister and the trade
minister all know that taxes need to go down in Canada for growth
to go up.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the experts, listen to
Canadians, listen to his own colleagues and lower taxes to keep
industry leaders like Nortel here in Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that there was a
government that was here before us which imposed a surtax on
everything. That was the government that introduced what is
called bracket creep today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime
Minister has the floor if he wishes to use it.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we had a $42
billion deficit that was a gift from the Tory party and we
got rid of that.
I think that members of the Tory party should have a period of
reflection and dream about policies that will not put the country
into bankruptcy, as was the case when we became the government in
1993.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week the government admitted that
there is no protection for property rights for the Nisga'a women
in the agreement. Women in this country have fought for years to
get legal protection for property rights. Why is the minister
prepared to ignore Nisga'a women and deny them the same legal
protection for property rights that other Canadian women enjoy?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party
continue to show why they have no credibility on this issue.
First they undermine the process of the government and of
parliament to accept or reject such an important treaty. Then
they continue to show that they do not have any understanding of
the significant roles in this land of the Constitution and the
charter of rights which apply and protect aboriginal rights.
Here again we have them confusing the details of the treaty.
Maybe the hon. member should go with her colleague, the critic
for the Reform Party, and sit down with the Nisga'a to understand
how they do protect and do include women in that society.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the government, not the opposition,
which is denying Nisga'a women their rights.
In the event of a marriage breakdown the Nisga'a women have no
legal protection under the treaty for property rights.
Can the minister give me the section and verse of the Nisga'a
agreement that guarantees Nisga'a women property rights
protection?
1435
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, if they would
take the time to speak with the Nisga'a they would see that women
are very much involved in that society. Women are leading the
ratification process. Women are on the education—
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, the fact
remains that provincial laws will apply on Nisga'a lands.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC MISSIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to my first question just now, the Prime Minister
stated that the President of Mexico had refused to meet the
Premier of Quebec. In a letter from Foreign Affairs, however,
it is clearly specified that it was the federal government which
refused to pass Quebec's request on to the Mexican authorities.
Could the Prime Minister state the facts and admit that, if
there is no meeting, it is because his government is opposed to
such a meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is the one who said earlier
that the President of Mexico reused to meet with the Premier of
Quebec, not I.
I am sure that the Government of Mexico has been informed of the
Quebec Premier's desire to meet the president. However, the
president had decided not to receive him. These are the facts,
and known to everyone.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will quote an excerpt from the letter “Foreign Affairs informs
Quebec that it is not diplomatic practice for the provincial
premiers to meet the Head of State of Mexico”. That is what
happened.
Premier Bouchard wanted to meet with the President of Mexico,
but was not able to at the time of the Team Canada mission,
because of the ice storm. He was prepared to do so now, in the
presence of the Canadian ambassador.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his petty partisan politics
are doing a disservice to the business people of Quebec? The
Prime Minister has none of the stature of a statesman.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have given all the facts. There is a visit by the Premier of
Quebec. He will meet with several ministers. He would have
liked to meet the President of Mexico, but for his own reasons
the latter decided not to meet with him. I do not believe there
have been very many meetings between provincial premiers and the
President of Mexico, and there will not be one with Mr.
Bouchard. That is the decision of the President of Mexico.
I cannot give any orders to anyone. When I receive people in my
own office, I am the one who decides whether or not to do so.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is unfortunate that the federal aboriginal affairs minister, when
asked to simply quote the chapter and verse that shows the
constitutional protection for aboriginal women, cannot or will
not do it. That is a shame.
This deal sets many precedents and yet many people, both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, are afraid that it will
divide Canadians along racial lines instead of uniting us along
the principle of equality.
It also sets another precedent. The local Nisga'a chief will
now have greater lawmaking powers than the Prime Minister of
Canada in 14 constitutional areas. Think of it. We pass laws in
this place which will not apply on Nisga'a land.
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs what he thinks
of creating an ethnically based nation state in the heart of
British Columbia.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is becoming ridiculous.
Here again they fall. They do not know how to read the treaty in
the context of the application of laws. They bring up
matrimonial property and they have that all wrong. They talk
about labour provisions and they get that wrong.
They keep saying they do not need briefings to understand the
treaty and how it was written because they know it all, but they
have yet to show in this House how they know anything about the
laws of Canada or the importance of this treaty.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not see the point in asking a question of the aboriginal
affairs minister. She never quotes a single chapter or verse
from the agreement when she tries to justify her point.
Let me read from the Nisga'a treaty for the intergovernmental
affairs minister. It states:
In the event of an inconsistency between Nisga'a law and federal
or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails.
That is in the agreement. That affects 14 key constitutional
areas. These are the sorts of demands that Quebec would make on
the federal government, and properly it rejects those demands.
Why would it accept those same things in a Nisga'a agreement in
the heart of British Columbia?
1440
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would probably be helpful
for the hon. member to take time to read the charter of rights
and freedoms, in particular section 25. I remind him that the
charter of rights and freedoms guarantees that certain rights and
freedoms shall not be construed as to abrogate or derogate from
any—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the minister of
Indian affairs.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I thank you because this
is very important. The charter of rights and freedoms states
that nothing that we will do shall abrogate or derogate from any
aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the
aboriginal peoples of Canada, including any rights or freedoms
that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and
any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims
agreements or may so be acquired.
These are the highest laws of the land. They protect aboriginal
rights. We have a process to reconcile those rights in a modern
Canada. What is Reform's strategy for dealing with that?
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice received a letter from her Quebec
counterpart requesting that Bill C-68 be amended so as to exempt
Quebec from the application of this legislation. This request
represents a very broad consensus of lawyers, judges, police
officers, educators, social workers and decision makers in
Quebec.
Does the minister intend to respond favourably to this broadly
based request from Quebec and introduce an amendment? Yes or
no? That is all I ask. I would like a yes or a no. Is the
minister going to amend her legislation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of
occasions in this House in response to questions from the hon.
member, our youth justice legislation is based on an
acknowledgement of diversity of approach and concern in this
country and it is based upon the important principle of
flexibility. For example, our youth justice legislation puts a
premium on crime prevention. We believe it is better to prevent
youth crime before it happens. It puts a premium on
rehabilitation and reintegration for young people after they have
broken the law.
I wonder if the hon. member could share with us which of those
principles he and the people of Quebec disagree with.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister cannot even answer an extremely simple question with a
yes or a no.
By sticking to this position, the minister is contradicting
Quebec's lawyers, judges, police officers, educators and
decision makers.
Does the minister really think she alone is right when all these
stakeholders are saying that her bill threatens Quebec's
approach, which is working well in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed our youth justice
legislation is based on broad consultations all across the
country. I only have one question for the hon. member. I would
like him to precisely define for me, here today or at some time
in the future, that which he and the attorney general of Quebec
would like to do which is not possible under our proposed
legislation. I believe in facts. He will find that that which
Quebec wishes to do and is doing today will be done after this
legislation is passed.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Indian affairs minister quoted from the charter of
rights and freedoms. I would like to quote to her a
constitutional expert named Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the same
subject. He said: “Our government passed a law recognizing
self-government rights in native peoples and it is from that that
much has followed. We made the point very specifically at that
time that the self-government within a territory must not be
exclusively based on one ethnic or linguistic group”.
Why is this government departing from that fundamental principle
which at one time it supported?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me explain something to
the hon. member opposite. When we listen to the president of the
Nisga'a talk about the decades it has taken for them to negotiate
their way into this country, to feel that they can be part of
something that we are all a part of, to have the opportunity to
share in the economic and social benefits of this great nation,
we understand why settling this long outstanding obligation and
doing it in the context of building strong self-reliant first
nations governments like the Nisga'a is so critically important
to us all.
1445
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I asked a specific question and I will repeat it.
Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
agree, yes or no, with Mr. Trudeau's interpretation that
self-government within a territory must not be exclusively based
on one ethnic or linguistic group, which is the central feature
of the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I believe and what the
government believes is that we have to stand true to the
Constitution and to the charter of rights of the country. In the
Constitution of Canada aboriginal rights are recognized and must
be protected.
The challenge we have in a modern Canada is to identify those
rights and to negotiate with first nations, and in some cases
with the provinces, as the Government of Canada on how to
reconcile rights in today's Canada.
We have a effective process that is giving us certainty and is
allowing us to make economic investments in a part of the country
that can use. It is beyond me—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
* * *
[Translation]
LÉVIS SHIPYARD
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Lévis shipyard has just been given a four month reprieve to
resolve its problems and find a buyer.
The person with one of the main keys to the solution is the
federal Minister of Industry, who is refusing, however, to lift
his pinky to help the shipbuilding industry, even though Liberal
supporters are encouraging him to do so.
Does the minister realize that, if the Lévis shipyard closes, it
will largely be his fault?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Davie Industries is now under the protection of the Bankruptcy
Act. They have just got more time, until September 15 of this
year, to make a proposal to their creditors.
I believe two firms, one American and one European, have
indicated an interest. I also believe that, because of the
fierce competition among shipbuilders, the Asian crisis and the
low price of oil, the time is perhaps not the best. However, we
will continue to work with them through this difficult period.
* * *
STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
students in my riding often find it hard to obtain loans.
Could the minister tell this House what measures he has taken
recently to improve and simplify the student loan system in
Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am impressed indeed that my
colleague asked her question in perfect French.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to announce the most important
change to the student loan system in Canada in 35 years.
[English]
The Government of Canada signed milestone agreements with the
provinces of New Brunswick and Ontario to harmonize student
loans. They will simplify the student loan system by ensuring
that students only have to deal with one set of rules, one
interest rate and one repayment schedule. This is one way the
social union can help.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the issue of serious offenders getting unescorted public bus
passes to go from one prison to another is now a bit more
serious.
I was informed by a senior government official that John
Cassibo, a high risk sex offender, was given a bus ticket on
March 10, 1999, to go from Kingston maximum to Keele centre in
Toronto, and guess what? He was a no-show, kaput, a goner.
How many serious offenders are travelling by public bus in the
country and how many are unlawfully at large?
1450
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, public safety is always the number one
issue.
Again it is important to get the facts straight. No prisoner is
transferred from one prison, medium, minimum or maximum, to
another prison unescorted. To indicate that is incorrect.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this fellow here needs some lessons from people who know
what they are talking about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would prefer that we refer
to each other as hon. members.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I should ask which escort
service they are using in Corrections Canada.
I want to quote this public official. “He, John Cassibo, the
high risk sex offender, told corrections officers he had no
intentions to go to Keele”. She also told me this was only the
tip of the iceberg of this problem and “Corrections don't want
the public to know all these guys are out there”.
I would like to know again how many more repeat high risk sex
offenders, or any other serious offenders for that matter, are
going on these buses and are unescorted.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to offenders who
are on conditional release. They are going from an institution
to a halfway house to be integrated back into society.
I just wish my hon. colleague would quit trying to put undue
fear into the Canadian public.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment, the Minister
of Health, the Minister of Finance or whoever wants to take
responsibility.
Since the signing of the memorandum of understanding for the
cleanup of the Sydney tar ponds eight months ago, a number of
health studies have identified alarmingly high cancer rates and
other serious illnesses. Yet since that signing not one ounce of
identified toxic waste has been cleaned up. Nor is there any
indication it will be.
I have a simple question. Was there a specific funding
commitment in the recent federal budget for the cleanup of the
tar ponds and if not, why not?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Sydney tar ponds issue is of as great
concern to the government as it is to the provincial government
and as it is to the local community in Cape Breton.
We are carefully supporting the JAG process, the process that
brings together all levels of government with private citizens.
We have provided funding to this group. There have been studies
done. There has been some remediation going on. The process is
ongoing. We will be there with the funding as is requested by
the JAG.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the concern of the minister. I would go further and
ask if she could explain to the House and the people of Whitney
Pier, who have contaminated toxic sludge bubbling up in their
basements and yards where their children play, why nothing has
been done about their concerns.
I have another simple question. Will the government relocate
the people on Frederick Street and surrounding area?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite incorrect to say that nothing
is being done for these citizens and those who have had recent
concerns about contamination on their properties.
Tests have been done. They are undergoing analysis right now
and there will be reports out on them shortly.
* * *
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today a
provincial election was called in Ontario. The Conservatives are
seeking a mandate to continue to cut provincial income tax by 20%
and to increase health care spending by 20%.
Over 540,000 new jobs have been created by Premier Mike Harris,
and according to the Conference Board of Canada the number of new
jobs will total 866,000 by the end of next year.
1455
Here in Ottawa we have three different cabinet ministers with
three different lines on taxation. Will the Prime Minister
explain why Ontario gets a booming economy and record setting
health care spending while Canada gets the three stooges of high
taxes?
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer that question.
When the document entitled “Gathering Strength—Canada's
Aboriginal Action Plan” was released in January 1998, it
contained a commitment to develop an aboriginal human resources
development strategy.
Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth inform the
House if the government is acting on that commitment?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer to hear the
Prime Minister's answer but I will answer this question.
I thank the member for his question. Last week the Government
of Canada announced a $1.6 billion aboriginal human resources
development strategy. We are entering into agreements in every
part of the country with the Metis, Inuit and first nations.
This strategy flows from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples and it includes labour market programs, youth programs,
programs for urban aboriginal people, people with disabilities
and child care. It is an excellent initiative and they should
applaud it.
* * *
PORTS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the new provincial appointee to the St. John's port
authority is a prominent Liberal and former candidate, the usual,
but it gets even better. This gentleman also owns a controlling
interest in a port user, which makes his appointment illegal
according to section 16(e) of the Canada Marine Act.
Why did the minister sign off on this illegal appointment of
another Liberal hack to a port authority?
The Speaker: Order, please. I hear the word illegal but
I will permit the question.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for reviewing an individual's
name and qualifications from the provincial level is with the
appointing authority. The province of Newfoundland has
determined that Mr. Woodward has met the criteria as defined by
the act.
I find it passing strange that the hon. member opposite would
publicly denigrate in the House of Commons one of Atlantic
Canada's leading businessmen. Shame on him.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Commissioner for Official Languages,
whose complacency as far as the federal government is concerned
is legendary, was the one accusing the government of not doing
enough to support francophone communities outside Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, when the Commissioner for
Official Languages, who is known for his accommodating attitude
toward the Prime Minister, reaches the point of making such a
claim, it is because the situation of francophone minorities is
deteriorating dramatically?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
were very pleased to substantially increase contributions to
francophones outside Quebec in the last budget.
The hon. member, whose question is loaded with insinuation, is a
member of a party that wants to abandon forever the one million
francophones outside Quebec, while we are doing everything
possible to support them.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is about making our
government more democratic. Tomorrow the ethics counsellor will
respond to MPs' questions at a parliamentary committee regarding
whether or not the Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest
regarding his business practices in his riding.
The problem is that the ethics counsellor reports to the Prime
Minister, not to the House of Commons. Will the Prime Minister
commit to changing the law by having the ethics counsellor report
to parliament in a similar way that the chief electoral officer
reports to parliament and not to the Prime Minister of the
country? Will he change the law?
1500
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor, if he
chooses to appear before a committee at the invitation of members
of parliament, will answer the questions of the members of
parliament provided that they are properly put.
The hon. member knows that he should not bring issues that are
before the committee in front of the House. That is out of
order.
* * *
[Translation]
TAXATION
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board and I do not want him
responding with the $42 billion deficit of the Conservative
government, not to mention the $200 billion debt the Liberals
left us.
I simply want to ask him if he thinks it honest to continue
policies of camouflaging on taxes in order to take as much money
as possible from the pockets of middle class tax payers.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to be able to say once again that this government has the
taxpayers' interests at heart.
What we are doing with the pension plan is returning to Canadian
taxpayers what is rightly theirs, something the Conservative
government did not manage to do during its years in office.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of the members to
the presence in our gallery of His Excellency, El Hadj Omar
Bongo, President of the Republic of Gabon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. James Arthur. He
is the recipient of the Canada Gold Medal for Science and
Engineering.
[Translation]
This award recognizes the extraordinary and sustained
contribution by an individual to research in the natural sciences
and in engineering.
[English]
Please welcome our fellow Canadian, Dr. James Arthur.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to two petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th
report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to
votes 25 and 30 under the finance of the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, and reports the same.
I also present the 26th report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts relating to chapter 24, Revenue
Canada—International Tax Directorate: Human Resource Management,
of the December 1998 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
[Translation]
I also present the 27th report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts on chapter 27, Transport Canada—Investments in
Highways, of the December 1998 report of the auditor general.
[English]
I also present the 28th report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts relating to chapter 26, Contracting for
Professional Services: Selected Sole-Source Contracts, of the
December 1998 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table a comprehensive
response to these reports.
* * *
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-507, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(child adoption expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide
individuals who adopt children from other countries with tax
exemptions of at least $2,000, or 20% of total expenses
incurred.
Quebec already has such a tax provision. I feel that the
federal government should follow Quebec's lead and introduce
legislation that would provide financial assistance for people,
who can spend up to $20,000 to adopt a child from another
country.
This measure will encourage international adoption in Quebec and
in Canada, providing children with a better quality of life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-508, an act to
provide for a Hepatitis Awareness Month.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great privilege to introduce
this bill. I also want to thank my hon. colleague from
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia for supporting this initiative.
What we are trying to do on this side of the House is make the
month of May hepatitis awareness month. It would be a gesture on
the part of all parliamentarians in the country to honour and
respect those people who have hepatitis in various forms.
I do wish to stand up on behalf of Mr. Joey Haché and on behalf
of Mr. Bruce DeVenne from my riding of Lower Sackville who have
hepatitis C. This bill will honour them in their fight and
struggle for fair compensation and fair packages, and make
everyone more aware of the people who struggle with hepatitis in
their lives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-509, an act to discontinue the
retiring allowances payable to members of Parliament under the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to include
members of Parliament in the Public Service Superannuation Act
and to discontinue members' tax free allowances for expenses and
include the amount in members' sessional allowances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill contains two
simple provisions. One is to implement the Blais commission
recommendation which would cancel a non-accountable allowance,
gross it up and include it as income subject to full taxation.
The second, once that is implemented, is to cancel the MPs'
pension plan in its entirety and place all MPs in the Public
Service Superannuation Act plan. This would treat all MPs the
same as federal public servants. It would also give the
government more credibility in dealing with Bill C-78. If the
government wants to change the pension plans of others it should
first put members of parliament in that plan and then have those
changes affecting them.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
consultations with all sides of the House, I wish to seek
consent of the House to put the following motion:
That during May, which is Hearing Month, the House recognize the
importance for the public and private
sectors to provide deaf and hard-of-hearing persons with the tools
required for them to take their place in an
increasingly communications-oriented world.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on the subject of human rights signed by a number of Canadians
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge
that Canada continues to be recognized as a champion of
internationally recognized human rights.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to
continue to speak out against human rights abuses and also to
seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
PENTICTON REGIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour and a privilege to rise pursuant to Standing
Order 36 to present some petitions signed by people from the area
of Penticton who are increasingly concerned about the future of
the Penticton regional airport as negotiations have been ongoing
for three years now and the negotiations are at an impasse.
The petitioners pray and request that parliament immediately
appoint a mediator to assist in reaching an acceptable transfer
agreement to all parties. I am presenting 98 of these petitions
today and there will be thousands more to come.
YUGOSLAVIA
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure and honour of tabling a petition by Canadians of
Hellenic origin and other Canadians who are opposed to the
bombing in Yugoslavia.
MEDICARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to present a petition today
signed by hundreds of Canadians, a petition indicating Canadians
remain very concerned about the government's commitment to our
beloved system of medicare.
This petition is part of a much larger effort to send a message
to the government. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Save
Medicare Committee, particularly the work done by Russ Rak who is
with the CAW local 222, retired workers chapter.
1515
This petition calls upon the government to preserve and enforce
the Canada Health Act and actually to go further and ensure that
national standards of quality publicly funded health care for
every Canadian citizen are guaranteed as a right.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
on behalf of 424 people in my riding. This is one of many
petitions I have had on this subject.
These individuals pray that parliament take all measures
necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography
remains a serious crime and that federal police forces be
directed to give priority to enforcing the law for the protection
of our children.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition signed by residents of the Sarnia-Petrolia area who urge
parliament to ban the gas additive MMT. They note that studies
under way show adverse health effects especially on children and
seniors.
THE SENATE
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition duly certified. It is signed
by 275 people in southwestern Ontario. They ask this House to
note that the Senate of Canada is an undemocratic institution,
that it is costing taxpayers some $50 million a year, that it is
redundant and that it undermines the role of members of
parliament. They call upon parliament to undertake measures
aimed at the abolition of the Senate.
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured again to stand on behalf of many Canadians. There are
102 signatures on the petition I am presenting. It calls for the
consideration of tax fairness to families who choose to have one
of the parents stay home and look after their own children. This
petition is one of many that are coming in on this topic.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill C-66, an act
to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee;
and of the motions in Group No. 3.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have been rising at every opportunity to speak against
Bill C-66 and I continue to do that today.
When I put this bill in the context of the larger agenda being
pursued by the Liberal government, it is obvious why members on
this side of the House, at least those in the New Democratic
Party, are opposing Bill C-66. It is our view that this bill
completes the circle for the Liberal government. It completes a
process by which it totally and absolutely offloads its
responsibility for housing to provincial and municipal
governments as well as to individual citizens right across the
country.
It is interesting that whenever I raise this broader agenda,
members of the Liberal government sit there and shake their
heads. It is absolutely important to put on the record exactly
what the government has done. I am sure it will come as no
surprise when I clarify for members opposite that Canada,
particularly the province of Manitoba where I come from, has not
really built any public or social housing since 1994.
1520
Why did that happen? Not to put all the blame on the Liberal
government, let us remind ourselves that the former Conservative
government, the Mulroney government began the process of
offloading in the area of public housing. It was really this
government when it came to power in 1993 that put the final stake
in the whole effort. Today Bill C-66 completes that circle.
We are trying to persuade members opposite. If they are truly
concerned as they seem to pretend to be about meeting the needs
of Canadians for adequate shelter regardless of where they may
live, then surely they will consider these serious amendments we
have put before the House. If not, then they should at least
pull back the bill and reconsider their entire policy. We are
talking about the importance of good public policy whether it is
about shelter, about health, about safety or about quality of
life.
It is absolutely clear from all analysts everywhere that quality
public housing plays a direct role in terms of the health and
well-being of Canadians. I remind members of that fact from a
Manitoba perspective. Recently in some of our northern and
remote communities there has been an unbelievable increase in the
rate of tuberculosis. It would not take much analysis to realize
that the rise in a disease which we thought we had stamped out
forever is directly related to poor quality housing on reserves
and in our northern and remote communities.
My colleagues in Manitoba have tried to make that point on many
occasions. They have stated very clearly that the comeback of
tuberculosis in Manitoba is further proof that many people living
in overcrowded housing in remote communities face severe health
risks.
That is but one example of how poor and inadequate housing can
actually contribute to disease and ill health. It can actually
cost all of us a great deal in the long run because we have not
been prepared to act today. Good housing makes good health care
policy.
It is absolutely clear when there is deteriorating housing, when
many houses are boarded up and vacant, as in my constituency of
Winnipeg North Centre, it has an impact on the whole sense of
security and safety for the neighbourhood and community. In my
community because of government offloading and lack of political
will to address this very serious issue, dozens and dozens of
boarded up houses are just waiting for arsonists to set them
alight. That affects the entire community and it costs us all
dearly.
In response to this very serious state of affairs, and what some
would call a state of emergency, community activists are trying
to get a handle on the situation and do what they can to turn the
situation around. In the case of Winnipeg North Centre, in the
last year five neighbourhood patrols have been established to
ensure some sense of safety in neighbourhoods.
I want to acknowledge the kind of work the community is prepared
to do, the kind of initiative that is coming from residents. That
should be but a way to urge this government to act; not to simply
say that it is good the community is doing something, but to say
that it is good that there is a real sense to take hold of our
destiny. Now let us support those efforts and work with
communities to improve the quality of housing and safety for all
citizens.
As I said, in just one year five neighbourhood safety patrols
have sprung up in my area. They include the Northend Patrol, the
Manitoba Avenue Patrol, the Night Owls, the Flora Place Patrol.
More are springing up and working with residents to ensure
safety.
It is very important for this government to realize that when it
invests in housing, as it is not doing now and as it will not be
able to do with Bill C-66, it will have a far reaching influence
on the quality of life in our communities.
1525
In my riding, community groups are working very closely with
community policing efforts. Everyone is doing their part.
However, the time has come for action and there is such an urgent
need. There is so much deterioration of housing stock because of
the retreat from this public policy area by governments. It
truly is a crisis. It truly is a state of emergency. It truly
does require the government to act now and act as comprehensively
as possible.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the debate at report stage
of Bill C-66 on the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation Act.
Even though it is considered to be a large sprawling rural
constituency, my constituency is very much affected by this bill,
the regulatory measures that are in this bill and which have
preceded this bill.
In my constituency most of the single house dwellings are under
contract with a local individual who is a one man contractor.
Some 15 people from one area have come to me. If there are 15
people in one area, there are probably 30 people within my
constituency who are young contractors who are very upset with
the regulatory body. Think of how many of these small
contractors are being affected across Canada.
What I am trying to point out is that the regulations that apply
to this bill hurt the businesses with one or two people who build
houses. It is not like the huge developments I saw last night
while I was driving on the outskirts of Ottawa. Individuals who
10 years ago built houses in the rural areas, in the cities and
in the towns of my constituency can no longer afford to meet the
regulatory measures of this bill.
Anyone who wants to see the quality of work these contractors do
can go to the city of Weyburn, or Estevan, or out to a rural area
like Moosomin. There are a dozen show homes that have been lived
in for 20 years. Ask those people what kind of quality went into
those homes. It is top notch, the very best. There is no excuse
whatsoever to deny these people the right to maintain a business
within their community.
A one man contractor gets a contract to build three separate
houses and what happens? Not only does he have local employment
but he hires students during the summertime. They get a salary
and they have on the job training. The large firms from the city
do not do that. Let me also point out that when a local
contractor is engaged to build a house it also benefits the
immediate community. The subtrades stay within that city and
community. Because of this bill these people can only build for
those people who have the cash outlay.
The people in rural Canada, and not just in my constituency, are
being denied the right to make a living, to live in that
community, to buy in that community and to make that community
prosper. And if there are 30 of these contractors in my
constituency how many of these single contractors are throughout
Canada?
They cannot at the present time meet all the CMHC regulations.
In other words the government has regulated out of the business a
whole new crop of top notch contractors. The key point is that
they go out of business. In order to fill a contract, somebody
has to come in from 100 miles away. They bring the
subcontractors and their products with them and the local
community suffers.
If that is true in my constituency, it is true all across Canada.
1530
There is another point I want to make. I have a letter
presently in the hands of the Minister of Finance, the Minister
of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry. That letter
contains a suggestion from one of these local contractors. If
the ministers will just look at this and get their responses to
me it will provide me and the government with an insight as to
how to keep business within the small community and how to keep
the economy from going underground. As well, the suggestion
which the contractor has made will help to facilitate home
repairs to houses throughout the winter months.
I beg of the government to not just think of the CMHC as being
involved in massive housing developments around our large cities
and to not just think of the number of huge construction sites
that are being developed. And I am not against that portion of
it. I am simply saying that this bill, with all its regulatory
means, is knocking the single contractor completely out of
business. Unless he can build for a person who has money in his
or her back pocket he is simply out of business.
The economy where I live is down. I do not know of a single
contractor who formerly built houses who even has a house to
build, for the simple reason that the only way he will get money
is to go through the CMHC and that contractor cannot meet all the
regulatory demands of the CMHC just to get one house to build
this summer.
I beg this government to not only examine the letters that are
with the three government ministers, but also to consider rural
Canada, to consider these people who are quality craftsmen. They
are being put out of work simply because of the regulations of
this bill.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-66, an act to amend the
National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and the Housing
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act.
I wish to look at this bill and its intentions and implications
in the context of the housing crisis which is plaguing our
country, and specifically my community. When someone says
“housing crisis” we often think of the problem of homelessness.
We hear of 200,000 or more Canadians who are sleeping on hot air
grates, in cars or in parks because they do not have addresses or
roofs over their heads.
However, for millions of other Canadians the problem is not
nearly that dramatic, although it is just as serious. I am
speaking of the problem of finding decent, affordable housing. I
am not suggesting that solving the problems of homelessness
should be traded off against the problems of adequate and
affordable housing. On the contrary, I would say the two are
very interrelated. When the housing supply becomes less and less
accessible or more and more decrepit we see more and more
families and more children descending into homelessness.
There are some significant aspects of Bill C-66 that concern me,
such as the fact that it will amend two pieces of legislation
that deal with federal involvement in housing, the National
Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act,
and it will also make a consequential amendment to another act.
This legislation could potentially remove a number of measures
specifically intended to provide housing for low income Canadians
and it could allow the federal government to avoid any
responsibility for housing.
Across the harbour from where I live in Halifax I see dozens of
families who are homeless waiting in line for dinner at the Hope
Cottage.
1535
In Dartmouth there are thousands of people who I would say are
the homeless in waiting. They are people who are living in
substandard housing. It is clear to me that the primary factor
which keeps people trapped in poverty is a lack of decent,
affordable housing.
Neighbourhoods such as Highfield Park in my riding have
thousands of families, many of which are headed by single
mothers. There are many disabled Canadians and seniors who are
living on public support. These people are paying over half of
their meagre income for walk-up apartments in poor condition.
They are living in poverty and they are constantly juggling the
problems of food, clothing, medical care and shelter.
One woman wrote to me this week depicting her own dilemma, which
I think sums up what we are talking about today. She is a
mother, a survivor of cancer, and she is raising a child with a
disability. She is doing all of this in low income, decrepit
housing. She is trying to make ends meet. She states in her
letter:
I do not drink, smoke, go to bars, go to bingo or even go to a
coffee shop in the evening. I try to maintain good eating habits
for myself and my daughter, but I still never have enough money.
I live in a semi-safe place.
That is how she identifies where she lives with her daughter.
She continues by saying:
But I still have to delve into my grocery money. There are a
number of vitamins and prescriptions which I am supposed to take
to keep my immune system up. However, I am not able to do that
and still pay the rent.
This is a woman who has to trade off her health to live in a
semi-safe place with her disabled daughter. That is a disgrace
as far as I am concerned.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East, the NDP housing critic
described, our substandard housing crisis is an unnatural
disaster. That is what this woman who I just referred to is
dealing with every day of her life.
Families are having to make trade-offs about whether to feed
themselves and their children or pay the phone bill. Do they let
their hydro bill slide and risk a few days of darkness, or do
they spend the money on their daughter's field trip? All of
these things are being juggled in light of the fact that they are
paying too much money for substandard housing. I do not believe
people should ever have to make those kinds of trade-offs.
I remember speaking with a group of local boy scouts in my
riding recently about the universal declaration of human rights.
I asked them what human rights meant to them. One of them
answered “Food to eat. We all have the right to eat”. Another
one said “A dry, clean, warm place to live”. In fact these are
included in the universal declaration of human rights; the whole
idea that we have the right to a safe place to lay our heads at
night.
These are rights that many residents in my community of
Dartmouth are being deprived of, as are hundreds of thousands of
people across this country. That is why we need a national
housing program which will deal with these problems, not just one
which tinkers around the edges and slowly erodes even further the
housing program which we have. That is why Bill C-66 fails the
test of good public policy. It simply tinkers with a system in
crisis and it fails to deal with the real problems.
We need a housing program which sees community based,
non-profit, mixed income housing as the best vehicle to deal with
our national housing crisis, not private partnerships with the
same landlords who are currently failing to provide maintenance.
We need more housing which is accessible to all Canadians,
including the four million who have disabilities in this country.
We need more seniors housing in Dartmouth, not more rhetoric
coming out of Ottawa about partnerships and developers. We need
the government to understand that investment in housing is no
more of a frill than investment in health care. We need this
government to understand that housing is related to health care.
It is counterproductive for us to be spending more on hospitals
without looking at alleviating the conditions which land people
in hospitals. Poverty is caused by bad housing.
1540
We need a national housing strategy. The federal government has
a responsibility to develop a national housing plan and a housing
supply program in co-operation with the provinces.
The New Democratic Party believes that the federal government
should meet that goal of providing an additional 1% of the
budget, approximately $2 billion, over five years, to meet the
basic housing needs of Canadians. This 1% investment by all
governments is a key recommendation of the Toronto Disaster
Relief Committee and must be supported.
I call on the government to reject the theme park approach to
budget building and to adopt an approach which recognizes that
investing in non-profit housing, investing in health and
investing in children are ongoing requirements, not annual theme
pronouncements which are based on extensive polling.
I call on the government to take back Bill C-66 and come forward
with an anti-poverty agenda which will build quality, non-profit,
accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
follow the hon. member from Dartmouth. If everyone in this
country was listening to every word she said they would know that
she is absolutely right when it comes to an unnatural
homelessness disaster in this country.
Unfortunately, Bill C-66 is again legislation that came from the
south end of a northbound cow. It just does not make any sense
that the government can tinker around and pretend to give the
people of Canada the perception that it is going to do something
about homelessness in this country.
One would assume that the citizens of this country have a right
to accessible, affordable housing, to look after their families,
to live in communities that are safe. The government does
absolutely nothing for them. It downloads, it skirts the issues,
it runs away, it hides. The government never tackles the serious
issue of homelessness.
If people need an example of the crisis in this country they
could look to Toronto, which is our largest city. It is a magnet
for many tourists from around the world. When they come here
they think “Canada is great. This is nice. We can walk on the
streets”. I was in Toronto yesterday and in two downtown blocks
we counted 42 people who were on the streets, begging, lying in
sleeping bags and sitting on cardboard boxes. These people have
no place to go because the federal government with its provincial
counterpart in Ontario have completely ignored them and have
concentrated on tax cuts for the rich.
In Ontario an election has been called. Is the provincial
government pursuing the matter? Did Mr. Harris, the premier of
Ontario, stand today with his colleagues in the Tory party to
fight for homeless people? Will the election be based on poverty
issues and environmental issues? No. The issue will be based on
trouble with the sports franchises. They are going to try to
keep millionaire businessmen and players in Canada. There was
not one word in the provincial budget which addressed poverty and
homelessness in our major city of Toronto. Toronto is a
microcosm of what is happening right across the country.
As the hon. member for Dartmouth well knows, in Nova Scotia
there are a lot of people who were seriously affected by the
downturn of the fishery.
Mr. Speaker, let me state this quite simply so that everybody in
the country understands. You and I, because of our incomes, live
in a fairly comfortable home that we can pay for. A lot of these
people live in mobile parks and mobile trailers. There is
nothing wrong with living in those nice mini-homes.
Unfortunately, if you or I lose our house, with our income we can
afford to buy a mobile home which is traditionally of a lower
value than a three bedroom duplex. The people in Canso, in
Bonavista, Newfoundland and up in Arichat, Nova Scotia are losing
their mobile homes. That is a crisis. Where do they go?
Mr. Speaker, you are an honourable gentleman, as everybody in
the House is honourable, but what are we doing in the House of
Commons as legislators if we cannot protect the most vulnerable
of our society?
1545
It is not that much to ask for 1% of the budget over the next
few years totalling $2 billion to put back into social housing.
We ignore the plight of some of the most vulnerable people in our
society: our aboriginal first nations people, our seniors, our
children, and those with mental and physical deficiencies. The
province of Ontario and its Tory government and the federal
Liberal government together concentrate on tax cuts for the rich
and how we can make them richer.
In the recent federal budget announced by the Minister of
Finance the average tax cut for the middle income earner was
about $325, whereas the average tax cut for a person making $3
million to $4 million totals $38,000. If the government can put
that much effort into looking after its corporate and wealthy
friends, I ask it to put at least half that effort into looking
after the most vulnerable in society.
Unfortunately the bill does not do that. It does not even come
close. The New Democratic Party is asking the government to go
over the bill again. If government members want to know how to
do it, they should come to Vancouver East and sit down with the
member of the New Democratic Party who represents that area. She
will tell them exactly what they should do to prevent the
unnatural disaster of homelessness.
That is all they have to do. They do not need more studies.
They do not have to throw more money after reports. All they
have to do for one hour is sit down with the member for Vancouver
East and she will tell them exactly how to do it. With wonderful
advice from her they will be able to solve the problem of
homelessness from coast to coast to coast.
It is a shame that in 1999 we are standing in the House of
Commons to discuss this very serious issue. In 1989 the leader
of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Ed Broadbent, moved an all party
resolution to end child poverty in the country. Now, 10 years
later, child poverty has increased four times. It is absolutely
unbelievable that the Tories and Liberals of that period ignored
the very serious motion and recommendation brought forward by Mr.
Ed Broadbent.
Now we are discussing the homelessness issue, an issue that is
not discussed often enough in the House. If members of
parliament want to know what it is like to be homeless, they
should leave their credit cards and wallets at home and live on
the streets of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Halifax in
January. They should do it for a month if they have the guts to
do it. That is what thousands of people go through every day.
I plead with the government, I beg the government, I deplore the
government to pay serious attention to the plight of those
people. It should look after social housing from coast to coast
to coast. It should not download its responsibility on to the
provinces again, which is exactly what it plans to do.
I beg the government to put 1% of future budgets totalling $2
billion back into social housing. That will also create jobs in
communities which badly need them. As the member for Dartmouth
said, it needs to be community based and non-profit. If these
people are given the tools to work with, they will be able to
look after themselves.
I hope my comments today have resonance with the Liberals, and I
hope they make the right decision when final decisions are being
made.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which
the concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of
Group No. 3.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday,
May 4, 1999, the questions on the motions in Group No. 3 are
deemed put and the recorded divisions deemed requested and deemed
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
1550
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. At the request of the
deputy government whip the divisions are deferred until the
conclusion of Government Orders later this day.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-68, an act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on
Bill C-68. We have waited a long time for this bill. The
minister has delayed 18 months in bringing it in. I do not think
there are many in the House who appreciate that delay. It is
nothing more than a makeover of the originally flawed act and is
more or less tinkering around the edges.
After testing public opinion on this controversial legislation
through continued leaks to the media, the justice minister
finally introduced Bill C-68. It is ironic that the bill carries
with it the namesake of a previous piece of disappointing Liberal
legislation which failed to address the needs of Canadians. I am
speaking about the infamous false hope Firearms Registration Act.
As with the firearms act, the youth criminal justice act was
done without appropriate consultation. Canadians want to know
what surveys or consultations were done with parents of young
offenders before the tabling of Bill C-68 occurred. What surveys
and consultations were done with officers and judges who deal
with young offenders? What surveys were done with social workers
who deal with young offenders and with guards at the facilities
where young offenders are incarcerated? The public would like to
know because this bill, which was supposed to take into account
the opinions of Canadians, seems to have left the vast majority
of Canadians wanting more.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Canadians from across the
country are concerned that the new youth criminal justice act is
not a bill that will move forward societal attempts at dealing
with youth justice in Canada. Some would argue that it is a
regressive piece of legislation hearkening back to the days of
the defunct juvenile delinquent act.
It took the Liberals over a year of analysis, 18 months to be
exact, to come up with the very old idea that a repeat youth
offender involved in less serious offences would be tried as an
adult and then sentenced as a child.
The broader issues of poverty and homelessness are the root of
much of the criminal activity at any level. The PC Party is
facing this issue head on with the PC poverty task force. The
member behind me is involved in co-chairing that process.
The government has drafted a bill which does not go far enough
to protect Canadians from increasingly violent youth crime. We
are being told that the Liberals have toughened up the bill by
placing more violent youth offenders in jail and that youth will
be diverted away from the justice system and into community based
initiatives such as social services, which are already overloaded
and in shambles.
This initiative also encourages the police to find alternatives
to jail when dealing with youth offenders involved in relatively
minor criminal activity.
1555
The legislation encourages formal cautioning by police for young
people who have been in less serious trouble. This is all well
and good, but how does the government expect the fine members of
our Canadian police forces to take on this extra responsibility?
The government has already cut Canada's police forces to the
point that the police are barely able to function with existing
workloads.
Coupled with their already overburdened jobs, they no longer
have the time to play the role of parent, psychologist or
babysitter. They are expected to come up with a well prepared
meaningful statement of warning to the youth offender and his or
her parents. Through the implementation of this act the
government is stretching police officers beyond their realistic
limits and thus the increased workload will not be possible.
The type of crime being perpetrated by youth is increasingly
sophisticated as are the problems faced by youth. The challenges
on both sides of the divide are immense. Cuts to other sectors
like the elimination of ports police and constant budget
restraints have a staggering impact.
The sad result for the Canadian public is to see police forces
like the the RCMP trying to fight problems such as youth crime
with last year's $74.1 million or 13% cut to the RCMP's federal
policing services. This gouging of the RCMP leaves the force
incapable of dealing with youth crime in a meaningful way. Do
more with less, we have heard in the House before. It is a
common theme presented by the Liberal government to nurses and
public servants in all ranks.
What is missing from the legislation is a long term plan or
strategy for funding. It is cynical on the part of the federal
government to be downloading its implementation costs on to the
provinces, but it is a familiar theme. The Liberals are forcing
the provinces to abandon their youth justice proposals and to
follow the federal model upon pain of further cuts. They do this
by dangling the 30% funding in their faces and threatening to
take it back if they choose to opt out, again a familiar plan.
It is a perverse irony that the government appears to be tougher
on the far end and more proactive and progressive on the front
end. Yet all this costs money; longer sentences and programming
cost money.
If the government had allowed for proper consultation in the
first place and actually listened, it could have come up with a
deal that all provinces could have supported. Instead the bill
resembles the sum total of many regionalized concessions that
will make national enforcement of the youth act virtually
impossible. A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen
commented on the regionalized concession theme:
The bill provides considerable discretion on punishment,
recognizing that provinces such as Alberta and Ontario want
tougher penalties while others including Quebec traditionally
rely less heavily on jail sentences.
We are supposed to be one united country with a national
criminal justice policy, yet if a youth commits a crime in New
Brunswick the youth may not serve the same sentence if he or she
had committed the same crime in Alberta. In justice as in health
care regional disparity should be of real concern to the
government.
I am seeking unanimous consent to finish my speech because I do
not think there is a long list of speakers.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member asking for a
specified time, or is he saying that he needs unlimited time to
finish his speech?
An hon. member: Unlimited.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to finish his speech?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, before I give consent
I would pose to the member exactly the same question. What
amount of time does the member want? I am prepared to agree to a
defined amount of time but not to an open ended request.
1600
Mr. Greg Thompson: Five extra minutes.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I will give consent to an extra
five minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: It will be a 15 minute speech. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of
the House and the deputy government whip.
The government has once again tried to be all things to all
people, but has accomplished very little. It appears to be the
parochial fence-sitter on this one. The new youth criminal
justice bill tried to please everyone. However, by offering only
piecemeal, halfway solutions, it in fact pleases no one.
It did not go far enough in lowering to 14 the age at which an
offender could face adult sentences for murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. The 14 year old age
limit will also be a barrier for the justice system as it tries
to seek justice against young repeat offenders who commit other
violent crimes.
These much overblown changes to the bill were an obvious
response to overwhelming public pressure to toughen up on youth
offenders. The government has given the appearance that it has
toughened up the act, but I question whether these cosmetic
alterations will have their desired effect.
The obvious question is: Why did the minister refuse to listen
to the recommendations of her departmental experts and lower the
age of accountability to 10 years of age? Contrary to the
attempts by the Liberals to distract the public, no one is
suggesting that society take 10 year old offenders, lock them up
in prison and throw away the key forever. No one suggests that.
The government says we should try to rely on the social services
to meet the needs of offenders under the age of 12. Nevertheless,
the Liberals have poked so many holes into the social safety net
that current young offender programs are not doing enough for the
criminal acts of a 10 year old. On the other hand, if we can
hold 10 year olds accountable for their actions and get them
involved in the judicial process, there will be more programs
available that could lead toward their rehabilitation. It is a
mechanism too often necessary to trigger community response.
I wonder why the minister loaded the bill down with such
bureaucratic nonsense that certain sections of the act will be
difficult to enforce or even interpret. For example, the act
proposes prison sentences for up to two years for parents of
youth offenders who wilfully refuse to supervise their children
after being released to their custody. The misconception is that
there is no real accountability for parents in the first
instance. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that
virtually every defence lawyer could poke holes in the court's
interpretation of the word wilfully. Thus, an opportunity to
gain further accountability for young offenders will be lost,
leaving the public to only shake their heads. The crown bar or
lawyers will be the biggest beneficiaries of these changes. It
will take a legion of lawyers and many, many months, if not
years, to sort out this bill.
The bill has been described in many of the provinces as being
woefully soft on violent offenders.
Our justice critic received correspondence from the Ontario
ministry stating the obvious. Sixteen and seventeen year olds
who commit adult crimes are not automatically tried as adults.
Even for murder, aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter and
attempted murder there is no guarantee that youths will be
sentenced as an adult. Even on the third rape charge there is no
guarantee of an adult sentence.
Most violent offences still require the prosecutor to prove an
adult sentence is necessary. Jail sentences will be reduced in
some cases as a result of these changes. The key word is
reduced. Youth sentenced as adults for murder are still subject
to more lenient periods of parole and eligibility than adults
sentenced for murder. Mandatory jail time is not required for
youths convicted of an offence involving a weapon. I do not
think we would call that progress.
The Ontario solicitor general had this say:
What the people of Ontario have been asking for is legislation
that will better protect our children and our communities, that
will send a message to young people that they will be held
accountable for their actions and would deter youth crime.
Instead, the federal Liberal government has released a bill that
has little regard for public safety and even less regard for
providing meaningful consequences for criminal behaviour such as
sexual assault, drug trafficking and use of a weapon.
1605
This commentary is not limited merely to politicians. York
Regional Police Chief Julian Vantino stated:
Many police officers and citizens right across Ontario, are
frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems
primarily concerned with the rights of offenders...It's
disappointing that the federal government won't take the
opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law
to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime.
The youth criminal justice act's definition of serious violent
offence is so vague that it is almost useless. Thus, we will
soon have a youth law where, in no case is an adult sentence
automatic. Even in the case of first degree murder, a young
person can avoid an adult sentence.
The following offences are not presumed serious enough to
warrant adult sentences: armed robbery, sexual assault and drug
trafficking. This is a shocking omission given the prevalence of
youth in these serious criminal activities.
A young person can commit three serious violent offences with no
guarantee of an adult sentence. Repeat offenders of non-violent
crimes are not assumed to receive adult sentences. So much is
left to judicial and prosecutional discretion or interpretation
that it will take years to fully understand the effects.
Let us consider that a 17 year old who robs a bank, kills a
customer and is found guilty of murder can still receive a
lenient youth sentence. Most serious violent offenders still
require the prosecutor to prove an adult sentence is necessary.
Just to conclude, I think the bill is flawed.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is only appropriate that I start off my presentation
today on Bill C-68 by reflecting on the irony of talking to a
bill with the number C-68.
We, on this side of the house, feel that the association with
that number is so bad that even if this had been a good piece of
legislation we probably would have had some problem with it. Bill
C-68 is probably the worst piece of legislation that has ever
come forward in the House. I refer, of course, to the bill from
the previous parliament dealing with the forced registration of
firearms owned by law-abiding citizens while criminals get to
carry on their activities untouched.
One of the problems we always have in opposition is what to do
when we call on the government to bring in some meaningful
legislation and it finally comes up with something that goes part
way. Do we applaud them for the little bit of progress that we
have made or do we lament all the good things that could have
been in that bill that are not?
I hear the deputy whip on the other side saying that we should
applaud them for the little bit of good they do. I can
understand her feeling that way because when a government only
does a little bit of good it wants as much recognition as
possible.
With this particular bill dealing with youth justice, this
should have been done in the last parliament but it was not. A
lot of promises were made but it never happened.
What happened? We had an election in 1997. We got the perky
justice minister from the west. The west is a good place, but
there are not many Liberals from there. The justice minister,
right off the bat, said that this was a priority for her. I will
never forget waking up every night with the phrase “in a timely
fashion” ringing in my ears, because that was the minister's
answer every time we asked her when the bill would be coming
forward.
I guess either the minister does not know what is timely or she
does not know what is in fashion.
We waited and waited. Finally, after much pomp and ceremony at a
big press conference last year talking about what she was almost
ready to do, it took her another six months to do it. It is no
wonder she had so much trouble finally coming out with it, it was
mostly fluff.
1610
Why do we not accept what we have achieved thus far? Considering
how long it has taken to get what little Bill C-68 has to offer,
we might never get anything more. We therefore have to lament
what is missing from the bill.
It would be one thing if we thought this was the first
instalment, but it has taken us five years to get this little
dribble out of the minister. Of course we have to lament all the
things that should be in the bill. Members may rest assured that
the Reform Party will try to amend the bill both in committee
and, if necessary, at report stage.
If the government wants to know whether it should adopt the
amendments we will be suggesting, it will have to do two things
that are very uncharacteristic: It will have to listen to
Canadians and it will have to listen to what they are asking for.
It claims it does that from time to time. Maybe it does, but
then it has to do the second part, which is something it has a
tremendous amount of difficulty with, and that is actually
implementing what Canadians want.
One of the things the government has come out with lately is
statistics. Statistics are wonderful. Statistics say youth
crime is down. Youth crime is not down at all. Convictions on
youth crime and prosecution of youth crime is down, but in terms
of actual problems out there we still have a lot of problems.
I have heard people say, “Oh, that Reform Party is so hard on
the young people. Isn't it terrible. Why are you picking on
young people”? The fact is that the number one victim of young
offenders is young people themselves. We are not doing this to
pick on young people. We are doing it to protect them.
The courts have taken a lenient sort of approach in dealing with
youth crime because that is obviously the message and signal
coming from government, the appointer of judges. The RCMP are
having a harder problem because it is dealing with severe
cutbacks in budgets. Cuts have to be made somewhere, but we are
basically turning our backs on minor youth crime which may then
become major crimes.
We have always promoted and agreed with a three-fold approach.
The first approach is early intervention. Our number one
priority under the criminal justice system, be it with our youth
or adults, is to prevent crime.
The second approach would be when a first time offender is
apprehended for committing a non-violent crime and timely action
to prevent the crime was not taken, every effort should be made
to ensure that person does not offend again. The best way to do
that is to try to find some way to keep them out of the criminal
justice system through a diversion program.
The government talks about that in the bill, but diversion
programs have been going on for quite awhile. I have one in my
own riding in Trail, B.C. It is run by a lot of very
conscientious and dedicated volunteers, citizens from the
community. The success of that program is absolutely astounding.
They have dealt with a lot of young offenders through that
program and, from the last figures I have heard, they have had
one single case of a repeat crime. That is a pretty astonishing
record and one the government would do well to emulate. It tried
to emulate it in its own fashion in this bill by promoting a
diversion program.
However, even when the government copies us it just cannot get
it right. It includes repeat and even violent offenders in that.
Under the Trail program, those types of people are specifically
banned. This is a single opportunity for those who have made a
mistake to turn themselves around. It applies to non-violent and
first-time offenders. They get one opportunity. They get one
second chance. The government wants to give people three, four,
five and six chances because it just does not want to deal with
the problem.
That has to be one of the great flaws in the bill. At the same
time, there is no question that diversion costs money upfront. It
saves a tremendous amount of money in the criminal justice system
but the government has to be willing to put some money upfront.
It certainly has not identified that it is prepared to put up the
kind of money to make this diversion program truly work.
There is also a need at the far end of the scale for those few
young offenders, the small percentage, who are repeat violent
offenders.
That is the small element the government must get tough with.
Every time we mention this the government says “Oh yes, these
radical Reformers want to crack down on everybody”. We want to
the best of our ability to ensure we can prevent crime. When we
cannot get someone early enough to prevent it, then we want to
make sure that it does not occur again.
1615
As I said, it does not matter if we are talking about young
offenders or adults. Where we fail, where people simply will not
respond to that earlier intervention and the kinder treatment for
a first offender, we need to send out a message. The message is
that we intend to protect law-abiding citizens and their
property. That is our priority. If people will not follow the
rules even after they have been given a chance, we have to be
prepared to deal with that.
The government fails miserably on that part. The government has
said that it will crack down on certain areas of violent crime,
but it left a whole lot out. What does that suggest? That it is
picking and choosing at random? Violent crime is violent crime.
The government should recognize it and treat it as such.
The government still wants to place us in a position where a
young offender, particularly someone 16 or 17 years old who has
perhaps committed a violent crime, has a trial to see where the
trial will take place. It sounds like bureaucracy to me.
The government also says that the public will have access to
information in certain areas, but it bans it in a lot of other
areas. The government is not clear on this. There is also a lack
of standardization.
Mr. Speaker, I got your signal. I trust it was the right
finger. I know how some Liberals feel, but I am sure not you.
Where we have a problem is with the standardization. We have a
problem right now with certain criminals judge shopping because
they are known to be limited in other areas.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Keep it on.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, we woke up the deputy whip
again. I am so glad that my speech has finally got through to
her.
We need to have some standardization. We do not want the same
thing happening in youth crime where we say “If you are going to
commit crimes, there are some provinces that are soft on crime”.
The government has a lot of work to do. As weak as this bill
is, it has some possibilities only if it listens to Canadians, if
it listens to the voice of Canadians through us, if it looks
seriously at amendments and puts partisanship behind it, if it
can do that. Let us work together to make this the kind of bill
Canadians have waited for.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 was
introduced at first reading by the Minister of Justice in March
1999. It is a product of the strategy to renew the justice
system for young people, which was introduced in May 1998.
The Bloc Quebecois and all the stakeholders in Quebec are
opposed to that reform, because it is useless and dangerous in
terms of its anticipated impact on crime reduction in the long
run.
The current legislation has allowed Quebec to enjoy the lowest
youth crime rate in Canada. In the rest of the country, it has
decreased youth crime by 23% between 1991 and 1997.
Given these results, one wonders why the act should be changed.
Did the minister make this reform strictly for political
reasons, or did she yield to the pressure of the right in
Canada?
Why did the minister not see fit to refer to the Quebec model
for youth justice in the principles and the preamble of the
bill? Since she alludes to Quebec in her comments, she should
have made explicit reference to our province, as was pointed out
by the Quebec coalition opposing this bill, which feels that:
The alleged flexibility given to the provinces to implement the
act is in fact just a series of limited powers that rest on the
shoulders of crown prosecutors. Nowhere in the bill do we find
confirmation of the right of the provinces to apply their own
model.
Some extremely repressive measures are found in Bill C-68, which
includes 14 and 15-year old children among those offenders who
could be sentenced as adults. I emphasize the fact that these
are 14 and 15 year olds. Anyone who has been active in education
with teenagers or, better still, who has raised a good family
that included teenagers, knows that at age 14 and 15 they are
not yet adults. They are still children in some respects.
1620
Bill C-68 establishes a sentence of custody for young people at
higher risk and repeat offenders in cases of violent offences.
In addition, it is worth noting that the publication of the
names of adolescents would be authorized if the adolescent
receives an adult sentence or a youth sentence for violent
crimes, if the adolescent is at liberty in the community but has
committed a crime or been charged with a criminal act or if the
adolescent authorizes release on reaching adulthood and is not
under custodial sentence.
Here again, you have to know something about adolescents.
The Bloc Quebecois contends that this publicity will give
importance to certain young offenders, especially in the case of
young people who are members of street gangs or groups. It
might be an idea to look at what is going on in the schools
across the country. The phenomenon of gangs is everywhere.
We therefore support the current restrictions intended to
protect the reputation of innocent families. Publicizing the
identity of adolescents could also have the unfortunate effect
of creating a false sense of security among the members of the
public. We might think that, once we know the identity of the
offender, we are safe and there is no more problem.
We must also look at the cost of applying the law. In Quebec
alone, the new Young Offenders Act should cost an additional $69
million in implementation costs over a three year period.
How much of the money set aside in the finance minister's last
budget will be left for crime prevention? Because it is through
prevention that crime is reduced, not through punishment. There
are costs associated with prevention, but the long term results
are much more promising.
We therefore call on the federal government to transfer full
jurisdiction for youth justice, along with the associated
funding, to Quebec. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice has
failed to convince the rest of Canada of the effectiveness of
Quebec's approach. In fact, the proof is in the crime rates.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the future impact on
Quebec's crime rate of the tougher approach other provinces will
be allowed to take.
We also wonder about the latitude judges will have in handing
down sentences intended to be proportionate to the seriousness
of the offence and standardized throughout Canada.
Judges cannot ignore sentences given elsewhere. Case law, by
its very nature, requires that judgments handed down elsewhere
be considered and similar sentences given for similar offences.
Finally, various experts from Quebec spoke out against this
bill. I am thinking of the association of organizations
interested in the new young offenders legislation,
criminologists André Normandeau and Cécile Toutant, lawyer Jean
Trépanier, and André Payette, the spokesperson for the
Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, who has seen many
things in his work at the Supreme Court of Canada and as
Quebec's president of the bar.
By placing the young person's responsibility foremost in a new
statement of principle, the minister is running the risk of
destabilizing a system which has, up until now, been able to
substantially reduce the juvenile crime rate.
Finally, the government has not explicitly recognized in its
bill the possibility for Quebec to maintain, and particularly to
expand, its youth justice model. The presumed flexibility in
the bill is an illusion, since it is not included in the
preamble or the guiding principles of the bill.
In Quebec, as in some other provinces, alternatives to detention
have been put in place. Considering that incarceration is not
the appropriate solution for most cases that come under the
Young Offenders Act, it is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois
that it is essential for such alternative measures to be given
more attention.
1625
In her letter of May 3, the Quebec Minister of Justice reminded
her federal counterpart:
—that the planned reform is based on false premises. Youth crime
has been on a steady decline for a number of years already,
everywhere in Canada. This is particularly true in Quebec,
which has the lowest crime rate in Canada.
According to the Minister:
The bill—is neither necessary nor justified, and is liable
to imperil the rehabilitation model that has been implemented in
Quebec. Concretely, if our model is to be maintained, this
means that Quebec will have to be excluded from the bill, which
is based on a repressive philosophy and which Quebec will have
no choice but to apply, like all the rest of Canada.
For all these reasons, we are asking that this bill be withdrawn
or, if the minister does not comply with that request, that Bill
C-68 be amended by adding after clause 3 a clause 3.1, which
would read as follows:
We also wish clause 196 to be replaced by the following:
196. This act replaces the Young Offenders Act, except in
Quebec, where it remains in force.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am really happy to have the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-68.
I along with most members in this House have a clear sense from
constituents and Canadians everywhere of their need to feel safe
and secure in their neighbourhoods. I do not think anyone here
can say that they are not fully aware of the worry and concern
citizens of this nation have everywhere about peace and quality
of life and security in their communities.
It is a topical consideration today given the shootings that
have happened in the schools in Colorado and Taber, Alberta.
Those incidents have made us all stop, pause and think about what
we can do to work with our young people. We must ensure that
embarking upon criminal activities and violence is dealt with in
a meaningful and positive way at an age when it can make a
difference and we can see a reduction in crime and violence.
Bill C-68 is an important step in addressing the broad range of
concerns around youth justice issues, but it is not the whole
picture. It is not a comprehensive approach. It does not deal
with the range of issues that parliament should be dealing with
if we are going to make a real difference.
My own community is an example of where the government needs to
be involved and how we can support the kind of spirit of
community, the self-help initiative that is springing up
everywhere in this country. My community, the north end
neighbourhood, is typical of an inner city. Inevitably we will
be dealing with difficult situations as long as there is no
leadership and as long as there is a policy vacuum in terms of
quality of life and economic opportunity.
I am not here to say that we should just eliminate poverty and
ensure economic opportunities for everyone and that will put an
end to violence and crime. I am not that naive but I do know
that quality of life at the community level plays a role.
I looked at my own community of Winnipeg North Centre. In my own
neighbourhood we have seen business after business close up shop
and move out. Banks have moved their branches from my
neighbourhood to a suburban community. The local drugstore has
shut down. We have lost the local post office. We have lost the
one meaningful recreational opportunity for young people, the
North Y in Winnipeg.
Put all of that together and picture a community of boarded up
businesses and homes. They are boarded up because this
government and the provincial government have abdicated
responsibility for the deteriorating housing stock in our
communities and for the lack of economic opportunity.
If we put all of that together we have a crisis. We have a
critical situation.
1630
How can we begin to address the matters of youth justice and
deal with a perceived if not a real increase in violent crime
among young people unless we look in our own backyards and
realize what the causes are of that kind of behaviour and what is
making young people want to join gangs as they are doing in large
numbers in Winnipeg and in other inner cities right across the
country.
In the face of all of that it is encouraging that communities
are deciding to do something about it. In the case of Winnipeg
North Centre we have had community after community establishing
on a volunteer basis safety patrols. These patrols are made up
of volunteers who devote their weekends and their evenings, from
10 o'clock at night until 3 o'clock in the morning, to patrol
neighbourhoods. They chase away prostitutes, make it difficult
for someone to commit a crime, pick up used syringes and create a
sense of security and safety for people who live in those
neighbourhoods.
That is incredible devotion and an incredible contribution to
the issue we are dealing with today under the auspices of Bill
C-68. That is the kind of effort we need to recognize and we
need to support in conjunction with those groups. I want to
especially single out those volunteers who constitute the
Northend Patrol under Community United for Change, the Manitoba
Avenue Patrol, the Night Owls, the Flora Place Patrol and the
Weston Brooklands Patrol. Those are five groups that have sprung
up in a year to start to take control over the situation and to
make a real and lasting contribution. They are supported, as
much as possible, by community based policing efforts, a program
that is doing well in Winnipeg. It needs to be supported and I
am sure it has been replicated in other parts of the country.
It is that community based approach, working with volunteers,
working with communities, working with organizations which want
to ensure that the pride of neighbourhood and spirit of
co-operation is alive and well, that we must build on. That is
what we need to address when we are talking about Bill C-68.
It makes an attempt to begin to address the broad issues that
cause crime and violence among young people. It recognizes the
responsibility of communities, parents and families, and it
begins to suggest that our youth justice system must look at how
effective we are in terms of consequences and punitive measures,
but it also must look at how we actually play a role in terms of
rehabilitation and the prevention of youth crime in our
communities today.
That is an important effort, but does it go far enough? Does it
support what is happening in our communities? Will it make a
difference?
The NDP critic for justice has clearly spoken about our concerns
with respect to the level of funding committed by the government
to back up its legislation and has actually said that $206
million over three years is not exactly a lot of money if it is
applied on a per capita basis. It is not a lot of money if we
are seriously looking at a meaningful, comprehensive system of
youth justice. There is no question that we have to look at
resources and we have to have the political will to make this
concept a reality.
I hate to say this, but Manitoba had the highest growth in youth
crime between 1990 and 1997. Manitoba has had a 34% increase in
violent youth crime in the last seven or eight years. That is an
awful record. That is an awful thing for me to have to stand and
say, but our job here today is to figure out why that has
happened and what we can do to reverse that trend. We have to
look at ourselves, we have to look at the federal government and
we have to look at the provincial governments.
1635
In the case of Manitoba we are dealing with a situation where
the federal government has failed to back up its commitment to
deal with this issue in terms of real dollars and real
initiative. We are dealing with a provincial government, the
Manitoba Conservatives, who continually point fingers. All they
do is point fingers at the federal government and say “You are
the bad guys. You fix the problem. Give us more money and the
whole problem will be solved”.
We know that both levels of government are culpable of this
inability to deal with a very serious problem. As a result, we
have the worst backlog of court cases anywhere in Canada. There
are serious concerns about dangerous releases and ineffective
controls and standards for release. We know we have problems
around weak prosecution. We have not dealt with opportunities
for young people. All of those issues, those problems, those
concerns, are at the heart of the issue we are dealing with
today. The responsibility for dealing with them rests in large
measure with the federal government working in tandem with the
provincial government of Manitoba.
The community will is there. The efforts are in place.
Communities are willing to help themselves, but they need the
support of government to back up those efforts and to ensure that
wherever we go and whatever we do there are meaningful programs
in place so that young people will face up to what they have done
and know that the consequences will be immediate and effective.
While this bill goes some distance in recognizing that, I am
afraid it does not address the scope of the problem and will fall
short unless we can convince members of the government to back up
this initiative with meaningful policies and significant dollars.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the House for the opportunity to speak at second reading of
Bill C-68, an act respecting criminal justice for young persons.
The legislation responds to some recommendations put forward by
Reform and the justice committee. However, Bill C-68 falls short
in several key areas and will need significant revisions to meet
the needs of our youth and the demands of many Canadians.
Over a year ago Reform proposed a three-pronged approach to deal
with the complexities of youth crime. This approach included
early detection and intervention as an effective means of crime
prevention; community based resolutions and sentences for
non-violent offenders; and lowering the minimum age to 10, with
the maximum age of 15, plus publishing the names of all violent
offenders. Reform also proposed that distinctions be made
between non-violent and violent offenders, diverting less serious
offenders away from formal court proceedings and incarceration,
while ensuring that all violent offenders are put into custody.
This side of the House has been very active in fighting for
changes to be made to the Young Offenders Act to make it more
effective because violent crime by young offenders has more than
doubled since 1986. Clearly, the present system is not working.
During the last parliament I saw firsthand how the Young
Offenders Act failed a seriously disturbed sexual offender and,
more seriously, how it failed a young girl and her family. Seven
years ago in Courtenay, B.C., which was part of my riding at that
time, six year old Dawn Shaw was brutally raped and murdered.
Her killer was 15 year old Jason Gamache, a repeat sexual
offender who had been convicted previously of two sexual assaults
on four year old children, one girl and one boy. Jason was
convicted in Nanaimo in 1991 and moved to Courtenay with his
mother to attend court ordered sex offender therapy through the
John Howard Society.
His probation order clearly stated that he was to have no
contact with children under 12 years of age. Yet Gamache's
neighbours, the local authorities and even the Courtenay RCMP
were not aware of Gamache's criminal record of sexual assault
because of the privacy sections of the Young Offenders Act. The
only people who knew of Jason's criminal background were his
mother, the John Howard Society and his probation officer.
On October 24, 1992 Jason was playing hide and seek with Dawn
and other children. He carried her on his shoulders into the
woods, raped her and then stomped her to death.
The footprint etched in the dirt on Dawn's face clearly matched
that of Jason's and was one of the clues that identified him as
the murderer.
1640
This little girl's murder was a tragedy that should never have
been allowed to happen. At the time of the murder Jason Gamache
was on probation. He was being supervised by the corrections
branch and was receiving sex offender therapy. Yet, despite his
probation order, Jason was allowed to live right next door to an
elementary school in a low income housing complex filled with
children. This should never have been allowed to happen.
Clearly, there was no effort to enforce his probation order.
Where is the accountability?
Dawn Shaw's parents had the right to know that the boy next
door, the boy who was babysitting their children, was a repeat
sexual offender. Yet, when Dawn Shaw was reported missing,
Gamache aided in the search for her and spent hours babysitting
her siblings.
Clearly, the criminal justice system failed Dawn Shaw and her
family. It is time that the government put the benefit and
welfare of children before the rights of criminals like Jason
Gamache.
In the last parliament I tabled over 4,000 signatures on
petitions in memory of Dawn, demanding changes to the Young
Offenders Act. Yet this bill before the House fails to address
this serious concern.
Although Bill C-68 proposes to allow the publication of names of
young offenders, this provision is seriously limited. The bill
does not allow for the publication of names of youths who are
charged. Names can only be published if young criminals are
convicted and given an adult sentence, as well as 14 to 17 year
olds who receive a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat serious violent
offences. Repeat sexual offenders like Jason Gamache would still
be protected under this new bill and that must be addressed while
this bill is before this House.
Dawn Shaw's life could have been saved with the elimination of
this section of the act and the establishment of a young
offenders registry, including repeat sexual offenders. Such a
registry would have provided Dawn Shaw's parents with a warning,
at least a chance. Young offenders legislation must include the
publication of all repeat sexual offenders' names. The rights of
innocent children must be protected ahead of those of the violent
offenders. In order to do that the records of young people who
commit serious crimes should be treated the same as adults in all
respects.
The RCMP in my riding told me that, regardless of age, if there
is a dangerous offender in the neighbourhood, people want to
know. Parents must know if the person associating with their
child is a convicted rapist like Jason Gamache.
Canadians also want a young offenders act that broadens the
number of offences where young offenders can be charged as
adults. Yet Bill C-68 severely restricts the offences where an
adult sentence can be imposed. The list includes murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It
does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage-taking,
aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious
violent offences.
Additionally, for these offences the judge must first consider
the least restrictive sentence and only impose adult sentencing
as a last resort. For youth sentencing purposes maximum
sentencing has not changed in this new bill. It is still ten
years for murder with six in custody and four under supervision
in the community, seven years for second degree murder with four
in custody and three under supervision, three years for any
offence having an adult sentence of life imprisonment, and two
years in custody and one under supervision for all others. That
has not changed.
Violent crimes committed by 14 to 17 year olds are no less
violent than those committed by adults. 1996 statistics show
that youths are charged in 10% of all homicides and 12% of cases
of attempted murder. However, just 13% of convicted violent
young offenders are put in jail. Clearly, young people who
commit adult crimes should do adult time.
Jason Gamache, who killed Dawn Shaw when he was 15, was given a
life sentence but would have been eligible for parole this
December.
If 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to get their driver's
licences and old enough to get married, they are also old enough
to be held responsible for their actions.
1645
In addition, Bill C-68 has not changed the rules for public
access. Proceedings under this act permit the court to exclude
any or all members of the public from the courtroom. Reform's
blue book policy supports public access to court proceedings in
cases involving 14 and 15 year old offenders and in cases where
the public's right to know supersedes the need to protect the
youth's identity. This is a change Canadians support and want to
see in the legislation.
Canadians, the Reform Party and an all party justice committee,
with the exception of the Bloc, called for the lowering of the
age to cover youths 10 to 15 years old. Yet Bill C-68 fails to
change the age of application. The act does not apply to young
offenders 10 and 11 years old and continues to treat 16 and 17
year olds as young offenders. Because of this, 10 and 11 year
olds will not benefit from the rehabilitative aspects of the act.
Another concern is that the legislation allows the provinces to
opt out of its provisions. Youths may escape facing adult
sentencing, depending on the policies of each province and each
court. Provinces could choose whether to seek adult sentencing,
the publication of names and access to records. Canadians do not
wish violent young offenders to receive different treatment,
depending on the provinces they come from.
Canadians believe the Young Offenders Act should hold parents of
young offenders financially responsible. This is in the act and
we welcome it. This is one of the concerns that the RCMP in my
riding were hoping to see addressed in the new legislation.
In conclusion, I cannot give my support to the legislation as it
stands. There are too many holes. It is my hope the government
will listen to Canadians and make the necessary revisions to give
Canadians the justice and protection they deserve.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on reflection it is rewarding for me today to speak in the House
to Bill C-68, an act which purportedly amends the Young Offenders
Act. Basically what it does is renames the act. I am not sure of
the consequence of the change. It is interesting the government
changes the name to legislation but the contents of it basically
remain the same.
I can remember way back when I was with Alberta energy and the
Liberals changed the juvenile delinquents act to the Young
Offenders Act. People were asking questions about what it did
and how it affected things. It basically took the onus off the
parent and off the individual and put it on society in general to
accept all problems associated with youth crime. At that time I
do not think we had near the level of youth crime that we have
today.
Back then, somewhere in the seventies, I do not think we
anticipated what is facing us today. There were a lot of
complaints. We looked for answers across the nation. We asked
questions and more questions. We asked both the Conservative and
Liberal governments to look at the legislation that was in place,
amend it, toughen it up, because it switched too far to the left,
so to speak. Nothing much was done.
In the 1991-92 proceedings prior to the general election when we
were all candidates, I can remember talking about it. There was
a great cloud over the Young Offenders Act at the time. People
across Canada were saying that it had to be changed and that
young people and their parents had to be more responsible.
1650
Basically the Liberals promised the Canadian public that after
they were elected in 1993 they would make some changes. I was
very much involved in the debate in 1995 on very superficial
amendments to the Young Offenders Act. After all that time and
complaining the new Liberal government made minor changes to the
act. There was still no satisfaction from the point of view of
the Canadian electorate and victims of crime throughout Canada,
so we said no. We still needed the right changes.
After the election in 1997 it was still a major issue. The
government said it was to make changes. Here we are today, and
the changes are basically in name only. Some other minor changes
are being put forward.
For the life of me I do not understand the hesitancy across the
way, for the two of them who are listening over there. I do not
understand the hesitancy of the Liberal government. It should
look at the issue seriously and put the onus back on young people
and their parents. It should try to improve the Young Offenders
Act that will be called something else, which does not do justice
to the problem.
The government refuses to acknowledge the question about young
people being considered adults. As my colleague just said to the
House, young people who are 17 and 18 are not automatically
considered adults. Yet the age of permissive sex is 14 today.
They can drive a car at 16. They can drink alcohol in some
provinces under the age of 18. In my province it is 19. They
can die for their country, but at 17 and 18 years old they are
not adults. They are not considered to be able to make proper
decisions when it comes to life and death issues.
When I talk at colleges and high schools across the country one
of the questions I usually hear from young people is when
politicians will consider them adults. They say that they are
considered adults in some cases, but not when it does not suit us
in the House of Commons. Sometimes we consider them adults at
18, but we say to drink alcohol they have to be 19.
The government does not have a basic fundamental philosophy.
That is one of the problems with most of the legislation that
comes before the House of Commons. If they murder someone they
might be an adult but it will be fought in the court system. That
is entirely wrong. It is the wrong message. When my children
were 16 and 17 they said they were adults. If they went out and
did something wrong they knew there were consequences.
What is wrong with the bill is that the government does not have
a philosophy behind it. It is still in the mode of changing the
name, which might appease some people, or having a good
promotional exercise and some photo opts. It made some changes
involving the family, which are good changes, but by and large
when it comes to responsibility it calls them kids. Somehow I
doubt whether that will wash.
Not too long ago I was sitting with a young offender who had
sold cocaine big time. He was doing some community work. Nobody
was allowed to know his name although I thought he was at the age
where his name should be given out.
He asked me what was my problem. He was doing his penalty, doing
community work. He was actually raking leaves. I told him that
he was on the wrong track and asked if I could help out, help him
get back in school. Perhaps we could get him into a
post-secondary institution later. After that, who knows what? He
might get a good job.
1655
And he said to me: “Listen, fellow, nice try. In my world I
sell cocaine and heroine. I can make up to $14,000 tax free a
month, and I do on a bad month. I have a lawyer on retainer and
I drive a BMW. What are you talking about, go to work, go back
to school?”
This young fellow is covered as a child in the Young Offenders
Act. He is not a child. He is an adult who deliberately makes
decisions much like we would or our children would at that age.
I have great difficulty understanding why the concept of what a
young person is today is not over there. Why not make penalties
fit crimes? Why not hold young people and their parents
accountable today? It works, instead of leaving it open for
everybody to assume things might go right.
I could talk on the Young Offenders Act all day, but I only
wanted to make that point. I am serious that when it comes to
young offenders we would do better to treat young people as
responsible citizens, responsible for all their actions rather
than assume they have to be 19 years old before they are adults.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Halifax West, Justice; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester,
Transport; the hon. member for Mercier, Technology Partnerships
Canada.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
important to clearly understand what the bill before us, which
deals with young offenders, involves. It is important to clearly
understand why this bill, if it is passed, would have an effect
that is just the opposite of what is intended.
I want to mention a number of things that are obvious to me but
which, unfortunately, are not understood by some members of this
House, including, it seems, the Minister of Justice.
Teenagers are young people who must receive a proper education
to behave properly in society. Threatening them with
imprisonment and other repressive measures is not the way to
instill in them the values that are necessary for proper
behaviour in society.
Some Reform Party members related horror stories about young
people committing absolutely horrendous crimes. But, for
heaven's sake, when these young people were born, they were
normal babies who should have been able to develop and
eventually make a contribution to society.
Something went wrong somewhere. These children did not get the
education they should have received. They were not made aware of
the human, moral and societal values that would have allowed
them to be productive members of society.
1700
Looking at this bill before us, one realizes that this is not a
bill that will provide young people with a better set of values.
It is a not a bill that will help them fit better into society.
It is a bill that will have the opposite effect: putting them
into the prison setting. It will put them in contact with
hardened criminals and expose them to exactly the opposite of
the moral values we would like them to adopt. In fact, it will
turn them into hardened criminals.
These children, young people, adolescents we refer to are not
aliens from another planet.
They are our children, the children we have raised and educated,
or the children we have not raised, not educated, not trained in
how to live properly in society.
Engineers have to be trained. Doctors have to be trained. A
person can take courses to learn carpentry or car repair.
Unfortunately, good parenting is not something one learns in
school. There are no diplomas for parenting.
Most of us manage to do a pretty good job at it, I would venture
to say. Proof of that lies in the vast majority of young people
who will take over from us and of whom we have every reason to
feel proud. Unfortunately, not all parents are as successful.
Perhaps they themselves have physical or mental health problems.
Perhaps they have financial difficulties, ones with which this
government's policies might have something to do. Maybe they have
a work related problem.
But these parents who, at a given point, need support to ensure
that their children can be, to use the common phraseology, well
brought up, are not getting that support, nor are their
children, unfortunately, in many cases. And then we wonder why
some of these young people go wrong.
I repeat that a young person's first real crime is not the
horrendous offence too often described by Reform members. Often,
it is something simple, elementary, a sort of alarm that goes
off, meaning “Take care of me, I have a problem”. However, if
the parents are unable to deal with that sign, the young person
will get involved in more and more serious situations, that
could end in a most deplorable offence.
In Quebec, under the existing legislation on young offenders, we
have taken a preventive approach. For more than 20 years now,
when a child is in difficulty, and the school system or the
neighbours or even the parents notice, resources are available
for intervention and prevention. This approach works.
Let us look at the statistics. Quebec has the lowest rate of
juvenile crime. It is very low, a lot lower than a number of
years ago, and the rate of repeats is also very low. In short,
we have a formula that works.
Even in the rest of Canada, the level of juvenile crime is on
the decline.
Canada too has a formula that works, not as well as that of
Quebec, because it has not invested the same money as Quebec in
prevention, but things are moving in the right direction.
1705
English has the expression “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.
Right now, with the Reform Party, members are doing exactly the
opposite. They are taking something that is working and
scrapping it, so to speak, for something more repressive.
Obviously, any young person who is disturbed or in distress will
not hesitate to commit a heinous crime just because it might
carry a tougher sentence or he might be tried in adult court.
In fact, there are two or three possible scenarios. He could
care less.
He is upset and will commit the crime without checking the
Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act for the severity of the
penalties and whether or not he will be tried in adult court.
Unfortunately, he has lost his head and it is too late now.
The other possible scenario is that the young person will see
the prospect of being treated like an adult as reflecting glory
on him. And so, in order to be treated like an adult, he does
something that makes no sense at all.
Quebec's approach is to prevent the young person from committing
a crime by helping him to be a full member of society when he is
experiencing difficulty or psychological distress. The Reform
Party's approach is to let him commit the crime, but then punish
him with extraordinary brutality, just to show others how
spiteful people can be.
Parents are not spiteful; they are kind. We in this House
represent the parents of Quebec and of Canada. We must show our
children kindness, not spite.
The minister should withdraw this bill. But if she is bent on
imposing it on the rest of Canada—heaven help them, their
children deserve better—then she should at least respect Quebec's
experience, which is conclusive. She should simply spell out in
the bill that the legislation does not apply to Quebec.
It is obvious that Quebec cannot let Canada force it to mistreat
its children. We will not stand for it.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few
words on this important piece of legislation, Bill C-68. There
are many aspects of this bill that are a major step forward in
dealing with people who run afoul of the law.
I listened with interest to my friend from the Reform Party. I
must say I agree with him on one point. Actually, I agree with
him on many points. He said that young people age 16
and 17 are very mature people.
I have visited possibly hundreds of schools over the last number
of years and have talked to young people age 16 and 17. I am
convinced that in most cases they are as mature and knowledgeable
about issues as most of their parents. Let us face it. There
are some goofy young people, but there are also some goofy older
people; people who do not think too much about things, or who are
a little emotional or a little bit off the wall or whatever. We
could find them in a classroom as well. On balance, when it comes
to making mature decisions, when it comes to taking life
seriously, the world seriously, their studies seriously, their
arts, sports or whatever seriously, 16 and 17 year old young
people are adult minded.
It brings to mind a discussion we have had many times about what
is the appropriate age for voting. It is fair to say that at the
moment somebody somewhere decided people have to be 18 to cast an
intelligent ballot in Canada. I see my friend from Toronto and I
know he would agree that most of us in the House believe that
most young people who are age 16 and 17, given an opportunity to
take federal or provincial politics seriously and vote in an
election, would in fact do that.
1710
As a matter of fact the record shows in those countries where
people are able to vote at age 16 or 17 the participation rate is
higher than that of their parents. The evidence is clear that
when we expect young people to act as adults, they inevitably do;
when we expect children to act like children, they do.
My wife and I raised to boys. I remember when they were at that
age of 16 or 17. At times we expected them probably not to
behave very maturely and they never let us down. They never did.
They always behaved immaturely. But at those times when we
expected them to do what was expected of young men, when we asked
them to act responsibly and behave responsibly, I can say they
never ever let us down.
What do we say to young people today when we say, “Yes, you can
get married and raise a family. You can drive a vehicle. You
can drive trucks, muscle cars or whatever on our highways. You
can join our armed forces and serve overseas. You can work in
the workplace and be recognized to receive employment
insurance”. In other words, all sorts of things trigger off at
age 16. But there is one thing they cannot do in our country and
that is they cannot vote. What kind of a signal does that send
to young people? Obviously the signal it sends is we do not have
faith in their wisdom to cast an intelligent ballot.
A person who is incarcerated in jail can vote. A person who is
mentally challenged and over the age of 18 can vote. But young
people who are interested in politics, who are well versed in
government issues, who have watched the issues and are concerned
about their country and are age 16 or 17, we say to them,
“Sorry. You can participate in political parties. You can
decide who the leader of your party should be. You can work in
campaigns. But you cannot vote”.
There seems to be a real problem here. As we look over Bill
C-68 and ask ourselves whether or not young people who are 16 or
17 years old should be considered adults when it comes to
accepting responsibility for their misdeeds, we ought to also
consider whether these young people age 16 and 17 should be
participating in the electoral process to decide on what the
future of their country should be.
I realize this is a bit of a stretch in the discussion in terms
of Bill C-68 but there is some connection. We are talking about
the role of 16 year olds and 17 year olds in terms of accepting
responsibility.
My friend in the Reform Party made a very eloquent case. He
said that in his judgment young people age 16 and 17 who are in
the workplace, and in that case the workplace was the selling of
cocaine, certainly know the implications of their behaviour, and
so it is part of the critical discussion. Let us face it. I
agree with most of the provisions of this legislation. It is a
major step forward in dealing with young people in a thoughtful
and professional way. It is a more appropriate way than we have
seen in the past.
There is one major fault which I should speak about before I go
on any further. This debate gets us around the real causes of
youth crime. If there is a fundamental cause of youth crime, it
is poverty and the fact that people are not able to get the
things they think are appropriate. They cannot afford them.
If we talked to most people incarcerated in Canadian jails, who
are youthful, not necessarily 16 or 17 years old, but youthful,
and we trace back their origins as young people, I would be
surprised if most did not come from a life of poverty, but not
all. That does not mean that poverty results in crime. I just
say there is a correlation that we ought not to ignore.
What are the fundamental causes of crime? What are the
fundamental causes of young people misbehaving? That is what this
legislation fails to address.
I must say I support most clauses. The bill opens up the
discussion in terms of what is appropriate for young people age
16 and 17. If we are saying that people age 16 and 17 ought to
be held responsible for their behaviour, surely in legislation
coming next we should say that young people age 16 and 17 should
have the opportunity to vote in future Canadian elections.
1715
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to speak to Bill C-68 today.
It frightens me when I see what is happening these days. I
think all my colleagues in the House have been shocked over what
happened in Taber, Alberta, and in Colorado. We ask ourselves
what has gone wrong. This did not happen when I was growing up
as a child or when I was in high school.
Some time down the road whatever party is in government will
have to address the charter of rights and freedoms because
responsibilities were left out when it was drafted. Today
everybody has their rights and their freedoms but for some reason
we do not feel we have responsibilities, and we do.
To be fair to our young people, they have to know that they are
accountable for what they do and that they have responsibilities.
Someone said to me that no one would have the courage to even
mention that. I have the courage to mention it. I pray that
some day we will have a government that will address it.
I worked as an assistant to a pastor in a church back in Saint
John, New Brunswick. Every night I would go home with a headache
and so would he. One day I said to him “Reverend Dan, do you go
home with a headache every evening?” He said “Yes, I do”. I
said “Do you know what is wrong with us”, and he said “No”.
I told him I would take him out in the alleyway the next day at
noon hour and he would see a man who was giving drugs to high
school children. I said: “There must be about 35 of them. This
has to stop”. He said “Elsie”, and I said “I have been
watching”. It was marijuana.
I hear on the Hill about the possibility of decriminalizing
smaller amounts of marijuana. I did a lot of research on it out
of California and New York City. We do not want to decriminalize
marijuana. We want to get children away from it as much as we
can, because the minute they start to smoke up it goes into the
cells of their brains.
I said to the pastor “Please, Dan, let me bring them in. I
will buy the hot dogs. I will buy the pop. The church will not
have to pay for it. Let's get them out of that alleyway”.
The first day I went out they all ran but five of them who were
pretty cocky little men. They stood there and I said “I will
not call the police, but tomorrow before he gives you those
drugs, come on in and and eat with me and just talk”.
They did come in. Before we were through we had about 30 young
people who came in every day. Later they thanked me for taking
them out of the alleyway. They said “He gave it to us. We did
not know it would hurt us”.
We asked those young people how they got along with their moms
and dads. They did not get along with mom and dad because they
were fighting with them to make okay what they were doing. They
had guilty consciences.
A few years ago on Christmas eve my doorbell rang at home. A
young man was standing there who said “Hi, Mrs. Wayne. How are
you?” I said “I am fine. Who are you?” He said “Don't you
remember me?” He looked familiar. He said “My name is Terry.
Thanks, Mrs. Wayne, for taking me out of the alleyway”. I said
“What are you doing today, Terry?” He said “I am a draftsman
in Toronto, but if I had not gone out of the alleyway I probably
would have been on cocaine or heroin”.
Each and every one of us have a lot to do. Everyone has their
rights. Today's family has a difficult time. For some reason
when we are here we forget about the traditional family and how
mom, dad, nanny and grampy want some help with their children.
They want us to adopt laws that are better for the children and
will show them the right way.
1720
Over 1.3 million children are living in poverty. I never
thought I would ever live to see the day that I would have to
stand in the House of Commons and talk about 1.3 million children
living in poverty. We have to look at what has happened to
society.
I have a little granddaughter and a little grandson. I often
call my son and daughter-in-law when I am home and ask what they
are watching on TV. My husband and I are in the TV repair
business and of course they have TVs in their bedrooms, each one
of them. They make sure grampy gets them there. I worry that
they see violence and sex on TV which they should not be seeing
at their age.
We talk about freedom. Everybody has freedom, but what about
those children? Why do we not allow them to be children for a
while like we were while growing up?
My party and I are worried about Bill C-68. My colleague from
Charlottetown mentioned about when the government took out the
port police. I was mayor at the time. I fought it hard because
I told them that the minute the port police were gone they would
see cocaine and heroin like never before. Members should it in
my community. I cannot believe what has happened, I truly
cannot.
My party is calling for lowering the minimum age at which young
offenders may enter into the youth justice system. If they break
the law they should have to take responsibility for it and we
should know who they are. They should not be allowed to live
next door without their neighbours knowing they are there.
Definitely we should go public.
We need some form of rehabilitation. The new youth justice
strategy will be administered by child welfare agencies and/or
mental health providers. I also worked for many years with the
mental health group in Saint John. They are not the ones to help
these children. We need to take these children right from the
time they are in our arms and build a better foundation for their
future.
I do not want the people in mental health to deal with these
children. I do not want them to go down that road. I want us to
correct the situation right now. Over $6 billion were slashed
from transfer payments for health care and social service
programs. All of that is gone. My party believes that our focus
should be on rehabilitation programs for young offenders which
put the emphasis on basic education, social skills, personal
responsibility and community. We must develop the programs.
The funding cuts have also affected the programs in place for
early prevention of youth crime, but I say and will always say
that if we help make the family unit stronger and protect it up
here there will not be the youth crime we see today. Youth crime
needs to be a major focus for our communities. Something needs
to be done about the young people who have no regard for the laws
of this great country. We need to help them that see there is
another way to achieve goals.
I was at our airport in Ottawa at 6.40 Tuesday morning going
home. I saw the police pulling up. I wondered what had
happened. There was a mother at the airport. She was as high as
a kite and she had her child with her. Members should have seen
that little child's face. He was saying “Please, mother,
please”. They took her out and put her in the police car, and
the child was crying. That child does not have any hope for the
future. There is no hope for the future because the mother has
gone in the wrong direction.
All of us in the House know that our children are our future.
We need to make sure they are secure and successful and become
proud, productive members of society. It is our duty, each and
everyone of us here, to help them stay on the right road. When
they do not, we must take responsibility for not having helped,
for not having adopted the right policies for them, and have a
plan for dealing with them that is fair and makes them
responsible for their actions.
1725
Bill C-68 does not do that. I am sorry to say that and I ask my
colleagues to take a second look at it.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand there are not too many minutes left in the debate, but
I would like to make a few comments on the topic.
The youth justice bill we are talking about today and the whole
initiative of the minister are interesting. I tend to suggest we
have to think about the bill as dealing with the problem at the
end of the process, at the end of the issue. When we have a
young person that has been incarcerated or is in serious trouble,
something has gone on prior to that. The whole legislation deals
with the end of the process.
It is interesting with some of the tragic events that have
occurred in Taber and south of the border that there is a cry for
increased parental responsibility. There are some elements of
that in the legislation, in particular with regard to the
accountability of parents for failing to supervise their child
once charged and then put in their care. If they fail to
properly supervise that child they can be held accountable. We
think that is good legislation that came largely out of an
initiative of one of the members of our party.
I submit to the House and to all Canadians that responsibility
is important, but it comes along with something else we have
undermined in society. The government has in fact been
instrumental in undermining it, and that is respect for the role
of parents, respect for the authority that parents should have in
their own homes. Parents must be able to establish limits on
their children at an early age. They must be free to do that
without fear of some sort of social child advocacy agency coming
down on them.
That is in no way to condone neglect or abuse, certainly not.
Not every parent is a bad parent. Many parents are doing a great
job. If we are to hold parents responsible, we must also respect
the authority and the role of parents. That speaks to what the
hon. member from the Conservative Party just spoke about, the
role of the family. Parents are the heads of the family.
I am concerned right now that in Canada there are those who are
undermining the authority of parents. There is a court challenge
ongoing in Canada today funded by the Liberal Party court
challenges program. That court challenge is to strike down
section 43 of the Criminal Code. Section 43 of the Criminal Code
allows parents to apply reasonable force in the disciplining of
their children.
Some of the child advocates do not think parents should have
that right. They have gone to court to try to strike down that
law, using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child largely
as their undermining moral legitimatization of the court
challenge. This undermining, this taking away of the freedoms
and the authority of parents in their own homes to limit what
their children view, to limit the people they associate with, to
apply appropriate discipline, as necessary, as the parents see
fit, is a key part of undermining the care that Canadian children
are given.
Parents know best what their children need. There are those in
the House and in some child advocacy groups that feel they know
best and parents are there to help the state or the academic
expert decide what is best for children.
We should start to respect the role of parents and allow parents
to structure and discipline in their own homes, free from the
fear of some child advocate or some child police agency coming
down on them and charging them for disciplining their children.
Otherwise that is where the breakdown begins.
Mr. Speaker, when you and I were in school some stern discipline
was applied. I know at times I was a recipient of that
discipline. It did not hurt me any and I am sure it did not hurt
you any.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not get it.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Oh, you did not get it.
We have to respect the role that teachers and all those who care
for children play. When parents delegate the care of their
children to others, they also decide on the type of discipline
which will be applied. That is the kind of authority that needs
to be passed on if we are going to pass on responsibility because
those two go hand in hand.
* * *
1730
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SHIPBUILDING
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion; and
of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on
the amendment relating to the Business of Supply.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 115
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1810
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 115
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 146
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill C-71, an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 16, 1999, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the report stage
of Bill C-71. The question is on Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent
for the members who voted on the previous motion, with the
exception of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who
will be taken out and the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who
will be added, to be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present also vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that
Bloc Quebecois members support this excellent motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members vote no to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
– 40
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 221
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members
vote no to this motion.
1815
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 146
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 115
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
several deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill
C-66. The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
no to this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present
will be voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members
vote no to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
Motions Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 24.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 4, 6 and
24 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
yes to this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members
vote no to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 81
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 180
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting yes to this motion.
1820
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members vote no
to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23
defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 11, 12, 33 and 36.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 33, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 11, 12, 33 and 36
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. 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 the Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present also vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
support this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats
present will be voting yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members vote no to
this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 10, 14, 22 and 32.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10, 14, 22 and
32 defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 16.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the Houses,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
no to this motion.
1825
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members will be
voting yes to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Casey
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 34
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 227
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 17.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find 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.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present also vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
yes to this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members will be
voting no to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
– 40
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 221
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No.
35.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 35, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
– 40
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 221
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motion No. 35 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 20.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
oppose this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members will be
voting no to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Mancini
|
McDonough
| Nystrom
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 15
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 246
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 20 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No.
34.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Mancini
|
McDonough
| Nystrom
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 15
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 246
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 34 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 25 and a vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 27 to 29.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find 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.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats
present will be voting yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative
members are in favour of this motion.
1830
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 115
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 146
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 25 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 27, 28 and 29 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No.
31.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 30.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. 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 nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting no to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 41
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 30 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with the Liberal members voting no.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will
be voting no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members vote yes to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 100
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 31 defeated.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred
in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members oppose this motion.
1835
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 146
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 115
|
PAIRED
Members
Adams
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Cannis
| Folco
|
Fournier
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-454, an act to provide for the recognition of
the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to have my private
member's bill, Bill C-454, debated on the floor of the House of
Commons.
I wish first to acknowledge the hard work of the hon. member for
Lanark—Carleton who introduced a similar bill in the last
parliament. He has worked hard to win recognition for an
important part of our history, and for this he deserves our
thanks.
Today I will explain why I introduced this bill and why I
believe the Canadian horse should be recognized as the official
horse of Canada.
The Canadian horse has been an integral part of our history and
our heritage. Scientists now believe that horses originated in
North America 50 million years ago. When the first humans arrived
in North America they migrated from Asia across a strip of land
that is now gone. At the same time the horses were migrating to
Asia by the same route. Our first nations were the first humans
to have contact with horses. Eventually these horses disappeared
from North America. They moved to China, then the Middle East
and finally northern Europe.
The circle was completed by the mid-1600s. The ancestors of the
current Canadian horse came from France with the early French
settlers. They were introduced to Canada between 1647 and 1670
by Louis XIV who sent roughly 30 horses from his own stables in
Normandy and Brittany. There was no standard Norman or Breton
breeds in the 17th century. As a result, the Canadian Horse can
trace its ancestry back to several breeds, including the
Andalusian, the Arabian and the Percheron horses.
The Canadian horse became distinctive over time as it adapted to
Canadian conditions. The shortage of food meant that the breed
became smaller than its French ancestors. Today the Canadian
horse could be classified as a medium size horse.
The cold climate and the shortage of barns meant that only the
strongest survived. The breed became exceptionally strong and
able to thrive in difficult Canadian conditions. The horse has a
thick winter coat, a thick mane and tail, and short ears, all of
which help to protect it from the harsh Canadian winters.
The Canadian horse is the best horse suited to the Canadian
climate. Indeed, it is the hardiest breed in the world and often
is called the little iron horse.
1840
Canadian horses were indispensable to the settlers in New
France. They helped clear, plough and cultivate the soil. They
made roads. They transported people and goods. They carried
children to school and doctors to the sick and dying. They
provided entertainment in the form of horse racing. Indeed they
were the foundation of the economic well-being of New France.
It is no surprise to discover that the inhabitants of New France
had a great admiration for their horse. When in 1757 the
inhabitants found themselves desperately short of food, the
administrators of the colony directed the people to butcher some
of their horses for meat. The inhabitants were horrified. They
would not eat their horses, they said, because it would be like
eating one of their family.
The Canadian horse later played an important role in Manitoba,
Ontario and the maritime provinces. They cleared the wood from
the farms in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
They hauled the timber that built the famous wooden ships
constructed in the maritimes. After the conquest, many residents
of New France headed west to the Red River Valley taking their
sturdy horses with them.
The United Empire Loyalists, driven from their homes during the
American revolution, often passed through present day Quebec on
their way to their new homes. Many bought Canadian horses to
help them with farm work and to use for transportation. The
Canadian horse was common in Upper Canada in the 1800s.
In fact, in my area, Grey county, those horses were used by the
surveyors who were bringing supplies from Owen Sound down to the
Guelph area. From Hamilton up they had to transport everything
by backpack on these horses to be able to do the surveys to open
up that area.
I have experienced walking behind a walking plough and seeing
those horses in action. They are the most efficient and hard
working animal and have helped Canadians in many achievements.
They were involved in building roads in our area as well. Gravel
had to be hauled by wagon and not by the huge dump trucks that we
have today. They set up the rudimentary transportation routes
back in the early 1700s and 1800s which are the highways we drive
on today.
The Canadian horse is still bred in my area by Brenda and Geoff
Pantling of Orton, Patricia Cooper of Palgrave, Kathleen
MacRobbie of Mount Forest, and Barbara Kidd of Arthur.
In the 1800s many Canadian horses were shipped to the United
States. They were bred with other horses to create both the
Morgan and Standardbred breeds. The Tennessee Walking Horse and
the Saddlebred breeds can also claim Canadian ancestry.
The Canadian horse was used as cavalry mounts and pack horses
particularly during the American civil war. Its toughness made
it a well suited horse for war. War and interbreeding have
threatened the very existence of the Canadian horse. By the end
of the 1800s the Canadian horse was in danger of extinction.
Breeders responded by creating a stud book in 1886 and forming
the Canadian Horse Breeders Association in 1895. Then the federal
government recognized the importance of this horse and took
vigorous steps to protect this symbol of Canadian heritage.
Export of the horses was stopped. A new and more selective stud
book was established in 1907. In 1913 a breeding centre was
opened at Cap Rouge, Quebec. Through combined efforts of the
federal government and private breeders, the Canadian horse was
saved. There are now more than 1,000 Canadian horses in Canada.
The Canadian horse is a perfect symbol for Canada.
It has those traits that we, as Canadians, value. I am talking
about all Canadians. The Canadian horse is strong for its size.
It is both persistent and resilient. It is an intelligent and
well-tempered Horse. The Canadian horse has a long life. Like
this country itself, Canadian horses are very peaceful. From the
time of ancient Greece, the horse has been an emblem signifying
strength and courage. The Canadian Horse is one of the world's
strongest and most courageous breeds. For this reason, it is the
perfect emblem for Canada.
1845
The Hon. Sydney Fisher who was minister of agriculture for an
incredible 15 years from 1896 to 1911, had the following to say
on the Canadian horse:
—as a rule, is the most kindly, gentle, and docile animal I have
ever had the opportunity of handling, and he is also one of the
truest to his work. He never gives out, it does not matter what
he is at. If he is on the road he travels along forever, and if
he has a load behind him he will tug at it until he moves it. He
never balks, and children can handle him with the greatest
safety. In every way he is docile and kindly.
The 1914 Breeders Gazette of Chicago tells an interesting
story about a Canadian horse. A wood merchant from Pennsylvania
purchased a Canadian horse which he harnessed on the same pole
beside another horse 200 pounds heavier. I have a colleague here
who is involved in the forestry trade who will probably tell
members a story similar to this. The Canadian horse always kept
up his end and never seemed to get tired. After two years, the
heavier horse died. When asked what happened, the driver said
“the Canadian horse worked him to death”. Another heavy horse
was also teamed with the same Canadian, but it died the following
year while the Canadian worked on.
No wonder the author of the International Encyclopedia of
Horse Breeds calls the Canadian horse the best kept secret of
the 20th century.
Symbols are important to any country, not for the country's
economic health, but for its identity, for its sense of self.
Previous governments and previous parliaments have recognized the
importance of symbols. In 1964 parliament had a six month debate
over a distinctive Canadian flag. In 1975 a private member's
bill declared the beaver as the official symbol of our
sovereignty. Recently parliament recognized hockey and lacrosse
as national sports.
Other countries also recognize the importance of symbols. The
eagle is the national bird of the United States. The wax palm is
the national tree of Columbia. The carib wood is the national
flower of Dominica. The Azteca is the national horse of Mexico.
Symbols are one way that we communicate our heritage, our
history, our values, our identity. Countries have always
identified themselves with flags, coats of arms and other
emblems.
Canadians are no different. We have a deep respect for our
symbols. We treat our flag with reverence and enthusiasm. We
respect the beaver and the coat of arms of the country. As
Charles Frederick Hamilton of the RCMP said in 1921:
Just 10 days ago something happened which demonstrated the
importance of symbols and their ability to stir strong
sentiments. The Parti Quebecois unanimously adopted a resolution
saying that the Canadian horse should be recognized as the
official horse of Quebec. In the course of the discussion,
delegates were told about the bill that we are now discussing.
They were encouraged to adopt the resolution so that Quebec would
beat Ottawa to the punch, so that Quebec could recognize the
Canadian horse before the federal government had a chance to do
so.
1850
Of course, the province of Quebec is perfectly within its rights
to declare an official horse for Quebec. However, it strikes me
as a cheap political ploy to do so only to steal the federal
government's thunder.
I have this to say to the Parti Quebecois and to the Government
of Quebec: Recognize the Canadian horse if you like, but do so
because you appreciate its importance to our history, not because
you want to score cheap political points. To recognize this
horse for the wrong reasons is to cheapen its worth as a symbol
of the history and values of both Quebec and Canada.
Certainly the Canadian Horse has played a key role in the
history of Quebec. However, it has also played a crucial role in
the development of Canada as a whole. It is a symbol of our
development as a country and of our diversity. It is a symbol
that we are strong, independent and equal to the task. It is a
symbol not just of the heritage of Quebec but of the history of
this entire country.
Today, more than ever in our history, we need faith and
confidence in ourselves as Canadians. We need to recognize the
symbols of our past, our heritage and our values. This bill will
recognize one of those symbols and I ask all members for their
support.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take great pleasure in being involved in the debate on private
member's Bill C-454. The official opposition certainly supports
the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey in his private
member's Bill C-454 to have the Canadian Horse recognized and
declared to be the national horse of Canada.
The unstated intent of the bill is to protect this animal from
extinction. Recently, the Canadian Equestrian Federation wanted
the animal placed on a stamp for very similar reasons.
Similarly, the Equine Research Centre at the University of
Guelph, Canada's leading veterinary school located beside the
riding of the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
is working to ensure a future for Canada's own unique breed.
In our research, we contacted a number of people and
organizations with an interest in horses. None were opposed to
this bill. Comments ranged from “it is a good idea” to “why
not, it won't do any harm”.
The Canadian horse was not seen as a mainline breed as were the
quarter horse and the painted thoroughbred but rather as an
obscure and diminishing breed which poses no threat to
established breeds or commercial operations.
The Canadian horse is a unique breed in Canada. The Canadian
horse celebrates its 350th anniversary in Canada this year.
Nicknamed the Little Iron Horse, the Canadian is a result of
natural selection and breeding to fit the uniquely Canadian
climate. With only approximately 2,200 Canadian horses in
existence, the breed is registered as an endangered species and
is classified as vulnerable.
The first horse to gallop on Canadian soil was unloaded in
Quebec on June 25, 1647. The original horse stocks were Arabs,
Bretons and Anglo-Norman horses brought to Quebec from France.
Over time, these horses adapted to the cold Canadian climate,
becoming smaller in size and extremely hardy.
Generally the Canadian Horse is black but colours also range
from bay to light chestnut. A stallion can weigh 1,050 to 1,350
pounds and the mare, 1,000 to 1,250 pounds. They are 14 to 16
hands in height. The Canadian has a well-proportioned body with
especially well muscled legs.
The mane and tail are thick, long and wavy. The Canadian is
generally very easy to handle. The Canadian is long lived and
still useful at an advanced age. The mares are extremely fertile
and reproduce regularly until the age of 20 or older.
1855
The Canadians were much loved and utilized by the early settlers
because of their strength, willingness, and small food
requirements. Their numbers rose quickly so that by 1850 there
were approximately 150,000 Canadians. However, the importing of
other breeds and exporting to the United States for use in
various wars meant the horse was in danger of disappearing as a
distinct breed. The number of Canadian horses had declined to
under 400 in 1976.
As early as 1886 efforts had been made to increase the numbers
of the Canadian breed. Efforts have continued throughout this
century with the result that there are presently over 2,000
Canadians. However, with only eight bloodlines in existence
today, Canadian horse breeders remain concerned about the future
of this little iron horse. The Equine Research Centre is one of a
number of groups working on different approaches to ensure a
future for the Canadian horse for Canada.
One of the concerns of the Reform Party is that this bill might
reflect unfavourably on the Newfoundland pony. Some can argue
that this is a pony and not a horse and therefore this would
minimize the impact.
Our other concern is that this bill can impact on the prestige
of the RCMP's magnificent horses, one of which was given to the
Queen this past year. We have tried to make contact with the
RCMP but at this point in time we have not received a response.
We have contacted numerous people. I do not know much about
horses and had to do some research to speak intelligently about
the Canadian horse. We have talked to organizations and
individuals like Greg Barrington, a horse trainer in Burnt River,
Ontario; Alison Neill, communications co-ordinator for the
Canadian Equestrian Federation; Nancy Kavanagh of the Canadian
Morgan Horse Association; Pam Schroeder of Canadian
Horsetrader Magazine; Linda Santa, vice-chairman of marketing
for the Manitoba Horse Council; Laurel Smith, the executive
director of the Horse Council of British Columbia; the Equine
Research Centre in Guelph; and Kit Wallace, the equine studies
program manager at Kwantlan College in Vancouver. We have
certainly done some homework.
Agriculture is certainly the backbone of my riding of
Dauphin—Swan River. Horses are very numerous in my riding.
They have become very popular both on the farm and recreationally
over the last dozen years. The horse has contributed and
continues to contribute to the economic climate of Dauphin—Swan
River and continues to play a large part in the culture.
I would like to applaud the hon. member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for his work on this private
member's bill, Bill C-454, an act to provide for the recognition
of the Canadian Horse as the national horse of Canada. I close by
saying that the official opposition supports this bill.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must say
from the outset that I certainly agree with all the praise about
the Canadian horse, because it is true and because the Canadian
horse is part of Quebecers' collective memory.
However, unlike my colleague, I cannot name all the breeders of
the Canadian horse in my riding, because there are simply too
many of them. Having worked with them, I know for a fact that
there is a long list of them, because Quebec remains the
province most interested in that breed.
1900
I cannot name them all like the hon. member did, but I was
flattered that he would mention Cap-Rouge, which is located in my
riding and is a place where horses have always been kept. I will
mention other locations later on.
I rise to address Bill C-454, introduced by the hon. member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. Its short title is the National
Horse of Canada Act. I should point out that the bill does not
include a summary explaining its purpose and the reasons for its
tabling.
However, the full title of the bill, an act to provide for the
recognition of the Canadian Horse as the national horse of
Canada, sheds more light. The objective is not to legislate on a
national breed of horse that is already famous, but to declare
the Canadian horse a symbol of Canada.
In fact, the Liberal member for Lanark—Carleton, who tabled a
similar bill—I even recognized some of the wording used in
1995—made his objective clear when he said “We need
more symbols to add to the rich tapestry which is Canada's
history—If we embrace the goal of the bill it would make
some small contribution to national unity”.
It is telling that the bill before us today makes no mention of
New France or Quebec and only refers to the North American
colony.
Actually the first horse that came to this land in 1665 as a
gift from the King of France, Louis XIV, arrived in Quebec City.
It is in New France that this breed, which became known as
the Canadian horse, thrived and increased in number, reaching
12,000 in 1760.
In fact, when we talk about the Canadian horse, the word
Canadian, according to the Glossaire du parler français au
Canada, refers to a colony of French origin established in New
France or to an inhabitant of French Canada, as opposed to the
word English, which refers to those inhabitants of English
origin.
It is probably not a coincidence that the member for
Lanark—Carleton introduced this bill only a few weeks after the
Front commun interraces du patrimoine québécois submitted a
request to the Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and
food for the recognition of the Canadian horse.
At a time when serious events are unfolding on the international
scene and when we should be working for peace, it is sad to see
this House using some of its precious time in another flag flap,
especially considering the fact that, if I am not mistaken, the
Canadian horse was recognized by the federal cabinet in 1909.
Why rekindle the debate on this issue?
It must be noted also that this bill is only symbolic. It does
not propose any concrete measures to protect the breed it
purports to promote. I take this opportunity to mention that
this government has a tendency to favour verbal commitments that
do not lead to any concrete measures.
For example, at the same time the government signed the Rio
convention on biodiversity, it abolished dozens of researcher
positions at the Canadian Museum of Nature. These researchers
were working on an inventory of endangered species.
How are people to protect biodiversity if they have no idea
which species are threatened?
Another example is the legislation the government wanted to pass
to protect endangered species, but which contained no protection
measures as if it were enough to name the species, as with the
Canadian horse, to save it from extinction.
Quebecers, however, have taken the necessary action to protect
the Canadian horse. In 1880, for example, François Pilote—the
founder of the École d'agriculture de La Pocatière, which became
the faculty of agriculture where I studied, the oldest French
language agricultural institution in North America—along with
Édouard Barnard and Dr. Couture, a veterinarian, did something
about the survival of this race by selecting and breeding the
best specimens of the time and establishing a stud book.
More recently, when the Canadian horse went through a difficult
period in the late sixties and early seventies, the Government
of Quebec stepped in with special programs at the
Deschambault farm. The number of horses again began to grow
following the dispersal and breeding of the Deschambault herd in
1981, and with the help of the program to develop the Canadian
horse.
1905
From a total population of barely 700 in 1984, the number of
horses increased from 975 to 1,360 between 1986 and 1996, and
now stands at 2,000.
I think that the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, who
introduced this bill, is well aware of the problems faced by
farmers for, in addition to sitting on the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, he runs a farm himself. I therefore
urge both him and his colleagues to use their talents to talk
about the real needs of our farmers and to develop policies and
programs to help them.
The committee works in a spirit of co-operation and we should be
concerned with several urgent issues, namely genetically
modified foods or Bill C-80 revising and consolidating certain
acts respecting food and agricultural commodities.
I seize this opportunity to remind the hon. member that I
introduced, last Monday, Motion M-619 calling on the federal
government to respond to the decreasing number of farms and
their increasing size by adopting, in co-operation with the
provincial governments, a policy to recognize and support small
farms.
I believe that all members in all parties will recognize that
this proposal on small farms deserves to be examined and that,
if adopted, it will have a real impact on farmers' living
conditions.
The agri-food industry's fantastic development is very promising
in terms of job creation and exports. However, this should not
lead us to neglect small farms, often family farms, which are
the basis of the social fabric of rural areas where Canadian
horses can often be found.
I must oppose Bill C-454. In no way will it contribute to the
preservation and development of the Canadian horse. This bill is
simply an attempt to use the name of this breed and serve the
purposes of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who wants to
suppress historical facts and create a unique Canadian identity
by multiplying symbols.
In view of the fact that the so-called Canadian horse was
introduced and developed in Quebec, that those who trained this
breed were inhabitants of what became Quebec and that those same
people managed to prevent its extinction, it would be more
appropriate for the National Assembly of Quebec to recognize
this particular breed of horse.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see there are many others
who want to speak to this important piece of legislation.
I want to congratulate my friend from
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for introducing Bill C-454, an
act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the
national horse of Canada.
I need to say thank you to constituents Yvonne and Jim Hillsden
of Cherry Creek who brought this issue to my attention some time
ago. They are proud to be one of the three major British
Columbia breeders of the Canadian horse. They brought this issue
to national attention. They have urged me to support this bill
and I will do so with a great deal of enthusiasm. I would like
to see that this very important national symbol is recognized.
As others have said, this whole issue began back in 1647 when a
horse was brought over from France as a gift for the governor of
the day. It was considered unfitting for a knight to be without
a horse and to have to walk through the mud or ride in an ox cart
like the other people had to do. This horse was the first modern
horse to gallop along on Canadian soil.
Not long after that there were imports of other horses from
France. It is fair to say that the breed itself is recognized as
coming from King Louis XIV and is a combination of Spanish Barb
horses, Andalusion horses, French Norman horses and horses with
Breton blood in them. It is a very interesting breed.
Many of us have seen this horse perhaps for the first time in
the artwork of Cornelius Krieghoff which depicts scenes from the
province of Quebec.
For many years we saw through his work these small horses working
the land, carrying children to school, sick people to doctors,
pulling cutters and carriages. Off and on they provided
entertainment in the form of racing on lakes at night after the
gruelling work was completed. It was such gruelling work that
there was an attempt to ban the racing because of the danger to
the horses but the spirit continued and the racing went on.
1910
These little horses had a number of nicknames. One was the
little iron horse. It had that name because it was a relatively
small horse but it was a tough horse. It existed in that time in
new Canada on very poor quality food, out in the cold with
minimal shelter and did very hard work.
The long and the short of it was that only the very strongest of
these animals survived. A very hardy breed resulted here in
Canada. It went on to be one of the founding breeds of a number
of the horses that are very familiar to us today in various parts
of the United States and other parts of the world. I am speaking
of the Tennessee Walking Horse, the Saddlebred horse and of
course the Morgan horse. To this day when viewing the Morgan one
can see that little iron horse from Canada standing there in a
slightly different form.
It also went on to have other nicknames. The most recent one is
that it is called Canada's best kept secret because until fairly
recently it was focused only in one part of Canada. Only in
recent years have vast numbers of Canadians become aware of this
wonderful horse and to appreciate what its contribution to the
modern world of horses could be.
We are fortunate because it almost became extinct. It was very
popular in Canada particularly during the American civil war.
Its hardiness, sturdiness and ability to work hard was
appreciated. Thousands were sent to the United States to take
part in that dastardly civil war. We came very close to losing
this breed. At one point there were only a few hundred left. I am
pleased to say that as a result of breeders taking on this
challenge right across Canada, particularly in the province of
Quebec, today we are talking of at least a few thousand horses of
this Canadian breed.
I could speak a great deal about this horse. It is an incredibly
friendly animal. Its primary purpose today would be to pull
carriages and that sort of thing. It is also a great working
horse. I have seen the horse in action. Any horse owner would be
very proud to have one. I hope one day to own one of these
horses myself on my own farm. I look forward to that day. It is
not there yet but it is the kind of horse I would like to see as
part of my operation.
The New Democrats will support this bill. We support it with a
great deal of enthusiasm. This is an excellent initiative being
brought forward by my colleague.
The United States does not have a national horse. I do not
think Britain has a national horse. Obviously Peru has one. We
see more and more Peruvian horses in Canada. Mexico has its own
national horse. I think it is time that Canada too had its
national horse and it should be the Canadian horse.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to stand. I feel somewhat—
An hon. member: Honoured.
Mr. Mark Muise: That is not what I was thinking. I was
thinking more along the lines of after all these great debates on
the horse that I am still very pleased to address this bill.
I congratulate the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey
for recognizing the importance of the Canadian horse and the role
it has played throughout our history. I must admit, like my
colleague from the Reform Party, I found myself somewhat
beleaguered with my limited knowledge of the Canadian horse, but
after a bit of research I felt more comfortable to talk on the
topic.
I also thank my caucus colleague from South Shore for putting me
in touch with Mr. Hiltz who helps run the Ross Farm Museum.
Not only was Mr. Hiltz extremely helpful in providing me with a
historical background of the Canadian horse, but he also
described the nature of this kind and gentle animal.
1915
The Ross Farm Museum has 11 registered Canadian horses in its
stables. Although most Canadian horse breeders reside in the
province of Quebec as was discussed by a few of my colleagues
this evening, the Canadian horse is nevertheless making its way
across Canada and into the northern United States. There are
approximately 3,000 registered Canadian horses in the country.
[Translation]
This is the oldest horse breed in Canada. The first specimen
arrived in Canada from France in 1647 as a present for the
governor, Chevalier de Montmagny.
King Louis XIV understood how hard life was for the colonists
who had no horses and had to cope with a very harsh environment.
He therefore decided to send over some horses.
Eighteen years after the first Canadian horse arrived in Canada,
the King of France sent over 20 mares, 8 of which died during
the voyage, as well as 2 stallions.
Over the next century, the Canadian horse population increased
to about 12,000.
[English]
The Canadian horse played a key role in the development of the
country. As I read through some of the material that was
provided to me, it became apparent that this breed was no
ordinary horse. Its legend is still talked about in certain
circles within the horse breeding industry.
Stories of doctors galloping through Canada's primitive roads on
the backs of their trusted Canadian horses to tend to the sick
and dying are well known in the 18th and 19th centuries. Legend
has it that one Quebec City butcher and his Canadian horse
outraced an overnight steamer to Montreal to collect on a bad
debt.
The Canadian horse is somewhat smaller in stature compared to
some of the other heavier horses. However, what distinguished
the Canadian horse from others is its big heart. The legend of
the Canadian horse grew immensely during the 1760s when the
British brought over their own workhorses, the Percherons, the
Clydesdales and the Belgians, to Quebec following its capture.
Initially mocking the Canadian horse, the British quickly
realized that this breed was far better than those presently in
their stables.
The Canadian horse is generally a very quiet animal, excellent
for a carriage horse. The Canadian horse was capable of
accomplishing dual responsibilities without difficulty, either
for transportation or for heavy labour.
[Translation]
It is very hard for someone of my generation to understand how
important a role the horse played in the lives of our ancestors.
For most of us, a horse is nothing more than a very beautiful
animal we sometimes see on a farm. But a horse is far more than
that. It is a symbol of what helped us develop this great
country called Canada.
[English]
The Canadian horse is a symbol of what was accomplished through
much hard work as our ancestors struggled to survive under very
difficult conditions in the new world.
Canada could certainly use more identifiable symbols of things
that have helped make this country the greatest country in the
world. Unlike our southern neighbours who take great pride in
promoting their unique history, Canadians unfortunately do not
seem to have that same enthusiasm.
It is important that we take stock of our own history. Canada
has a number of highly identifiable symbols including the
Canadian flag, our provincial coats of arms and the maple leaf,
just to name a few. The Canadian beaver is an instant reminder
of the fur trade. The loon has been adopted as a symbol of
serenity.
I quote a passage in the “Symbols of Canada” booklet published
by the Department of Canadian Heritage:
Symbols of Canada can be used to heighten not only our awareness
of our country but also our sense of celebration in being
Canadian.
The Canadian horse is a symbol of what we have accomplished
together through hard work and great hearts. This horse
epitomizes the drive and perseverance it will take from each and
every one of us to continue to make our country grow and prosper.
1920
I once again congratulate the member from across the floor for
focusing our attention on the fine exploits of the great Canadian
horse. I encourage all members of the House to support the bill
and recognize the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of
Bill C-454. If the little Canadian horse was not in Canada, as
my dad would say, perhaps I would not be here. That might please
some, if not all, members of the House.
Let me explain. My father, at the age of 13, had finished his
third book, could not afford to take the train from Petawawa to
Pembroke to further his education, and had to work in the project
camps, at which point his father consigned to him a team of
Canadian horses. Their names were Pete and Prince. They were
not very big, but at the project camp they worked for the
princely sum of $5 a month. Those were big wages back in 1929.
This pair of little Canadian horses had to pull the same load as
the big Belgians, the Percherons and the Clydesdales that were
driven by other people and moving rocks. To put it in
perspective, it would be the same as hooking up the hon. member
for Wild Rose and the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Those two
behemoths competed against me and the hon. member for Sault Ste.
Marie. It would be the little horses against the big horses.
Because my dad loved those little Canadian horses and they were
not very big, once the load of rock was on the wagon he would
conveniently forget to close the back end. Thus when he was
going up the grade some of the stones would fall off and
naturally the load would become a little lighter.
When the foreman of the job rationed the feed, because it was
during the depression era, he said to my dad “Listen, you only
need half the feed for your horses because they are only half the
size”. However he expected those little Canadian horses to do
the same job. Therefore in the middle of the night my dad would
awaken and borrow some more hay and oats for his horses, because
they were so darned good to him.
At the end of summer my dad took a job for the Pembroke Lumber
Company for which he was paid 5 cents a log. This same team of
horses, Prince and Pete, went with him back into the bush
operation. They were without a doubt, according to my dad, the
sturdiest animals he ever had. He is still alive at 83 years of
age.
At one time we had a team of 55 work horses and a team of over
20 little Canadian horses. Their bellies used to touch the snow
and they broke the trail to skid the logs out. These were the
hardiest little animals. The other horses would get bogs and
splints. They would get scratches from the ice between the hoof
and fetlock. The scratches would open up and the horses would
not be able to work because they were bleeding. The little
Canadian horses were hardy little fellows and they would keep
going. There was no denying the fact that they were the best
workers.
My dad at 14 years of age used to cut logs with a crosscut all
day. He would be so tired at the end of the day that he would get
on one of the horse's back and fall asleep, and the horse would
bring him back to the camp.
We must bear in mind that at that time people like my dad would
get up at 5 o'clock in the morning. It would be dark when they
would leave camp and they would not get back until 7 o'clock at
night when it would be dark again. The only time they saw the
light of day at the camp was on Sunday, and even then they would
on occasion take Pete and Prince to church with them.
We have heard another speaker tonight talk about how courageous
and fast these horses were. Let me tell a story about the crazy
wheel. The crazy wheel is a mechanism that hooks on to the back
of a sleigh. When going down a steep hill with a team of horses
a cable would be hooked on to the back of the sleigh and the
sleigh would be let down. Back in the thirties and forties the
roads would be iced so it would be easier for the horses to pull
the sleigh. Halfway down one of these steep hills, when my uncle
Dave was driving the team, the cable broke. Members know what
happened.
The cable broke. The load started pushing the horses and the
little Canadian horses were running down the hill. My dad
shouted to my Uncle Dave “jump Dave, jump” because there was a
sharp corner at the bottom of the hill before they got on to the
lake.
1925
My Uncle Dave, being a rather stubborn fellow, decided not to
jump. They went around the corner and they broke the bunks of
the sleigh. The bunks of the sleigh are what keeps those logs in
line. My Uncle Dave went into the bush with some of the logs but
the little team kept on going around the corner and out on to the
ice. They were not hurt but they were terribly fast.
Other speakers have said that they used to actually race these
horses at night. Many do not know that the little Canadian horse
is one of the genesis of the standardbred horse. I happen to
have my standardbred horse licence and race horses. There was
one particular standardbred horse called Cam Fella which reminded
my dad and I of these little Canadian horses. He was only a
little horse but everybody who touched that horse made money.
Doug Arthur bought him for $19,000, made $150,000 with him, and
sold him for $2 million to a breeder. That breeder made $5
million with him and he sired 16 million dollar winners.
I know some of my other colleagues want to speak to this bill,
but I will tell one little story about my father at the end of
hunting season when he polished up his brass harness and took the
horse on parade in Pembroke, Ontario, back in 1942. Some of the
people started cawing at the horse, saying the horse was crow
bait. My dad was so incensed and actually chased the people
away. The little Canadian horses used to grow a lot of hair,
something like my colleague from Ottawa Centre or my colleague
from Bourassa. Their long hair kept them from getting sores on
their bodies.
I congratulate the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.
I was trying to figure out what he had in common with horses. We
know he is a chicken farmer of fame. I have noticed that
chickens have wings, but there was a legendary horse called
Pegasus that had wings. When I raced my horse last Sunday night
at Rideau Carleton, I wished that my horse had the wings of
Pegasus and the heart, determination and charisma of the little
Canadian horse because I might have won the race. To be honest,
my trainer said that it was probably more the driver's fault than
the horse's fault.
My father and Prince and Pete, those two little Canadian horses
of 1929, would be honoured if somehow we could see fit to name
the Canadian horse Canada's national horse. I thoroughly endorse
the hon. member.
I will sit down because two members are giving me the evil eye.
I think they are ready to give me a horse kick if I do not wrap
up now and give them the opportunity to say a few words. Bravo,
little Canadian horse.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not take
long. I could not let the rubbish spouted by my friends in the
Bloc pass once again. Most importantly, I wanted to support,
with vigour I hope, my colleague from
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey and his important bill.
A bill can be said to be not important, but when the Bloc talks
on and on about recognition and symbols and tries to claim for
themselves as a Quebec horse the French Canadian horse that has
been proven historically to be the Canadian horse, we have
problems.
I do not know what the interpreters will do with this one,
but let me put it this way: the Bloc is blathering again.
They said that all my colleague wanted
to talk about was national unity and that, in the end, he had
started another flag flap.
A lot of things go on in Rimouski. They still do not know
whether Céline Dion is a Quebecer or a Canadian, and the same
goes for a breed of horse.
1930
And the PQ, the Bloc's head office, finally decided during the
last general council, that it was absolutely necessary to have a
resolution recognizing the French Canadian horse as the only
breed in the world that is part of Quebec heritage. The avowed
objective was to act before the federal government. Bill C-454
seeks, how shocking—to quote an article written in Le Soleil
by my friend Michel David on Thursday, April 22, 1999—recognition
for the national horse of Canada. One can see the
reason for this sense of urgency.
If there is one inane debate within Bloc Quebecois, it is the
one on identity. It never fails. They always try to find some
issue and turn it into a flag flap.
We should be proud that a French Canadian horse is a symbol of
Canada.
Canada includes Quebec and the rest of the country. There are
French Canadians everywhere in Quebec. Again, they are trying to
cut themselves off from symbols and say that it is only in
Quebec that worthwhile things are happening.
As a Quebecer, a French Canadian and a Canadian, period, I fully
support my colleague, because I think it is important. We need
symbols, and we need to recognize them as such.
It is through recognition that we begin to solve problems. Once
again, they are making a big fuss and saying “No, no, it is a
Quebec symbol”.
We should unanimously support the hon. member in saying that the
French Canadian horse is the national horse of Canada.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey wishes to exercise his right of
reply, he may do so now. I advise the House if he speaks now, he
will close the debate.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members who have
stood here tonight and supported my private member's bill, Bill
C-454.
I am a little disappointed that the Bloc would try to cheapen
what the Canadian horse is, a symbol of Canada, a symbol of our
heritage, the symbol of the integrity of Canada. I am a little
upset about that.
I want to thank the other parties that have definitely shown
their support. The Progressive Conservative Party has shown its
support. The Reform Party has shown its support. The NDP has
shown its support. So has my own party. I express a heartfelt
thanks to the members who have stood here tonight.
I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion.
Given that clearly there is considerable interest in this issue
and given that the opposition, particularly the Reform Party says
that it wants more free votes in the House, I would move that
Bill C-454, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian
horse as the national horse of Canada, be deemed to have been
chosen as a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
bill be made votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker:
The period for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
Liberal government has committed an injustice to black Nova
Scotians and all Canadians.
This government has also done a grave injustice to justice
itself. “If justice is fairness to all, then justice has not
prevailed in Nova Scotia”. These words wrap up the Donald
Marshall commission. These words have unfortunately never been
more true than today.
The commission recognized that black people in Nova Scotia have
been systematically excluded from the legal profession. The
commission recommended that “governments consider the needs of
visible minorities by appointing qualified visible minority
judges and administrative board members whenever possible”.
One scant month after spouting nice words and lovely sentiments
during Black History Month, the Liberal government turned back
the clock on racial equality.
1935
The Liberal government did a grave injustice to all when it
overlooked Nova Scotia's most senior female judge and the only
black family court judge when making appointments to the
province's new unified family court.
Judge Corrine Sparks was passed over and ignored in a conscious
decision by the government to appoint judges who have sat on the
bench in Nova Scotia for less time. Judge Sparks was appointed
in 1987. The government overlooked her in favour of judges
appointed in 1995, 1993 and 1991 among others. As Lincoln
Alexander, chairperson of the Canada Race Relations Foundation
stated, this is a “major slap in the face to the black
community” and suggests this government's actions “smack of
racism”.
I first raised this issue in the House of Commons on April 14.
The government buried its head in the sand and hoped the problem
would go away, as governments in this country have so often hoped
when it comes to issues of fairness for blacks and other
Canadians of colour.
Then on April 26 I listened with incredulity to the justice
minister's answer to my question on this issue. She responded by
telling me that the government had appointed a black judge in
Alberta. Well stop the presses. The government has appointed a
black judge. Clearly, enough is enough for the government and one
black judge must somehow ease the Liberal government's
conscience. I suppose the government is now quite comfortable and
pleased with itself that it has done all it can in the fight
against the oppression of visible minorities.
The minister seems to be suggesting on behalf of the Liberal
government that one black judge is more than enough to appease
blacks and Canadians of colour in this country from coast to
coast and to keep us quiet and thankful. The appointment she
refers to is over 3,000 kilometres from the blacks in my riding.
The issue is that Judge Sparks seems more than qualified to have
received one of these appointments. The fact that a black judge
was appointed elsewhere has no relevance whatsoever to Judge
Sparks' situation. The minister seems to suggest that Judge
Sparks is not qualified enough to receive this appointment. Is
it the fact that she is the most senior woman judge in the
province that does not qualify her? Is it the fact that she is
the only black family court judge in the province that does not
qualify her? Or does she not qualify because she has many more
years experience than others who were appointed?
The government went from ashamed to shameful when it went so far
to avoid appointing a black judge that it ignored Judge Sparks in
favour of appointing someone who is not even a judge. In my
riding alone there are the predominantly black communities of
Beechville, Lucasville and Upper Hammonds Plains. Also in Nova
Scotia are North Preston, East Preston, Sackville, Cherrybrook,
Lake Loon, Westphal, Dartmouth, Halifax, and several other areas
all with large black populations.
When sitting as a supreme court judge, Bertha Wilson remarked in
a lecture at Osgoode: “If women lawyers and women judges through
differing perspectives on life can bring new humanity to bear on
the decision making process, perhaps they will make a difference.
Perhaps they will succeed in infusing the law with an
understanding of what it means to be fully human”.
I join with the Black Lawyers Association of Nova Scotia, the
African United Baptist Association of Nova Scotia, the Canada
Race Relations Foundation and the Nova Scotia Federation of
Labour in telling the government to correct this grievous wrong
now. Canadians, and especially black Canadians, are watching and
waiting for the government's response.
The Quebec government recently appointed Juanita
Westmoreland-Traore to the Quebec provincial court.
Let the Liberal government show some courage and a sincere
effort to fight racism.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me begin by saying on my behalf and as someone who has worked
for equality in this country for a long, long time, over 25
years, and on behalf of the Minister of Justice and the
government that I take very strong exception to the remarks made
by the hon. member.
This government rejects any suggestion that the decision taken
was discriminatory and racist. We are confident that Canadians
looking at the government's record on appointments will see
concrete evidence of the personal commitment of the Minister of
Justice to improving the quality and diversity of the judiciary
and in particular, to increasing minority representation and
women's participation on the bench. A fair reading of our recent
efforts will prove this.
In Nova Scotia in the past year alone the Minister of Justice
and this government have has appointed two outstanding jurists
from minority communities, Judge Heather Robertson and Justice
Linda Oland. Furthermore, real efforts are being made through
judicial appointments committees across this country to achieve
the objective of greater diversity on our benches. These efforts
are bearing fruit.
More could be done. I agree with the hon. member on that. As
the minister herself said last week in answer to these questions
from the hon. member, critics of these recent unified family
court appointments should know that we are a government that
takes considerable pride in the fact that we appointed the first
black judge in the province of Alberta to a superior court.
These decisions are not made in isolation, something the
opposition often forgets.
As with all appointments, the Nova Scotia unified family court
appointments were made following extensive consultations with the
provincial attorney general, senior members of the bench and the
bar. They are excellent appointments and reflect our continuing
commitment to a strong family court.
1940
This is the real story of what has happened in Nova Scotia
recently. Through a shared vision and the provision of
resources, the unified family court, the province of Nova Scotia
and the federal government have laid the groundwork for reducing
the costs and the pain of family disputes and want to find
lasting solutions to benefit families and children.
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the very distinguished Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Transport.
Just a few weeks ago the Government of Nova Scotia and Transport
Canada arranged a meeting in Truro, Nova Scotia in my riding to
discuss the emergency measure aspects of hazardous material
transportation. The plan was to move radioactive material which
originated in Russia.
The plan agenda said: “The sample of radioactive material which
comes from Russia by ship will enter Canada in Halifax and be
moved by road to Chalk River, Ontario early this summer”. This
was an unequivocal statement. It was not a conjecture or a
proposal. It was stated as a fact. This material would be
transferred through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and
Quebec by road, presenting a significant hazard.
It obviously begs the question as to why we are bringing
radioactive material to Canada in any case. We already have a
waste disposal problem with radioactive material. Why did the
government not respect the unanimous vote in the foreign affairs
committee to not bring the material to Canada?
Another obvious question is if the Department of Natural
Resources says there has been no request made for this transfer,
and there are no plans to bring the material to Canada, why did
they plan this meeting in the first place? Again, it was the
Department of Transport in conjunction with the province of Nova
Scotia.
For the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and
Ontario, there was no public consultation. Even more disturbing,
the emergency measures organizations involved stated this week
that they do not have adequate training and do not have equipment
for this project.
We now know the meeting has been cancelled and the minister has
stated that there is no plan right now to proceed. Obviously
there was a plan. Obviously there is some intent here. Obviously
there is some intention because the province of Nova Scotia and
the Government of Canada let the cat out of the bag by releasing
this agenda.
Before any radioactive material is transported through Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, will there be public
consultations and will the people affected along the route have
the opportunity to register their objections and concerns? Will
the federal government provide adequate training, equipment and
protection for all the emergency measures organizations involved
along the route of the transfer of radioactive material if it
does happen?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have
the opportunity to respond to the matters raised by the hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester on April 22, 1999 regarding the
transportation of test quantities of mixed oxide fuel, otherwise
known as MOX fuel.
Transport Canada's role is to ensure that if dangerous goods are
transported in Canada, they are transported safely.
Before the transport of MOX fuel for testing in Chalk River can
take place in Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is required
to develop an emergency response assistance plan and obtain
approval of the plan from Transport Canada. The emergency
response assistance plan must set out how Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited would respond in the event of an emergency. As well, it
would contain the proposed routing options. Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited has not yet proposed a plan to Transport Canada.
Given the fact that every year in Canada there are over 800,000
shipments of radioactive materials, department officials
routinely offer technical sessions for fire chiefs and other
respondents as a measure of safety. The offer from Transport
Canada to begin the technical sessions in Nova Scotia erroneously
contained the statement that the Russian federation MOX would
arrive in Halifax.
As I mentioned earlier, we do not yet have a proposal from
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Therefore, we do not know if
Halifax will be proposed or not.
However I can assure the House that if an application is received
Transport Canada will carry out its role of ensuring that if this
material is transported in Canada it will be transported safely.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to be have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.45 p.m.)